*Official* Australia in India 2010

[morgieb]

My two cents:

* Why would you drop Katich? How many players in recent times were dropped because they were 'too old'.

* North needs to be ****ed off asap.

* Hussey (and possibly Hauritz, particularly if you're on a seaming pitch) should be on review imo.

 

[Jono]

Chris Martin

Brutal

 

[howardj]

not true. your team is in transition. from a great team, australia has become a competitive team in the last three years because many champion cricketers have retired in quick succession. for the team to regain its top position firmly a few of the current players, or those who make their debuts in the near future, will have to come good. like in the late 1980s, the boons, waughs, mcdermotts and taylors will have to emerge and the ritchies, gilberts, welhams and philipses will have to be filtered out. it will be a long process but there is no way australia can win every series like the golden years. you have to accept these defeats and keep making the team stronger continuously. it is not tolerance; it is rebuilding.

Mate, Warne and McGrath retired four years ago. That's an awfully long transition period. There's an awful lot of experience in the Australian team. They are not a team in transition, even Ponting recently said that this is not an excuse the team can any longer use.

 

[pasag]

Our side is in about as stable as India, SA and England - pretty settled batting give or take a batsman but a lot of bowling changes due to injuries, retirements and form.

 

[bagapath]

Mate, Warne and McGrath retired four years ago. That's an awfully long transition period. There's an awful lot of experience in the Australian team. They are not a team in transition, even Ponting recently said that this is not an excuse the team can any longer use.

I know. But the loss of mcgill, gilchrist, hayden, gillespie and lee within two years - on top of warne, langer, mcgrath and martyn's retirements - has made this present australian team look almost brand new. too many guys are still finding their feet in international cricket. for example, australia is touring india for the second time in 2 years. but how many of their bowlers know these conditions well enough? it took warne three tours to get a hang of this country. and then australia won a series here!

not all of these new players in the present setup will play 50+ tests, leave alone 90+ tests like most of the biggies listed above. that is why I say this is a transition period whether we like it or not; and this is very similar to what happened in the 80s. the team has to settle down in a year or two and then brace for the eventual departures of ponting, katich and hussey. if australia's famous first class structure is really good they should be able to produce a winning test team for their nation in 2013 that stays more or less stable for the next decade or so. till then the team is more likely to remain among the pack of international teams rather than lead the race.

 

[kingpin]

Will Ponting retire from captaincy if he loses Ashes along with this series,If he do so is it only for Tests and even for ODI's as well ?

 

[Jono]

If Ponting loses this series and the Ashes, and is still captain, I'd be amazed.

Long way to go for that to happen though.

 

[GotSpin]

Mate, Warne and McGrath retired four years ago. That's an awfully long transition period. There's an awful lot of experience in the Australian team. They are not a team in transition, even Ponting recently said that this is not an excuse the team can any longer use.

Yeah bagpath makes a good point, apart from McWarne, we've had a string of retirements in the last few years. However, this isn't an excuse for a poor selection policy.

 

[GotSpin]

If Ponting loses this series and the Ashes, and is still captain, I'd be amazed.

Long way to go for that to happen though.

Really don't think the Australian public will tolerate us loosing the ashes at home

 

[Jono]

Indeed.

 

[howardj]

I know. But the loss of mcgill, gilchrist, hayden, gillespie and lee within two years - on top of warne, langer, mcgrath and martyn's retirements - has made this present australian team look almost brand new. too many guys are still finding their feet in international cricket. for example, australia is touring india for the second time in 2 years. but how many of their bowlers know these conditions well enough? it took warne three tours to get a hang of this country. and then australia won a series here!

not all of these new players in the present setup will play 50+ tests, leave alone 90+ tests like most of the biggies listed above. that is why I say this is a transition period whether we like it or not; and this is very similar to what happened in the 80s. the team has to settle down in a year or two and then brace for the eventual departures of ponting, katich and hussey. if australia's famous first class structure is really good they should be able to produce a winning test team for their nation in 2013 that stays more or less stable for the next decade or so. till then the team is more likely to remain among the pack of international teams rather than lead the race.

I am aware of those retirements. But there is nothing inexperienced about our top six. They have all played at least 20-30 Test matches. That's not a batting lineup in transition, and that's what's costing us games and big ticket series - woeful batting collapses.

 

[bagapath]

I am aware of those retirements. But there is nothing inexperienced about our top six. They have all played at least 20-30 Test matches. That's not a batting lineup in transition, and that's what's costing us games and big ticket series - woeful batting collapses.

nope. you are not winning frequently because you dont have great bowlers. a johnson and a hilfenhaus and a bollinger and a hauritz dont look good enough to play 30 tests together. whenever australia was on top in world cricket they have had at least two world beating bowlers. and they played in 20-30 games together, at least. must be true for all successful test teams in history. india's best phases coincided with the peaks of bedi/chandra and kumble/bhajji. australia's best in recent times were when lillee/thomson, mcdermott/hughes and mcgrath/warne were doing well series after series. the bowling attack of the present team doesnt look settled. a few shakeups later we may find a working unit. but the present one has the feel of a temporary line up written all over it.

 

[Jono]

Nah I disagree. At times previously it has felt like a temporary lineup, but not this one. Hauritz perhaps the exception, but not the pace attack.

I think you're using the term 'transition' too freely bagapath. You can't use it as if its a transition from the Warne/McGrath/Gilly era to whenever the next all time great Australian team lines up.

The transition occurred from 2006-2008. Maybe 2009 at a stretch.

This is now the Australian team. Australian fans do need to get used to not dominating every test series. That is a fact. They need to understand that Clarke isn't THAT good, Ponting isn't anywhere near what he was in 2006/2007, and Katich and Watson, for all their talent, are no Hayden and Langer as a unit.

But they most certainly don't need to get used to North being in the team, or White being played as a spinner (2008) or other obvious selection errors.

 

[bagapath]

would be very surprised if these three pacers play 5,6 series, or any two of them play 10 series, together.

This is now the Australian team. Australian fans do need to get used to not dominating every test series. That is a fact. They need to understand that Clarke isn't THAT good, Ponting isn't anywhere near what he was in 2006/2007, and Katich and Watson, for all their talent, are no Hayden and Langer as a unit.

yeah. pretty much my point.

 

[Jarquis]

What are the chances of the 2nd Test not being a draw?

 

[R_D]

What are the chances of the 2nd Test not being a draw?

not sure but probably just as much it being a win or loss to either side.

 

[Jarquis]

Well bet365 has Aus/Ind at 3.60 and the draw at 1.90. Considering a tenner on both Aus and Ind.

 

[Jono]

Better off going on Betfair and 'laying' (i.e. bet to not happen) the draw.

 

[Jarquis]

Or better off not betting?

 

[social]

Nah I disagree. At times previously it has felt like a temporary lineup, but not this one. Hauritz perhaps the exception, but not the pace attack.

I think you're using the term 'transition' too freely bagapath. You can't use it as if its a transition from the Warne/McGrath/Gilly era to whenever the next all time great Australian team lines up.

The transition occurred from 2006-2008. Maybe 2009 at a stretch.

This is now the Australian team. Australian fans do need to get used to not dominating every test series. That is a fact. They need to understand that Clarke isn't THAT good, Ponting isn't anywhere near what he was in 2006/2007, and Katich and Watson, for all their talent, are no Hayden and Langer as a unit.

But they most certainly don't need to get used to North being in the team, or White being played as a spinner (2008) or other obvious selection errors.

I agree with certain things but not others

Katich and Watson are one of the 2 best opening combinations in world cricket and the the best by miles when the ball bounces above shin height

Our middle order is surviving on reputation alone and that's where we are truly stuffed - they should've put the game away beyond all doubt in both innings

However, Clarke is, as his record indicates, one of the best players in the world BUT a softie and other things are at play there

North - agreed

Haddin is a seriously fine player but comparisons with Gilly do no-one any justice

Our pace attack is world class but we dont have a single great so guys who should be support bowlers are thrust into the limelight

Bottom line is that we should not have gone from world domination to no. 4/6 in the world with the talent at our disposal and the quality of opposition