Brilliant......it just confirms my hunch of your cricketing sense lol...SA
Aus
Eng
NZ
WI
IND
ZIM
SL
BAN
PAK
Lets be fair most teams that have played against India in the past year or so have looked top notch.tbf Australian bowlers have looked top notch this summer
tbf Australian bowlers have looked top notch this summer
No disputing the Australian attack have looked good this summer, as Viscount Tom says, if the ball's swinging around India these days will make most attacks look a handful. They bowled well against New Zealand and made the most of some very bowler-friendly conditions in South Africa. They've done most of what has been asked of them so far, but taking the above factors into consideration is it really enough to propel them from mid-table to the best in the world ?Lets be fair most teams that have played against India in the past year or so have looked top notch.
Brilliant......it just confirms my hunch of your cricketing sense lol...
Come off it, it's easy to tell the difference between good bowling and bad batting. Pattinson and Hilfenhaus could have been bowling to imaginary batsmen all summer and it still would have been obvious that they constitute a quality attack. Just like when the English attack demolished Pakistan at home- the opposition batted badly but the English bowling was still obviously exceptional to anyone who bothered to watch them.No disputing the Australian attack have looked good this summer, as Viscount Tom says, if the ball's swinging around India these days will make most attacks look a handful. They bowled well against New Zealand and made the most of some very bowler-friendly conditions in South Africa. They've done most of what has been asked of them so far, but taking the above factors into consideration is it really enough to propel them from mid-table to the best in the world ?
I think they've some very promising bowlers, no doubt about it, but would like to see them in less helpful conditions, against strong in-form batting teams, and over a longer period of time. These young lads will have a drop in form at some point, as all newcomers to Test cricket do, it's then about how they react and improve.
So to assess a batsman it makes sense to see him against tough bowling, yet it doesn't matter who the bowler bowls to in order to make an assessment of whether he's any good ? Do me a favour. The pressure that is put back onto a bowler when they realise the margins for error are so small against in-form batsman in good conditions make a huge difference, especially in the cases of inexperienced players.Come off it, it's easy to tell the difference between good bowling and bad batting. Pattinson and Hilfenhaus could have been bowling to imaginary batsmen all summer and it still would have been obvious that they constitute a quality attack. Just like when the English attack demolished Pakistan at home- the opposition batted badly but the English bowling was still obviously exceptional to anyone who bothered to watch them.
It makes sense to want to see batsmen tested against tough bowling before making a judgment but with bowlers it's just a bad excuse to dampen the enthusiasm of opposing fans.
Don't be an idiot, we softened them up, thus enabling even the likes of Hilfenhaus to get them outIIRC the Indian batting lineup was thought to be one of the greatest to play the game until it faced the English and Australian attacks. It then magically turned to poo. Apparently.
Don't flatter yourself. Somerset was the one who softened us up for you guys.Don't be an idiot, we softened them up, thus enabling even the likes of Hilfenhaus to get them out
This Indian line-up was one of the finest around, and will probably still more than hold their own when they return to the sub-continent, it has still required good disciplined bowling to clean them up so not sure why you think otherwise.IIRC the Indian batting lineup was thought to be one of the greatest to play the game until it faced the English and Australian attacks. It then magically turned to poo. Apparently. Because it definitely didn't have anything to do with the quality of the bowling.
There is a bit of that thrown in for sure. But I don't think anyone is saying Australia, or England, didn't bowl well against India ? They bowled very well, and despite India's obvious frailties against swing bowling they will still punish poor bowling.It's just classic cricketing circular logic.
"That attack needs to take wickets against a better batting lineup."
"Isn't that batting lineup packed with cricketing legends?"
"But they're actually crap, we know this because that attack took wickets against them."
It happened to England this time last year too. When you perform well enough, you damage the reputation of your opponents, and thus devalue your own achievement.
Hmm, think you're missing the point.Hmm, so basically the attack needs to prove itself against one of them batting lineups that isn't vulnerable to fast, full, late swinging deliveries consistently in the off-stump channel. I see.