*Official* India Tour of Australia 2018/19

[_00_deathscar]

I think he’s faced some ridiculous proportion of what the entire Australian top five or six has. Been a great series. I think as good as I’ve seen from a visiting batsman. Better than any other Indian batsman for mine, as this meant something in a series where his side could win. Something none before him can say. Blokes like Dravid in 04, Tendulkar at any time and Kohli last time here we’re really filling their boots in forlorn causes. Same with Vaughan in the 2001 Ashes. This is different. Only Cook in recent times has done anything similar

Pujara has been absolutely excellent, no doubt about it, and his tour deserves to be up there with Dravid, Tendulkar, Kohli etc's respective exploits vs Australia, perhaps even higher.
But one of the reasons India won is because they regularly took 20 wickets. How many times did the previous teams take 20 wickets regularly vs Australia?

 

[Burner]

This is not a difficult concept to grasp, but I will try to spell it out for you in slightly simpler terms.

There was no way Tendulkar in 99 was going to be on the winning end of the series against that Australian side. Likewise Kohli last time. Same with Vaughan in 03. This effort by Pujara, delivering at his most productive outside the SC in a tight series has been better than any of them. Only other Indian batsman to do it here would be Dravid in 04, but Australia lacked McGrath and Warne that one around. This time they had their first choice attack. He’s easily been the difference between the sides. Bloke has been enormous.

I thought Kohli would score heavily again this series, but tbh aside from the Perth ton which was top shelf, he’s not been anything spectacular. Then again, he hasn’t had to be. That’s largely down to Pujara, whose output has stood out this series like dogs balls.

He's not been the difference. The difference has been that India finally has bowlers that can get 20 wickets now. You don't think you would be saying the same thing about Kohli in 2014 if India had a similarly potent attack back then?

It's terrible posting imo. I have seen it perpetuated everywhere about batsmen scoring runs as in binary 'good' and 'bad' categories when they actually have no say in the matter. It's a team game.

 

[Burgey]

I think you’re missing my point, which is that he gets extra points in my book precisely because this has been a live series, whereas the other blokes have come here knowing they were going to cop a pizzling before a ball was bowled, or in dravids case that they had to bowl out a great batting side, which they lacked the ability to do.

Here it’s pretty much been on the line from the get go, and it’s been seriously attritional. He’s been fantastic. Just a crazy series.

 

[Grasshopper]

The interesting point here is that the Aussie bowling attack has been sort of taken apart/ground down over the course of four days. Perhaps their batting is indeed weak, but this was touted as the best bowling line up in the world. I I think this bowling line up is worse than the South Africans and Indians, and maybe even New Zealand.

Lyon aside, there's no doubt that New Zealand's bowling attack is currently superior to Australia's.

 

[cnerd123]

Pujara has been absolutely excellent, no doubt about it, and his tour deserves to be up there with Dravid, Tendulkar, Kohli etc's respective exploits vs Australia, perhaps even higher.
But one of the reasons India won is because they regularly took 20 wickets. How many times did the previous teams take 20 wickets regularly vs Australia?

I think Burgey's point is that Dravid, Sachin, Kohli etc. all came to Australia without a real shot at victory, and so the runs they scored during those tours -while impressive- were not scored in situations where there was a series at stake.

Pujara's runs in the first innings of the first Test set the platform for India to win that game, and from there on in, all his innings were played in a situations where they could actually win India the series. He didn't have the freedom of batting inconsequentially.

India's chances of winning, and indeed the victories, have been set up by the bowlers. But the fact that India could win is what -to Burgey- makes these runs more valuable.

 

[Starfighter]

Lyon aside, there's no doubt that New Zealand's bowling attack is currently superior to Australia's.

I seem to remember there being chatter about them being on par prior to the 2015 series. Proved not to be the case. I think the career averages do tell the tale.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He's not been the difference. The difference has been that India finally has bowlers that can get 20 wickets now. You don't think you would be saying the same thing about Kohli in 2014 if India had a similarly potent attack back then?

It's terrible posting imo. I have seen it perpetuated everywhere about batsmen scoring runs as in binary 'good' and 'bad' categories when they actually have no say in the matter. It's a team game.

Aus missing the 2 best bats, and the rest (of those selected) being terrible, probably just as big or a bigger role in them taking 20 wickets tbh. India definitely have a better bowling attack than maybe ever, but let's not pretend that's the only difference to previous tours

 

[Gnske]

Lyon aside, there's no doubt that New Zealand's bowling attack is currently superior to Australia's.

I'd take four Neil Wagners over this quartet, not entirely joking. Right up TJB and Burgey's alley too.

 

[Spark]

Lyon aside, there's no doubt that New Zealand's bowling attack is currently superior to Australia's.

[x] doubt

 

[Burgey]

He's not been the difference. The difference has been that India finally has bowlers that can get 20 wickets now. You don't think you would be saying the same thing about Kohli in 2014 if India had a similarly potent attack back then?

It's terrible posting imo. I have seen it perpetuated everywhere about batsmen scoring runs as in binary 'good' and 'bad' categories when they actually have no say in the matter. It's a team game.

Burner, India has brought over an attack which is indeed capable of taking 20 wickets against this batting line up, but Pujara is so far ahead of everyone else this series that you can comfortably say he’s been the difference between the two sides.

You contradict yourself by saying a batsman can’t be the difference between two sides but a bowler or bowlers can. It’s Richard standard posting. It doesn’t matter how well you bowl if you’re defending 150-250. You’ll get run down. It’s been a low-moderate run scoring series and he’s been the absolute stand out.

 

[Spark]

He's not been the difference. The difference has been that India finally has bowlers that can get 20 wickets now. You don't think you would be saying the same thing about Kohli in 2014 if India had a similarly potent attack back then?

It's terrible posting imo. I have seen it perpetuated everywhere about batsmen scoring runs as in binary 'good' and 'bad' categories when they actually have no say in the matter. It's a team game.

it's not terrible posting, it's completely in line with accepted wisdom in the game that weight of first innings runs is decisive and scoreboard pressure makes a difference. you reckon those indian seamers would be so destructive defending scores of 150ao?

 

[Starfighter]

Aus missing the 2 best bats, and the rest (of those selected) being terrible, probably just as big or a bigger role in them taking 20 wickets tbh. India definitely have a better bowling attack than maybe ever, but let's not pretend that's the only difference to previous tours

We're not just missing our two best bats but there's further bats better than those selected who aren't because of the Gnome, so it's really more like 4 (or more) best, and the thing with Khawaja's brother can't have helped his performance. It's a perfect storm of stupidity.

 

[SeamUp]

@jimmaxcricket
Australia has bowled more than a thousand balls in consecutive first innings for the first time since 1969/70 v South Africa at cape town and Durban.

 

[Spark]

They were outbowled on helpful pitches in SA as well. Also outbowled by SA in aus last time.


This aus attack bar Cummins is overrated. Has the worse average of all test playing nations in 2018.

well, fortunately, they played tests before 2018

this line of posting is so reactionary. you've all seen two bad innings and have decided that it obviates everything since 2015.

 

[social]

Lyon aside, there's no doubt that New Zealand's bowling attack is currently superior to Australia's.

Please

Williamson is the world’s best player but their bowlers are bog ordinary

 

[cnerd123]

Batting and bowling don't happen in a vacuum. Runs on the board make a bowling unit more potent. Bowling a team out cheaply makes it easier for the batsmen to bat.

If India didn't have this bowling attack, it would have been much harder for Pujara to score as much as he did, let alone for guys like Rahane, Rohit, Pant, etc. to make the contributions they did.

 

[Spark]

Batting and bowling don't happen in a vacuum. Runs on the board make a bowling unit more potent. Bowling a team out cheaply makes it easier for the batsmen to bat.

If India didn't have this bowling attack, it would have been much harder for Pujara to score as much as he did, let alone for guys like Rahane, Rohit, Pant, etc. to make the contributions they did.

test matches in australia are won by batting first and putting on a big score and then relying on scoreboard pressure to overcome the lack of responsiveness out of the pitch. this, i thought, was common knowledge.

 

[vcs]

NZ have a terrible record vs. Australia and SA, two teams that basically do everything that they do a little bit better. Have they won a series against SA since readmission and have they beaten Australia since the Hadlee days?

 

[Spark]

NZ have a terrible record vs. Australia and SA, two teams that basically do everything that they do a little bit better. Have they won a series against SA since readmission and have they beaten Australia since the Hadlee days?

hobart a few years back

 

[vcs]

hobart a few years back

Only drew the series though