***Official*** Australia in India 2017

[Son Of Coco]

Australia did phenomenally well at playing the line and not the turning ball. Whether or not it was deliberate is a question you could ask, but looking at some of the replays, and Warner and Smith smirking as another one turned past the bat, I assumed there had been some thought put into not chasing the turning ball.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Bad spin bowling, yes, but not because of the reasons you mentioned. Jadeja's problem was not the length but his line considering the massive turn he was getting. He was always bowling it a bit too outside the off stump when he should have been straighter to get the edges by balls that were ripping past. And Ashwin kept releasing the pressure with too many boundary balls that were too short for this track.

But when he pitches it outside leg, his straight one is less effective as it will be heading down leg side, and the ball is more likely to be pitching outside leg so the LBW is out of question.

Being fuller, while maybe leaking more runs, would allow the LBW to stay in play and less time for the batsman to react to how the ball behaves, and catch the edge off the big turning deliveries.

It's not ironic at all. We've always said dustbowls usually backfire on us but no one listens.

Does it "backfire"? Maybe it's brought the two attacks closer together, but it'd be the first time in a fair while (since 2012?) that they've lost one.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah all our pre-series posting training paid off

Lol.. I shud ve said "your" team

 

[vcs]

I expected the Bangladesh test to be excellent preparation tbh. Not sure why that didn't help.

It did help though.. they played well in the first game in Rajkot and took the moral honours in that game.

The mental fatigue of playing 7 Tests back-to-back in alien conditions did them in as the series wore on, I felt.

That is where Australia have an advantage, this time it could be the Indians who are a bit worn out from all the recent Test cricket.

 

[Victor Ian]

Firstly - India are not mentally shot and Australia are not favourites for the series. This was a once off - you do not win so many games if one loss breaks your confidence. India will consign this to the bin and move on.

What confuses me most here is this discussion of Australia playing the line versus India playing for the spin. How did that come about? It doesn't make sense because India is the model for how to play spin and their players were all playing for the spin. I would have expected Australia to have been playing for spin as well. If they spent the whole time the last month prepping for the line, that is a ballsy move. For this test, it seems genius. Is this going to backfire for the remaining tests if they are more traditional pitches?

I guess playing the line might be due to analysis of how wickets are lost. Perhaps Ashwin and Co get lots of wickets bowled and LBW by spinning and then slipping int he non spinner. Perhaps Australia took out LBW by playing the line and were prepared to give catches away instead, as at least catches required India to complete the wicket.

Anyways, someone make sense of why Australia played the line while India played the spin. Why would India have played for spin against two spinners they don't respect, who supposedly can't spin it?

 

[cnerd123]

Firstly - India are not mentally shot and Australia are not favourites for the series. This was a once off - you do not win so many games if one loss breaks your confidence. India will consign this to the bin and move on.

What confuses me most here is this discussion of Australia playing the line versus India playing for the spin. How did that come about? It doesn't make sense because India is the model for how to play spin

Therein lies your problem - trying to draw a conclusion from a false premise

 

[OverratedSanity]

Heh yep. This Indian team collapsing to spin is nothing new.

 

[indiaholic]

Australia did phenomenally well at playing the line and not the turning ball. Whether or not it was deliberate is a question you could ask, but looking at some of the replays, and Warner and Smith smirking as another one turned past the bat, I assumed there had been some thought put into not chasing the turning ball.

100% a plan. Smith said in a press conference that they wanted to make sure that they were beaten only on one edge.

 

[Victor Ian]

Therein lies your problem - trying to draw a conclusion from a false premise

OK, bad premise, but the confusion remains. Is the whole key to being a good player of spin, just playing the line then? Then I'd be the worlds premier player, because I was all good until the ball moved from where it should have been.

 

[Daemon]

OK, bad premise, but the confusion remains. Is the whole key to being a good player of spin, just playing the line then? Then I'd be the worlds premier player, because I was all good until the ball moved from where it should have been.

It wouldn't work on your average pitch though.

 

[Victor Ian]

I guess, for clarity, tell me who was a good player of spin, and why they were good at playing spin. It sounds like playing a line or for spin, is a premeditated thought that would be limited. Kind of like deciding I am hitting a 6 before the bowler has bowled the ball.

 

[indiaholic]

You need a different plan on a pitch where the spin isn't as abundant.

 

[indiaholic]

I guess, for clarity, tell me who was a good player of spin, and why they were good at playing spin. It sounds like playing a line or for spin, is a premeditated thought that would be limited. Kind of like deciding I am hitting a 6 before the bowler has bowled the ball.

Pujara is a good player of spin. Comes out of the crease after the ball leaves the bowlers hand, if it is flighted. Goes back to cut if it is short. Doesn't come down the track to attack and is happy to defend if the ball dips. Soft hands which allow him to adjust to sharp deviations after pitching plus stops the ball from carrying to the close in fielders.

 

[Motorwada]

But when he pitches it outside leg, his straight one is less effective as it will be heading down leg side, and the ball is more likely to be pitching outside leg so the LBW is out of question.

Being fuller, while maybe leaking more runs, would allow the LBW to stay in play and less time for the batsman to react to how the ball behaves, and catch the edge off the big turning deliveries.

Does it "backfire"? Maybe it's brought the two attacks closer together, but it'd be the first time in a fair while (since 2012?) that they've lost one.

Closest comparison is the WorldT20 opener against NZ I guess. We had whitewashed Australia 3-0 and then won the Asia cup undefeated and were big favorites going into the tournament. Even the 1st innings bowling performance could have been sad to be ok but then.

As far as test matches go pure bunsens have been pretty rare. 2 against SA and 1 in Delhi against Oz in 2013. While we won all 3 we were also bundled out for pretty low scores. All 3 day matches. There was a sequence of 5 3-day matches in India which included the aforementioned which led to calls of Indian pitches being pure bunsens but they include Sachin's farewell series as well which were flattish pitches and them being 3 day matches was more to do with West Indies's crappiness.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea there are a lot of different things to playing spin, but they essentially boil down to -

A) Decisive footwork
B) Knowing your scoring areas
C) Willingness to leave/defend/be beaten repeatedly.

In these conditions, their plan to Jadeja was solid. Come forward, so that if he doesn't want to be hit on the full, he will bowl a length that will usually see the ball go over the stumps. Play within the line to deliveries outside off, so if it spins past the bat your stumps are not at risk, and if it doesn't you have it covered. And then pick off runs from when he drops too short/overpitches/bowls too straight.

 

[Burner]

Forgive my ignorance but wasn't Sehwag supposed to be a batsman who had no footwork yet he's claimed by many as a great player of spin? How did he do that?

 

[Spark]

Australia did phenomenally well at playing the line and not the turning ball. Whether or not it was deliberate is a question you could ask, but looking at some of the replays, and Warner and Smith smirking as another one turned past the bat, I assumed there had been some thought put into not chasing the turning ball.

It's definitely deliberate since they spent tons of time talking about doing that beforehand and talked about it afterwards too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Forgive my ignorance but wasn't Sehwag supposed to be a batsman who had no footwork yet he's claimed by many as a great player of spin? How did he do that?

He had poor footwork against pace but phenomenal footwork against spin. Less pace on the ball meant he went fully back/fully forward better than pretty much any player.

 

[Spark]

Forgive my ignorance but wasn't Sehwag supposed to be a batsman who had no footwork yet he's claimed by many as a great player of spin? How did he do that?

He had great footwork against spin.

2nd Test: Sri Lanka v India at Galle, Jul 31-Aug 3, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Spikey]

From the SCG test a year ago. Memories...

And Warnie plays his hand
"I still think there's room for (Smitteh) to be the second spinner"

No surprise he brought it up in this game. Really hates O'Keefe.

also said sok had barely spun one today. he's so predictable

Yeah he dropped a few not-so-subtle lines about how he apparently gets a massive advantage from playing half his games at the SCG before the day's play started as well, and then went on to call him a T20 bowler. Then in the break he led a segment about how spinners should look to spin the ball first and then work on accuracy from there. Transparent agenda all day.

To be fair, that stuff in the Cricket Show is his consistent mantra rather than being SOK related.

It felt like it was designed to denigrate MacGill as well -- "second spinners should spin the ball big", i.e. Stuey was never more than a second spinner because he only had the big rip; "second spinners only play in helpful conditions", i.e. Stuey your average is inflated (deflated?) by not having to play on unhelpful decks like I did.

And I think someone posted on here years ago that SoK has never really been considered 'one of the boys' -- different interests away from the game that meant he never quite gelled with key figures, or something. And I don't think Warne has ever been a fan of those types.

"We used to joke around saying you didn't know which Steve O'Keefe was going to turn up. One week he'd be there in the change rooms reading a book on the Shaolin way with the Buddhist monks. You sort of didn't know what to expect."

Warne's right, O'Keefe can't read books when he could be boozing with the lads. Disgraceful decision to play him.

A spinner who doesn't spin the ball and contributes with bat and in the field? And he reads philosophy too?

I'm a fan.