***Official*** India in Australia

[Craig]

Wow a common sense statement getting in the way of a hypothetical proposition

Cricketweb first.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I cant see how someone with as atrocious a technique as his can possibly succeed. Based on his own approach to the game, i think even he realises that he isnt going to survive long at the crease and therefore attempts to spend the majority of his time at the crease slogging everything out of the park. As such, the way in which he was bowled by Zaheer Khan today of the noball was absolutely disgraceful, dont think it is possible to be anymore clueless about the delivery than he was tbh.

Generally I agree with you, and as I said earlier in the thread I was pretty disgusted with the way Symonds played that delivery too. Nevertheless he's not done anything wrong in test cricket since he scored the century in the Boxing Day test last summer (and it was a good innings, as much as I don't rate Symonds in tests), so you can't really drop him. As EWS said, his place in the team does make sense at the moment, his bowling in test cricket has been somewhat useful at times and his fielding is amazing, and he's not doing too badly with the bat at the moment, so he stays in.

I think it's inevitable he will start failing though, I just hope his brilliance in ODIs doesn't keep him in the team too much longer than he deserves it, because there's no question he's one of the best ODI players in the world at the moment, but he is one player where I think the two forms are radically different. The best thing for Australia would be if Watson found form and fitness again, or possibly if Noffke continued his run of good form for the rest of the summer and pushed for a place, because I don't think the selectors will be too keen to pick a specialist batsman at #6 with no reliable, long-term spin option.

 

[tooextracool]

The pitch doesn't have anything for the fast bowlers so that is a bit of a worry for the Aussies, this pitch is pretty similar to an Indian pitch in nature and if anything the pitch now has become even more slower something that the Indian batsmen would feel relieved about, so a lot depends on Bradley Hogg and tbf to him he hasn't bowled too badly like you are suggesting he has defintely bowled a few long-hops and full-tosses but in general he has bowled in the right areas and even today i think he was unlucky not to get Jaffer's wicket (Jaffer was pretty lucky to survive the lbw appeal made by Hogg).

There has been enough seam movement off the pitch. Obviously, its not a minefield, but many balls have moved significantly off the seam including the one that bowled Symonds today of the no ball. In addition almost all of the quicker bowlers have got the ball to reverse. Scoring 499 on such a slow wicket with long boundaries is hard enough but with the movement in the air and off the pitch it is impossible and it will take a herculian effort from Brad Hogg to change that.
As far as Hogg's performance is concerned, I'll start off with what was good about his performance in the first innings- the ball that bowled Ganguly was actually quite good, didnt ever realize he could bowl the flipper, never seen him bowl one before. As far as everything else is concerned, he was smashed from pillar to post by everybody from Tendulkar to Kumble. He was certainly not accurate(which is the most important aspect of any spin bowler) and even on the rare occasions that he wasnt bowling full tosses and long hops he bowled far too full to take advantage of a pitch that has been receptive,albeit not a raging turner, to spin bowling from day 1.

 

[Craig]

Why not re-jig the batting order if you wanted Katich, he could bat at 4 and Katich could offer a decent spin option as a 5th or 6th bowler (if you went for five bowlers).

I know it is very left field and I would imagine it wouldn't happen, but:

Hayden
Jaques
Ponting
Katich
Clarke
M. Hussey

Hussey would be more suited to bat at 6, or Clarke can since they can play agressively. Or you go for Hussey's brother David.

 

[Laurrz]

As far as Hogg's performance is concerned, I'll start off with what was good about his performance in the first innings- the ball that bowled Ganguly was actually quite good, didnt ever realize he could bowl the flipper, never seen him bowl one before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBB6aO7AMps

 

[archie mac]

Wow a common sense statement getting in the way of a hypothetical proposition

It should also be remembered that Merv and his mates get a lot of ideas from reading this forum

 

[vic_orthdox]

I thought Hogg bowling so full wasn't the worst thing in the world. You bowl on what you deem a "good length" to guys who play spin as well as the Indian top order does, and they'll eventually take you over the top. What bowling so full does is control where they can hit you and force a lot of dots and singles, and allow you to control when they can try to hit you over the top. Doesn't look as threatening, but it shows that he's not actually looking for wickets every ball.

 

[tooextracool]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBB6aO7AMps

Always thought the flipper is one of the most difficult deliveries to face when they are on target. I've faced similar deliveries to the flipper before, albeit easily spottable, but they are a nightmare to face and have always caused me problems.

 

[tooextracool]

I think a good chunk of Roy's problems in test cricket are mainly due to lack of proper mindset and gameplan for the longer form of the game, his technique has never been the best in the world but with the same technique he has done exceptionally well in Odi cricket in every part of the world against different sort of attacks since the 03 world cup, now i know Odi cricket doesn't require a player to be as technically sound as he needs to be in test cricket but still Symonds has had phenomenal success since 03 world cup in Odi cricket which can't be ignored so whatever he does seems to work fine for him Odi cricket but while playing in test cricket he seems to be way too confused as to what he requires to do when he goes out there to bat, so either he bats defensively in test cricket or bats ultra-aggressively, so as far i am concerned lack of a proper gameplan for himself is something that hurts Symonds more than anything else in test cricket and the fact he doesn't have the greatest of techniques only makes test cricket a bit more harder for him.

Symonds success in ODI cricket has coincided with the abundance in flat tracks in the ODI game. Hes a good ODI player but only really when the pitch is flat. In general though even if he slogged a quick 30-40 on a seamers paradise in an ODI it is worth a fair bit more gravy than the same in test cricket. He'll go well in ODI cricket, but in tests he just doesnt have the technique or the temperament to succeed.

 

[archie mac]

Symonds success in ODI cricket has coincided with the abundance in flat tracks in the ODI game. Hes a good ODI player but only really when the pitch is flat. In general though even if he slogged a quick 30-40 on a seamers paradise in an ODI it is worth a fair bit more gravy than the same in test cricket. He'll go well in ODI cricket, but in tests he just doesnt have the technique or the temperament to succeed.

Was i the only one that watched his innings on the MCG last year, on a real seamer?

 

[river end]

Was i the only one that watched his innings on the MCG last year, on a real seamer?

I wouldn't take much notice of that game. It was a dead rubber and I have never seen such a disinterested team in a test match as England were in that game.

 

[tooextracool]

Generally I agree with you, and as I said earlier in the thread I was pretty disgusted with the way Symonds played that delivery too. Nevertheless he's not done anything wrong in test cricket since he scored the century in the Boxing Day test last summer (and it was a good innings, as much as I don't rate Symonds in tests), so you can't really drop him. As EWS said, his place in the team does make sense at the moment, his bowling in test cricket has been somewhat useful at times and his fielding is amazing, and he's not doing too badly with the bat at the moment, so he stays in.

I think it's inevitable he will start failing though, I just hope his brilliance in ODIs doesn't keep him in the team too much longer than he deserves it, because there's no question he's one of the best ODI players in the world at the moment, but he is one player where I think the two forms are radically different. The best thing for Australia would be if Watson found form and fitness again, or possibly if Noffke continued his run of good form for the rest of the summer and pushed for a place, because I don't think the selectors will be too keen to pick a specialist batsman at #6 with no reliable, long-term spin option.

Well yes wait for him to fail first yes, but one has to question the logic of selecting him in the first place at a time when it was necessary to find younger players and groom them once the older ones left. Was Symonds really amongst the top 7 batsmen in the country at the time? Australia's obsession with trying to find another Flintoff after the Ashes got the better off them IMO and with the impending retirement of Hayden and Gilchrist and with Jacques still unproven, they might just regret not having invested in someone who actually had some future.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Well yes wait for him to fail first yes, but one has to question the logic of selecting him in the first place at a time when it was necessary to find younger players and groom them once the older ones left. Was Symonds really amongst the top 7 batsmen in the country at the time? Australia's obsession with trying to find another Flintoff after the Ashes got the better off them IMO and with the impending retirement of Hayden and Gilchrist and with Jacques still unproven, they might just regret not having invested in someone who actually had some future.

Basically that was the idea with putting Watson in the side at first though, and it was only after his body gave way that Symonds got a reprieve.

 

[Josh]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBB6aO7AMps

Gun delivery.

 

[archie mac]

I wouldn't take much notice of that game. It was a dead rubber and I have never seen such a disinterested team in a test match as England were in that game.

Your kidding? 90,000 people playing for his Test career, seaming wicket, against a team desperate for a win, with his side in real trouble

 

[Josh]

Your kidding? 90,000 people playing for his Test career, seaming wicket, against a team desperate for a win, with his side in real trouble

AWTA

 

[Prince EWS]

Well yes wait for him to fail first yes, but one has to question the logic of selecting him in the first place at a time when it was necessary to find younger players and groom them once the older ones left. Was Symonds really amongst the top 7 batsmen in the country at the time? Australia's obsession with trying to find another Flintoff after the Ashes got the better off them IMO and with the impending retirement of Hayden and Gilchrist and with Jacques still unproven, they might just regret not having invested in someone who actually had some future.

Yeah. Neither I nor Fuller were at all in favour of Symonds's selection at the time, and I campaigned against it between then and well, today, on this forum to such a point that other members began to find it highly annoying.

That said, though, I have a lot more respect for his selection and role now than I did even against Sri Lanka. I don't rate his batting any higher than I did when he first got picked but his bowling has been much better than I anticipated and his role actually fits the composition of the team quite well, surprisingly, even if he does only score quick thirties and take a 1/35 every match.

What will hurt will be the fact that Australia will be stuck with him even when his role is no longer appropriate, and even if they actually bite the bullet and drop him then (which is doubtful, IMO), his replacement will have missed out some vital experience he could be getting now.

 

[archie mac]

Yeah. Neither I nor Fuller were at all in favour of Symonds's selection at the time, and I campaigned against it between then and well, today, on this forum to such a point that other members began to find it highly annoying.

That said, though, I have a lot more respect for his selection and role now than I do even against Sri Lanka. I don't rate his batting any higher than I did when he first got picked but his bowling has been much better than I anticipated and his role actually fits the composition of the team quite well, surprisingly, even if he does only score quick thirties and take a 1/35 every match.

What will hurt will be the fact that Australia will be stuck with him even when his role is no longer appropriate, and even if they actually bite the bullet and drop him then (which is doubtful, IMO), his replacement will have missed out some vital experience he could be getting now.

It seems of late that the selectors have changed their tact (since Clarke) and only choose players who are ready to walk straight into Test cricket

 

[Prince EWS]

It seems of late that the selectors have changed their tact (since Clarke) and only choose players who are ready to walk straight into Test cricket

Symonds's selection contradicts that, though.

I'm certainly of the "pick your best team for each individual match and worry about the next match when it comes" school of thought, but that only works if you're willing to drop a "role player" when the role is no longer suitable regardless of how well they've gone, which I don't think the Australian selectors are willing to do.

 

[archie mac]

Symonds's selection contradicts that, though.

I'm certainly of the "pick your best team for each individual match and worry about the next match when it comes" school of thought, but that only works if you're willing to drop a "role player" when the role is no longer suitable regardless of how well they've gone, which I don't think the Australian selectors are willing to do.

I wonder what would happen if they dropped say Hayden saying that he is too old, I wonder if he would have a case of unfair dismissal? Dropped on age and not on form