*Official* India Tour of Australia 2018/19

[Daemon]

The other interesting parallel is both sides having better bowling attacks than batting line ups. That said, Pujara has been immense in this series and good on him for working on his technique (and good on the coaching staff too who seem to get constant ridicule, mostly justified though) and ensuring he has enough scoring options to make his strength in occupying the crease, be the difference between the sides.

That said, people are under rating what Kohli did in 2014 here massively. Plus he is one bloke who seems to have that certain zone that he just hits sometimes. He did that in 2014 in Australia after that nightmare tour of England. He did that this time in England. And I feel sorry for the Aussies when they tour India next as I feel he is going to do the same then.

And on the whole short and full thing, the strategy was understandable but ideally you wanna mix it up a bit. And going always full or always short is betraying a basic lack of cricketing nous by whoever it was who made those decisions. It need not be and should not be a binary thing. Its like a batsman playing exclusively off the front foot or the back foot. Either way, they would be wrong.

best post in the last 10 pages or so

I'm glad you recognise your own lack of intelligence. I think you fail to remember that the India vs Aus series in 2017 went down to the last test and Australia's bowlers were able to take a lot of wickets in that series.

In fact it was Cheshwar ****ing Pujara who was the difference between the batting sides in that series as well.

Nah, no one gave a chance to Australia before the series. His runs were indeed pressure free according to Burgey's theory.

However, every run that Smith scored after India collapsed against SOK in India's first innings of that first Test was under lots of pressure, because he realised he had a shot at taking down a side that had been more dominant at home than 95% of all cricket teams ever.

 

[JBMAC]

Not sure where it was spoken about but there were some drastic changes to Australia ODI side obviously taking into account resting the 3 quicks. But for a long time I did believe the Australian batting was to hit and miss from T20 so Lynn/Short left out and they also left out Head (I'm happy as I would like him to focus on his test cricket but he only goes back to the bash and 50-over cricket should suit him most at this stage) Call-up of Siddle pretty interesting to say the least....

How the hell do we get rid of the Marsh brothers. It must be costing them(Marsh Bros) a fortune in bribe money to stay in Aussie sides

 

[JBMAC]

Not sure where it was spoken about but there were some drastic changes to Australia ODI side obviously taking into account resting the 3 quicks. But for a long time I did believe the Australian batting was to hit and miss from T20 so Lynn/Short left out and they also left out Head (I'm happy as I would like him to focus on his test cricket but he only goes back to the bash and 50-over cricket should suit him most at this stage) Call-up of Siddle pretty interesting to say the least....

How the hell do we get rid of the Marsh brothers. It must be costing them(Marsh Bros) a fortune in bribe money to stay in Aussie sides

 

[mr_mister]

Don't think they were underdogs to this extent in 99 though. This team is behind Eng, Ind, SA, NZ and maybe even Pakistan.

After losing 2 of their first 3 they were pretty long odds

 

[StephenZA]

Nix on discussion of '99 WC.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I'm a big, big fan of Hazlewood, and genuinely believe that he can be an ATG. High expectations of him, but he needs time away from the test arena for a while. Bowling coach (?) needs to iron out a couple of technical flaws that have crept into his bowling over time

 

[Daemon]

Dropping Haze is crazy talk. Bowled beautifully for large parts of this series.

Starc is the closest to being dropped and he really shouldn't be, considering the replacements available.

 

[SeamUp]

Dropping Haze is crazy talk. Bowled beautifully for large parts of this series.

Starc is the closest to being dropped and he really shouldn't be, considering the replacements available.

Not sure what there is to lose giving Jhye Richardson a debut v Sri Lanka. He definitely can make the grade.

 

[Spark]

it'd be more resting than dropping tbh. i fully expect them to be lining up with the new ball at edgbaston in august. but, as this series has showed somewhat, we do need to be looking and developing other options, both to keep them on their toes but also because fatigue really is a thing and the ashes schedule this year is almost ludicrous in how compressed it is.

 

[Spark]

best post in the last 10 pages or so



Nah, no one gave a chance to Australia before the series. His runs were indeed pressure free according to Burgey's theory.

However, every run that Smith scored after India collapsed against SOK in India's first innings of that first Test was under lots of pressure, because he realised he had a shot at taking down a side that had been more dominant at home than 95% of all cricket teams ever.

i mean that sunilz post was a very obvious troll, which is why i decided not to let this thread descend into yet another smith vs kohli debate. but yeah, the universe of possibilities rather expands when you suddenly find yourself 150-odd runs in front in the first innings, with two dangerous spinners on a pitch that was already going sideways.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Yeah it's looking at resting him, with the aim being that he is in peak form for the Ashes.

Also psychologically it could be a good thing for him. To know that other bowlers could take his place if he doesn't perform

 

[Daemon]

Ah, I misunderstood you then, although I'm still not convinced by the idea. He'll just be playing BBL in the meantime all the way through to mid Feb which surely won't help his Test game? I think I'd rather have him train with the squad and play the Tests. The SL tour will be over before the next Shield game.

He'll play some T20s either way, there's no escaping that, but I'd much rather have him spend most of the rest of his summer playing the longer version.

 

[Manee]

I'm sure Starc has been a bit unlucky. I haven't watched it live so please feel free to ignore this but in the highlights he bowled a 150kph reverse swinging yorker which was driven for four. And often throughout the series had edges through the slips.

 

[Manee]

Dropping Haze is crazy talk. Bowled beautifully for large parts of this series.

Starc is the closest to being dropped and he really shouldn't be, considering the replacements available.

Bit of rest might be beneficial.

 

[quincywagstaff]

I think Starc's been hurt by Hazlewood's drop-off in potency and accuracy. Starc has always been patchy in Tests and it was vital that JH be there to provide relentless stability and pressure.

Now that JH has dropped off in the past 12 months, Starc's weaknesses as a Test player - particularly that he's far inferior a Test new ball bowler to a ODI bowler - are becoming more obvious.

 

[StephenZA]

I think Hazelwood and Starc have been disappointing, not because they have not had occasional good spell or bowled some good balls. But they have not been consistent, and they have not really bowled those good spells as a unit. Feels like a bunch of individuals rather than a pack like you felt in the past. Cummins has been excellent.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Re: the Oz ODI selections, it is staggering how much they've fallen away since the last WC. It seems like theyrejhst picking players at random and hoping a returning Smith & Warner will solve all their problems.

If it was held in Oz, there's a chance they could get away with it but in English conditions, I give them zero chance.

 

[Furball]

yeah i think it's entirely based on an incredibly naive statistical analysis which shows that - shock - wins are correlated with 5fors. and yes, you have to take 20 wickets to win a game, but it completely ignores the much more complex and subtle web of interdependencies which makes test cricket such a rich game in the first place.

and hell, if merely having good bowlers was enough to win lots of tests, then pakistan would have barely lost a series.

Having good bowlers ensures that your Tests will have lots of results (I'm not counting draws as a result for this post)

Having a strong batting lineup ensures that you won't lose a lot of games.

McNamara made a great post on this years ago. It's batting which allows a team to become consistent.

See: Pakistan c. 2010 Vs India c. 2010.

 

[Anil]

Has Australia ever won when they were the underdogs? I can't ever recall something like that happening although I've never watched a WC in which they were not stupidly strong.

1987

 

[Anil]

Done

Pujara was dropped against England & SA and was saved in the first test by our failure to review

He went on to score hundreds on roads

Kohli is levels above

yes this sounds a lot like the tendulkar-dravid argument...pujara is a terrific player but kohli is just a significantly superior batsman...