For Australians: Series you most want to win

[DaRick]

Would he?

Yes, I think he would. Customarily, MacGill is the type of bowler who you can just sit on, waiting for the inevitable long hop or full toss to capitalise on. I've noticed that Indians and Sri Lankans, in particular, do this quite well (he was fit when touring Sri Lanka in 2003/04 and still got taken to spectacularly at times)...which goes some way to explaining MacGill's insipid record against both.

Warne, on the other hand, was not known to provide such goodies on a frequent basis.

He averages 62 in Australia vs. India. 50 would have been outperforming his usual (and he might have).

Welcome to another edition of 'where stats mean nothing'. Warne's average is that high because of his debut series against India in 1991/92. As such, an average of 62 (as you pointed out) isn't really an appropriate benchmark to judge how he'd ordinarily bowl against India. Provided that he's psychologically and psychically fit, I'd back him to average in the 30's (the 1999/2000 series, where he averaged a slightly misleading 42, came during his prolonged 1998-2002 form slump).

Yea, I'd agree with that. Though sometimes pressure can do those things to anyone, especially if you're psyched up to break the world record of consecutive wins in a row and things aren't going your way. Of course, that's a guess and you'd be right in that their catching was not up to par.

Perhaps...although Adelaide came after the world record opportunity had passed us by.

Kumble is not the type of player he was, and it would depend on the pitches. If we give pitches like the first two Tests vs South Africa, you can kiss India goodbye. It remains to be seen if we can return to the type of pitches that made India very very hard to beat at home - assist spin throughout. It's getting rarer and rarer to find pitches like that. If we get those, I fancy our chances, but I fear that it maybe a dull drawn series if we get the wrong sort of pitches.

Difficult for me to disagree with this.

 

[Jono]

India's win outside the subcontinent was probably also a consequence of more touring and finally familiarising themselves with foreign conditions, plus the pitches around the world have flattened out considerably in this period. You have listed the lucky breaks India got around 2003/4 why does Ganguly take so much credit?

Given that India has broken the overseas hoodoo why do you want that sort of culture to continue when it creates trouble on every tour. With England there was 'jellygate' and then 'harbygate' in Aus, Ind can't fly under the radar anymore with offialidom so it may not be an option anyway.

Haha jellygate was nothing more than England being idiots, and Zaheer gave them a good old taste of revenge through a form of high class swing bowling.

England didn't know what hit them, India win the test and consequently the series.

I wish jellygate would happen more often.

 

[Matt79]

A win over England would be paramount, but of the teams I'd rather not lose to, it would be South Africa - it's a psychological barrier worth keeping.

Exactly. It would be painful to lose to SA. They're the team I want to lose to least, but England are the team I might enjoy us beating.

 

[Richard]

Haha jellygate was nothing more than England being idiots, and Zaheer gave them a good old taste of revenge through a form of high class swing bowling.

England didn't know what hit them, India win the test and consequently the series.

I wish jellygate would happen more often.

Most annoying idea. We'd have lost that Test whether some idiot threw sweets on the pitch or not. Half of Zaheer's work had already been done by the time said jellybeangate happened.

In any case, the wicket that opened the floodgates was nothing to do with good bowling anyway, just deep misfortune on Michael Vaughan's part.

 

[MrHat]

Flattening out of pitches means more draws and sometimes it means India are more competitive, but surprisingly, quite a number of Indian victories have come in pitches like these. That's just an extreme example.



Because that's just one series, there were many. Plus, even with the breaks, India of the 90s was unable to take advantage of them. You'd think that in 15 years before this decade, they'd take advantage of breaks just freaking once and get lucky enough to win a Test - the fact that they didn't tells you quite a bit. And then all of a sudden there was this huge resurgence and India started winning tests on virtually every tour. Huge huge turnaround.



I quite enjoyed the England tour. There was jellygate, but that's a weird thing to blame on the Indian side. I suppose you think its appropriate to throw stuff on the pitch? You would be better off mentioning the beamer to KP and the intentional overstepping by Sreesanth - and as I've mentioned he's one of the idiots and I'd agree with you.

The matched you linked to Dravid was skipper.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Normally England, but when there's a clear contender that makes for an even, exciting series, like the West Indies in the 90s, South Africa around the 2000 era, England itself in 2005 and India now, I'm generally more excited about that series.

Right now it's India.

 

[Burgey]

India a close second for mine, but as long as we crush England, even if we're ordinary v anyone else, I can live with it.

 

[MrHat]

Flattening out of pitches means more draws and sometimes it means India are more competitive, but surprisingly, quite a number of Indian victories have come in pitches like these. That's just an extreme example.



Because that's just one series, there were many. Plus, even with the breaks, India of the 90s was unable to take advantage of them. You'd think that in 15 years before this decade, they'd take advantage of breaks just freaking once and get lucky enough to win a Test - the fact that they didn't tells you quite a bit. And then all of a sudden there was this huge resurgence and India started winning tests on virtually every tour. Huge huge turnaround.



I quite enjoyed the England tour. There was jellygate, but that's a weird thing to blame on the Indian side. I suppose you think its appropriate to throw stuff on the pitch? You would be better off mentioning the beamer to KP and the intentional overstepping by Sreesanth - and as I've mentioned he's one of the idiots and I'd agree with you.

The matched you linked to Dravid was skipper. He also happened to captain them to their first series vic outside the subcont since 86 by winning against WI, and then against England. As these victories show India does not need a belligerant to win overseas. These wins ere more just a progression of all their top players peaking and using their experience in OS tours, the pitches flattenning out which also helped the spinners and other teams on the relative decline.

Ganguly came at the right time no more no less, the fact that he annoyed people is great for neutrals and Indians (i know i enjoy watching Ponting make everyone crack it) but that doesn't mean he was the catalyst for their victories and him being dropped didn't stop them winning anything.

 

[silentstriker]

The matched you linked to Dravid was skipper. He also happened to captain them to their first series vic outside the subcont since 86 by winning against WI, and then against England. As these victories show India does not need a belligerant to win overseas. These wins ere more just a progression of all their top players peaking and using their experience in OS tours, the pitches flattenning out which also helped the spinners and other teams on the relative decline.

Ganguly came at the right time no more no less, the fact that he annoyed people is great for neutrals and Indians (i know i enjoy watching Ponting make everyone crack it) but that doesn't mean he was the catalyst for their victories and him being dropped didn't stop them winning anything.

It was the attitude he created which had more to do with Indian success as anything else. Perhaps it is not as clear looking back, but when the resurgence started, there were only two men who were the catalysts: Saurav Ganguly and John Wright. And our victories overseas have almost nothing to do with our spinners. Kumble flights it up more, but it's been our fast bowling that's turned around, not spin bowling.

 

[honestbharani]

The matched you linked to Dravid was skipper. He also happened to captain them to their first series vic outside the subcont since 86 by winning against WI, and then against England. As these victories show India does not need a belligerant to win overseas. These wins ere more just a progression of all their top players peaking and using their experience in OS tours, the pitches flattenning out which also helped the spinners and other teams on the relative decline.

Ganguly came at the right time no more no less, the fact that he annoyed people is great for neutrals and Indians (i know i enjoy watching Ponting make everyone crack it) but that doesn't mean he was the catalyst for their victories and him being dropped didn't stop them winning anything.

To an extent, you are right. But I think you are confusing two issues here... Sledging and mind games stuff are NOT the reason we won, but it signified something far more important and something that plays a far bigger role in winning..... SELF BELIEF. That is what Sourav and Wright brought into the Indian sides on away tours. The sledging, talking back and giving it back to the opponents, mind games etc. all were a product of that self belief. And it is that self belief that we always lacked on away tours. And that is why Sourav and John Wright get so much credit for all this as they do and deservedly so, IMHO.

 

[Richard]

India a close second for mine, but as long as we crush England, even if we're ordinary v anyone else, I can live with it.

I simply cannot fathom this attitude.

Maybe it's borne of knowing nothing but beating almost everyone for 19 years (you'd have been my age when Australia were last useless ), as there's no way on Earth I'd ever accept being poor against West Indies, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc. as long as we were beating Australia.

Sure, Australia means that little bit more, but I'd much prefer be second behind Australia than seventh with Australia eigth. By several million miles I'd prefer it, in fact.

 

[Burgey]

But I don't have a pathological sporting hatred for those countries like I do England.

 

[Richard]

Poor form. Even I don't have a pathalogical sporting hate of anywhere, much as many people would like to think I do of pretty much every country everywhere (there's not a single country I've not been accused of hating - with the exception of those who don't play sports I have no interest in).

 

[Burgey]

Poor form. Even I don't have a pathalogical sporting hate of anywhere, much as many people would like to think I do of pretty much every country everywhere (there's not a single country I've not been accused of hating - with the exception of those who don't play sports I have no interest in).

Well good on you mate, I'm stoked for you.

But it's not poor form on my part at all. I'm not suggesting an Uzi be taken to them or anything like that, just that when it comes to sport, I hate England.

Sorry if it offends you, but for better or for worse, that's what I think. Doesn't mean I don't acknowledge when they play well, doesn't mean I can't acknowledge they have good players, I just take a certain delight when they are dire, more so than any other country.

 

[Richard]

Yeah obviously, just seems odd to me to hate one country sporting-wise TBH. Can't fathom it. You're certainly not the only person I've ever encountered to report such a hate, but I do find it really, really strange.

Myself, I just want everyone to do as well as possible, really.

 

[Burgey]

Wish I could be that balanced .

Actually, on reflection, when Australia isn't in the football WC I go for England. I'll have to change that next time .

 

[Jono]

Wish I could be that balanced .

Actually, on reflection, when Australia isn't in the football WC I go for England. I'll have to change that next time .

Are you serious?

If there's any sport to want England to be crap in, its their football (soccer) team

 

[Burgey]

Ha ha, I know. Weird, innit?

When I saw you'd posted here, I thought you were going to remind me about my anti-India tanty earlier this year. An episode best forgotten from my POV .

 

[bond21]

Wish I could be that balanced .

Actually, on reflection, when Australia isn't in the football WC I go for England. I'll have to change that next time .

yea i did until they started sucking ass.

Also I wanted Aus to beat England in 2006, but seeing it was a whitewash and we have the Ashes I dont really care as much now, they have to win, we only have to tie.

I would like to beat South Africa at home to see how they stack up, I think theyre the 2nd best team in the world and would give us a challenge hopefully.

Other than that....I wouldnt mind Shoaib going at the top order, thats pretty much it.

 

[Richard]

Wish I could be that balanced .

Actually, on reflection, when Australia isn't in the football WC I go for England. I'll have to change that next time .

This time y'mean?

Irony is I'm honestly not really bothered about England qualifying for summer tournaments, it detracts from the cricket season for my money. This'll be the first time since 1994 that we've had a cricket season without the distraction of the national team in a big football tournament. I wasn't really following cricket closely enough in 1994 to know what it was like, so it'll be fascinating to see.