Overall, that's a fair enough rationale, but when you're talking about a conjunction of mostly short-term injuries damaging a team for a two-three week window, it becomes a bit artificial to ignore the fact that the team in question has two or three World XI standard players to come back into the team, plus another few regular first XI-ers.
Exactly. When someone asks me how good i think Australia are, i think, "how good are this team:
That's why polls are rubbish.
I dont think Australia is an overrated team anymore. They were VERY VERY overrated before the series against India, the fact that people thought they actually had a 1 in million chance of winning proves that IMO. I would venture to suggest that they were still overrated before the series against SA where people thought they were still numero uno, but now most people including Ponting have now come to the realization that they are merely a middling team amongst an average bunch.
Australia is hardly on the same pedestal as India and SA. If it werent for all the politics and the lack of a coach I would venture to suggest that Australia isnt a patch on England either, however I think the recent developments have brought those 2 teams on an even keel.
SA are better served in ODIs without Prince, Mckenzie is a far more capable player.
Don't agree with you. Australia at full strength are certainly on the same pedestal as SA and India (or at least, their players are, even if they've forgotten how to win of late). See if you can find a significant weakness:
As a Kiwi how can you question the talents of Watto or Symonds, they destroy us.
I don't know how to edit the poll unfortunately.As a Kiwi how can you question the talents of Watto or Symonds, they destroy us.
Also I want South Africa on the poll damn it!
Don't think you can cite Hussey's form as a weakness. There'll always be at least one out-of-form batsman in any side. I certainly wouldn't call a fit Symonds a weak link either. McGain's the only one, and even he's a bit of a wild card as opposed to a sub-standard bowler.
Weren't a bunch there last year for the CB series involving India and S Lanka? Didnt look very convincing. Better than the current squad, but not enough to be No.2.
A significant weakness? Their bowling is a joke. McGain hasnt even played a game, the fact that hes put as a certainity only represents the spin bowling stocks in the country. Its so appalling that they cant even find a half decent finger spinner who could take wickets on a pitch that is turning sideways.
That's not what happened though.
.
Ojha >>>>>>>>>>>>>> MishraI'm quite hard to get back at, not having a major cricket team to support. For future reference, something like, "Ojha>Mishra" will do the trick
They couldnt finish India off because their bowlers had already messed up the situation in the first innings by not being able to dismiss the tail. Again, it all comes down to their poor bowlers and the fact of the matter is that the 2 bowlers who went into the series with their inflated reputations were both left threadbare. India had batted poorly in the first innings, they have a history of doing so in Bangalore, so its hardly surprising that that happened. Australia had the benefit of the toss and still could not win that game.
My remark largely revolves around 1 simple fact. The Australian bowling was not good enough to take 20 wickets in that series. Yes they managed it in one test, but that was largely because of the underestimation of a spinner who ended up taking a 12fer on debut. Lee, Clark and Johnson simply could not buy a wicket to save their life that series. Yes, they were bailed out by some flat wickets in the series, but thats irrelevant IMO. The batting constantly tried to keep them in the game, but the bowling simply was too far below the requisite level to win a test in India. I mentioned before the series that I could not see how Australia would win a game that series and the best they could hope for was 4 flat wickets and 4 draws. And the results merely confirm my original hypothesis. 2-0 at the end of the day is probably an underestimation of the difference between the 2 teams, for if by some miracle we had a 100 test match series, Id be fairly confident that given the same 2 teams the result would be something like 50-0 to India with 50 draws.The third test was played on the flattest of flat pitches. India could point to a few dropped catches, but in truth it was always going to be a draw. The game barely even reached a fourth innings.
The fourth test was a pretty good contest. Australia lost largely because Ponting was more concerned about over rates than winning matches and they were forced to chase hard on the final day. I doubt they'd have lost if it weren't for the fact that Dhoni was so content to play for the draw.
That's not to take anything away from India, they were excellent and fully deserved their victory. You just said they dominated Australia to the point that they became a laughing stock. That's not true. Long, detailed responses to trollish remarks are the type of thing i end up doing when i know i have an exam the following day
In fairness, India failed to take 20 wickets in two of the four matches, and only did so in the final match largely as the result of Australia needing a win. Taking 20 wickets on a flat deck in India is bloody difficult, against either Australia or India. As I say, it took an absolutely incredible all-round performance in the second test to manage it. Along with the fact that Amit Mishra's mere presence on the pitch caused the Australians to wilt with awe at his devastatingly awesome awesomeness.
Paul Harris has made a career out of it.
