*Official* Australia in India 2010

[aussie]

With the exception of Dougeh, this looks like a pretty poor Australian bowling attack for the conditions. Why isnt Siddle part of this squad? I would be very surprised if Hauritz and Johnson arent pasted and Im not sure if Hilfenhaus will prosper in traditional Indian bowling conditions.

Edit: and the backup pace bowler for this bunch is Peter George? Nielsen clearly has no idea what hes talking about.

Hilfenhaus is very much suited to bowling in IND conditons, he has showed over & over that he can reverse-swing the ball.

I expect Haurtiz to be pasted yea. While for Johnson if his good side turns up, he will bowl well. Lets not forget in 2008 series in IND, when Johnson had not yet considered test quality - he was basically ran in hard @ 145-150 ks consistently & kept the Indian batsmen honest. So now that he is proven test quality, if he can bowl anywhere close to that again - he will be fine.

Siddle is injured & although he bowled in the CL recently, most likely the selectors may not be sure his body is 100% ready to bowl in tests just yet. I haven't seen none of the young AUS bowlers bowl to make a fair comment, so i dont any of us can say for sure if George is the right or wrong selection unless you live in Australia.

 

[aussie]

How else do you think we got to No. 1?

According to flawed & useless ranking system that is.

 

[Teja.]

According to flawed & useless ranking system that is.

 

[G.I.Joe]

The poor dead horse doesn't understand why it's being flogged still.

 

[tooextracool]

I expect Haurtiz to be pasted yea. While for Johnson if his good side turns up, he will bowl well. Lets not forget in 2008 series in IND, when Johnson had not yet considered test quality - he was basically ran in hard @ 145-150 ks consistently & kept the Indian batsmen honest. So now that he is proven test quality, if he can bowl anywhere close to that again - he will be fine.

Yeah he ran in and gave it his best and still averaged 40 odd that series. Look, I dont believe this whole good side/bad side of Johnson business. His good side is that when hes in Australia his skiddy bowling is more effective because touring batsmen and throw their bats at all of his wide deliveries and edge it to the keeper. I have very little doubt he'll have another poor series, though I'm sure people will say that 'his poor side' showed up.

 

[Julian87]

Should give Watto the gloves and drop Haddin so we can play five specialist bowlers.

Makes sense to me.

 

[aussie]

The poor dead horse doesn't understand why it's being flogged still.

Its still being flooged because IND are still incorrectly refered to as # 1, according to useless & flawed ranking system. When ATM (has it has been since AUS lost that # 1 status since the 2006/07 when the greats retired - but the ranking system wouldn't tell you that) its clear their is no best team in world, just very close between SA/AUS/IND.

 

[marc71178]

In all ranking systems there has to be a number 1 - at the moment India have that ranking and quite rightly so based on the criteria.

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it any less valid (in fact based on some of your statements I'd be more inclined to believe the validity of it if you disagree)

 

[aussie]

Yeah he ran in and gave it his best and still averaged 40 odd that series. Look, I dont believe this whole good side/bad side of Johnson business. His good side is that when hes in Australia his skiddy bowling is more effective because touring batsmen and throw their bats at all of his wide deliveries and edge it to the keeper. I have very little doubt he'll have another poor series, though I'm sure people will say that 'his poor side' showed up.

Johnson bowled far better than his series averaged suggested, especially given he had no support given the injuries to the senior bowlers during that series. Which is very commendable given at the time he was still not test quality & the fact that his style of bowling (given his a hit-the-deck type bowler & cant reverse swing the ball) isn't suited to IND conditons.

Secondly you need to give Johnson more credit for how he dismisses batsmen. Espeically when bowling to right-handers, given the pace he bowls @ with that around the wicket angle - he basically forces batsmen into playing wider deliveries. Since a batsman cant be sure if the ball will miss the off-stump or swing back (since he can swing the ball back into right-handers). Also if you realize Johnson is hardly ever (if ever) driven straight down the ground due to that pace). If he where a 130 mph swing bowler, you may have a point - but otherwise no.

I'm not sure whehter Johnson will have a good series or not. So i personally wont make any sweeping predictions. Whats for sure is that he not suited to bowling in IND for reasons afromentioned - but i'd expect him to be hot & cold.

 

[aussie]

In all ranking systems there has to be a number 1 - at the moment India have that ranking and quite rightly so based on the criteria.

Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't make it any less valid (in fact based on some of your statements I'd be more inclined to believe the validity of it if you disagree)

Thats why you dont need a ranking system, since the criteria will always be flawed. Any cricket fan/journalist/commentator etc can make a judgement on who the best team at a given time & its fairly clear that their isn't one ATM.

Case in point in 2003, when South Africa beat Pakistan in a test series just before the WC, they attained the # 1 ranking according that previous system. Which was ridiculous given a year earlier AUS smoked SA over 6 tests home & away.

The only teams in test history who where # 1 where:

- WI 76-91
- AUS 95-2006/07
- ENG 51-58
- WI 63-69

Special mention the SA of the 70s. They probably would have been # 1 between 1970-1976 (before the WIndies rained started), if they weren't banned

You didn't need a ranking system to tell you those teams where clear #1 teams at the time & this current IND team will never be remembered as no # 1 team unless they win in AUS, SA or ENG for example.

 

[marc71178]

Funny that - I could've sworn India won in England 3 years ago.

Just because you don't like it doesn't change that they are the best Test team at the moment, and hence are number 1 under the current system - bringing up the old system which was extremely flawed as a means of criticising the current one is illogical.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I expect Haurtiz to be pasted yea. While for Johnson if his good side turns up, he will bowl well. Lets not forget in 2008 series in IND, when Johnson had not yet considered test quality - he was basically ran in hard @ 145-150 ks consistently & kept the Indian batsmen honest. So now that he is proven test quality, if he can bowl anywhere close to that again - he will be fine.

Don't think Johnson bowling well is anywhere near a given to be honest. He has more test experience, but whether or not he's 'proven test quality' varies as wildly as the accuracy of some of his deliveries. He's experienced now, but if he bowls with the inconsistency we saw in The Ashes last year he could get belted.

I'm hoping he bowls well, but it's not something I'd bet on given recent form..

 

[aussie]

Funny that - I could've sworn India won in England 3 years ago.

Just because you don't like it doesn't change that they are the best Test team at the moment, and hence are number 1 under the current system - bringing up the old system which was extremely flawed as a means of criticising the current one is illogical.

They won againts an ENG team missing half its main bowling attack. So that doesn't count. But the flawed ranking system does not take into account ENG where under-strenght does by winning that series - they got maximum points.

They are not the best team ATM whether i like it or not. They have not won any major serie overseas againts full-stenght oppostion to attain that accolade. Like previous ENG, WI & AUS "true # 1" did.

I didnt compare the old system to this. I brought up that example to show how under any system some flaw will happen. The new system is flawed too (as shown by IND getting full points by winning againts an under-strenght ENG team in ENG), all a ranking system does is give you points if you win/lose/draw. It doesn't take into account intricate little factors such as strenght of opposition, injuries to key players - which have a a great impact on the outcome of any series.

Another flaw in the current system. AUS lost their # 1 title as soon their greats retired after the 2006/07 Ashes, since it was clear that AUS would immediately go into a transition period & results would would decline due to those loses. But AUS didn't officially lose that # 1 ranking until they lost to @ home SA 08/09.

And another. BANG gained full points for beating a WI B team last year, which for similar reasons with the ENG vs IND 07 series - they shouldn't have.

 

[Cruxdude]

They won againts an ENG team missing half its main bowling attack. So that doesn't count. But the flawed ranking system does not take into account ENG where under-strenght does by winning that series - they got maximum points.

They are not the best team ATM whether i like it or not. They have not won any major serie overseas againts full-stenght oppostion to attain that accolade. Like previous ENG, WI & AUS "true # 1" did.

I didnt compare the old system to this. I brought up that example to show how under any system some flaw will happen. The new system is flawed too (as shown by IND getting full points by winning againts an under-strenght ENG team in ENG), all a ranking system does is give you points if you win/lose/draw. It doesn't take into account intricate little factors such as strenght of opposition, injuries to key players - which have a a great impact on the outcome of any series.

Another flaw in the current system. AUS lost their # 1 title as soon their greats retired after the 2006/07 Ashes, since it was clear that AUS would immediately go into a transition period & results would would decline due to those loses. But AUS didn't officially lose that # 1 ranking until they lost to @ home SA 08/09.

And another. BANG gained full points for beating a WI B team last year, which for similar reasons with the ENG vs IND 07 series - they shouldn't have.

I know I shouldn't be asking you this but could you tell me what would have been England's best bowling attack at that point of time.

 

[aussie]

I know I shouldn't be asking you this but could you tell me what would have been England's best bowling attack at that point of time.

Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison.

Also since i already know where this argument will go. If a team won in India & Kumble/Harbhajan were not present & the opposition had to deal with any two of Johsi/Kapoor/Chauhan/Bahutule/Kulkarni/Karthik would you rate that opposition triumph in IND highly?

 

[GotSpin]

Clear problem with Johnson is that you just don't know which one will turn up so he needs to be potentially 'protected' by the other bowlers in the team. Way too unreliable to be considered a good test bowler.

 

[Sanz]

Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison.

Also since i already know where this argument will go. If a team won in India & Kumble/Harbhajan were not present & the opposition had to deal with any two of Johsi/Kapoor/Chauhan/Bahutule/Kulkarni/Karthik would you rate that opposition triumph in IND highly?

India were without Gavaskar and Kapil Dev.

Also No Gambhir, Bhajji and Sehwag.

 

[vcs]

According to flawed & useless ranking system that is.

That was meant to be a facetious and somewhat self-deprecating comment but trust you to completely miss the point. Well done.

 

[vcs]

Hoggard, Flintoff, Harmison.

Also since i already know where this argument will go. If a team won in India & Kumble/Harbhajan were not present & the opposition had to deal with any two of Johsi/Kapoor/Chauhan/Bahutule/Kulkarni/Karthik would you rate that opposition triumph in IND highly?

India are capable of tonking England 3-0 without breaking a sweat with an attack of Raju, Chauhan and a novice Kumble. An England side with a batting lineup of Gooch, Stewart, Smith, Hick, Gatting etc. Too bad you aren't good enough to do the same.

 

[vcs]

They won againts an ENG team missing half its main bowling attack. So that doesn't count. But the flawed ranking system does not take into account ENG where under-strenght does by winning that series - they got maximum points.

They are not the best team ATM whether i like it or not. They have not won any major serie overseas againts full-stenght oppostion to attain that accolade. Like previous ENG, WI & AUS "true # 1" did.

I didnt compare the old system to this. I brought up that example to show how under any system some flaw will happen. The new system is flawed too (as shown by IND getting full points by winning againts an under-strenght ENG team in ENG), all a ranking system does is give you points if you win/lose/draw. It doesn't take into account intricate little factors such as strenght of opposition, injuries to key players - which have a a great impact on the outcome of any series.

Another flaw in the current system. AUS lost their # 1 title as soon their greats retired after the 2006/07 Ashes, since it was clear that AUS would immediately go into a transition period & results would would decline due to those loses. But AUS didn't officially lose that # 1 ranking until they lost to @ home SA 08/09.

And another. BANG gained full points for beating a WI B team last year, which for similar reasons with the ENG vs IND 07 series - they shouldn't have.

Too bad the ICC doesn't recognize the "aussie ranking system" which arbitrarily decides which series should "count" or "not count".

They all count, build a bridge and get over it. India beat an all-time great Australia team in 2001 without Kumble. If you're good enough, you'll find a way. Sadly England weren't against India. Deal with it.