*Official* Australia in India 2010

[GotSpin]

Maybe there is some hope?

"Anyone who is out of this squad at the moment, if they keep scoring runs and keep putting their hands up, we'll wait and see what happens when the selections come around for Brisbane," Ponting said.

Don't like to be cynical, but sounds like something I've heard a million times before to no avail...

Yeah. Not wanting to seem like a negative nelly Howard and Social style, but how far does Australian cricket have to sink before these selectors wake up and realise that desperate changes need to be in our batting.

 

[howardj]

The bowling line up was certainly in transition: when Mitchell Johnson, who at the time had played 18 Tests was the veteran leader of the bowling attack, it was most certainly a bowling line up in transition. However, their bowling hasn't been too bad in that transition phase.

What Australia do have, is an ageing batting lineup that is in serious decline, and there's elements in the line up that need replaced, and need replaced now. For all that Marcus North has been criticised, he's out performed Hussey comfortably since the start of that South Africa series. Hussey has averaged 35.48 in that period - and that's with 2 unbeaten tons. Ponting has averaged 42.85. They're numbers that simply aren't good enough for a team with pretensions of being number 1.

In the same period, Tendulkar averages 86, Sehwag 64, Sangakkara 71, Laxman 80, ABdV 64, Amla 56, Kallis 60, Ross Taylor averages 54 and Daniel Vettori averages 50. Australia have Katich and Watson who just sneak over the 50 mark. Even the much maligned, in terminal decline Rahul Dravid averages 57 in the last 18 or so months.

That's my point mate. Back then, as you correctly point out, it was in transition our bowling lineup. Now, by contrast, it is not and neither is the team.

Agree vigorously with you RE the batting.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah. Not wanting to seem like a negative nelly Howard and Social style, but how far does Australian cricket have to sink before these selectors wake up and realise that desperate changes need to be in our batting.

Well I really hope rank 5 is enough. Perhaps we need to be so bad that we are stripped of 'test status' before reforms are made.

If there is any optimism to get out of this, its that whatever happens Hussey will surely retire anyway within 2 years.

 

[vcs]

The bowling line up was certainly in transition: when Mitchell Johnson, who at the time had played 18 Tests was the veteran leader of the bowling attack, it was most certainly a bowling line up in transition. However, their bowling hasn't been too bad in that transition phase.

What Australia do have, is an ageing batting lineup that is in serious decline, and there's elements in the line up that need replaced, and need replaced now. For all that Marcus North has been criticised, he's out performed Hussey comfortably since the start of that South Africa series. Hussey has averaged 35.48 in that period - and that's with 2 unbeaten tons. Ponting has averaged 42.85. They're numbers that simply aren't good enough for a team with pretensions of being number 1.

In the same period, Tendulkar averages 86, Sehwag 64, Sangakkara 71, Laxman 80, ABdV 64, Amla 56, Kallis 60, Ross Taylor averages 54 and Daniel Vettori averages 50. Australia have Katich and Watson who just sneak over the 50 mark. Even the much maligned, in terminal decline Rahul Dravid averages 57 in the last 18 or so months.

TBF, India and SL batsmen have played on a lot easier tracks in that time. Still they have batted magnificently in that period. But it doesn't mean the difference is as vast as those averages indicate.

 

[GotSpin]

Well I really hope rank 5 is enough. Perhaps we need to be so bad that we are stripped of 'test status' before reforms are made.

If there is any optimism to get out of this, its that whatever happens Hussey will surely retire anyway within 2 years.

Yeah true. Except I kind of want Ponting to lead a new batting line up before he retires.

 

[Matt79]

Wonder whether Hussey being still pretty good and a fixture in our XI in ODIs is complicating things from the selectors point of view? Poor selecting from them if that's the case, but perhaps a desire to have him at the 2011 WC is, even mostly unconsciously, shading their assessment. With a well regarded player who's done a lot for the team, people can sometimes seize on any excuse to keep them in.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah true. Except I kind of want Ponting to lead a new batting line up before he retires.

Well, he still could. Ponting has a burning desire to return to England for another Ashes. If he his still going strong, batting-wise, I don't see why he couldn't do it. Tendulkar is 37 and still playing brilliantly.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Wonder whether Hussey being still pretty good and a fixture in our XI in ODIs is complicating things from the selectors point of view? Poor selecting from them if that's the case, but perhaps a desire to have him at the 2011 WC is, even mostly unconsciously, shading their assessment. With a well regarded player who's done a lot for the team, people can sometimes seize on any excuse to keep them in.

It almost seems like the selectors have forgotten how to drop a player after most of the last generation of very good players got to retire on their own terms.

It's funny, it was difficult to get the team when we had so many good players, and lots of very decent players missed out. Now it's difficult to get in the team even when guys aren't going so well, because the selectors won't drop them.

 

[GotSpin]

It almost seems like the selectors have forgotten how to drop a player after most of the last generation of very good players got to retire on their own terms.

It's funny, it was difficult to get the team when we had so many good players, and lots of very decent players missed out. Now it's difficult to get in the team even when guys aren't going so well, because the selectors won't drop them.

They used to be pretty good at dropping players though

 

[Noble One]

Expecting Australia to line-up the same at Brisbane (swap Bollinger for George) in the next Test. Can we stage a coup of the Australian selection HQ?

 

[Jarquis]

Didn't know where to put this.. but lol

Cricinfo This might be an English peculiarity: air cricket. With a wooden spoon I often play the John Crawley flick through midwicket or a Steve Waugh crunching cut. What are yours?

Raghava ****7***
Jadeja's play and a miss
57 minutes ago · Like

 

[BoyBrumby]

I tell you one thing though. They'll be a storm of cricinfo comments whingeing about how Clarke should be dropped, he can't score hard runs, he's soft etc. etc. etc. and not a word about how Katich has only averaged 23 with a high score of 43. Because obviously Katich, not being blonde and pretty-faced, is by default a hard nosed, tough player without question and would never score 80 odd, throw it away and leave the team vulnerable to 200ao. Because he, unlike Clarke, is a hard player.

Some truth in that. Katto is an infinitely more likeable chap than Clarke (who hasn't ever wish it was he and not Katich who grabbed the latter by the throat?), but Katich's 23 average doesn't quite tell the full story. He was part of some consistently decent opening stands with Watson, playing the crucial anchor role. Shame he didn't kick on, but didn't look out of touch.

Great logic there. Australia lost because the team was flawed.

Not quite true. Australia had the first test won hands down; they lost because two cripples produced a freakishly great stand and Ojha wasn't given when he was stone dead LBW.

I think Steyn is a tad overated. 35% of his wickets (which is the largest share) are tail enders. Compared to 28% for Johnson, 17% for Hilfenhaus, and 26% for Bollinger.

Wow that is impressive from Zaheer Khan...only 18% of his wickets tail enders. 47% are the top 1-3.

Obvious point, but a bowler who specialises in dismissing tailenders is a useful commodity in himself; see Ishant's stand with VVS that I alluded to above.

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.''

My word, that's piss weak captaincy. Even if it is true (and, frankly, any spinner who wants a deep cover should be banned from ever setting their own fields in perpetuity; "Feeling like I'll serve up a lot of long hops, skipper. Can I have some security?") Ponting is the captain so should know where the buck stops. You let a bowler set his own fields and you carry the can if he makes a horlicks of it.

 

[Shri]

Not quite true. Australia had the first test won hands down; they lost because two cripples produced a freakishly great stand and Ojha wasn't given when he was stone dead LBW.

If Ishant didn't get a wrong decision, Ojha wouldn't have come out to bat that day tbf.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If Ishant didn't get a wrong decision, Ojha wouldn't have come out to bat that day tbf.

True enough, but really India had no right to win that test at all. At 120-odd for 8 chasing 200+ with two blokes who'd spent most of the test off the field injured at the crease they were absolutely dead in the water.

My point was that, had Australia won as they should and nine times out of ten would, no one would be saying their team was flawed.

 

[Spark]

Some truth in that. Katto is an infinitely more likeable chap than Clarke (who hasn't ever wish it was he and not Katich who grabbed the latter by the throat?), but Katich's 23 average doesn't quite tell the full story. He was part of some consistently decent opening stands with Watson, playing the crucial anchor role. Shame he didn't kick on, but didn't look out of touch.

That's true but an average of 23 is still an average of 23.

But I wasn't really talking about this series in isolation so much as the last two years. They've scored a similar amount of runs at a similar average, but you wouldn't know it from these folk.

True enough, but really India had no right to win that test at all. At 120-odd for 8 chasing 200+ with two blokes who'd spent most of the test off the field injured at the crease they were absolutely dead in the water.

My point was that, had Australia won as they should and nine times out of ten would, no one would be saying their team was flawed.

I suppose it could be argued that not being able to do so is a flaw in and of itself, in some roundabout way...

 

[Shri]

Yeah, no right to win maybe, but they had the will to win for sure.

 

[Teja.]

Not quite true. Australia had the first test won hands down; they lost because two cripples produced a freakishly great stand and Ojha wasn't given when he was stone dead LBW.

I was being sarcastic in response to a poster who suggested the same.

 

[social]

True enough, but really India had no right to win that test at all. At 120-odd for 8 chasing 200+ with two blokes who'd spent most of the test off the field injured at the crease they were absolutely dead in the water.

My point was that, had Australia won as they should and nine times out of ten would, no one would be saying their team was flawed.

Nope

Win in the first test would simply have covered the cracks (chasms really) that have been apparent for a couple of years (I wont bore you with a list of the collapses in that time)

Series defeat now means they shouldnt be ignored so in a way, it's not a bad thing

 

[G.I.Joe]

Not quite true. Australia had the first test won hands down; they lost because two cripples produced a freakishly great stand and Ojha wasn't given when he was stone dead LBW.

Ishant was given wrongly out.

 

[Sanz]

Yep that single sentence changes everything clearly undermining Warne's role as a team player through having a "belligerent state of mind" as it "didn't help us" and that it "polarised the team".
That quote seems to indicate half the team agreed with Warne.

Well May be and whoever did is/was being as bad a team man as Warne. Not to forget it was Warnie's action that caused the polarization, so much for being a great team mate.

And I haven't even talked about selfishly hanging out with match fixers, taking banned substance right before the the world cup, having problems with his coach and so many more.

Really don't give me the crap of Warnie being the ultimate team man and most unselfish cricketer.