***Official Australia in India***

[Cricket_God]

Before the series, I thought Australia playing a spinner was stupid. And this Test showed why. Some said that Johnson would be much worse than a spinner. Well Johnson played as was great, so why can't Bollinger come in for White?

people did not expect Johnson to do well as this was not the type of pitch people were expecting in india and still
in 2nd innings he was ordinary to right handers,in future matches he will struggle against right handers as the pitches will be flatter and if i was ponting i would be really worried
as on a difficult track india saved the test,specially when the wickets were helpful to the quicks so when spinning tracks come god save australia.

 

[social]

people did not expect Johnson to do well as this was not the type of pitch people were expecting in india and still
in 2nd innings he was ordinary to right handers,in future matches he will struggle against right handers as the pitches will be flatter and if i was ponting i would be really worried
as on a difficult track india saved the test,specially when the wickets were helpful to the quicks so when spinning tracks come god save australia.

This wicket had very little in it for the quicks

However, it did have something in it for the spinners and India should be really concerned that our part-timers took the same number of wickets that Kumble and Bhaji did whilst bowling a stack less overs against supposedly much better players of spin

In other words, the bowling of Clarke/WhIte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kumble/Harby

 

[Benaud]

This wicket had very little in it for the quicks

However, it did have something in it for the spinners and India should be really concerned that our part-timers took the same number of wickets that Kumble and Bhaji did whilst bowling a stack less overs against supposedly much better players of spin

In other words, the bowling of Clarke/WhIte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kumble/Harby

Get your hand off it mate. White isn't fit to shine either of those's shoes.

 

[Pratters]

All true, but what's India's record in fourth innings when they're trying to survive rather than in with a shot at winning? I think Ponting was influenced by their recent troubles in fourth innings. If he'd declared earlier and India got the runs, he'd have been slaughtered, and rightfully so.

We need to bear in mind he couldn't use his main bowlers as much on day 5 as he'd liked because of the light. Our spinners are clearly inferior to India's, mind you the latter only took 3 for the match between them anyway.

It was highly unlikely that India would have got 280-300 in the 4th inning. My main qualm is Australia not attacking enough on day 4 and thus postponing the declaration.

 

[Cricket_God]

This wicket had very little in it for the quicks

However, it did have something in it for the spinners and India should be really concerned that our part-timers took the same number of wickets that Kumble and Bhaji did whilst bowling a stack less overs against supposedly much better players of spin

In other words, the bowling of Clarke/WhIte >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Kumble/Harby

: on a wicket where out of 31 odd wickets to fall 23 were taken by pacers from both sides and that too at economy rate under 3 and this guy is saying it has nothing for the pacers ,

the pitch had seam movement and helped the quicks who were good and there too australia pacers were second to india and kumble ne vre did well in bangalore wait for mohali and delhi he is great there.

 

[Top_Cat]

Get your hand off it mate. White isn't fit to shine either of those's shoes.

 

[Craig]

That is brilliant.

Seeing Shane Watson's performance in this Test, with the ball and with the runs in the 2nd innings, is anybody not surprised he is doing well when he is fit and in the team? For a man of his ability is it not expected or not surprising he will do well?

 

[SJS]

I agree with almost all of your points but I do have to say Sachin IS great... no way is he just in the "good" bracket. But yeah, I have seen guys my age refer to Sachin being better than Bradman and I can understand where the "massively overrated" bit comes from..


But then again, the sort of criticism he gets when he fails (you yourself said something like he doesn't show up when India needs him, which is a massive stretch to say the least) is quite unparalleled too.... But I do agree that our system sucks.. Just watch Niranjan Shah's son get so many opportunities for India A.. He is seriously not THAT good.. Neither was Arjun Yadav...

That is exactly my point.

Of course there is the endeavour and some success in getting people "into" sides but as I said it is for the fringe players and getting them into squads. Or as you said, getting youngsters into some junior sides. This is very different from youngster's who deserve to be playing for India being kept out to retain seniors due to politics. That is complete BS.

Yes between Kaif and Yuvraj, to give an example, if the two were fighting for a spot in the Indian squad, as they were once, Yuvraj coming from Punjab (with the powerful IS Bindra as a backer) is likely to be favoured but that does not mean any Tom Dick and Harry from Punjab will get into the Indian side because of poitics. Yuvraj and Kaif were genuine contenders for a spot.

Further, Yuvraj having got into the Test side wasn't able to retain his place in the Test side due to inconsistent performances.

So.

• Firstly, you will have to be a fringe player (good enough to be knocking on the door) at least to get into the squad.
• Two, you may , if you have powerful backers, manage to get the nod over other FRINGE players vying for the same spot.
• Three, the selectors do not decide on playing XI's, the captain does. So powerful backers dont get you into the playing XI's
• Four, if you get into the playing XI, you wont stay there unless you have consistent performances to back you up.

Kaif, did have a very good series in West Indies and I was very disappointed to see him dropped from the side. Kaif comes from a weak state side (weak in power) like UP and does not have powerful backers in the BCCI or the press or the media. Thats very true and it does make a difference and to that extent there is politics. But such cases are not rampant as is being suggested.

To suggest that youngsters like Badrinath, Viraat Kohili, Rohit Sharma are being kept out of the Indian playing XI because of politics and but for politics they should have replaced the likes of Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman is to display complete ignorance of the system in the country and whats worse, it shows complete lack of appreciation of the relative merits of different players.

To say that things would have been different in Australia is to ignore the solid evidence before us from recent times, that of Michael Hussey. The guy was a heavy scorer for close to a decade in Australia as well as in English county cricket. He had already scored three triple centuries ! Yet he wasnt brought into the Australian side till 2005-06. He was 30, had scored 0ver 13000 first class runs and 35 first class centuries before he played his first Test match.

Why because there is politics in Australia. No. Because Australia had a side with established seniors who had done well over many years AND in the ultimate arena of Test cricket.

Now Hussey averages almost 70 in Test matches since he made his debut. We can all stand back and applaud him and blame the Australians for being so myopic as to not be able to see such fantabulous talent. Or, if you please, we can condemn them for their politics. But they have done well, Australia, haven't they, as is being touted here.

Badrinath is ripe for Test cricket I think, unfortunately he has been having not such a great time since he got into the Indian squad.

As for Viraat Kohli replacing any of the current seniors on merit, the very suggestion is laughable. This gentleman has mentioned something on the lines of Sachin not delivering when India needs. That alone is enough for me not to bother to continue this debate because of which I did not respond to his post.

Finally, we keep bringing up cases of youngsters in our country because "up with youngsters and down with seniors" is the flavour of the day thanks to the electronic media. But we have to objective and see how many youngsters have fallen by the wayside because of being brought into international sides too early.

The fact remains that only 39.9 % of those who have played for India since we started playing Test cricket in 1932 went on to play 10 test matches or more. For Australia that figure is 60.1% for the same period.

Even more telling is the number of players who play just 1 or 2 Test matches and thats their entire Test career. Here are the figures for Australia and India.

• India : 31.0%
• Australia : 13.9%

India is not guilty of not blooding youngsters. If anything it sends too many of them when they aren't ready or are not good enough.

Where are the champions that were touted on these very pages not so long ago. The Ambatti Rayudu's and the Reetinder Sodhis. The champions of junior cricket dont always make champion Test cricketers. Nor do champions of the slam bang variety - remember Mr Robin Uthappa?

Yes the selectors don't always get it right but they have a job to do and they have to make THEIR choices not yours or mine.

 

[Ikki]

But SJS, had Australia had their stars perform poorly over the last few years like Dravid, Tendulkar, etc, they indeed WOULD have been replaced and guys like Michael Hussey would have been introduced as soon as this downturn started.

 

[Top_Cat]

Incumbency doesn't explain Hussey, either. Up until the early 00's, he'd dominate in English country cricket then arrive back in Australia, score an early ton or two then be in the press as a Test candidate. Would then average mid-30's for the rest of the season. Was uncanny. Brad Hodge was similar for a while.

Just didn't play his shots like he does now too, genuine Chopra-like grafter in Australia except far more nervous-looking. WA batting him down the order in OD matches like they started to in the late 90's I'm sure made him into the player he is now as if Hussey batted then as he does now, he'd have gotten a Test spot much earlier.

 

[social]

But SJS, had Australia had their stars perform poorly over the last few years like Dravid, Tendulkar, etc, they indeed WOULD have been replaced and guys like Michael Hussey would have been introduced as soon as this downturn started.

IMO, they definitely would have fazed out Laxman and Ganguly a couple of years ago whilst Dravid and Tendulkar would probably have received slightly different treatment because:

a. being a class above the other two, they deserve it; and

b. not to do so would place India in the ludicrous situation where nearly 50% of the team could be gone within months of each other

 

[SJS]

By the way, while I sympathize with Kaif for not being picked again after the West Indies toiur of 2005-06, its important to remember that the next Test series was exactly a year later in South Africa.

He was selected for the one day series in South Africa which was played first and scored 8, 10 and 10 in the three games (out of four) that he played. India lost 4-0. Its possible the complete failure in the one day series affected his selection for the Test squad for the Test series that followed.

I was going through the thread for that series in CW and was amused to find that before the one day squad was selected, most people on this forum did not favour Kaif being selected in the Test side. The exceptions were very few. Some did not want him in the ODI side also. One respected member here said he Karthik was a better batsman than Kaif and should play as a batsman instead of Kaif.

I must stress, I still think Kaif should have played Test cricket since that wonderful series in West Indies, at least when Sachin was injured on more than one occasion but it is interesting to see that Kaif did not have the support closer to his West Indies deeds which are today cited for the injustice done to him.

Amusing.

 

[Cevno]

IMO, they definitely would have fazed out Laxman and Ganguly a couple of years ago whilst Dravid and Tendulkar would probably have received slightly different treatment because:

a. being a class above the other two, they deserve it; and

b. not to do so would place India in the ludicrous situation where nearly 50% of the team could be gone within months of each other

AUtralia would not have dropped ganguly either if their best replacement was Yuvraj in test matches.

 

[Cevno]

By the way, while I sympathize with Kaif for not being picked again after the West Indies toiur of 2005-06, its important to remember that the next Test series was exactly a year later in South Africa.

He was selected for the one day series in South Africa which was played first and scored 8, 10 and 10 in the three games (out of four) that he played. India lost 4-0. Its possible the complete failure in the one day series affected his selection for the Test squad for the Test series that followed.

I was going through the thread for that series in CW and was amused to find that before the one day squad was selected, most people on this forum did not favour Kaif being selected in the Test side. The exceptions were very few. Some did not want him in the ODI side also. One respected member here said he Karthik was a better batsman than Kaif and should play as a batsman instead of Kaif.

I must stress, I still think Kaif should have played Test cricket since that wonderful series in West Indies, at least when Sachin was injured on more than one occasion but it is interesting to see that Kaif did not have the support closer to his West Indies deeds which are today cited for the injustice done to him.

Amusing.

Kaif got dropped from tests due to his ODI form along with sehwag.
And yuvraj kept getting picked for test due to his ODI form.

 

[SJS]

Kaif got dropped from tests due to his ODI form along with sehwag.
And yuvraj kept getting picked for test due to his ODI form.

I agree.

Also after coming back from the West Indies he fared very badly in the domestic season that followed in 2006-07 averaging just 27.66 with not a single century.

 

[Top_Cat]

AUtralia would not have dropped ganguly either if their best replacement was Yuvraj in test matches.

I dunno, they did drop Katich for Symonds a couple of years back.

 

[honestbharani]

Hahaha. How exactly is Bollinger ahead of Clark? I mean, seriously.

think he had Siddle as the injury cover for Clark there, Sean... I think you have misunderstood the post.

 

[honestbharani]

By the way, while I sympathize with Kaif for not being picked again after the West Indies toiur of 2005-06, its important to remember that the next Test series was exactly a year later in South Africa.

He was selected for the one day series in South Africa which was played first and scored 8, 10 and 10 in the three games (out of four) that he played. India lost 4-0. Its possible the complete failure in the one day series affected his selection for the Test squad for the Test series that followed.

I was going through the thread for that series in CW and was amused to find that before the one day squad was selected, most people on this forum did not favour Kaif being selected in the Test side. The exceptions were very few. Some did not want him in the ODI side also. One respected member here said he Karthik was a better batsman than Kaif and should play as a batsman instead of Kaif.

I must stress, I still think Kaif should have played Test cricket since that wonderful series in West Indies, at least when Sachin was injured on more than one occasion but it is interesting to see that Kaif did not have the support closer to his West Indies deeds which are today cited for the injustice done to him.

Amusing.

just out of curiosity, SJS, was it me who suggested Karthik > Kaif?




EDIT: Juz checked out that thread... I did say Karthik> Kaif as an ODI batsman at that time.. Honestly, Karthik was batting really well then and Kaif, tbh, has never really stuck as all that good as an ODI batsman... This is test cricket though, and I am pretty sure I would have had very different views about him as a test batsman... To be completely honest, if Karthik can get the mental side of things right, I still think he can be a better limited overs bat than Kaif...

 

[honestbharani]

That is exactly my point.

Of course there is the endeavour and some success in getting people "into" sides but as I said it is for the fringe players and getting them into squads. Or as you said, getting youngsters into some junior sides. This is very different from youngster's who deserve to be playing for India being kept out to retain seniors due to politics. That is complete BS.

Yes between Kaif and Yuvraj, to give an example, if the two were fighting for a spot in the Indian squad, as they were once, Yuvraj coming from Punjab (with the powerful IS Bindra as a backer) is likely to be favoured but that does not mean any Tom Dick and Harry from Punjab will get into the Indian side because of poitics. Yuvraj and Kaif were genuine contenders for a spot.

Further, Yuvraj having got into the Test side wasn't able to retain his place in the Test side due to inconsistent performances.

So.

• Firstly, you will have to be a fringe player (good enough to be knocking on the door) at least to get into the squad.
• Two, you may , if you have powerful backers, manage to get the nod over other FRINGE players vying for the same spot.
• Three, the selectors do not decide on playing XI's, the captain does. So powerful backers dont get you into the playing XI's
• Four, if you get into the playing XI, you wont stay there unless you have consistent performances to back you up.

Kaif, did have a very good series in West Indies and I was very disappointed to see him dropped from the side. Kaif comes from a weak state side (weak in power) like UP and does not have powerful backers in the BCCI or the press or the media. Thats very true and it does make a difference and to that extent there is politics. But such cases are not rampant as is being suggested.

To suggest that youngsters like Badrinath, Viraat Kohili, Rohit Sharma are being kept out of the Indian playing XI because of politics and but for politics they should have replaced the likes of Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman is to display complete ignorance of the system in the country and whats worse, it shows complete lack of appreciation of the relative merits of different players.

To say that things would have been different in Australia is to ignore the solid evidence before us from recent times, that of Michael Hussey. The guy was a heavy scorer for close to a decade in Australia as well as in English county cricket. He had already scored three triple centuries ! Yet he wasnt brought into the Australian side till 2005-06. He was 30, had scored 0ver 13000 first class runs and 35 first class centuries before he played his first Test match.

Why because there is politics in Australia. No. Because Australia had a side with established seniors who had done well over many years AND in the ultimate arena of Test cricket.

Now Hussey averages almost 70 in Test matches since he made his debut. We can all stand back and applaud him and blame the Australians for being so myopic as to not be able to see such fantabulous talent. Or, if you please, we can condemn them for their politics. But they have done well, Australia, haven't they, as is being touted here.

Badrinath is ripe for Test cricket I think, unfortunately he has been having not such a great time since he got into the Indian squad.

As for Viraat Kohli replacing any of the current seniors on merit, the very suggestion is laughable. This gentleman has mentioned something on the lines of Sachin not delivering when India needs. That alone is enough for me not to bother to continue this debate because of which I did not respond to his post.

Finally, we keep bringing up cases of youngsters in our country because "up with youngsters and down with seniors" is the flavour of the day thanks to the electronic media. But we have to objective and see how many youngsters have fallen by the wayside because of being brought into international sides too early.

The fact remains that only 39.9 % of those who have played for India since we started playing Test cricket in 1932 went on to play 10 test matches or more. For Australia that figure is 60.1% for the same period.

Even more telling is the number of players who play just 1 or 2 Test matches and thats their entire Test career. Here are the figures for Australia and India.

• India : 31.0%
• Australia : 13.9%

India is not guilty of not blooding youngsters. If anything it sends too many of them when they aren't ready or are not good enough.

Where are the champions that were touted on these very pages not so long ago. The Ambatti Rayudu's and the Reetinder Sodhis. The champions of junior cricket dont always make champion Test cricketers. Nor do champions of the slam bang variety - remember Mr Robin Uthappa?

Yes the selectors don't always get it right but they have a job to do and they have to make THEIR choices not yours or mine.

I actually agree with you completely in terms of theory, SJS..



But my gripe about Badri not being selected is not that he should be picked ahead of the fab four or anything.. I thought less deserving players were being given chances.. I thought Uthappa, Kohli and perhaps even Sharma (continues to get chances despite the fact that he keeps throwing his wicket away, obvious temperamental issue) in ODIs and in tests, people with much lesser FC records were getting in.. I am not seeing FC records are the be all and end all but when someone is setting it alight as much as Badri has done and has basically done as well as anyone could have expected him to each and every level below the national side, it is laughable that he is not given a chance to be in the side. Select him in the 15 or 16.. Then it is upto him to grab his chances or to fail, at least to a large extent.


I understand that our FC cricket is several notches below test cricket but I do believe that when guys are standing head and shoulders above the rest at that level, they need to be given a chance to at least fail at the international level... To keep picking youngsters because they have "potential" and hope that they learn on the job will backfire big time, as Greg Chappell found out during his tenure...... At least let the Sharmas, Kohlis and Rainas mature with a season or two of more Ranji cricket.

 

[andruid]

My suggestions

India

Sehwag
Gambhir
Dravid
Tendulkar
Laxman
Ganguly
*Dhoni
Chawla(4)
Harbajan(3)
Zaheer Kan(2)
Ishant Sharma(1)

Ganguly and Sehwag to share 5th bowler duties

Australia

Hayden
Katich
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Watson(4)
Haddin
White(5)
Lee(1)
Johnson(2)
Bollinger/Clark(3)

Discuss