***Official*** India in Australia 2014-5

[OverratedSanity]

No Jadeja please. You guys are infuriatingly short sighted. Yeah, Rohit isn't doing great right now, but we need a specialist No.6. Jadeja is a joke batsman who'll never get runs apart from the occasional fluke like in Lord's. Rohit currently is a joke batsman, but he's more likely to be a proper long term No.6 than Jadeja or Ashwin. The probability of him coming good and being as good as say, Ganguly, is definitely there. If you want to drop Rohit, bring in another young specialist batsman. Not bits and pieces rubbish like Jadeja and Binny ffs.

 

[Cabinet96]

Really weird that people are starting to talk about how Rohit is great in ODI's and no good in red ball cricket. Didn't we argue for years his ODI failings shouldn't have been a barrier to a test berth because his FC record was so much better than his List A one? I mean, I did at least.

 

[dognutz]

Got any links to clips on the interwebs?

unfortunately no - will post if come across any

 

[Prince EWS]

I think #7 is negotiable, but unless there are really special circumstances (down by one in the series with one Test to play or a guaranteed road, for example), you need six genuine batsmen in a Test cricket team, regardless of how strong your tail is. Sometimes your wicket keeper can qualify as a genuine batsman, and in the subcontinent Dhoni does which is why India can play that balance, but in Australia I really don't think he does.

I used to be a fan of the idea of balancing a side by having several players from 6 down to 9 or so that could contribute, even if they weren't what you'd call frontline batsmen, but I've really gone off it now. Cricket just doesn't really work in a way that two 30 average batsmen collectively would be worth as much as a 45 average batsman and a 15 average batsman; there's massive variance in batting so you need six genuine batsmen who can play a proper batsman's innings in your side. The fifth bowler when compared to the sixth batsmen is really a massive luxury.

When the top order gets blown away, I don't really have any faith in Dhoni, Jadeja, Ashwin and Bhuvi arresting that situation. If the top five lays a platform then they can definitely all chip in to turn a good score into a very good score, but I don't think they're going to do much in a situation where they're really needed to score runs. If the argument is that Rohit isn't good enough then it's time to consider picking a different batsman (oh god it's Raina); not a bowling allrounder.

 

[harsh.ag]

I am with Rohit at number 6 for the long term too. If not him, then no Jadeja please, another batsman. Also, I think Rohit should bowl a few overs here and there to chip in. Better than Murali Vijay for that role.

 

[honestbharani]

What I am advocating here is horses for courses... I honestly do not think Rohit can be any better than a pretty 20-40 and get out batsman at this level at least in the present. Now the argument against having the 6-9 I mentioned is that apart from Dhoni, others are not exactly capable of long or big innings and even MSD can only realy do it at home.. I agree.. But my point was to show that Rohit is right now so bad that Jadeja can actually contribute more to the team than he does... And even 2 years ago, that would have been a ridiculous thing to say, even if Rohit was playing for India and doing what he is doing right now in Tests...


I understand the need for 6 specialist batsmen but there are times when an attack needs a 5th bowler to from being waaaay below average to at least below average (which might JUST get you 20 wickets in the odd test away from home)... And when the incumbent #6 can hardly make more than 30, I would surely start thinking Jadeja is a better bet..

 

[weldone]

I wouldn't even think about dropping Rohit in Melbourne even if he scores a duck in the 2nd dig.

In Sydney, I may support playing Jadeja but Rohit should be sent to partner Vijay in that case unless Dhawan absolutely sets the world ablaze before that (and Rohit fails in all the 3 innings).

 

[GotSpin]

Needs more Raina

 

[Spark]

I think we can all agree that the best thing about Ashwin being picked is that he gets to be wheeled out for pressers again.

 

[TuataraCovers]

I agree, coming into this test with previous form and history, most people didn't give India a shot of winning a test so if they do lose this one then why not think about switching it up leading into Melbourne or Sydney. They have not much to lose but a lot to gain

 

[Contra]

I think #7 is negotiable, but unless there are really special circumstances (down by one in the series with one Test to play or a guaranteed road, for example), you need six genuine batsmen in a Test cricket team, regardless of how strong your tail is. Sometimes your wicket keeper can qualify as a genuine batsman, and in the subcontinent Dhoni does which is why India can play that balance, but in Australia I really don't think he does.

The problem is that with 6 specialist batsmen it becomes extremely difficult for India to win away overseas. Most other teams have better bowlers than India, so they can do with playing only 4 (invariably most other teams have all rounders as well so it's effectively 5 bowlers). With 4 bowlers India just runs out of steam too quickly, and that 6th batsmen really only covers for a draw ultimately (and Rohit doesn't even do that). You can re-visit games like Joburg, Wellington, Southampton etc to see that an extra bowler for India would have balanced the workload and potentially helped bowl opposition teams out and give us a greater chance of victory. I'm only advocating 5 bowlers (2 of which are all rounders again, so its not 5 genuine bowlers) for overseas conditions, In India sure you can do with 2 spinners and 2 token pacers which should be more than enough for India to win at home.

 

[Prince EWS]

The problem is that with 6 specialist batsmen it becomes extremely difficult for India to win away overseas. Most other teams have better bowlers than India, so they can do with playing only 4 (invariably most other teams have all rounders as well so it's effectively 5 bowlers). With 4 bowlers India just runs out of steam too quickly, and that 6th batsmen really only covers for a draw ultimately (and Rohit doesn't even do that). You can re-visit games like Joburg, Wellington, Southampton etc to see that an extra bowler for India would have balanced the workload and potentially helped bowl opposition teams out and give us a greater chance of victory. I'm only advocating 5 bowlers (2 of which are all rounders again, so its not 5 genuine bowlers) for overseas conditions, In India sure you can do with 2 spinners and 2 token pacers which should be more than enough for India to win at home.

Haha I take the complete opposite view. I'd always play six batsmen away but I'd consider five bowlers at home sometimes.

 

[Justo]

Haha I take the complete opposite view. I'd always play six batsmen away but I'd consider five bowlers at home sometimes.

I'd agree with this. If the plan is to stack all rounders the likelihood is that they're not likely to be that effective overseas anyway. Mitch Marsh and Glenn Maxwell are good examples of this in the UAE. If you're frontline bowlers (Johnson, Siddle, Starc and Lyon) aren't taking wickets in unfavourable and unfamiliar conditions then how can you expect an all rounder to perform in the same conditions. Ultimately you end up weakening the batting without gaining any improvements with the ball (in the UAE there was at least the excuse that you needed to balance workload due to the heat though).

For India the likelihood of Jadeja or Binny taking wickets in Australia isn't particularly high. India's best chance to win is to stack the batting, score 500+ and let scoreboard pressure do the rest. If India had managed to get 500 in this Test I'd put them as strong favourites to win or at least draw with how unstable our batting can be.

I'd also say that Australia's best chance to win in unfavourable conditions is to do the same and you can probably go back to our win in Sri Lanka as a good example of that (Shane Watson doesn't really count as a bit part all rounder since he actually warranted his spot as a batsmen at the time). If the all rounder actually warrants his place as a front line batsman or bowler then he should obviously be selected.

 

[Flem274*]

The problem is that with 6 specialist batsmen it becomes extremely difficult for India to win away overseas. Most other teams have better bowlers than India, so they can do with playing only 4 (invariably most other teams have all rounders as well so it's effectively 5 bowlers). With 4 bowlers India just runs out of steam too quickly, and that 6th batsmen really only covers for a draw ultimately (and Rohit doesn't even do that). You can re-visit games like Joburg, Wellington, Southampton etc to see that an extra bowler for India would have balanced the workload and potentially helped bowl opposition teams out and give us a greater chance of victory. I'm only advocating 5 bowlers (2 of which are all rounders again, so its not 5 genuine bowlers) for overseas conditions, In India sure you can do with 2 spinners and 2 token pacers which should be more than enough for India to win at home.

Yadav and Bhuvi are perfectly decent bowlers. India just need them fit/to pick them.

 

[Riggins]

I'd agree with this. If the plan is to stack all rounders the likelihood is that they're not likely to be that effective overseas anyway. Mitch Marsh and Glenn Maxwell are good examples of this in the UAE. If you're frontline bowlers (Johnson, Siddle, Starc and Lyon) aren't taking wickets in unfavourable and unfamiliar conditions then how can you expect an all rounder to perform in the same conditions. Ultimately you end up weakening the batting without gaining any improvements with the ball (in the UAE there was at least the excuse that you needed to balance workload due to the heat though).

For India the likelihood of Jadeja or Binny taking wickets in Australia isn't particularly high. India's best chance to win is to stack the batting, score 500+ and let scoreboard pressure do the rest. If India had managed to get 500 in this Test I'd put them as strong favourites to win or at least draw with how unstable our batting can be.

I'd also say that Australia's best chance to win in unfavourable conditions is to do the same and you can probably go back to our win in Sri Lanka as a good example of that (Shane Watson doesn't really count as a bit part all rounder since he actually warranted his spot as a batsmen at the time). If the all rounder actually warrants his place as a front line batsman or bowler then he should obviously be selected.

 

[Gnske]

That pronunciation of Labuschagne from Slats was absolutely dire.

 

[Spikey]

Healy forcing Nicholas to do the keeping drill was a rare good moment

 

[the big bambino]

Commentators get a bagging on here and I guess its justified as they tend to ruin the spectator's experience. What do people think of Drew Morphett? Coz I absolutely hate him. He has 2 facets to his personality. Either an ingratiating crawler or an annoying prick: "Gee, if Australia loses another wicket here they might be in a bit of trouble". Really! Ya don't say you ****in' drop kick. And the voice. Begging for a ball gag. The look of him too. Pudgy dwarf. A criminal offence to the ear and the eye.

 

[weldone]

Dhoni has missed a trick here by not opening with Umesh.

 

[Spikey]

hard to believe that guy averages 29 in the shield