*Official* Australia in India 2010

[Jono]

Cannot believe you just said parmi. That is brutal. Didn't know you were one of "them"

 

[Top_Cat]

Was diabolically designed to crush your soul, tbh.

 

[howardj]

Yesterday was a foretaste for the World Cup I reckon.

You're not safe defending 320.

Go early, go hard.

 

[robelinda]

Yesterday was a foretaste for the World Cup I reckon.

You're not safe defending 320.

Go early, go hard.

As we did for most of the 07 WC. Except back then we had a rampaging HAYDOS at the peak of his brutal best. My god I loved how he handed new asses to the South African bowlers.

 

[howardj]

As we did for most of the 07 WC. Except back then we had a rampaging HAYDOS at the peak of his brutal best. My god I loved how he handed new asses to the South African bowlers.

Indeed.

He took guard half way down the pitch.

I don't think we need fantastically talented players (such as Haydos) in oder to successfully go hard in the subcontinent though. The grounds are tiny and the pitches are generally benign. I'm not saying it's easy, just that you can get away with mis-hits over there.

 

[vcs]

Hayden was ridiculously good in the '07 WC. I have no clue where that came from, he was a good but not great ODI player upto then.

 

[King Pietersen]

Sorry, Michael Clarke just scored a century at a strike rate of 80 and he's being slagged off? Surely more of the blame should go to the openers who managed 9 from 35 balls between them? Putting serious pressure on Clarke and Hussey to re-build and make scores. It's ridiculous; without Clarke's century, and without Clarke being there at the end Australia wouldn't have got anywhere near the score they managed. Sure, Cameron White batted awesomely, but without Clarke there as security, there's no way he would have been able to unleash like that with the pressure of setting a total.

 

[Ruckus]

Sorry, Michael Clarke just scored a century at a strike rate of 80 and he's being slagged off? Surely more of the blame should go to the openers who managed 9 from 35 balls between them? Putting serious pressure on Clarke and Hussey to re-build and make scores. It's ridiculous; without Clarke's century, and without Clarke being there at the end Australia wouldn't have got anywhere near the score they managed. Sure, Cameron White batted awesomely, but without Clarke there as security, there's no way he would have been able to unleash like that with the pressure of setting a total.

Clarke could have (and should have) accelerated a good 4-5 overs earlier than he did. It's as simple as that - he played too conservatively, and he payed the price. Considering he got a big score, a SR of 80 on a wicket like that is way below par IMO. The other big scorers had far better SRs. Kohli's was 97, Raina's was 151 and White's was 181.

Clarke started scoring faster at around the 43rd over, which, when considering there were 7 wickets left, was far too cautious.

 

[Burgey]

But then why are they in the team? Steve Smith ended up bowling 3 overs, and Hopes effectively played as a bowler.

The whole point of playing kids in this series was not to protect them. It was to play to win, but by throwing them in the heat of the fire.

And Hopes has been playing for so long now, if you're playing out dot balls to protect him from batting, there is a serious issue.

Plainly Clarke's fault tbh.

 

[vcs]

Not once did I say he should have hit out more. About four times I've pointed out his lack of ability to take singles was the problem.

And let's not pretend he was up against a great bowling attack, like some seem to pretend. It was a slow track yes, but only 8 wickets fell for the match, and Kohli's was a gift from a guy who cbf'ed batting with cramps. In the middle overs he was facing the almighty Vinay Kumar and Yuvraj Singh bowling at him. ****ing bunt it into the offside and run FFS.

I would advocate him taking singles tbh. I am pointing out his flaws in his batting. I'm not saying revolutionise the batting order. This isn't even a full strength team anyway so arguing who should be batting 3 in this team is silly.

Interestingly enough, Australia had fewer dot balls in their innings than India. Wouldn't have thought it from watching the match.

India v Australia 2nd ODI: Virat Kohli hundred sets up Indian victory | India v Australia, 2nd ODI, Visakhapatnam Report | Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

 

[Evermind]

Something about Kohli's face really bothers me.

My least favourite looking cricket player, along with Katich.

 

[robelinda]

Something about Kohli's face really bothers me.

My least favourite looking cricket player, along with Katich.

Kallis is always my least favourite looking player. Retire already!

 

[Jono]

Interestingly enough, Australia had fewer dot balls in their innings than India. Wouldn't have thought it from watching the match.

India v Australia 2nd ODI: Virat Kohli hundred sets up Indian victory | India v Australia, 2nd ODI, Visakhapatnam Report | Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

Look at how many dot balls occurred at the end with Tiwary though. Massively misleading, when the game was for all intents and purposes, over unless Tiwary committed the most epic choke of all time.

 

[Jono]

Plainly Clarke's fault tbh.

Entering the debate and offering nothing! Stop chalking up so many **** posts in this thread.

People are acting as if the Australian batting order ended at 5.

 

[vcs]

Look at how many dot balls occurred at the end with Tiwary though. Massively misleading, when the game was for all intents and purposes, over unless Tiwary committed the most epic choke of all time.

Yeah, you have a point there.

 

[Spark]

TBH I said at the beginning of the match that I would be looking to throw an ODI to see an inform Clarke (and let's face it, his form during the tests is the worst it's been in at least 18 months), and given how slowly he started (I mean he couldn't hit it off the square), and given how freely he was playing at the end of the innings (smashed midwicket 6? That's 24-year old Clarke stuff there), I hope that this is what this means. Not that I think he should shoulder the majority blame for this, 290 should've been more defendable than it ended up being, but if this represents a turnaround in his form I'm not too fussed.

Entering the debate and offering nothing! Stop chalking up so many **** posts in this thread.

People are acting as if the Australian batting order ended at 5.

Smith/Hopes/Hastings aren't exactly seasoned performers...

 

[Jono]

James Hopes has played 84 ODIs now.

And in any case, my argument isn't that Clarke should have hit out after 30 overs. No, that is not it. But once Clarke and Hussey were comfortable, which was after about 20-22 overs, he should have played more singles. Hussey was doing it. Hence he ended with a SR closing in on 90 and he never got to bat at the death in the powerplay. Yet Clarke did, and he went at a SR of just touching 80.

Paine was ****. Marsh was ****. Clarke wasn't ****. But his century should be taken for what it was, an anchor knock that went too slow. Slow doesn't mean not enough sixes. I don't care how you get your runs really, so long as you get them at a reasonable pace. In India against the spinners, that means turning the ball for singles. He didn't do that.

 

[andyc]

James Hopes has played 84 ODIs now.

And in any case, my argument isn't that Clarke should have hit out after 30 overs. No, that is not it. But once Clarke and Hussey were comfortable, which was after about 20-22 overs, he should have played more singles. Hussey was doing it. Hence he ended with a SR closing in on 90 and he never got to bat at the death in the powerplay. Yet Clarke did, and he went at a SR of just touching 80.

Paine was ****. Marsh was ****. Clarke wasn't ****. But his century should be taken for what it was, an anchor knock that went too slow. Slow doesn't mean not enough sixes. I don't care how you get your runs really, so long as you get them at a reasonable pace. In India against the spinners, that means turning the ball for singles. He didn't do that.

Yep, pretty much this. We were 3/205 at the 45 over mark, FFS. Any other day and we would've ended with 250-260 tops.

 

[honestbharani]

Haha, my previous post had a slightly too critical tone in hindsight. But I still think the Aussies- and by that I mainly mean Clarke- left it waaaay too late to accelerate. Not to relinquish the bowlers of any blame because it's a score they should be making a decent fist of defending, but it's an inexperienced attack and the Indian batting lineup is excellent. You need to take these things into account when setting a total imo. If you finish a first innings in India with only three wickets down, you should really have more than 290 runs to play with.

Question really is, is Clarke confident enough to take on the bowlers even a little bit during the middle overs? Maybe his game is just not suited to these formats at this point... Was a good innings inspite of all that though.. But maybe Cam White might have done better? Is he good at working the singles or at least, is he better than Clarke at it?

 

[Spark]

James Hopes has played 84 ODIs now.

And in any case, my argument isn't that Clarke should have hit out after 30 overs. No, that is not it. But once Clarke and Hussey were comfortable, which was after about 20-22 overs, he should have played more singles. Hussey was doing it. Hence he ended with a SR closing in on 90 and he never got to bat at the death in the powerplay. Yet Clarke did, and he went at a SR of just touching 80.

Paine was ****. Marsh was ****. Clarke wasn't ****. But his century should be taken for what it was, an anchor knock that went too slow. Slow doesn't mean not enough sixes. I don't care how you get your runs really, so long as you get them at a reasonable pace. In India against the spinners, that means turning the ball for singles. He didn't do that.

I know exactly what you mean, but that, when he's in form, is something that you would say is most definitely something he is very good at. What he's not good at, and has been his major problem, is hitting out at the end, which he was actually quite decent at last night, however, he did the smart, admirable thing and tried to give as much strike to White as possible - during the last 5 overs in which 84 runs were scored, Clarke only scored 14 of those. But then again he only faced 8 balls.

I mean at one stage he was 9 off 27. That's not just slow - that's genuine "Can't hit it off the square", which he hasn't been in recent times.

I guess I'm agreeing with you in a very roundabout sort of way. I'm just saying this is more symptomatic of his extremely poor form coming into this match rather than a consistent problem with his ODI batting - it's probably the one aspect of his ODI batting which has worked with any reasonable regularity over the past two years.

Having said all this - the Clarke/Hussey partnership was at 5/over. Obviously Hussey was the one who did the most to contribute, but still.

Question really is, is Clarke confident enough to take on the bowlers even a little bit during the middle overs? Maybe his game is just not suited to these formats at this point... Was a good innings inspite of all that though.. But maybe Cam White might have done better? Is he good at working the singles or at least, is he better than Clarke at it?

He's not better than Clarke at it - usually. He's better at hitting boundaries.

FTR I think White/Clarke/Hussey makes much more sense. It's what they did during the 7-match series, worked fine.

EDIT: One thing though - not quite sure they waited until the PP was 60% done to go for it.