*Official* Australia in India 2010

[howardj]

You've Had A Fair Go, Ricky

 

[aussie]

Article is crazy.

 

[robelinda]

Rubbish article.

 

[Jono]

It's also a credit to the fact that the batting line up he leads is absolutely stupidly difficult to bowl out twice in a test match.

Ganuly, Dravid and Kumble had that same batting line-up, and a better bowling lineup, yet weren't even close to as successful as Dhoni has been.

Has it been a surprise? I don't mean that rhetorically, but a genuine question. What were the thoughts when he was announced captain at the time?

Considering how attacking he was as a batsman in his early days, the most surprising thing for me is how ridiculously defensive he is as a captain

At times it's like watching the under 12s with him placing guys on the boundary after a 4 has been hit or setting 8-1 fields because he is ****ting himself at the thought of runs

That time he set an 8-1 field it resulted in Katich and Hussey both going out and India winning a 2-0 series in 2008.

He's not a great tactician, but to call him hopeless is going too far. Particularly considering his record, and the fact he thought of sending in a young strokemaker to bat when the ball was hard, which had been the easiest time to score runs all match.

Works for him doesn't it? Yet to lose a test series as captain.

Pujara's approach was assured and he scored briskly at more than a run-a-ball, forcing Australia to re-evaluate their plan of attack. "If you see the wicket, it's a lot easier to bat with the new ball than when the ball starts reversing a bit," Pujara said. "Australia were trying to get some wickets early on. They were trying to attack but also trying to defend. They didn't know what they were trying to do."

Pujara

 

[Son Of Coco]

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

Even that Australian team lost in India. This one loses in other places too

 

[aussie]

It wouldn't matter though. We'd still be #1 even if we hadn't. We were from 95-04 clearly the best team, and we hadn't beaten India at home.

Indeed. But if AUS didn't win in 2004 in IND, it would have left a big mark on the glory years.

 

[Jono]

You've Had A Fair Go, Ricky

If it was good enough for Kevin Rudd, it's good enough for Ponting. You can still be in the team, you just shouldn't be running the show anymore.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Simply put:

Smith should not be played as a specialist bowler. The biggest problem, for Australia, was not that Hauritz was impotent, but that he leaked runs. Smith's not going to bring about a consistency and accuracy that the attack currently requires. If Smith is to play, he'd have to bat at 6 or 7 (behind Haddin).

Khawaja is the obvious candidate for no. 6, and is ahead of Smith at this time for that position.

Australia will not tamper with the opening slots at the moment, I don't think that they are prepared to when it's probably the one feature of the batting that has been reasonably consistent over the past 12 months. Even though Katich didn't kick on at all this series, Australia still got off to relatively consistent starts over the four innings.

In the end, I think that Australia will persevere with the current line-up until at least the 3rd Test of the Ashes. They've put the eggs into this basket already, and invested in these current players, and given the players (outside of Khawaja) the exposure required if there are any injuries during the series. After the Ashes, we'll see changes.

 

[aussie]

Simply put:

Smith should not be played as a specialist bowler. The biggest problem, for Australia, was not that Hauritz was impotent, but that he leaked runs. Smith's not going to bring about a consistency and accuracy that the attack currently requires. If Smith is to play, he'd have to bat at 6 or 7 (behind Haddin).

Khawaja is the obvious candidate for no. 6, and is ahead of Smith at this time for that position.

Australia will not tamper with the opening slots at the moment, I don't think that they are prepared to when it's probably the one feature of the batting that has been reasonably consistent over the past 12 months. Even though Katich didn't kick on at all this series, Australia still got off to relatively consistent starts over the four innings.

In the end, I think that Australia will persevere with the current line-up until at least the 3rd Test of the Ashes. They've put the eggs into this basket already, and invested in these current players, and given the players (outside of Khawaja) the exposure required if there are any injuries during the series. After the Ashes, we'll see changes.

The unfortunate truth indeed, But its a recipe that can certainly cost AUS the Ashes.

A new selection panel is needed ASAP.

 

[howardj]

After the Ashes, we'll see changes.

That's what we said in 2005.

 

[morgieb]

That's what we said in 2005.

Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Martyn (and to a lesser extent Katich and Clarke) not enough changes for you?

 

[Jono]

Ricky not happy:

Shane Warne Criticises Ricky Ponting On Twitter | Nathan Hauritz

'We don't hate each other': Warne

''Every field that Nathan's had to bowl with since he's been here is at his request, it's the fields that he wants to bowl to, unfortunately it doesn't appear that Shane would take the time to ask anyone about that,'' Ponting said. ''He's got his opinion out in the public at the moment, and it's a personal opinion. Different people say things at different times, we don't always agree with all of them, that's life I guess. It would be nice if they were a bit more informed before they made some of their comments though.''

 

[robelinda]

Sachin vid from 1989

YouTube - SACHIN TENDULKAR FIRST INTERVIEW

I guess this should go in the you tube thread woops

 

[Ruckus]

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.

This is an internet forum. Sometimes things said on internet forums aren't explicity set out like freakin' legal documents. I already clarified what I meant, what more do you want? (Cue the smart-ass response).

Edit: Here is a response I made prior to the run-chase (when Aus where batting in their second innings): "Unless the tail can put on another 30 runs minimum, this should be a cakewalk for India."

Definition of sour grapes: "Denial of the desirability of something after one has found out that it cannot be reached or acquired"

If I said that before the run chase even began, then it is not sour grapes at all. Happy?

 

[Ruckus]

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.

Oh I thought you meant strike rate by higher wicket taking rate. If your talking about wickets per match, then if Steyn does indeed have an equal (or higher) amount of top order wickets to e.g. Johnson as well as more tail ender wickets, then your point is very true. But does he? What stats are you using which tell you precisely that, or are you just going off experience?

 

[howardj]

Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Martyn (and to a lesser extent Katich and Clarke) not enough changes for you?

meant 2009

hussey, nielsen, hilditch reappointed.
'
still have norfy too.

 

[andyc]

"Not too sure if you're being serious here or not". Why would you even say that? I think its pretty obvious I was being serious, just makes you sound like a smart ass.

I still maintain 19 tests isn't enough to see how good someone is. In the first 4 years of his career Ponting averaged 45. Is that how good Ponting is? No, he is a 50+ batsmen. Conversely, Hussey averaged about 80 in the first 3 years of his career. Is that how good Hussey is? No, he is a 50 average Batsman. It proves nothing that North averages 37 after 19 matches. He is only 31 and I believe he will improve that average to around 40-45, given the class he has shown in certain innings (like the last century he made). If North fails in the Ashes then I will say it is time up for him, but until then I think he remains a reasonable option for no 6. I don't agree that we need to have a no 6. who consistently makes 30-40 runs as you say. If the inconsistency in the middle order is resolved, which I think is primarily due to Hussey (who need to be replaced ASAP), then having a 'century-or-nothing' no 6. shouldn't be a problem.

Apologies, just seemed odd to me that 19 Tests isn't enough to judge whether a player is good enough. Difference in opinions, I suppose. Your examples of Ponting and Hussey aren't the same as the North situation though; Ponting and Hussey were still clearly good enough to be in the team after 19 Tests. Yeah, Ponting's average of 45 wasn't as good as it is now, but it's still pretty bloody good. An average of 37 isn't. Having a number 6 who gets out for under 20 every 4/5 innings is a liability. There's younger batsmen out there (Khwaja, Hughes, Smith) who are pressing for a place in the team that show a lot more promise than North does.

 

[vcs]

I expect a good 11-year-old keeper to collect and have the bails off in what looks like one motion. If we want to get into technicalities it ought to be two motions as you are collecting the ball and then instantly transferring the weight down back to the stumps: the skill is to cushion and give on the initial take without moving your hands back and away.

It was a fairly routine bit of glovework and I can pretty confidently say that I - as an average-to-poor club keeper - have pulled off better stumpings when I've been faced with batsmen temporarily overbalancing. Good keeping, but nothing to get excited about.

Point taken.

 

[howardj]

Apologies, just seemed odd to me that 19 Tests isn't enough to judge whether a player is good enough. Difference in opinions, I suppose. Your examples of Ponting and Hussey aren't the same as the North situation though; Ponting and Hussey were still clearly good enough to be in the team after 19 Tests. Yeah, Ponting's average of 45 wasn't as good as it is now, but it's still pretty bloody good. An average of 37 isn't. Having a number 6 who gets out for under 20 every 4/5 innings is a liability. There's younger batsmen out there (Khwaja, Hughes, Smith) who are pressing for a place in the team that show a lot more promise than North does.

You're a good man.

How did Martyn, Ponting, Slater, Hayden, Langer, SWaugh get their chance?

The selectors showed some boldness and punted for youth.

All those men turned out beautifully.

 

[Matt79]

Kinda of forgetting the near decade in the wilderness both Martyn and Hayden spent in the wilderness after the selectors "took a punt" and they came a cropper.