The point is more about lower-order wickets of lesser-calibre batsmen than the quick runs - but nonetheless the fact that India were already in a position of strength by the time the wickets fell does mean they're of far less value than otherwise. One is reminded of Darren Sammy's spell at Old Trafford 2 summers ago - decent bowling though it was, it came at a time when England were merely looking to make a near-impregnable position impregnable.
The Sammy analogy is only marginally relevant to this situation. It is true that Krejza probably didnt bowl well enough to deserve 8 wickets much the same way that Sammy took 7 wickets, but it was blatantly obvious in the sammy case that the deliveries with which he took wickets with were barely anything special of note. He didnt take wickets by bowling good deliveries but by batsmen trying to accelerate the scoring and as such it is a feat he is hardly likely to repeat again. Krejza on the other hand, for those who have watched him bowl, has turned the ball significantly more than Harbhajan and Mishra(keep in mind Mishra is a leggie) and on several occasions bowled deliveries that were dangerous and difficult to play. Whether you like him or hate him, the ball that got Ganguly, and the one that got Dravid were fairly good deliveries by any means, heck even the one Dhoni got before Lunch on day 2 which turned and bounced would have got many good batsmen out.For a finger spinner to accomplish this on Day 1 is fairly impressive.
Whether the tailend wickets are of a lesser value or not is irrelevant to the way in which he bowled. Its easy to say that half of his wickets were tailenders, but its important to remember that the other half werent. Jason Krejza was the only bowler on the Australian side to continually ask questions and look to take wickets while the others bowled defensively outside the off stump or short into the rib cage. I think to brush off his performance in the manner which some people have done because of the volume of runs scored would be doing him a serious disservice, especially from someone who didnt even watch him bowl.
I realise fully that India attacked him all spell - and mostly this tactic was successful, that's the point. Only briefly, after a hell of a pasting for a long time, did Krejza do anything particularly good.
Look no one is calling him a world beater, no one has even mentioned the word test class in here. The point is that he bowled fairly well at times during that spell and that there are various attributes to suggest that he has potential. However, getting a mauling by the Indian batsmen in the subcontinent is hardly a barometer for how well someone has bowled especially considering 2 of the best spinners in modern times have had to face the same humiliation without managing to add anything to the right hand column like Krejza has done.
Had there been a bit of rain resulting in India declaring on 400 for 5 ish, we'd not be having this discussion. The point is that for most of the innings Krejza was woeful then one short blast at the end made woeful look quite good.
And you know that he is woeful how? Because you watched him bowl? Oh wait that didnt happen.
Sorry, but it defies logic to call someone woeful when you havent watched him bowl. I made a post about Krejza in the official tour thread during the lunch interval on Day 2 while India were still going at a canter where I suggested that he actually hadnt bowled badly so I dont think the resulting 5 wickets that fell to him changed my mind seriously with regards to that, rather they only confirmed my belief that he didnt actually bowl that badly.
Had it rained and resulted in india declaring at 400/5, it would not change the fact that he bowled fairly well at times, however his figures would only misrepresent the quality of his performance.AFAIC, for someone playing his first test, it showed a lot of character for him to produce the kind of performance he did with some of the best players of spin playing in top gear against him.
