***Official*** India in Australia

[Evermind]

You make your own luck just by being the best team, I suppose.

It's why teams like Chelski, Manure etc get all the disputed decisions going their way.

Never liked them (mostly cause of Schmeichel and Ferguson).

 

[silentstriker]

Look mate i agree with your views but still whatever has happened has happened and nothing can be done about that, everybody knows that the umpiring decisions robbed India big time but still you can't let your shoulders drop and you have keep your heads high and focus back on you game i know its not easy but a professional unit should be able to do that, and your point about no team being good enough to beat Australia might be a realistic one but if any team goes into a game with that sort of mindset then they have already lost the game.
Symmo was very very lucky today but then one can say he and Hogg had the right mindset even when their team was competly on the mat, they counter-attacked and rode their luck (to ridiculous proportions one might add) so having the right mindset is probably half the battle won!

All very nice in theory but when you're facing a team that is superior in every single department, you need them to play badly, or for you to play exceptionally well. And when the difference in ability is as massive as it is, you need luck. Having the right 'attitude' means squat when you can't back it up with ability.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't mind people being upset with umpiring decisions, but I do find it annoying when that disappointment translates into accusing the umpires or the team of cheating,

I think only one person (widely regarded as a troll) did that.

blaming the result of the day....on umpiring decisions,

Err, no one can deny that it had a very large part to play. 100+ runs for Symmo, 40+ for Ponting. The result might have been totally the opposite if big difference if Lee had come out to bat at 140/7 with no Symmo to keep him company at the other end.

 

[Evermind]

Excellent article by Peter Roebuck

 

[Evermind]

All very nice in theory but when you're facing a team that is superior in every single department, you need them to play badly, or for you to play exceptionally well. And when the difference in ability is as massive as it is, you need luck. Having the right 'attitude' means squat when you can't back it up with ability.

Yeah, but don't you realise that it's all just wishing things were not the way they are. I mean, India has two choices: they can rue the decisions until the second coming, or they can try to apply themselves relentlessly and try to get back into the game. What are the chances that they'd have a success like the Australians did on the second day at the MCG, when they knew they had to bowl well or get walloped? Pretty good!

If they had put the ball in the right areas, time and again, someone with the ability of Hogg would never have taken so many boundaries. He looked completely clueless on the pitch at times - he had no idea how to play spin, and was frequently far too late on the shot to the quick bowlers. All India could do is try to pitch it in the right areas at least, try to save the runs. That's where mental fragility comes in, and India inevitably lose out.

Kirsten's plan to have a shrink for the team is not an unwise one. If India stop underachieving and get past their inconsistencies and mental issues, they do have the talent to beat the best in the world.

 

[silentstriker]

Excellent article by Peter Roebuck

I agree with most of it - I'd place most of the blame on the incompetent BCCI and lack of proper infastructure at the school level - except in the top private acadmies in big cities. If you count the people who actually have access to a real cricket ball and pads/helmet, I would bet that the cricket playing population is no bigger than Australia. I certainly never even saw a proper pair of cricket pads until I came to America of all places.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, but don't you realise that it's all just wishing things were not the way they are. I mean, India has two choices: they can rue the decisions until the second coming, or they can try to apply themselves relentlessly and try to get back into the game.

It's not about shrinking - though no doubt they could do a better job. It's about simply not having the ability to overcome setbacks against a vastly superior team.

 

[pup11]

It's generally accepted that Australia didn't get the rub of the green with umpiring decisions in the 2005 Ashes, for instance. There were plenty of complainers on this forum and elsewhere at the time, so it's not just Indian fans that take umpiring badly. Though honestly I don't remember any conspiracy theories about the umpires being cheats or anything in that series, at least not on this forum. It's still annoying when Australian fans blame umpires anyway, and a lot of the people who have minimal tolerance for complaints about umpiring in this series also found it annoying then.

I don't mind people being upset with umpiring decisions, but I do find it annoying when that disappointment translates into accusing the umpires or the team of cheating, blaming the result of the day/match/series entirely on umpiring decisions, or generally suggesting that Australia (or any other side for that matter) wins a lot because they "generally" get the better of umpiring decisions.

The last attitude in particular is very prevalent and very silly. TEC posted earlier in this thread that Australia "always get the rub of the green with umpiring decisions, injuries and everything else". Perhaps the reason Australia seems to be the luckier team is because they actually take advantage of breaks they get? As was mentioned earlier, Yuvraj got a major letoff at a key moment in the first test and got out next over. Symonds made an unbeaten century today. Australia are pretty good at staying motivated as well, and tend to stick through bad luck without just giving up, like India did in the evening session today. Luck happens, but if you are always getting the better side of 50/50 situations is generally because you're doing something better than the opposition. Maybe you're appealing better, maybe you just make minor breaks seem more significant by taking advantage of them, or minimise the damage of bad luck by sticking with the task at hand. And regarding injuries, training and general fitness obviously play a part, as well as squad depth.

Yeah its not fair to say that umpires make made bad decisions intentionally because at the end of the day they are doing a performance oriented job and if their performance dips they would be out of their job, umpiring is one of most thankless jobs in international cricket you have to stand out their on the field throughout the day keeping your levels of concentration high and we talk about how the players suffer due to these packed schedules but hey... what about the umpires they are human beings too and considering that there aren't too many umpires in the elite panel of umpires so the same umpires are constantly travelling through the length and breadth of the globe to stand in different games which could really lead to serious physical and mental fatigue and the drastic fall in the standard of umpiring that we are seeing could be due to this very reason.
Every team gets their share of good and bad decisions in cricket Australia were on the wrong side of some shocking umpiring decisions in 01 test series in India and in the Ashes 05 but still they fought hard and did their level best to fightback.

 

[Pratters]

It's generally accepted that Australia didn't get the rub of the green with umpiring decisions in the 2005 Ashes, for instance. There were plenty of complainers on this forum and elsewhere at the time, so it's not just Indian fans that take umpiring badly. Though honestly I don't remember any conspiracy theories about the umpires being cheats or anything in that series, at least not on this forum. It's still annoying when Australian fans blame umpires anyway, and a lot of the people who have minimal tolerance for complaints about umpiring in this series also found it annoying then.

I don't mind people being upset with umpiring decisions, but I do find it annoying when that disappointment translates into accusing the umpires or the team of cheating, blaming the result of the day/match/series entirely on umpiring decisions, or generally suggesting that Australia (or any other side for that matter) wins a lot because they "generally" get the better of umpiring decisions.

The last attitude in particular is very prevalent and very silly. TEC posted earlier in this thread that Australia "always get the rub of the green with umpiring decisions, injuries and everything else". Perhaps the reason Australia seems to be the luckier team is because they actually take advantage of breaks they get? As was mentioned earlier, Yuvraj got a major letoff at a key moment in the first test and got out next over. Symonds made an unbeaten century today. Australia are pretty good at staying motivated as well, and tend to stick through bad luck without just giving up, like India did in the evening session today. Luck happens, but if you are always getting the better side of 50/50 situations is generally because you're doing something better than the opposition. Maybe you're appealing better, maybe you just make minor breaks seem more significant by taking advantage of them, or minimise the damage of bad luck by sticking with the task at hand. And regarding injuries, training and general fitness obviously play a part, as well as squad depth.

Conspiracy theories were not waged during 2005 Ashes because it was two western nations going against each other. Suppose a third umpire who was Indian gave a wrong decision against Australia in India, I wouldn't be surprised if some Australian fans talked regarding conspiracies.

I am not a huge fan of conspiracy theories but there does exist a west v subcontinent mentality on both sides to be honest, regardless of whether right or wrong. For years, people in India have felt that Australian home umpires were biased towards the home nation to a large degree, which lead to Gavaskar almost walking off the field. People from Australia and England have had the same feeling towards Indian and Pakistani umpires there. I am not rationalising as there isn't that much rationale behind the whole west v east stuff which goes on even now every now and then but am just saying that there is a reason people cry foul - there isn't enough trust.

Neutral umpires were an excellent move by the ICC but now with technology showing up umpires more than before, there is no other way to avoid these unnecessary controversies. Maybe a referral system like I suggested on the site 12 months or so back might be the way to go.

Bucknor made faces to Dravid on India's last tour of Australia for which India made an official complaint. He has since then given a howler of a decision against Tendulkar in 2005. Why have him umpire when a less controversial figure could have been selected. I am not blaming Bucknor but if an umpire draws contorversy, it is best not to select him for tests involving particular teams. The best umpires are ones around whom the least controversy is generated.

I hate all these stupid controversies of subcontinent v west as much you do. I have hated it when conspiracy stuff are alleged against India or any other country for that matter too. 99.9999% times, if not all the time, these are baseless, immature, annoying and irrational. I guess we can't do much about all these stupid allegations except to try and get as many decisions right as possible. I am with you and agree with you... it is very annoying. I don't mind if umpiring decisions are rued but conspiracy theories grind my gears as well.

 

[social]

Look mate i agree with your views but still whatever has happened has happened and nothing can be done about that, everybody knows that the umpiring decisions robbed India big time but still you can't let your shoulders drop and you have keep your heads high and focus back on you game i know its not easy but a professional unit should be able to do that, and your point about no team being good enough to beat Australia might be a realistic one but if any team goes into a game with that sort of mindset then they have already lost the game.
Symmo was very very lucky today but then one can say he and Hogg had the right mindset even when their team was competly on the mat, they counter-attacked and rode their luck (to ridiculous proportions one might add) so having the right mindset is probably half the battle won!

Great post

Mentioned earlier that Bucknor's decision re Symonds was a massive point in the series and it was because India virtually threw the towel in after that

Had it been upheld, they're ****-a-hoop and right on top.

Perceivably, they might've won the test and it's game on

As it stands, they dropped their bundle and are staring down the gun barrel.

The fact that Australia dont do the latter is why they're the world's best

 

[silentstriker]

The fact that Australia dont do the latter is why they're the world's best

The fact that they are massively more talented than anyone else might play a small part. I don't think its the Australian 'attitude' that makes them as good as they are. The behavior and never say die attitude is a result of their ability and success, not the other way around.

 

[silentstriker]

In port, success breeds confidence - very rarely the other way around. Especially the type of success that Aussies have been used to. They are at the point now that they don't really care - they can see themselves winning from any position of weakness they may find themselves in because they've done it before. Most other teams don't have that benefit.

I admire the Aussie team big time. Umpiring was bad, but realistically speaking, India really aren't anywhere near Australia in any of the three departments and you can't win when you have that. So its not use to blame the umpiring, except to let out all the frustration (which is fair enough ).

 

[Evermind]

The fact that they are massively more talented than anyone else might play a small part. I don't think its the Australian 'attitude' that makes them as good as they are. The behavior and never say die attitude is a result of their ability and success, not the other way around.

I disagree. First of all, ability and success are not one and the same. Success comes from manifesting and harnessing ability consistently and repeatedly, under all circumstances, whether conducive or adverse. You have success because of a never-say-die attitude, not vice versa. And the reason teams like India don't is simply because they don't press their advantage and perform to the best of their ability.

India had the ability to bowl well - this was demonstrated during the first two sessions. Did they then somehow suddenly lose it? No. They clearly had the upper hand, and if had kept doing what they were already doing, they would be 50/0 at the end of the day. This, very simply, is what Australia always do, and that's why they're at the top of the rankings and win so consistently. I would say that as cricket players the Indians are just as talented (on their own terms) as the Australians (they're not as athletic, mind you, but cricket isn't all about athletics). But because of refusal to work on fitness, giving up too easily, etc etc, they have seldom been able to draw on their ability and make the most out of it. Their physical frames are not as optimal for the game, but surely, mental issues are independent of that?

The thing is that the behaviour and never-say-die attitude is ingrained in the Australian mindset, in the way they conduct themselves not just in sports but other things. India, as a nation, come from a completely different mindset and culture. This is also the reason they have had almost zero success in all sports - consider that cricket is the sport India has had most success in for the past 25 years.

In port, success breeds confidence - very rarely the other way around. Especially the type of success that Aussies have been used to. They are at the point now that they don't really care - they can see themselves winning from any position of weakness they may find themselves in because they've done it before. Most other teams don't have that benefit.

But how do you think they started doing it? It's not a "benefit" - every advantage has been earned. They were pretty down about 20 years ago, and didn't have the luxury of having batsmen all the way down to #11. They've done it before, and at some point they had to start from scratch. No reason that another team can't do it either.

I admire the Aussie team big time. Umpiring was bad, but realistically speaking, India really aren't anywhere near Australia in any of the three departments and you can't win when you have that. So its not use to blame the umpiring, except to let out all the frustration (which is fair enough ).

It's good that you're realistic about it. Because honestly, bad umpiring or not, 97% chance Australia would still win this game, because India would find a way to screw up.

 

[silentstriker]

But how do you think they started doing it? It's not a "benefit" - every advantage has been earned. They were pretty down about 20 years ago, and didn't have the luxury of having batsmen all the way down to #11. They've done it before, and at some point they had to start from scratch. No reason that another team can't do it either.

They did by having talent and getting the right type of players. The reason other teams can't do it because they don't have the steady supply of exceptional players that the Aussie domestic system generates.

It's good that you're realistic about it. Because honestly, bad umpiring or not, 97% chance Australia would still win this game, because India would find a way to screw up.

More like Australia would have found a way to win. Unless you think that everyone other team in the world except Australia simply screws up and Australia doesn't. It's more likely that Australia are just good enough to pull through more than the other team screwing enough.

I would say they would have had a 70% chance to win. It's hard to recover from a sub-200 score, but their bowlers are good enough to do it.

 

[tooextracool]

The last attitude in particular is very prevalent and very silly. TEC posted earlier in this thread that Australia "always get the rub of the green with umpiring decisions, injuries and everything else". Perhaps the reason Australia seems to be the luckier team is because they actually take advantage of breaks they get? As was mentioned earlier, Yuvraj got a major letoff at a key moment in the first test and got out next over. Symonds made an unbeaten century today. Australia are pretty good at staying motivated as well, and tend to stick through bad luck without just giving up, like India did in the evening session today. Luck happens, but if you are always getting the better side of 50/50 situations is generally because you're doing something better than the opposition. Maybe you're appealing better, maybe you just make minor breaks seem more significant by taking advantage of them, or minimise the damage of bad luck by sticking with the task at hand. And regarding injuries, training and general fitness obviously play a part, as well as squad depth.

I was actually referring to the current series when i made that statement, but i dont mind extending the injuries aspect to generalize that statement. Its pretty obvious IMO that some teams- England and NZ in particular(and now Pakistan) havent had the rub of the green in terms of injuries. You cannot just wash it away as plain 'fitness and training'. Simon Jones for example is known to have the best fitness regimen in all of England, yet he somehow manages to trip on a banana peel, pull a hamstring during practice and tear his knee ligament when sliding to save a boundary. Personally if you think that is down to plain 'fitness' then that is just delusion. Whether you like it or not, England have lost or had many of their players suffer seriously shortened careers as a result of injuries- Gough, Flintoff, Jones, White, and Atherton. Similarly, NZ well i cant think of one NZ fast bowler (successful or otherwise) who has had an injury-free career in the last decade. When you start losing once-in-a-lifetime players from injury then you know that you have problems. On the other hand, Watson aside I am having a hard time coming up with Australian names who have suffered adverse consequences from injury in the last decade. Surely its not just down to a better fitness program or better bowling actions.

 

[Majin]

The last attitude in particular is very prevalent and very silly. TEC posted earlier in this thread that Australia "always get the rub of the green with umpiring decisions, injuries and everything else". Perhaps the reason Australia seems to be the luckier team is because they actually take advantage of breaks they get?

Haha, remember using a similar argument myself against Richard years ago when he was having a moan about Sehwag and his first chance average and all that. I still feel it's a valid line of thought (though I must concede that Richard was right about Sehwag) and I agree with you here as well. Bad umpiring decisions **** me right off, especially the run of crap ones Sachin got last year whenever he got near a century, but it's definitely part of the game and for now you just have to roll with it. It works both ways, as mentioned, and we might well see Australia get a hoard of crap decisions in their first innings as well. **** happens, especially in Cricket, it's how you deal with it and fight back that counts, and unfortunately for India we're not capable of doing it very well at the moment.

Huge blow to lose Zaheer for the rest of the series, seriously worst thing that could happen to us. Our batting is strong enough and has enough depth to cover injuries but Zaheer was our real main threat in the fast bowling and without him we're screwed. Hope RP Singh can manage to take over the attack well.

 

[social]

They did by having talent and getting the right type of players. The reason other teams can't do it because they don't have the steady supply of exceptional players that the Aussie domestic system generates.



More like Australia would have found a way to win. Unless you think that everyone other team in the world except Australia simply screws up and Australia doesn't. It's more likely that Australia are just good enough to pull through more than the other team screwing enough.

I would say they would have had a 70% chance to win. It's hard to recover from a sub-200 score, but their bowlers are good enough to do it.

SS,

difference is in "expectations" and "self-belief"

Generally (notice I didnt say all), Australians believe that they have the "right" (as do the Kiwis) to compete at the highest level against anyone no matter what the odds or disparity in skill levels.

For example, people soon forget that Australia's team of paupers were robbed of the chance of taking the ultimate world champions Italy to a penalty shoot-out in the quarters of the last soccer world cup.

We outperformed any no.of countries with infinite budgets, talent and interest.

Why?

Because the players wanted it (and in spite of having ZERO ground root support), and as a result they achieved above their station

Australia has 20 million people, bugger all money but huge desire.

Our players perform or they get dropped

India has 1.2 billion, most of the money in world cricket and a comfort zone

Performances are hardly relevant when players are earning millions and the public is fed a diet of propaganda

 

[silentstriker]

SS,

difference is in "expectations" and "self-belief"

Generally (notice I didnt say all), Australians believe that they have the "right" (as do the Kiwis) to compete at the highest level against anyone no matter what the odds or disparity in skill levels.

For example, people soon forget that Australia's team of paupers were robbed of the chance of taking the ultimate world champions Italy to a penalty shoot-out in the quarters of the last soccer world cup.

We outperformed any no.of countries with infinite budgets, talent and interest.

Why?

Because the players wanted it (and in spite of having ZERO ground root support), and as a result they achieved above their station

And the sporting scene in Australia is heads and shoulders above most developed countries - let alone a poor one like India.

Australia has 20 million people, bugger all money but huge desire.

Well, I had forgotten that the burning desire for success in sport was unique to the Australian psyche.

Our players perform or they get dropped

India has 1.2 billion, most of the money in world cricket and a comfort zone

The number of people who have access to proper cricket equipment is probably the same in both countries. And I would be that the number of people who have access to proper coaching is likely higher in Australia.

I had never seen a real cricket ball or a real cricket pad when I was growing up in India even though I played cricket every day (with a rubber ball) and being massively interested. Forget playing with them, I had never seen them. How many 13 year old kids in Australia would be in the same situation? Why do you think such a large percentage of Indian Test players have been from one city (Mumbai)?

 

[social]

And the sporting scene in Australia is heads and shoulders above most developed countries - let alone a poor one like India.



Well, I had forgotten that the burning desire for success in sport was unique to the Australian psyche.



The number of people who have access to proper cricket equipment is probably the same in both countries. And I would be that the number of people who have access to proper coaching is likely higher in Australia.

I had never seen a real cricket ball or a real cricket pad when I was growing up in India even though I played cricket every day (with a rubber ball) and being massively interested. Forget playing with them, I had never seen them. How many 13 year old kids in Australia would be in the same situation? Why do you think such a large percentage of Indian Test players have been from one city (Mumbai)?

Does any of the above excuse lack of fitness, technique, or desire? (BTW, very few 13 yos in Oz play against real cricket balls, available or not)

If anything, I'd have thought that earlier hardships would cause players to be more committed - in boxing, for example, most champions come from poor backgrounds because they have a will to succeed against the odds.

India is a cricket loving country but their players are disproportionately awarded when compared to their skill/performance level

 

[silentstriker]

Does any of the above excuse lack of fitness, technique, or desire?

Desire no. But then I'd dispute the notion that Australia simply want it more than everyone else. The other two: yes. It's not emphasized, though you would hope that by the time people get to the FC level or above, they'd have that sorted out. But the coaching even at FC level is oftentimes not up to par (that's the BCCI's problem).

Our players often have to go to England to have basic things sorted out (see RP Singh - No one in India did anything for years. He went to england and within two months became a much better bowler after they identified weakness in certain part of his body and worked to fix it).