*Official* Australia in India 2010

[Sanz]

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.

India had no Right ?? I get the point but nice way to put it, I must say.

 

[Matt79]

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.

I missed this the first time, until Brumby quoted it. Epicly correct post.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

That's a flaw in the Aussie bowling attack to bowl so many deliveries at the #10 guy and another guy who was injured and not get either of them out until a wrong decision with only a few runs left. You could argue that Australia had no right to win the game after such a bowling performance.

I don't know, the flaws regarding the aussie A) spin bowling, and B) the middle order would have been the same. What it would have done is to put the flaws in the Indian team back under the spot light (e.g, the usual India wasting the new ball and not having any kind of depth in the fast bowling department). That might have been a good outcome for India.

 

[Jono]

Pretty sure that's still in the dressing room spotlight. Just not the media spotlight.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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

That is true, but we do have a tendancy to be too stats-obsessed in cricket. To take the obvious example, Hilfy is absolutely slandered by 6 wickets @ 40-odd for the series. I reckon Katich looked more like himself than Clarke did. Clarke looked skittish and unsettled all series.

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

Shouldn't be, but will. Short of injuries the only change I see for the Gabba is DtR back in for George.

That's a flaw in the Aussie bowling attack to bowl so many deliveries at the #10 guy and another guy who was injured and not get either of them out until a wrong decision with only a few runs left. You could argue that Australia had no right to win the game after such a bowling performance.

I don't know, the flaws regarding the aussie A) spin bowling, and B) the middle order would have been the same. What it would have done is to put the flaws in the Indian team back under the spot light (e.g, the usual India wasting the new ball and not having any kind of depth in the fast bowling department). That might have been a good outcome for India.

The test side without flaws doesn't exist; it'd be a pretty boring sport if one did.

My point was that everyone's getting carried away with Australia losing twice, when they weren't far away at all. They played a full part in a great, competitive series. Really, Oz are no better or worse a side than they would've been had Ojha been given and they'd won the first test.

 

[vcs]

That is true, but we do have a tendancy to be too stats-obsessed in cricket. To take the obvious example, Hilfy is absolutely slandered by 6 wickets @ 40-odd for the series. I reckon Katich looked more like himself than Clarke did. Clarke looked skittish and unsettled all series.



Shouldn't be, but will. Short of injuries the only change I see for the Gabba is DtR back in for George.



The test side without flaws doesn't exist; it'd be a pretty boring sport if one did.

My point was that everyone's getting carried away with Australia losing twice, when they weren't far away at all. They played a full part in a great, competitive series. Really, Oz are no better or worse a side than they would've been had Ojha been given and they'd won the first test.

Hilf's figures are ridiculously unrepresentative. Australia were very much neck and neck with India for 9/10 days in the series. I think it says a lot for India's character and quality that they were able to step it up a gear on the last day when it mattered, but full credit to Australia for fighting all the way.

 

[Jono]

My point was that everyone's getting carried away with Australia losing twice, when they weren't far away at all. They played a full part in a great, competitive series. Really, Oz are no better or worse a side than they would've been had Ojha been given and they'd won the first test.

I think Howard, Social and others can go overboard at times, but I think their criticism over the team selection isn't solely based on this series.

Let's not forget this team lost a match to Pakistan, who are a reasonably poor test team. They also almost lost to Pakistan in Sydney (and even if the result is dubious and Pakistan fixed it, that's even worse for Australia) and weren't exactly brilliant against the West Indies.

Whether you agree or disagree, they've been pointing out what they believe are selection flaws for ages. Hussey and North failing in particular are ones that have annoyed them a lot, and since those two were fairly poor in the series, they're just continuing their calls for them to be dropped.

 

[Teja.]

Australia were very much neck and neck with India for 9/10 days in the series. I think it says a lot for India's character and quality that they were able to step it up a gear on the last day when it mattered, but full credit to Australia for fighting all the way.

Completely AWTA.

About Hilf, Yes, he was bowling plenty of jaffas which moved away just the right amount and were too good for the batsman. But at the end of the day you need a stock wicket-taking delivery such as an off-cutter or a yorker which you can use after setting up a batsman. His off-cutters were severely under-bowled and a developing a yorker will help him in a tremendous way, IMHO. Hilfeh can bowl extremely tightly and accurately throughout the day and trouble the batsman, but if walks away at the end of the day with a 2-80, he deserves a 2-80 and if Johnson walks away with 4-100 despite bowling 7 wides and taking all 4 wickets in an hour of play, he deserves his 4-100. Hilf has awesome talent to work with and seems a likable fella, so I really hope he develops into more of a strike bowler.

 

[vcs]

Completely AWTA.

About Hilf, Yes, he was bowling plenty of jaffas which moved away just the right amount and were too good for the batsman. But at the end of the day you need a stock wicket-taking delivery such as an off-cutter or a yorker which you can use after setting up a batsman. His off-cutters were severely under-bowled and a developing a yorker will help him in a tremendous way, IMHO. Hilfeh can bowl extremely tightly and accurately throughout the day and trouble the batsman, but if walks away at the end of the day with a 2-80, he deserves a 2-80 and if Johnson walks away with 4-100 despite bowling 7 wides and taking all 4 wickets in an hour of play, he deserves his 4-100. Hilf has awesome talent to work with and seems a likable fella, so I really hope he develops into more of a strike bowler.

Should really have had Vijay on 70-odd in exactly the way you've described TBH. Glad it wasn't given though.

 

[Teja.]

Should really have had Vijay on 70-odd in exactly the way you've described TBH. Glad it wasn't given though.

Yeah, really awesome ball, that was. Reason why I mentioned he needs to bowl more of those. Look pretty plumb too, to the naked eye tbh.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think Howard, Social and others can go overboard at times, but I think their criticism over the team selection isn't solely based on this series.

Let's not forget this team lost a match to Pakistan, who are a reasonably poor test team. They also almost lost to Pakistan in Sydney (and even if the result is dubious and Pakistan fixed it, that's even worse for Australia) and weren't exactly brilliant against the West Indies.

Whether you agree or disagree, they've been pointing out what they believe are selection flaws for ages. Hussey and North failing in particular are ones that have annoyed them a lot, and since those two were fairly poor in the series, they're just continuing their calls for them to be dropped.

To be fair they aren't the only nation to have lost to said reasonably poor test team of late. & at least they had the excuse of not being at home.

& I don't think their selectors have much of a clue either (the balance of their 2009 Ashes squad was toilet) and the retention of North is baffling & Ponting's reign should've ended after he conceded the urn a 2nd time.

My point was not to paint everything as rosy, rather to suggest that the margins on which games turn can be so tight it's wrong to draw any concrete conclusions from games like the first test.

 

[Jono]

Yeah pretty much agree with you. That being said, that first test result being on such a knife edge can turn on anything right? An umpire's decision, a throw hitting the stumps, or North not being in the team.

It's arguably more frustrating when you come close to beating one of the best test teams at home, despite poor selection. It makes you think what could have been with good selection.

 

[Woodster]

I think Howard, Social and others can go overboard at times, but I think their criticism over the team selection isn't solely based on this series.

Let's not forget this team lost a match to Pakistan, who are a reasonably poor test team. They also almost lost to Pakistan in Sydney (and even if the result is dubious and Pakistan fixed it, that's even worse for Australia) and weren't exactly brilliant against the West Indies.

Whether you agree or disagree, they've been pointing out what they believe are selection flaws for ages. Hussey and North failing in particular are ones that have annoyed them a lot, and since those two were fairly poor in the series, they're just continuing their calls for them to be dropped.

While they are seen to be disappointing performances in the eyes of Australians, let us not get away from the fact that this is a decent yet far from outstanding Australia side, therefore a defeat here and there against lesser sides like Pakistan or close run things with WI are surely inevitable!

This is not to say they are under-performing or these players are rubbish, it is just a fact that they are not the side they used to be, and it will take a while for Aussies to become accustomed to the fact they are now back in the pack.

Yes there are players not performing, but there always have been and always will be at any given time, but it is now not being masked by the top players winning them games.

Completely AWTA.

About Hilf, Yes, he was bowling plenty of jaffas which moved away just the right amount and were too good for the batsman. But at the end of the day you need a stock wicket-taking delivery such as an off-cutter or a yorker which you can use after setting up a batsman. His off-cutters were severely under-bowled and a developing a yorker will help him in a tremendous way, IMHO. Hilfeh can bowl extremely tightly and accurately throughout the day and trouble the batsman, but if walks away at the end of the day with a 2-80, he deserves a 2-80 and if Johnson walks away with 4-100 despite bowling 7 wides and taking all 4 wickets in an hour of play, he deserves his 4-100. Hilf has awesome talent to work with and seems a likable fella, so I really hope he develops into more of a strike bowler.

Hilfenhaus surely does have a stock wicket-taking delivery, the outswinger, but sometimes you need to alleviate from the plan, sometimes with great success other times without. Bowlers do not always get their rewardds by any stretch,

If Hilf is not taking wickets he must try and keep it tight which he appears to be doing so effectively, he does not have to become more of a strike bowler.

 

[Neil Pickup]

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.

With luck, about three months.

 

[GotSpin]

While they are seen to be disappointing performances in the eyes of Australians, let us not get away from the fact that this is a decent yet far from outstanding Australia side, therefore a defeat here and there against lesser sides like Pakistan or close run things with WI are surely inevitable!

This is not to say they are under-performing or these players are rubbish, it is just a fact that they are not the side they used to be, and it will take a while for Aussies to become accustomed to the fact they are now back in the pack.

Yes there are players not performing, but there always have been and always will be at any given time, but it is now not being masked by the top players winning them games.

.

As social/howard pointed out, the cupboard isn't empty. We have the potential players to step up and bring back Australian cricket to its god given position at no1. It's the selectors that are preventing any sort of recovery

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah, really awesome ball, that was. Reason why I mentioned he needs to bowl more of those. Look pretty plumb too, to the naked eye tbh.

He also bowled an awesome slow off-cutter that almost had Vijay.

Do think Hilf needs a yorker. Hardly ever see him bowl one. Has a good bouncer, slower ball and moves it both ways but just needs to finish the batsmen off

 

[Woodster]

As social/howard pointed out, the cupboard isn't empty. We have the potential players to step up and bring back Australian cricket to its god given position at no1. It's the selectors that are preventing any sort of recovery

Yes absolutely there are good players in Australia, and a very decent depth of quality, but it is not enough to install them as the automatic number one Test side right now, despite of all the mistakes that the selectors are deemed to be making. That is of course all down to opinions, and whether any XI selected would have won the recent series is indeed open to debate.

It's not easy to accept that what was once a rather distinguishable gap between Australia and the rest of the world has now disappeared. Not to say they are not still a good side, especially in home conditions, but they are now one of five top teams in the world.

 

[NUFAN]

As social/howard pointed out, the cupboard isn't empty. We have the potential players to step up and bring back Australian cricket to its god given position at no1. It's the selectors that are preventing any sort of recovery

Exactly. And with us losing at the moment I would much prefer the younger guys like Khawaja and Hughes in the team gaining experience compared with the likes of Hussey and North. Also chances are we wouldn't be losing as much!

I also get the feeling that if North or Huss did get dropped, it would make the other batsman focus more and know they have to perform well or they'll get dropped too.

 

[GotSpin]

Yes absolutely there are good players in Australia, and a very decent depth of quality, but it is not enough to install them as the automatic number one Test side right now, despite of all the mistakes that the selectors are deemed to be making. That is of course all down to opinions, and whether any XI selected would have won the recent series is indeed open to debate.

It's not easy to accept that what was once a rather distinguishable gap between Australia and the rest of the world has now disappeared. Not to say they are not still a good side, especially in home conditions, but they are now one of five top teams in the world.

I do begrudgingly accept that there is no longer a gap of the good kind between Australia and the ROTW except it need not be that way. It may be an opinion, but I'm fairly happy to throw it out there that team selections cost us the series in India, a drawn series in Pakistan (in england) and a mediocre performance at home over the summer. Would the team have done better with North and Hussey out of it? I couldn't really be sure, but at least we'd have our best available team out on the park rather than a bunch of hopeless bats that are either way past their prime or destined never to succeed at test level

 

[GotSpin]

I seem to have made statements above - Oh well.