*Official* Australia in India 2010

[Jono]

**** this is like the Boy Who Cried Wolf lol

I genuinely believe Aust are close to being favourites.

 

[Burgey]

I will poop my pants whenever I feel like it ****

This post, taken in isolation, is somewhat disturbing.

 

[Top_Cat]

Oh, so you can get India 9 wickets down when they have Laxman and Gambhir (who despite being out of form, is a gun in India) but a debutant and still unproven Vijay are going to ensure India win with 7 wickets to spare?

Not likely.

I see your Indian inexperience with the bat and raise you two batters in the form of their lives against an attack with only two bowlers, one of whom may not turn up tomorrow.

EDIT: George was okay but it's not just lack of Test experience which is the problem. For SA, he's never played in a really competitive game either. Today, in a lot of ways, it was low pressure; he could relax into his bowling a bit because all he really had to do was keep things tight to do a job, wickets were a bonus. Tomorrow he'll be under pressure to take poles and quickly, something he's probably never had to face. Big ask in his first Test, especially if Johnson and Hilf don't take some early wickets.

 

[social]

And North.

I'm telling ya.

Anyone know why he didnt bowl in the first innings?

 

[Ruckus]

So you're saying that if you get a start in the first innings and don't carry on, you're less likely to score any runs at all in the second innings?

No, I'm saying (this is all from experience of course) that batsmen are more likely to score in the second innings if they haven't scored in the first. Conversly, batsmen are less likely to score in the second innings if they have scored well in the first.

Of course, individually, it depends on the batsman (e.g. Ponting seems to be pretty good at following up a high first innings score with another high second innings score), but I'm talking about when its averaged across the entire team.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, I'm saying (this is all from experience of course) that batsmen are more likely to score in the second innings if they haven't scored in the first.

Heh. Don't really agree with that at all tbh, unless it's a huge ton and they're rooted.

 

[Jono]

I see your Indian inexperience with the bat and raise you two batters in the form of their lives against an attack with only two bowlers, one of whom may not turn up tomorrow.

Two bowlers? I count three.

Hilfenhaus
Johnson
Clarke

 

[Ikki]

Anyone know why he didnt bowl in the first innings?

'Cause he's ****? Used up any talent he had with the bat. Gotta recharge with **** performances for another 3-4 tests.

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyone know why he didnt bowl in the first innings?

Stomach bug/poor captaincy.

 

[social]

First two spells aside (keeping in mind his first spell was just one over, too), George bowled well IMO. Was quite good today. Won't be anonymous tomorrow.

Very good debut IMO

If he bowls like that tomorrow, he'll be a handful with his height

 

[Burgey]

Did not take offence to what the champ said one bit, nothing to apologize for. Would be different if the **** wasn't a Dougeh fan though.

Dougeh.

Btw, Love that my iPhone now autocorrects to Dougeh!!!

Dougeh!

 

[Shri]

Pujara is going to steer us home or close to the target tomorrow. Vijay can play Laxman in the act.

 

[Prince EWS]

Very good debut IMO

If he bowls like that tomorrow, he'll be a handful with his height

Yep, AWTA.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah that's just a flaw in the team for the conditions though. Not having good players is not a mitigating circumstance.

Technically. It just doesn't mean the Indians have been batting out their skin...because the bowlers that would ideally use that advantage aren't good enough.

 

[Burgey]

First two spells aside (keeping in mind his first spell was just one over, too), George bowled well IMO. Was quite good today. Won't be anonymous tomorrow.

AWTA. Provided he bowls a little more wicket-to-wicket.

 

[Top_Cat]

Two bowlers? I count three.

Hilfenhaus
Johnson
Clarke

Well he'll be fresh, hasn't batted much this series....

 

[honestbharani]

Of course it does, but both pitches have been good batting decks for the better part of 4 days.. They hardly deteriorated til late in the games.

And late in the game is when India will be batting tomorrow and India were batting in the last game..

 

[honestbharani]

I don't get the point of trying to show how Oz are at an advantage anyway. Any advantages Oz have in batting first are easily counteracted by the fact this is in India and the wickets in India are designed for the Indian team...

yeah.. flat slow tracks always suit India.. How is life in the mid 90s mate?

 

[Ruckus]

Heh. Don't really agree with that at all tbh, unless it's a huge ton and they're rooted.

Doesn't have to be a huge ton at all. If you look at the batting graphs for most players, far more often that not, they will get out for a small score if they have posted a big one in the previous innings.

Don't really know why, but I guess it probably because they are mentality and physically more tired than in the previous innings.

 

[Prince EWS]

Technically. It just doesn't mean the Indians have been batting out their skin...because the bowlers that would ideally use that advantage aren't good enough.

How India's batting has been in complete isolation isn't really relevant to the closeness of the series though; only how they've gone in comparison to Australia's bowlers.

It'd be like watching Bangladesh get pumped by ten wickets and then saying it was a close game because their batsmen are crap and their bowlers are crap, so the opposition wasn't actually that good and what they did was better than it seemed because they faced better opposition.