*Official* India Tour of Australia 2018/19

[TheJediBrah]

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

lol how did I miss this.

Haven't seen enough of classic CW kiwi posting lately

 

[vcs]

to be fair michael clarke had a big hand in that. that was a big, juicy carrot he dangled with that second innings declaration.

I recall that game fondly whenever people talk about his heroic efforts, because Australia lost 12 wickets for the match and declared twice. India was never winning that series.

That's true and easy to say in hindsight, but I'm sure they'd have been pooping their pants just a bit when India had about 100 to get in a session with 7-8 wickets in hand.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I recall that game fondly whenever people talk about his heroic efforts, because Australia lost 12 wickets for the match and declared twice. India was never winning that series.

more than half those wickets were because of overly-aggressive declaration batting too

 

[Burgey]

Do international cricketers think like this though?

I’m pretty sure they have a look at where their team is at, like anyone would. Do you really think Tendulkar thought Srinath and Kimble would run through Australia in 99, as an example?

This fella has scored quality, attritional runs in a low scoring series. He hasn’t done a Kohli-Adelaide where there’s thousands being made, he’s done it three out of four tests with the series on the line, and two of them on tough batting decks. It’s an extra layer of pressure when the series is tight, low scoring and you have a shot at making history. This has been brilliant stuff. Enough to secure his place in folk lore for good, surely.

 

[Burgey]

Can’t believe I’m copping **** on here for actually praising an Indian batsman ffs. Pull your collective heads in.

 

[Spark]

That's true and easy to say in hindsight, but I'm sure they'd have been pooping their pants just a bit when India had about 100 to get in a session with 7-8 wickets in hand.

maybe it's just the 4th innings thing but i did always feel that one wicket would trigger a panic

 

[Burner]

Burner, my point is as ***** said - Kohli et al were batting almost in vacuums because they were a snowflake’s chance in hell of winning before a ball was bowled. On this occasion India came over with a good attack and were facing an unproven (being charitable) batting outfit. So it was game on. If Pujara had what’s been a standard Pujara non-Asian series then Australia would have won this series. He’s miles in front.

I really don't know how to respond to that. As sportsmen I don't think they think they have a snowflake's chance of winning a game and if they did, might as well not turn up. And if your argument on rating one over the other is that one batsman thinks that they are going to lose so 'might as well score some runs' and the other thinks that they are a genuine shot so scores the runs, I think it's entirely hindsight based but maybe I can understand it enough to disagree.

 

[stephen]

Who knew that the turmoil around the sandpaper fiasco and the distrust fostered between the players and cricket Australia during the contract negotiations might have had an impact on the on- field performance of the bowlers.

That and constantly being out back on the field within a day of bundling out the opposition.

That and the injuries to all three quicks at the end of last summer.

There are plenty of compounding factors. In isolation I'd say that this test is an aberration. But the same pattern happened over the course of this entire series. The non- performance of the batsmen must be breeding a toxic dressing room. Cummins in particular must be furious with the batsmen.

A good quality spinner, a bowler averaging in the low 20s and two bowlers averaging around 30 is usually considered a pretty decent attack. Certainly it's as good as most other attacks in history.

I agree that this bowling attack has underperformed but they're demoralized and in Melbourne were physically drained over the course of that test. And most of that has been the fault of the batsmen who aren't doing their job.

It doesn't help that Langer and co are picking batsmen who are out of form, averaging mid-30s in first class cricket and aren't even the best players in their side.

The reason S Marsh is so odious to most fans is that the side around him is so bad that being the experienced player it feels like he should be averaging 50. He's not that good, but we wouldn't notice so much if the other guys were performing.

Based on shield form over the last few seasons, this should be the top order:

Burns
Harris
Khawaja
S Marsh
Maxwell
Head

Which isn't ideal but is going to make more runs than the current lot. Renshaw would be on sidelines.

We need to start picking the best performing batsmen.

 

[TheJediBrah]

maybe it's just the 4th innings thing but i did always feel that one wicket would trigger a panic

I was pretty worried. Mostly annoyed because if they did chase it, they absolutely would not have deserved the win.

Like NZ at Brisbane in 2001. Aus declared twice (including like 2/100 in the 2nd dig) and NZ nearly chased it.

 

[Burgey]

No this isn’t my point. My point is a series being tight, low scoring and potentially history making adds an extra layer of pressure and context which, imo, put his efforts ahead of the other blokes.

 

[Hicheal Michael]

Didn't McGrath start bowling wides (that weren't called) at the end of that game?

 

[stephen]

lol how did I miss this.

Haven't seen enough of classic CW kiwi posting lately

The kiwis would be better on a green top but the Aussies on a road/ turner.

 

[Hicheal Michael]

I’m pretty sure they have a look at where their team is at, like anyone would. Do you really think Tendulkar thought Srinath and Kimble would run through Australia in 99, as an example?

This fella has scored quality, attritional runs in a low scoring series. He hasn’t done a Kohli-Adelaide where there’s thousands being made, he’s done it three out of four tests with the series on the line, and two of them on tough batting decks. It’s an extra layer of pressure when the series is tight, low scoring and you have a shot at making history. This has been brilliant stuff. Enough to secure his place in folk lore for good, surely.

I don't dispute your point, subcontinent teams have always struck me as having unfounded optimism for some reason.

 

[Burner]

No this isn’t my point. My point is a series being tight, low scoring and potentially history making adds an extra layer of pressure and context which, imo, put his efforts ahead of the other blokes.

Yes, yes. But what is the primary reason behind this series being tight and low scoring? Is it by chance the Indian bowling attack?

 

[TheJediBrah]

Didn't McGrath start bowling wides (that weren't called) at the end of that game?

dunno but Aus absolutely dominated the first 2 Tests and were denied by rain in both, then nearly lost the Perth Test. Would have been one of the most bizarre Test series results had NZ managed to pull a win out of their ass that series.

 

[Starfighter]

Yes, yes. But what is the primary reason behind this series being tight and low scoring? Is it by chance the Indian bowling attack?

Cause the bowling attack sure helped Pujara score those runs where no-one else was in Adelaide. And the standard of the Australian batting with Warner and Smith isn't providing a huge benefit to India they wouldn't normally have. And the pitches haven't been much better to bowl on (although providing a big toss advantage in the case of Melbourne).

 

[cnerd123]

So having a cruddy bowling attack makes it massively harder to score runs in the first match innings, when you haven't bowled? Yeah... no.

Nah not the first innings of the first Test, but if your bowling is **** then as the series progresses the batsmen find themselves constantly faced with massive scores and fresh opposing bowlers, and consequently their own output suffers. They would bat better if this weren't the case

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes, yes. But what is the primary reason behind this series being tight and low scoring? Is it by chance the Indian bowling attack?

Not the primary reason.

1. Pitches (mostly for first 2 Tests)
2. Australia's batting "situation"
3. India's bowlers

 

[Grasshopper]

lol how did I miss this.

Haven't seen enough of classic CW kiwi posting lately

But I've seen plenty of other patronising Aussies in the meantime so I guess we're even lol

 

[Starfighter]

Nah not the first innings of the first Test, but if your bowling is **** then as the series progresses the batsmen find themselves constantly faced with massive scores and fresh opposing bowlers, and consequently their own output suffers. They would bat better if this weren't the case

Funny how India's cruddy bowling attack in 2014/15 saw their batting be generally good, if anything improving a little as the series progressed.