*Official* Australia in Sri Lanka 2016

[Dan]

I hope it's sarcastic. If not, what a steaming pile of utter rubbish.

 

[Adders]

The only reason Australia were an ATG side back in the early 00s was because they played positive and attacking cricket while the ROW were playing negative and defensive cricket. That is what separates the great teams from the mediocre/crap ones.

In fact the main reason Australia lost his was because they were playing such cowardly defensive cricket especially Keefe and Nevill. WTF were they thinking trying to play for a draw. If Australia want to win in SC, they need to get back to their aggressive and positive mindset of the earlier generations.

What a bizarre post.

Australia were an ATG side because they had a team full of ATG players.

You're criticising Okeefe and Neville not going for the win??? How do you suggest they did that when Okeefe could not run between the wickets?? When the 8th wicket went down the win was not realistically on the table, that horse had well and truly bolted mate. So then in a match like this you have a decision to make, do you risk it all on a 500:1 shot and go down in any irrelevant display of blasting or do you try and salvage a draw which is the best outcome you're gonna get. Australia rightly took the latter option.

In a way though I do feel any totally undeserved criticism (of the tactics) has been brought upon themselves so I only have a limited sympathy even though I think it is wrong. Way too much sprooking in the past about always going for the win etc etc.

Edit:

Oh he was being sarcastic??

 

[morgieb]

Of course it was sarcasm ffs

 

[Black_Warrior]

Am I the only one who read the last few pages of this thread blaming Murali and Tillkeratne's defensiveness for the 0-3 loss in 04?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Lol not sure how you guys thought that post could have been serious


seriously though I don't get the point

all I'm saying was that I agree that excessively defensive cricket by SL in that series, which was apparent even when they were ahead in the game, definitely didn't help them

 

[Compton]

Murali was a chucker anyway...

*jumps for cover*

 

[Gnske]

I can't tell whats worse, the way this thread has gone or the state of the spirit of cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

I wasn't saying he was dominating the aussies the whole time, but in the first innings of those matches he almost ran through them. The aussies were good enough to not fail twice in a row to him though.

I brought in the numbers to show that it was far from a rout - not sure how to show that simply without the numbers. Maybe I should bring up the 6/59 in the galle test and other examples instead?

Equating Warnes record in India where he was barely effective to a series in which Murali was played well by the Aussies but still managed to be very effective while getting little support is a huge stretch imo, but I'm sure you know that as well.

The point is that even great bowlers occasionally get beaten. The other wickets he took and his overall numbers don't change that he didn't take the key wickets at the times of the game when SL really needed him to.

I watched most of the series and the 6-fer at Galle is a reasonable example of what I'm talking about, actually. The initial breakthroughs were provided by everyone else then Martyn and Lehmann put on runs. Murali noticeably backed off despite the ball absolutely ragging early in the game. Someone else broke the partnership, Lehmann had a moment and then Murali took the rest of his wickets in a rush at the end.

The Aussies had been cleaned up but their tactics were pretty clear; play shots early and make him back off because early in your innings is where he nails you. This was noted and commented on by Steve Waugh after the '99 tour. Murali was a fabulous bowler so he's going to take wickets especially at home. But the tactics against him meant that when the game was there to be won, the Aussies loaded up and made the other wickets he took basically irrelevent in the context of the series. That's how they won, despite Murali's numbers being really good.

The old adage of 'it's not how it's how many' is limited. In terms of getting the W, also matters when you do well. On this occasion, when it mattered in the context of the series, Murali was able to be beaten.

EDIT: I should point out that the tactics needed excellent execution too. You saw in the dismissals at Galle of guys like Hayden and Gilchrist where it didn't come off. But, again, the intent was clear.

 

[GotSpin]

Really enjoyed this match.

Such a shame to lose it but the attempted blockathon was great viewing. We were cheering every dot ball when we saw the draw was on the cards. It was quite refreshing to see those guys knuckle down and go for the draw when we usually blast away for a few overs and it all crumbles. Nevertheless, Credit to the Sri Lankans.

Anyway, it really annoys me when Marsh is up in arms, declaring he has no idea how we can win. The answer is obvious and and has always been the case when we play overseas. More tour matches. We just can't expect to parachute in and expect to handle foreign conditions. The same bull **** runs with our approach to playing India or England - Playing with duke balls or having some random turning pitch at the academy doesn't make up for time in the middle.

 

[91Jmay]

Yeah, if you want to win in Asia maybe don't play a JAMODI tri series in front of empty crowds and get there a few weeks earlier to play multiple tour matches.

 

[Shady Slim]

i have always thought tour matches should be played against nearby minnow opposition

eg tourists of the windies play namibia
indian tourists could do afghanistan
pakistan's tourists could do the uae
australia's tourists could do new zealand
south africa's could do kenya (or even do zimbabwe at this rate)
and england have a multitude of options... ireland, scotland, the netherlands.
etc

 

[OverratedSanity]

In both the UAE tour in 2014 and in this match, I think Lyon has contributed just as much to the Australian loss as the inept batting, if not more. He's very good on pitches where he gets good bounce off a good length, but he just hasn't adjusted to these lower pitches at all yet. The help was certainly there for him to exploit, but he got milked too easily.

He bowled way too much shite especially on day 3.

 

[Top_Cat]

His record in all 4 innings of Tests is remarkably similar, 30-32 depending on the knock in question. You'd expect spinners to be better in the 3rd/4th dig, I guess. Is that a reflection of his role in the team (support the quicks) or that he's not good enough to take advantage of good conditions?

Myself, watching him bowl in the team's second-dig, I wonder whether he's taken Rowdy's advice too much to heart with regards spinning up and big. He's like the anti-Panesar as far as variation goes. Went for 4/over despite not being smacked for too many boundaries. Struggling with pressure building? Trying to do too much?

 

[Dan]

The Australian coaching apparatus find some incredibly creative ways of ruining spinners.

 

[Furball]

His record in all 4 innings of Tests is remarkably similar, 30-32 depending on the knock in question. You'd expect spinners to be better in the 3rd/4th dig, I guess. Is that a reflection of his role in the team (support the quicks) or that he's not good enough to take advantage of good conditions?

Myself, watching him bowl in the team's second-dig, I wonder whether he's taken Rowdy's advice too much to heart with regards spinning up and big. He's like the anti-Panesar as far as variation goes. Went for 4/over despite not being smacked for too many boundaries. Struggling with pressure building? Trying to do too much?

*disclaimer* I didn't see a single ball of the Test.

If he 's going at 4 an over and not getting smashed for boundaries then I'd be having a look at field settings.

 

[Migara]

*disclaimer* I didn't see a single ball of the Test. If he 's going at 4 an over and not getting smashed for boundaries then I'd be having a look at field settings.

It was clever exploitation of length. Good length ball were either tucked behind square by going back or driven through midwicket coming on to the front foot. Additionally SL batsmen were peppering the square leg boundary with sweeps. Basically when that happened, he had to go wide out side off, and then cover drives started to take place. The important thing was the same good length ball was chosen to play back or front according to batsmen wishes, not according to bowlers.

 

[viriya]

I wonder whether the SL can win the series.. I don't see another Kusal Mendis-type innings happening anytime soon, which means all the batsmen need to step up, but I'm not sure if they are able to, especially the top order vs Starc.

 

[91Jmay]

The field settings were a shambles from Smith.

 

[viriya]

Hopefully Kusal doesn't turn into another Chamara Silva... age is on Kusal's side so that helps..

 

[TheJediBrah]

i have always thought tour matches should be played against nearby minnow opposition

eg tourists of the windies play namibia
indian tourists could do afghanistan
pakistan's tourists could do the uae
australia's tourists could do new zealand
south africa's could do kenya (or even do zimbabwe at this rate)
and england have a multitude of options... ireland, scotland, the netherlands.
etc

That's a really good idea

Not sure if Namibia is too close to the Windies but that would genuinely give minnows more decent cricket at least. I guess the main opposition would be the major boards not wanting to do it.