*Official* Australia in India 2010

[Ruckus]

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

Way to extract a post from the mid 90's.

 

[Matt79]

Still got faith in my boy Hauritz. He's going to put together a 30 with the bar and then rip the heart out of India tomorrow.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

I don't agree that it actually happens though.
Would like to see some evidence of batsmen scoring 70s and 80s failing in the second innings more often than if they hadn't. Obviously if they get a real big score they can be a bit mentally/physically tired but a whole team of 50s and starts has nothing to do with a second innings collapse. One of the stranger theories I've come across tbh.

 

[honestbharani]

Jeez you're odious at times.

Who said its unfair? It's not unfair, but it's perfectly fine to say a scoreline isn't a reflection of a game or a series. It happens in every sport.

The original post said it was "unfair"...

 

[Ikki]

I think that's a very poor analogy.

The point seems to be: "all else being equal, batting in the 4th innings is harder therefore our performances are more impressive" when all else isn't equal and what makes batting in the 4th innings harder doesn't really exist here. You can't overcome something that doesn't exist.

To give a rather weird analogy, it's like picking between two ping pong paddles, one big one and one really small one and arguing that the person with the big paddle has an advantage...when the person with the big paddle doesn't have arms.

 

[kingjulian]

You're pretending as if pitches don't deteriorate a lot in matches.

I thought thats your stand point?

I think in both matches the 2nd innings by both teams could have been higher and the pitches didn't deteriorate near what the scores may suggest; but nonetheless neither team have had wildly different experiences at bat. It's been comparable, and not much of an advantage as is it is being portrayed.

Not wildly different, and it was not an advantage that couldn't be overcome. It was an advantage nonetheless. Gradually conditions were getting difficult to bat. It is not a coincidence that both teams struggled to keep their wicket in tact in the second innings. It's not as if either teams were playing uncharacteristically faster in order to have a chance of a result. The run-rates don't show anything like that as well. If they could have set a higher score in the second innings they would have. There was plenty of time available for them to bat, but they couldn't hang in there. They didn't suddenly become **** batsmen as the test match progressed (in both tests). I'm saying pitch was the variable factor. You are saying batsmen just threw their wickets away (to amuse the crowd?)....i can't see where you are coming from. We will have to agree to disagree.

Especially since Aus don't have spinners to take advantage of the conditions or players who have much experience playing in India at all.

Spinners and Pacers got more purchase on the pitch during the later stages on the test. It would have certainly helped if Aus had a better spinner, and in that case India would have struggled more - but that has got nothing to do with our discussion, and if anything it supports my point that conditions were difficult to bat for India more than Australia - but a team has overcome that either a) due to batting better b) other team bowling ****......but it is an advantage as you just admit. Because Australia don't have a world-class spin bowler it doesn't stop being an advantage.

As a home team i would expect India to overcome that disadvantage - but thats another point. Simply put...... if you can somehow rewind the time with the knowledge of how things were going to unfold, and ask Ponting what his decision was after the toss - he would still say "bat first". He would be stupid not to.

 

[Matt79]

Not getting the niggle that's crept in tonight, the last night of the test series, after what's been a really good thread. Doesnt seem to be fueled by anything, people just going through the motion.

If India win this tomorrow as they should, they'll deserve the 2-0. Even so, it's been a pretty respectable effort by the Aussies, helped by winning the toss. Even allowing for the help of winning the toss for the number 4 team playing away against the number one, when Sachin is in his current form, both matches being competitive five dayers isn't embarrassing or a disaster. Equally, if we manage to draw or even win this match from here, it will be a great effort and we'll deserve the 1-0 or 1-1.

 

[honestbharani]

Well that obviously was my point, as it was exactly what I said.

Mate, you've built an entire construct around a one line response to Xuahib's point about winning the toss. Saying batting last = loss in Ondia is like me saying you should bowl first in Perth.

Look at the wickets. They have been excellent, both of them. Whichever team batted best could have secured a great advantage first innings, but they've each batted the same, roughly anyways. It's made for good cricket.

I won't ever say India don't deserve to win the series 2-0 if they do, conditions have been excellent but India have bowlers the bit better (Zaheer especially). It's been close, is all I'm saying. Been great cricket to watch from both teams.

Agree with this entirely tbh.. Just think a lot of misunderstanding and using of posts out of the intended context from both sides here (includes me..).. so apologies and lets move on.


The best India-Australia series thread deserves better.

 

[Ruckus]

I don't agree that it actually happens though.
Would like to see some evidence of batsmen scoring 70s and 80s failing in the second innings more often than if they hadn't. Obviously if they get a real big score they can be a bit mentally/physically tired but a whole team of 50s and starts has nothing to do with a second innings collapse. One of the stranger theories I've come across tbh.

As I said, its just from personal experience. Can't be assed getting the stats for it, that would be insanely tedious

 

[Prince EWS]

To give a rather weird analogy, it's like picking between two ping pong paddles, one big one and one really small one and arguing that the person with the big paddle has an advantage...when the person with the big paddle doesn't have arms.

I'd still actually argue that. Your arms are the tools that (largely) determine your ping-pong quality. Having the big-handled paddle still gives that guy an advantage, whether he can utilise it or not.

 

[Spark]

Love the ping-pong analogies.

 

[Ikki]

Not wildly different, and it was not an advantage that couldn't be overcome. It was an advantage nonetheless. Gradually conditions were getting difficult to bat. It is not a coincidence that both teams struggled to keep their wicket in tact in the second innings. It's not as if either teams were playing uncharacteristically faster in order to have a chance of a result. The run-rates don't show anything like that as well. If they could have set a higher score in the second innings they would have. There was plenty of time available for them to bat, but they couldn't hang in there. They didn't suddenly become **** batsmen as the test match progressed (in both tests). I'm saying pitch was the variable factor. You are saying batsmen just threw their wickets away (to amuse the crowd?)....i can't see where you are coming from. We will have to agree to disagree.

Not only is it not wild, it's not even very distinct. There's not been a discernable difference really.

Plus the bolded bit is disingenuous. They didn't become **** batsmen, but they didn't play well either. There was nothing really in the pitches to explain a situation where both teams comfortably made 400+ scores in the first innings then struggled to make 200 in the second.

Again, watching the test is helpful. The pitch didn't suddenly become a minefield.

Spinners and Pacers got more purchase on the pitch during the later stages on the test. It would have certainly helped if Aus had a better spinner, and in that case India would have struggled more - but that has got nothing to do with our discussion, and if anything it supports my point that conditions were difficult to bat for India more than Australia - but a team has overcome that either a) due to batting better b) other team bowling ****......but it is an advantage as you just admit. Because Australia don't have a world-class spin bowler it doesn't stop being an advantage.

As a home team i would expect India to overcome that disadvantage - but thats another point. Simply put...... if you can somehow rewind the time with the knowledge of how things were going to unfold, and ask Ponting what his decision was after the toss - he would still say "bat first". He would be stupid not to.

Exactly, had we had a better spinner it really would have been more of an advantage, but it really hasn't been. In the first test you guys chased our total and your tail-enders + Laxman held on well. It doesn't mean your tailenders "magically" became better than your middle order or that our bowlers "magically" turned to crap. The pitch was still largely playing true and they held out.

In the end, I am not saying batting first isn't an advantage, but it has been negligible. It hasn't been a deciding factor really.

 

[Prince EWS]

Exactly, had we had a better spinner it really would have been more of an advantage, but it really hasn't been.

Haha but that's just a fault of the team though! It's only a couple of steps away from saying "we can take heart from the fact that if we batted, bowled and fielded much better, we probably would've won".

 

[Ikki]

I'd still actually argue that. Your arms are the tools that (largely) determine your ping-pong quality. Having the big-handled paddle still gives that guy an advantage, whether he can utilise it or not.

LOL. No, there is no advantage. It doesn't exist. It's only an advantage if you can use the big paddle. Having a big paddle by itself is not an advantage. That would be like arguing that winning the toss is itself an advantage. But if you don't know how to bat or bowl it means nothing. It just decides who bats or bowls first. The advantage lies in knowing how to use the tool, not having the tool itself.

 

[Jono]

Haha but that's just a fault of the team though! It's only a couple of steps away from saying "we can take heart from the fact that if we batted, bowled and fielded much better, we probably would've won".

Yeah, the point is being lost. Prince is right.

It is Australia's fault that they don't have a good spinner who can take advantage of bowling on the 5th day. They batted first, and had the opportunity to make it that much tougher. But their bowling lineup was not good enough (i.e. Hauritz was rubbish in the first test, and will have a lack of Bollinger in the 2nd).

This is of course if India go on to win 2-0, which is the hypothetical this discussion was based on.

If Hauritz had to bowl in the 1st and 3rd innings, who is to say he wouldn't have been worse?

 

[Prince EWS]

LOL. No, there is no advantage. It doesn't exist. It's only an advantage if you can use the big paddle. Having a big paddle by itself is not an advantage. That would be like arguing that winning the toss is itself an advantage. But if you don't know how to bat or bowl it means nothing. It just decides who bats or bowls first.

That's exactly what I'm arguing. If you can't utilise that advantage, it indicates a weakness in your team. Better teams will be able to utilise the advantage; not being able to do so makes the team less effective and therefore worse overall.

 

[Ikki]

No, you're both missing it .

No one is saying it isn't Australia's fault for not having a spinner. But not having a good spinner doesn't mean India overcame something big and hence that is deserving of some extra praise.

Like the ping pong example; if I am the guy with the small paddle and beat the guy with the big paddle but no arms, and then declare "my win is even more impressive because I had the small paddle"....then you sound silly.

 

[Jono]

The use of the phrase 'extra praise' is misleading.

The topic is more based on 1-1 not being a "more true" reflection of the scores, even if India win 2-0.

Because on top of not actually winning, Australia didn't win despite winning the toss twice and bowling to a lineup on the 5th day twice.

So 1-1 isn't a fair reflection at all

(if Aust lose 2-0 this is)

 

[Prince EWS]

No, you're both missing it .

No one is saying it isn't Australia's fault for not having a spinner. But not having a good spinner doesn't mean India overcame something big and hence that is deserving of some extra praise.

It doesn't make India's performance better, but it does make Australia's performance worse, so when you're just comparing those teams to each other, it definitely is an advantage.

 

[G.I.Joe]

WTH happened to this thread?

Still Australia's game to lose. 5th day pitch is a bitch.