*Official* Quarter Final 2 - India v Australia

[Turbinator]

Only thing I can say for certain about this match is that Friday is going to be a tough tough day at work.

Why? A lot of Indians at your workplace?

 

[Ausage]

Why? A lot of Indians at your workplace?

Only cricket fans there are a Pakistani and 2 Poms. No prizes for guessing how ****ty my summer has been.

 

[Top_Cat]

Wasn't Aus 1992 quite ordinary?

Nope. Was one of the best and most in-form sides going around full of Australian all-time great players like Boon, Jones, AB, McDermott, Waugh x 2, Healy, etc. and with excellent back-up (Reid, Moody, etc.). They just choked under the pressure or being world cup holders and defending it at home.

Aus to bat first and post a total that's at least 20 short of what was deemed par pre-toss. India to chase at a canter.

I reckon that's about right! For me, still massive question marks over the first 20 overs of the Aussie batting. Can see Watto and Haddin choked by the first couple of Indian bowlers and leaving the rest of the order with too much to do. Wouldn't back either of these sides to chase down a decent total at the moment so, regardless of who bats first, reckon restriction of scoring is the name of the game.

 

[Burgey]

Aussie always lift for important games, the Indian bowlers are just to average.

Well Australia's batting isn't that flash either.

Re 1992. I got the impression Australia were pretty much pre-post favourites for that tourney, but there were some bad signs in the lead up series. It was also around this time there was drama with Geoff Marsh'a droppingfrom the test side, and AB sorely pissed off at that.

 

[BeeGee]

India v Australia, World Cup 2011: Australia coach says India game is a mini-final | Cricket News | ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 | ESPN Cricinfo

BeeGee to blow up at Nielsen in 3... 2... 1...

Nielsen is the architect of Australian cricket's fall from invincibility. Nuff said.

 

[GotSpin]

Nielsen is the architect of australian cricket's fall from invincibility. Nuff said.

alright folks, step back, he knows all

 

[Top_Cat]

Nielsen is the architect of Australian cricket's fall from invincibility. Nuff said.

Not many architects could save a building when over half the pillars of said success were knocked out and replaced with cheap imports.

Vinny's not a genius but pinning the team's failures on him is a smidge harsh.

 

[slugger]

australia have never been eleminated from the wc in the quarters or the semi's. they have been elimanted in in the round robin stage. x3. every other time theyve ever been runners up or winners. but there is always a first for everything.... right...

 

[Ausage]

but there is always a first for everything.... right...

In an infinite universe...

 

[Sanz]

Nope. Was one of the best and most in-form sides going around full of Australian all-time great players like Boon, Jones, AB, McDermott, Waugh x 2, Healy, etc. and with excellent back-up (Reid, Moody, etc.). They just choked under the pressure or being world cup holders and defending it at home.

Well I don't believe they were better than the teams that made it to the Semis. Australia lost all its games against the semifinalists SA, England, Pakistan and NZ and those games were totally one sided. Only the NZ team was not as good as them but Martin Crowe's captaincy in that WC was probably one of the best I have seen and it seemed to work.

 

[Shri]

India's collapses have come in the last couple of games because they didn't know what score to go for in the last 10 overs. If they have a set target to chase, I don't see them collapsing.

 

[Bun]

Why do you say this? The site of Krayzeh's greatest cricketing moment was in India against a side with many of these players in it. Been pretty impressed with him this WC whenever I've gotten to watch him tbh. Krayzeh to take 8 IMO.

Only thing I can say for certain about this match is that Friday is going to be a tough tough day at work.

wouldn't call 12 for 350 great

 

[tooextracool]

Not many architects could save a building when over half the pillars of said success were knocked out and replaced with cheap imports.

Vinny's not a genius but pinning the team's failures on him is a smidge harsh.

Think when you dont have the kind of match winners to match the rest of the teams it not only gives you the opportunity but also becomes imperative to innovate. Nielsen and Ponting have come here with the rather pig-headed strategy of playing to their strengths instead of adapting to the conditions. They are here without a plan B, and as far as Im concerned that is a sign of a poor coach as well as a poor tactician.

Crowe has been mentioned here already, but he took a side filled with no hoper's and unknowns to the semi finals. Crowe himself was the second leading wicket-taker at the start of the world cup which goes to show what he was working with. A bad workman always blames his tools IMO, Nielsen is working with diamonds in comparison to Crowe. If Nielsen was worth his salt as a coach we would have almost certainly have seen a better plan associated with this Australian outfit, if not at this world cup then for the Ashes.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't disagree with the criticisms of the team but I think you're over-estimating how much sway the coach has these days, especially with regards selection and tactics. Vinny's extremely hands-off and, for the purposes of avoiding career-limiting moves, in a team where Rick Ponting is the captain, that's probably a good thing.

 

[tooextracool]

Seems to be more the case with Australia than any other team and that has to do with the kind of power that Ponting (IMO undeservedly) has been given. Even though we don't really hear much from the likes of Flower, I dont think there is any doubt that he is the man running the show when it comes to the England team. Captains have enough to do as is, if it isnt focusing on their own batting/bowling its about captaining the side in an actual game. If Ponting is the overarching leader of the show in Australian cricket I cant help but feel that thats not a good thing.

 

[andyc]

Am I right in thinking that in the event of a tie, India go through?

What if it's rained off?

 

[Top_Cat]

Well I don't believe they were better than the teams that made it to the Semis. Australia lost all its games against the semifinalists SA, England, Pakistan and NZ and those games were totally one sided. Only the NZ team was not as good as them but Martin Crowe's captaincy in that WC was probably one of the best I have seen and it seemed to work.

That's a separate issue. Regardless of how they did in the tournament, it remains that they were the best side going around before the tournament. Man-for-man, OZ's line-up matched or bettered every other team, had form for at least 2 years prior to the tournament and were playing at home. That's why they were the favourites.

They were awful in the tournament but it certainly wasn't through lack of ability/star players. For mine, it's a a great example of how important it is to select the best team rather than just the best available players.

 

[Burgey]

India's collapses have come in the last couple of games because they didn't know what score to go for in the last 10 overs. If they have a set target to chase, I don't see them collapsing.

Lol. So if they bat first they'll collapse?

 

[social]

India's collapses have come in the last couple of games because they didn't know what score to go for in the last 10 overs. If they have a set target to chase, I don't see them collapsing.

Well, that's a new excuse

"I dont know how many runs I should score so I'll just get out"

 

[ankitj]

Well, that's a new excuse

"I dont know how many runs I should score so I'll just get out"

Excuse? Get a dictionary.