***Official Australia in India***

[ret]

That's a real crappy reason for a world beating team to choose a player, not to mention a very defensive move that will likely backfire. Why can't a fourth fast bowler do it with help from some part timers? A spinner is going to have a hard time keeping it tight in India against that lineup anyway, since if the fast bowlers are keeping it tight, they'll go after the spinner to loosen the pressure and if they are doing badly, then spinner likely won't make it better.

why can't the 4th fact bowler do it? thats because the 3 that were chosen ahead of him [and thus probably of slightly better quality] couldn't .... if the first 3 didn't work on that pitch then there is little point in bowling the 4th to do the job. Moreover that would make the line up monotonous and settle the batsmen to that kind of bowling .... this is why a captain will not go for a 4 pace attack unless the four pace attack is of a very high quality

 

[Top_Cat]

Good on ya Jake for putting something up at all and putting in the effort. The very fact you did gives you greater credibility already but, take it from someone in the field of maths/stats, you'll get hammered just for putting numbers to humans. Just don't let it get to you but, that said, I'd be wary of assuming numerical averages in cricket have a sufficient level of predictive validity.

 

[ret]

Agree with everything you say but it ignores the most vital aspect of Australia's problem - the potential spinners have not shown the ability to block up an end for 5 overs let alone for an extended period

there is something called the game plan and field placements

moreover what makes you think that the 4th pace bowler will do a better job than the 3 selected ahead of him? If the 3 first choice pacers didn't do the good job, I don't see how the 4th pacer, who is suppose to be better than the spinner, will do a better job than the spinner .... I do understand the hypothetical scenario that you are showing but the real world scenario and on field implementation are different

the advantage with the spinner here is that at least you can set a different field and make him work on the footmarks *winks*

 

[G.I.Joe]

Noooooooooooooooooooooo...............................................!!

Would you care to explain why you would want such an awful thing to happen.

Yeah, an Aussie supporting an Indian. Preposterous! He should stick to supporting his country like the rest of us

 

[pup11]

Yeah, an Aussie supporting an Indian. Preposterous! He should stick to supporting his country like the rest of us

 

[pasag]

there is something called the game plan and field placements

moreover what makes you think that the 4th pace bowler will do a better job than the 3 selected ahead of him? If the 3 first choice pacers didn't do the good job, I don't see how the 4th pacer, who is suppose to be better than the spinner, will do a better job than the spinner .... I do understand the hypothetical scenario that you are showing but the real world scenario and on field implementation are different

the advantage with the spinner here is that at least you can set a different field and make him work on the footmarks *winks*

?

 

[ret]

?

thats an ugly pic *yucks* [i apologize if thats your GF's ]

anyways, *winks* =

 

[pup11]

thats an ugly pic *yucks* [i apologize if thats your GF's ]

anyways, *winks* =

Gelman would probably have better taste then that.

 

[ret]

Gelman would probably have better taste then that.

haha, i certainly hope so .... but his sense of humor doesn't appear to be spot on

 

[ret]

I m not too enthusiastic on suggesting an 11 for India but I guess something like the one below would make sense:

I will start with the bowling, the four best bowlers from those in the squad for the Ist two tests, IMO, are
- Zak
- Ishant
- Bhajji
- Mishra / Munaf [depending up on the pitch .... or play both if Kumble wasn't playing]

since Kumble is the captain, we have to accommodate him so he comes in .... Dhoni is the WK .... the openers are Sehwag and Gambhir

that leaves India with 3 more spots to select from: Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly and Badrinath


the Australians are better placed as far as the selection goes,

Openers: Katich and Hayden
Other batsmen: Ponting, Clarke, Hussey
WK: Haddin
All-rounder: Watson
Bowlers: Lee, Clark, Johnson and a spinner

Hayden, Clarke and Hussey should be good with the bat. Watson adds that depth to both the batting and the bowling. The pace bowling department looks adequate. They will play a spinner to get that option

the toss could be a double edged sword for both the teams. the pitch is likely to offer something to the pacers on the first day and especially in the first session .... For India, batting first would make sense as they would want the spinners to come into play later on in the test .... For Australia, putting India in could make sense too as the pitch will have something in it for the pacers [where OZ strength in bowling is] on the opening day and if they can pick the Indian openers early then they have a pretty good chance of restricting India and making a match out of it

something tells me that this is going to be about the Indian openers vs the Australian opening bowling. If Indian openers manage to get good scores, it will be difficult for the Australian bowlers to restrict India but if the Australian quick bowling dents India early on then the rest of the batting has the tendency to fall apart under pressure

I am expecting a certain level of consistent performance by the Australians. The series could be decided on how good or bad India plays. the aging Indian players like Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly and Kumble are good enough to give good performances here and there. will they be able to perform consistently is something that has to be seen and thats where lies the opportunity for the Australians to seize some advantage

so the first two tests, it's comparatively inexperienced but consistent Australians vs comparatively experienced but inconsistent Indians which should make it interesting

 

[Manee]

On the bowling front, I think that the combination of Johnson, Lee and Clark on anything but an extremely slow pitch could be potentially series winning. Johnson was working up a very good pace in the BP XI game, getting up to 150kph (after re-deciding to focus on pace and bounce) and this could be a turning point for him after very wrongly attempting to become an inswing focussed bowler over the past Australian season.

Ishant and Zaheer is good, in theory but Zaheer, even in his latest incarnation, relies on pitches to do the work but just utilises conditions better these days. Zaheer has a poor record in India (thanks Jake) and Ishant cannot, even now, be relied on to consistently perform. Harbhajan Singh has been very impressive as of late and Kumble should come back into form too - India can win the series with the spinners spearheading the attack but it'd be preferable if the seamers provide support, especially for issues such as dismissing the tail and early wickets.

 

[Precambrian]

Big bowling worries for Australia, if the tour match was any indication. Except for Clark, noone impressed. Mitch got his wickets owing to outrageous strokes and bad umpiring. And Lee looked disinterested. As for the spinners, they were a joke really. To see someone like Yuvi and Kohli smash them was sad.

That said, positives for Australia include Huss's workman like innings, Ponting playing patiently in the second innings (he was impressive for 40 deliveries in the first, till he lost his head to adrenaline, and lost all footwork and lost his middle stump). But overall hardly they dominated.

And India would do well to get Rohit Sharma in for the 3rd and 4th tests. He was all class, and appeared at ease against all the bowlers, esp in the 2nd innings, where he did not face Kretza at all, yet played a fluent little knock.

That said, the quality of the game was so high and i wondered whether i was watching a test, only to be brought down to earth by Kretza.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm desperate to improve in India - Ponting

He is right, it is going to be the battle of the series. He's playing for his place in history, it'll be great

 

[Manee]

And India would do well to get Rohit Sharma in for the 3rd and 4th tests. He was all class, and appeared at ease against all the bowlers, esp in the 2nd innings, where he did not face Kretza at all, yet played a fluent little knock.

It would be too far to ignore someone's FC record and go on one innings in a tour game. It would devalue the little value the domestic system still has.

 

[pskov]

I'm desperate to improve in India - Ponting

He is right, it is going to be the battle of the series. He's playing for his place in history, it'll be great

I'm not supporting either team, may the best side win in my book, but I do hope Pointing scores a couple of centuries and plays well. If only so that in 20 years time we won't have to put up with people saying 'But how can he have been the best if he didn't score runs in India?'. It's quite tedious already, I can't imagine what another couple of decades would do to me.

 

[Precambrian]

Rohit is hardly 21, so he's hardly had time to settle and make his niche in FC cricket. And don't forget he's hardly played FC games since last winter. During which time, he's grown leaps and bounds as a bat. And talent and recent form has to be given more importance than historical records.

 

[Manee]

I'm not supporting either team, may the best side win in my book, but I do hope Pointing scores a couple of centuries and plays well. If only so that in 20 years time we won't have to put up with people saying 'But how can he have been the best if he didn't score runs in India?'. It's quite tedious already, I can't imagine what another couple of decades would do to me.

It is not as if he has simply done poorly in India, he has failed to even get a start and he has had numerous chances. One fifty in 14 innings in India is simply terrible. I have not dedicated thought to whether this tarnishes his legacy as a batsman, as you'd have to take into account whether this is physical or mental weakness, etc, but it is no doubt a valid weakness nonetheless.

 

[Manee]

Rohit is hardly 21, so he's hardly had time to settle and make his niche in FC cricket. And don't forget he's hardly played FC games since last winter. During which time, he's grown leaps and bounds as a bat. And talent and recent form has to be given more importance than historical records.

Last year is not a 'historical record'. We have plenty of people who plundered several hundred runs last year, give them a go before you elevate Rohit Sharma. To be seen as a very good Test batsman, he'd have to exceed his FC average by about 10+, a most unreasonable request, regardless of circumstance other than lack of games, which is moot here. Talent can count for perhaps entire ODI selections, but in Test matches and series, you need the consistency of runs - something which has not been proven.

 

[four_or_six]

I'm not supporting either team, may the best side win in my book, but I do hope Pointing scores a couple of centuries and plays well. If only so that in 20 years time we won't have to put up with people saying 'But how can he have been the best if he didn't score runs in India?'. It's quite tedious already, I can't imagine what another couple of decades would do to me.

awta

 

[bryce]

Krezja is not deserving of playing a Test match for the greatest team, White maybe but as someone suggested earlier I wouldn't just yet. Clarke & Katich is enough for spin imo(given the squad they have) and i'm fairly certain the seamers' are high-quality enough to still be very effective. Personally, I reckon they'd dismantle the Indians with this side

1.Hayden
2.Katich
3.Ponting*
4.Hussey
5.Clarke
6.Watson
7.Haddin+
8.Lee
9.Johnson
10.Clark
11.Bollinger