***Official Australia in India***

[Woodster]

I'm sure India won't complain. I also think that their partnership was an exception rather than rule. As good as they played, will be very surprise should they string together a similar partnership throughout the rest of this series. Therefore the top order really have to come to the party and make big scores if India are to have any chance of winning this series.

 

[ret]

Interesting reactions from the Indian fans here considering that this was a pretty typical Indian pitch and should play to their strengths

IMO, about the only positives that India can take out of this game are the performances of their seam bowlers and the fact that they didnt lose

Unfortunately, the captain is dead man walking, batting didnt do much to disprove the theory that they're past it, keeper continues to disappoint with the bat, spinners were toothless and ground fielding was exposed more often than not

Australia can take huge confidence out of this game and know that there was basically only one team in it from around lunch on day one

depite all the short comings that you described, Ind still managed to do well .... which shows that if the guys improve or bring in other options in the line up then there is only one team that looks good to win the series, i.e. India

the best of OZ = the worst of Ind .... and the series has just begun

 

[Woodster]

This Test told us nothing that we don't already know regarding the Aussies problems. They seriously lack a top spinner, had they had one, batting on day 5 would have been much more difficult for India, despite it being a very docile pitch. Had India bowled last in a similar situation, would the outcome still have been a draw ? I would suggest probably, but they may have produced a few more chances.

 

[ret]

I'm sure India won't complain. I also think that their partnership was an exception rather than rule. As good as they played, will be very surprise should they string together a similar partnership throughout the rest of this series. Therefore the top order really have to come to the party and make big scores if India are to have any chance of winning this series.

the point is someone would stand up unless you bowl very well .... they don't need to do that every time as it's the specialist batsmen responsibility to get a good total and there is no reason to believe that ppl averaging in 40s-50s are going to fail every time

 

[Pratters]

Ishant easily imo. As good as Johnson was, and Khan was excellent too. Sharma is just there all the time and always threatening. Love the guy tbh.

AWTA.

 

[Uppercut]

This Test told us nothing that we don't already know regarding the Aussies problems. They seriously lack a top spinner, had they had one, batting on day 5 would have been much more difficult for India, despite it being a very docile pitch. Had India bowled last in a similar situation, would the outcome still have been a draw ? I would suggest probably, but they may have produced a few more chances.

It's also told us though- and i think this is somehow often forgotten- that besides their absence of a spinner, Australia are very, very good.

 

[Sanz]

Aussie Media talking out of their ass :-

http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/cr...ttack-in-return/2008/10/12/1223749845365.html

Haddin spoils for fight and cops Zak Attack in return



"...Zaheer's outburst evoked memories of Trent Bridge last year, when the Indian paceman waved his bat angrily at Kevin Pietersen after the English side tossed jelly beans on the pitch and Pietersen later bowled his country to victory."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24486671-5015684,00.html

"Clarke was roundly condemned for it, with some justification, yet this did not stop two of India's finest, Sachin Tendulkar and Virender Sehwag, doing the same thing on Saturday.
Sehwag, in particular, is in danger of having the finger of hypocrisy pointed at him. It has already started twitching.
Before the Test Sehwag suggested the Australians were cheats because they had claimed catches that bounced during the second Test, a suggestion Ponting described as "insulting".
On Saturday, Sehwag sliced a wide, full delivery from Johnson to be brilliantly caught by Matthew Hayden at slip and then waited for the umpire's decision."


So waiting for Umpire's decision is same as claiming bump-catches ?

 

[social]

This Test told us nothing that we don't already know regarding the Aussies problems. They seriously lack a top spinner, had they had one, batting on day 5 would have been much more difficult for India, despite it being a very docile pitch. Had India bowled last in a similar situation, would the outcome still have been a draw ? I would suggest probably, but they may have produced a few more chances.

Aus problem, as you say, was obvious before the test

Fortunately, 80% of their attack is fine but didnt really get to show their all on the last day because of the light (not that I'm suggesting they would've won but the main bowlers certainly would've bowled more than 45% of the overs)

The problem for India is that 50% of their attack (and the main component considering the conditions) is either relatively easy pickings for the current opposition (Harby averages about 70 in his last 4 tests against us) or injured and quite possibly past it

 

[ret]

and if Zak and Bhajji's 50 were like exception then so was Ponting's 100 .... btw, Bhajji got his 3rd 50 [iirc] against the OZ so that didn't look like an exception, did it?

let's see how many times Ponting goes over 50 in the remaining games

 

[Pratters]

The Aussies were a bowler short but what really cost them was the defensive mindset. I agree with Zaheer. Despite being a bowler short, they were in the game. Yet, they decided to set defensive fields to Zaheer and Harbhajan and declared late (that's what Ponting does). Chappelli was right. He said in one of the studio shows that 'there are two type of declarations - one which gives the opposition a sniff and is a real declaration while the other is the closure which gives the other team no chance to win. There are captains of both kinds with Taylor and Warne (had he captained Australia) being in the declaration class while Waugh and Ponting being in the closure class.' Lovers of Steve Waugh will jump on that but I never rated him as a high calibre captain and agree with Chappelli (though Chappelli's hatred towards S.Waugh is quite well known). The Steve Waugh bit is a digression from the point I want to make here ---

In the end you need 10 wickets to win the game. As Australia were a bowler short, they needed more time and not less time to bowl India out. Katich playing defensively and Australia not going on the attack on the fourth day itself and not declaring earlier probably hurt them a lot and cost them the match or at least a better chance in the match.

 

[Woodster]

the point is someone would stand up unless you bowl very well .... they don't need to do that every time as it's the specialist batsmen responsibility to get a good total and there is no reason to believe that ppl averaging in 40s-50s are going to fail every time

Not sure where you're going with this, but, of course they are part of the batting line-up and it was important they chipped in with their partnership. Obviously they may not need to do it every time, or else you have real problems with the top 7, which surely stands for every cricket side in the world!

If you have people averaging 40-50, no you would not imagine they would fail every time, or how on earth would they be averaging 40-50 ?

I persume you are implying the specialist batsmen will get going and make the big scores, but they could quite conceivably already be 1-0 down in the series and have a hill to climb. However, they are not and they need to score big, starting at Mohali.

 

[Woodster]

It's also told us though- and i think this is somehow often forgotten- that besides their absence of a spinner, Australia are very, very good.

Yes it did tell us that, however, I would be very surprised should anyone think any different even prior to this Test.

 

[Woodster]

and if Zak and Bhajji's 50 were like exception then so was Ponting's 100 .... btw, Bhajji got his 3rd 50 [iirc] against the OZ so that didn't look like an exception, did it?

let's see how many times Ponting goes over 50 in the remaining games

Well, I would be willing to suggest that Ponting passes 50 more frequently than Harbhajan and Zaheer put on 80 runs! Now there's a brave statement.

 

[Uppercut]

Yes it did tell us that, however, I would be very surprised should anyone think any different even prior to this Test.

It's often forgotten recently i've thought. There's been a big exaggeration of how much they've declined, and there isn't any team around at the minute with no obvious weakness (at least until Tahir qualifies for SA). My prediction for this series, which may yet turn out well or badly, was a 2-1 Australia win, because despite all the other factors Oz just have a far better side than India IMO.

 

[ret]

I persume you are implying the specialist batsmen will get going and make the big scores, but they could quite conceivably already be 1-0 down in the series and have a hill to climb. However, they are not and they need to score big, starting at Mohali.

hopefully, this will probably be India's worst batting performance in the series and if OZ couldn't close them here then it's highly unlikely that they will in the other games

the positive is that of the top 6, only one got a 50 in the game, so I am hoping that things would improve whether it be by the current players playing well or new ones coming in

and if better spinners come in to the side then the OZ batting will struggle more

the test was competitive mainly because its was best of OZ vs worst of India, the moment it becomes a contest b/w best of both teams, there would be one winner, i.e. Ind

 

[Uppercut]

The Aussies were a bowler short but what really cost them was the defensive mindset. I agree with Zaheer. Despite being a bowler short, they were in the game. Yet, they decided to set defensive fields to Zaheer and Harbhajan and declared late (that's what Ponting does). Chappelli was right. He said in one of the studio shows that 'there are two type of declarations - one which gives the opposition a sniff and is a real declaration while the other is the closure which gives the other team no chance to win. There are captains of both kinds with Taylor and Warne (had he captained Australia) being in the declaration class while Waugh and Ponting being in the closure class.' Lovers of Steve Waugh will jump on that but I never rated him as a high calibre captain and agree with Chappelli (though Chappelli's hatred towards S.Waugh is quite well known). The Steve Waugh bit is a digression from the point I want to make here ---

In the end you need 10 wickets to win the game. As Australia were a bowler short, they needed more time and not less time to bowl India out. Katich playing defensively and Australia not going on the attack on the fourth day itself and not declaring earlier probably hurt them a lot and cost them the match or at least a better chance in the match.

Well India were 177/4 chasing 299. If Oz declared earlier, giving India less runs to get and more time to bat, they'd have been in major bother- the pitch wasnt too bad at all for a fifth-dayer. Agree that they should've batted a bit more aggressively from day 4 onwards, but besides that i think Ponting timed his declaration perfectly.

 

[Uppercut]

hopefully, this will probably be India's worst batting performance in the series and if OZ couldn't close them here then it's highly unlikely that they will in the other games

the positive is that of the top 6, only one got a 50 in the game, so I am hoping that things would improve whether it be by the current players playing well or new ones coming in

and if better spinners come in to the side then the OZ batting will struggle more

the test was competitive mainly because its was best of OZ vs worst of India, the moment it becomes a contest b/w best of both teams, there would be one winner, i.e. Ind

Australia>>>India. Avatar bet?

 

[ret]

Australia>>>India. Avatar bet?

sure, 2 weeks? .... though i woudn't bother much with selecting an avatar for someone so may ask someone else to do that for me

 

[Pratters]

Well India were 177/4 chasing 299. If Oz declared earlier, giving India less runs to get and more time to bat, they'd have been in major bother- the pitch wasnt too bad at all for a fifth-dayer. Agree that they should've batted a bit more aggressively from day 4 onwards, but besides that i think Ponting timed his declaration perfectly.

Australia should have attacked and targeted a lead of 280-300 with 3-4 overs left on day 4, given India a shot on day 4 itself or at most from the 1st over of day 5. In declaring on day 5, he gave them less overs to bowl India out.

 

[Lambu]

This is the problem i have with the arguements being here..

A guy with 600+ wickets failing to do anything in this match is a rule..while Clark,Lee and Johnson(2nd innings) failure to be effective despite them having played 1 test in these conditions is an exception..its always like this isn't it?Indians get owned by Mendis(who is gun spinner) in one series and suddenly people like Tendulkar,Laxman are suddenly hardly worth bothering,never mind what happened a year ago in Australia where he totally pwned the Aussies.Sachin looked in very good touch in both innings before he got out,which was due to his mistake more than anything else.Say what you will but considering that Indians are slow starters(they are most vulnerable in the early stages of a series),things will get tougher for Aussies.Also,more than anything the performance of the Indian batsmen against Mendis was an exception,well as long as Aus come up with a Mendis,anyhow.