***Official*** India in Australia

[Ikki]

Hussey glues himself to the wicket every time he plays - that man is harder to get out than Boycott batting to save his granny's life.

Laughing out loud (literally) to this.

 

[The Sean]

harder to get out than Boycott batting to save his own life.

Corrected.

 

[Evermind]

I'm gonna smash something if I read yet another ****-eyed fawning "analysis" of India's performance (in even the most wretched defeats) from Siddhartha Vaidyanathan. There's such a thing as being positive - but a whole different thing is burying your head in the sand.

 

[silentstriker]

So I've yet to hear from the 20/20 fanatics about the 'young brigade' that India supposedly had. It's been the old dogs that are carrying India.

In a form of cricket where skills matter, you can't replace class with a fad.

 

[pasag]

Question marks over who, exactly? Symonds has scored 162 in his previous test. Gilchrist hit a 57-ball century the last time he played here. Ponting and Clarke are due for huge scores, and the openers have faced far more threatening bowling attacks in FC cricket. Hussey glues himself to the wicket every time he plays - that man is harder to get out than Boycott batting to save his granny's life.

The ball is coming on to the bat very nicely, and I'd be shocked if Australia score a run less than 550. Personally I think they'll get to 600+, if a couple of them score big.

The thing about Australia is that if someone fails, someone else always digs in and delivers. The thing about India is that if one player fails, they collapse like dominoes.

There are heaps of question marks here. First off, Symonds hasn't proven much, his big score coming off 35 let offs.

Gilchrist since the 100 has been nothing special and even before that he was struggling. That's one good knock in ages and I wouldn't just assume he'd do it again just because of the circumstances. That knock as well was just a "We're going to declare soon, go for your shots" knock anyways.

I never got the saying "They're due". With regards to Ponting and Clarke, there's no indication that they'll start scoring heavily at the moment and especially Ponting could be in the middle of a slump, not at the end of it.

Then there are the two openers, one in his first proper season, one in his first match, enough said.

I think it's insane to be so confident that Australia will score 500+. It might well happen, I hope it does, but I wont hold my breath. It's only Hussey who has no (immediate) question marks over his head right at the moment.

 

[shortpitched713]

WACA of recent memory is the most overrated thing. I'm expecting a fast, but generally flat track once again.

I hate always being right.

 

[honestbharani]

I thought it looked pretty out live, but I think the angle you see on telly (looking down at them) can be a bit deceptive that way. It does highlight how hard the ump's job is only getting one, real speed, look at it. I thought Rauf was very good today, there were a couple of close ones he called correctly (an armguard of Jaffer's sticks out in my memory as one that could easily have been wrongly given). The Tendulkar one was wrong, but there were a few mitigating factors from Rauf's point of view - Sachin is not a tall man, he was back in his crease. I can see why he gave it, although as I said, I suspect that having seen that reply tonight, and having had a full day's play to get his radar in tune with the pitch, he wouldn't give it tomorrow. It must be very hard for the umpires to fly into a country and then officiate in a test match straightaway.

to be completely honest, a bad LBW never really irritates as much as a bad caught behind decision or a bad caught-bat pad decision... At least, with the LBW, there is an interpretation of the law factor and the words "in the umpire's judgement" comes into the picture... But when they give caught behinds and caught at short legs when it hasn't hit the bat (esp. in an obvious way), that is what really irks me, in general... irrespective of the team...

 

[Ikki]

I hate always being right.

Modest too, apparently.

 

[adharcric]

Am I the only person who doesn't understand what Adharcric means ?

No mate, you are surely not the only person!

Well what does it mean?

Just shutting down this notion of Lee not having taken "too many" wickets simply because he had to compete with McGrath and Warne. The main reason he hasn't taken as many wickets (someone wondered why he hasn't taken 6 or 7 more often) is because he hasn't been good enough, as suggested by his mediocre average of 30. You're wondering why he hasn't taken 6 or 7 more often now because he's a far better bowler now than he's been for a large part of his career. That is all.

 

[JBH001]

The thing about Australia is that if someone fails, someone else always digs in and delivers. The thing about India is that if one player fails, they collapse like dominoes.

Maybe thats because the Indian batting line virtually begins at 3 and ends at 6 (or began at 2 and ended at 5 in the last two test matches). As an Indian mate of mine said last night after watching the days play "A billion hopes on four poor souls - you cant expect them to come off big every single time. Its too much to ask".

 

[Mister Wright]

Disagree, I think the Jaques/Rogers opening combination provides India with a real in road at the top now that Hayden is missing through injury. Ponting's been in shaky form too. I have a feeling that RP will bowl well this match, although I fear for Irfan Pathan as he's been just woeful in the bowling department over the last couple of years.

Yeah, good point. That batting lineup just looks that much weaker without Hayden. He has been such a hard nut to crack at the top of the order, in particular against India.

 

[Mister Wright]

I thought this article about Chris Rogers was quite interesting.

Hayden sledge spurred Rogers

 

[Johnners]

Just shutting down this notion of Lee not having taken "too many" wickets simply because he had to compete with McGrath and Warne. The main reason he hasn't taken as many wickets (someone wondered why he hasn't taken 6 or 7 more often) is because he hasn't been good enough, as suggested by his mediocre average of 30. You're wondering why he hasn't taken 6 or 7 more often now because he's a far better bowler now than he's been for a large part of his career. That is all.

Mm, I thought it may have been something to do with that, just the way you worded it confused that's all

You're right though imo

 

[NZTailender]

Not hard to do when you've spent your entire career competing with the likes of McGrath and Warne for wickets TBH.

Yet Clark managed to do fine when he was brought into the side. Stuart MacGill also had no problem finding wickets when bowling with McGrath and Warne.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yet Clark managed to do fine when he was brought into the side. Stuart MacGill also had no problem finding wickets when bowling with McGrath and Warne.

Yep exactly. Lee fans used that old chestnut for a long time when he simply wasn't bowling well enough to take Test wickets consistently. Different story now, of course, and he's cleaning up against pretty solid opposition too. Why? Just a better bowler now than he was. We'll see how he goes in India, of course, though I don't doubt he'll try his guts out because the guy runs in all day.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yet Clark managed to do fine when he was brought into the side. Stuart MacGill also had no problem finding wickets when bowling with McGrath and Warne.

Wait, how many 6-fers and better does Clark have?

 

[Top_Cat]

Wait, how many 6-fers and better does Clark have?

The average is the key issue here, though. Yes Clark has had to compete with with the other bowlers but he's obviously still bowled very, very well because his average is phenomenal at around 20. The whole 'Lee had to compete for wickets' as an excuse for not taking more wickets falls over when you see he averaged 30+ for that time. He wasn't bowling all that well pre-2005.

 

[Burgey]

The average is the key issue here, though. Yes Clark has had to compete with with the other bowlers but he's obviously still bowled very, very well because his average is phenomenal at around 20. The whole 'Lee had to compete for wickets' as an excuse for not taking more wickets falls over when you see he averaged 30+ for that time. He wasn't bowling all that well pre-2005.

Or indeed that well in the 2005 Ashes series. Even last year in the Ashes out here he was bette rthan he had been, but hardly outstanding.

I read somewhere that when he got injured and couldn't got hte WC he worked his butt off to get as fit as he could, and that he'd fitter than he's ever been. Certainly that would have been handy yesterday when it was 35 degrees and he still charged in at day's end.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Despite Johson and Lee taking all the wickets I still think Stuart Clark showed most promise, and he was the only one getting a decent shape on his deliveries...but he'll need to do well today and next innings.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

The average is the key issue here, though. Yes Clark has had to compete with with the other bowlers but he's obviously still bowled very, very well because his average is phenomenal at around 20. The whole 'Lee had to compete for wickets' as an excuse for not taking more wickets falls over when you see he averaged 30+ for that time. He wasn't bowling all that well pre-2005.

The average isn't the issue that sideshowtim was addressing though. If you follow the quote trail, Craig made comment about how Lee doesn't have anything better than 5 in an innings, and SST made a pretty valid point regarding McGrath and Warne taking the other wickets.

Greg then proceeded to say that Clark did fine, when he doesn't have any 6-fers either IIRC, which means his point is stupid.

Average was never brought into it.