*Official* Australia in India 2010

[Ruckus]

Seeing as you're saying that with a better team selection you'd be number 1 in Tests then by definition you are say you'd have won.

eh? I said that with a better team selection Aus could potential reach the scales of no.1 again (in the long-run). I never said a better team selection would have necessarily meant a victory in this series. It would have increased the liklihood of a victory, however.

Jeez....I love misconstruals...

 

[vcs]

Getting tailend wickets cheaply and consistently is not a skill to be looked down upon at all. In every Test series these days we see tail partnerships making a crucial difference to the result. Waqar must also have a high percentage of tail wickets, basically that's what separates these bowlers who manage insane strike-rates in the late 30s and early 40s (Steyn and Waqar) from the pack.

 

[Ikki]

Seeing as you're saying that with a better team selection you'd be number 1 in Tests then by definition you are say you'd have won.

By definition? Teams can be #1 and not win every test series.

 

[Ruckus]

Well it stank of "making runs on this pitch in the 4th innings isn't at all impressive because it's a featherbed".

Na, didn't mean that at all. I meant it was going to be easy because of the poor second innings total by the Aussies, and the strong batting potential of the Indians.

 

[Jarquis]

Na, didn't mean that at all. I meant it was going to be easy because of the poor second innings total by the Aussies, and the strong batting potential of the Indians.

So nothing to do with the pitch!

 

[Ruckus]

Getting tailend wickets cheaply and consistently is not a skill to be looked down upon at all. In every Test series these days we see tail partnerships making a crucial difference to the result. Waqar must also have a high percentage of tail wickets, basically that's what separates these bowlers who manage insane strike-rates in the late 30s and early 40s (Steyn and Waqar) from the pack.

Waqar has a pretty standard 29%. While it is useful to be able to get tail-enders out (see the Mohali test!), it is obviously more useful to be able to get out higher order batsmen. A higher percentage of tail-ender wickets is not a meaningless stat at all. Tail-enders are easier to get out, and as such if a bowler is getting a large proportion of wickets from tail-enders it flatters their overall bowling stats (wickets and average). Thats being said, though, Steyn is still a very good bowler. He hits the deck hard, gets good pace and bounce, but I just think he is slightly overated.

 

[Ruckus]

So nothing to do with the pitch!

Well of course in addition to the things I mentioned you are going to need a pretty good wicket, but that wasn't central to my point.

 

[Teja.]

Why should Steyn be punished for being so good that the tail does not have a chance?His higher % of lower order wickets is balanced by the fact that he has a higher wicket taking rate in general compared to the others,(Johnson, Zaheer et al.)IMO.

 

[Jarquis]

Well of course in addition to the things I mentioned you are going to need a pretty good wicket, but that wasn't central to my point.

Yet was the only one you originally mentioned?

 

[akilana]

Getting tailend wickets cheaply and consistently is not a skill to be looked down upon at all. In every Test series these days we see tail partnerships making a crucial difference to the result. Waqar must also have a high percentage of tail wickets, basically that's what separates these bowlers who manage insane strike-rates in the late 30s and early 40s (Steyn and Waqar) from the pack.

Exactly. Two more lower order wicket for Steyn in the Eng vs SA would have resulted in two test wins for SA. He stills takes a lot more top order batsman per match than the rest of the bowlers. A bowler's job isn't finished when he knocked over the top order.

 

[akilana]

Congratulations to both teams for a superb test series. Always exciting to see when someone makes his debut and do well.

 

[social]

Pujara is the next big thing in tests for India imo. Has good footwork, plays bouncers well and scores off them while keeping the ball on the ground, plays swing well and was exceptional against spin bowling. Could play Dravid at 6, Laxman at 5 and Pujara at 3 in the SA series.

n.b. on Indian pitches

 

[aussie]

By definition? Teams can be #1 and not win every test series.

You have to win almost every test series home & away 90+% o the time to be considered # 1. Thats past #1 below did:

- England 1951-1958
- Windies 1963-68/69
- Windies 1976-1991
- AUS 95-2006/07

 

[social]

Who do you reckon has the best pace bowling unit out of Aus and SA?

-Bollinger, Johnson, Hilfenhaus

-Steyn, Morkel, Ntini

Highly debateable whether Bollinger, Johnson, Hilfenhaus are Australia's best pace attack IMO given that Harris has been our best paceman in the last year

 

[Ruckus]

Yet was the only one you originally mentioned?

Yeh and I clarified what I really meant... seems like you are just searching for an argument here...

 

[Teja.]

You have to win almost every test series home & away 90+% o the time to be considered # 1. The past No.1 did.

- England 1951-1958
- Windies 1963-68/69
- Windies 1976-1991
- AUS 95-2006/07

I throw all of your stuff away
Then I clear you out of my head
I tear you out of my heart
And ignore all your messages

I tell everyone we are through
'Cause I'm so much better without you
But it's just another pretty lie
'Cause I break down
Every time you come around
Oh oh!

So how did you get here under my skin?
I swore that I'd never let you back in
Should've known better than trying to let you go
'Cause here we go go go again

Hard as I try I know I can't quit
Something about you is so addictive
We're falling together, you'd think that by now I'd know
'Cause here we go go go again

You never know what you want
And you never say what you mean
But I start to go insane
Every time that you look at me

You only hear half of what I say
And you're always showing up too late
And I know that I should say goodbye
But it's no use
Can't be with or without you!
Oh oh

So how did you get here under my skin?
I swore that I'd never let you back in
Should've known better than trying to let you go
'Cause here we go go go again

Hard as I try I know I can't quit
Something about you is so addictive
We're falling together, you'd think that by now I'd know
'Cause here we go go go again, 'gain

And again
(And again)
And again
(And again)
And again!

I threw all of your stuff away
And I cleared you out of my head
And I tore you out of my heart
Oh oh, oh oh

So how did you get here under my skin?
I swore that I'd never let you back in
Should've known better than trying to let you go
'Cause here we go go go again

Hard as I try I know I can't quit
Something about you is so addictive
We're falling together, you'd think that by now I'd know
'Cause here we go go

Here we go again
Here we go again!
Should've known better than trying to let you go
'Cause here we go go go again

Again
And again
And again
And again
...

 

[Ruckus]

Why should Steyn be punished for being so good that the tail does not have a chance?His higher % of lower order wickets is balanced by the fact that he has a higher wicket taking rate in general compared to the others,(Johnson, Zaheer et al.)IMO.

That doesn't make sense. Its a ratio. If a bowler is so good there should be a higher proportion of higher order wickets as well.

Do you mean higher wicket taking rate as the strike rate? If so, strike rate is effected by proportion of tail end/higher order wickets. Because tail enders will invariably require less balls to get out, so if he has a higher proportion of tail-ender wickets then his strike rate will be lower.

Irrespective of that though, his strike rate is still exceptional.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeh and I clarified what I really meant... seems like you are just searching for an argument here...

Well sorry for not believing you. If you meant to say what you're saying you did... you would've said that and not what you didn't want to say.

 

[Teja.]

That doesn't make sense. Its a ratio. If a bowler is so good there should be a higher proportion of higher order wickets as well.

Do you mean higher wicket taking rate as the strike rate? If so, strike rate is effected by proportion of tail end/higher order wickets. Because tail enders will invariably require less balls to get out, so if he has a higher proportion of tail-ender wickets then his strike rate will be lower.

Irrespective of that though, his strike rate is still exceptional.

My point is this. The ratios would be important if Johnson and Steyn were taking the same amount of wickets per match. However, This is not the case. Steyn therefore should not be penalized for removing more tail wickets than Johnson while taking about the same number of top order wickets which will make the ratios look in favour of Johnson.

Oh, Don't mean Johnson in particular here btw, just a random, if not very good, example.

 

[vcs]

So impressed with Pujara. The tightness of his technique and his posture remind me somewhat of Dravid. He has the willingness to play his shots, the cut, the pull, front-foot drive, glance off the pads and comes down the wicket to the spinners. It took a ball that kept low and a jaffa in the second innings to get him out.

Don't want to gush too much on the basis of the one innings I've watched him play but he also looks a good runner between the wickets and good at rotating the strike. Nice to see a youngster who doesn't want to score all his runs with flashy boundaries.