modern australian batsmen play spin, particularly finger spin, fine in australia. kuldeep et al are outliers and frankly irrelevant with regards to the result of the series - it is fast bowlers that win you series here, as it is fast bowlers that have won this. not kuldeep yadav and jadeja. they get milked to death if the fast bowlers can't apply the sort of necessary pressure (which the indian fast bowlers have).
i mean it's pretty obvious no? only really cummins performed to standard across the series. moreover, the quality of the indian bowling group in terms of plans, applying pressure as a bowling unit and bowling in partnerships was vastly superior. that's probably why so many australian batsmen were able to get starts but got asphyxiated out of the crease without going on with it.
Hard to tell, because obviously they bowled to completely different batsmen and the tosses in Melbourne and then Sydney were very harsh on the Aussies. I think it was close, and I don't mind if anyone thinks the Indian quicks bowled better, but you have to keep in mind the workloads the Aussies went through in the last 2 Tests and how that affects you physically, especially given the short turn around between games.
Ashwin was their best in Adelaide. Kuldeep here. Everything else you say doesn’t apply to this side. It can’t play finger spin and they would make Madan Lal and Gharvri look decent.
i think india outbowled australia in adelaide too though. just the general intensity and consistency of the pressure applied seemed higher - the australian bowlers always felt more likely to bowl a bad ball every now and then that would release the pressure, whereas india could and did bowl long stretches where easy runs were impossible, drawing bad shots out of set batsmen.
ashwin was not their best bowler in adelaide, what on earth.
Maybe I'm underrating them a bit, but I think you're undervaluing how bad Australia's batsmen were. It'd be nice to blame their failures purely on "Indian bowlers creating great pressure" but I think that's giving them too much credit. The Aus batting was arse.
Same thing, Ashwin got wickets in Adelaide because the Aus batsmen played him like r*****s. Some of the shots they played were just bafflingly dumb.
how is it giving them too much credit? that's what they did. bumrah was exceptional, and his support was consistently accurate and hostile with the exception of the first session at perth. the number of australian batsmen dismissed between 20 and 40 can't really be explained otherwise; even mediocre batsmen generally can cash in every now and then when set against average-standard bowling.
yes, they played bafflingly dumb shots because they felt they needed to score runs, which they felt because...
Hmm, i was thinking how much the perceived difference between the attacks was down to the batting quality they were bowling to.
Do you even watch? Your second para is not my argument. It is your misunderstanding of it. I have not devalued anyone’s bowling. I just said their bowlers then could beat our side now.
No i mean it's giving the Australian batsmen too much credit. Like saying "they got to 30 and played stupid shots because the bowlers were all over them" rather than "they played stupid shots because they were impatient, dumb and lacked the skills".
Yeah i reckon we're going around in circles here
i'm honestly surprised that this idea that india had good plans and executed them extremely well is proving controversial; this is exactly what australia has done to opposition batting lineups in australia for years and years now, and what made clarke's australia so utterly dominant at home even with a weak team.
Yes, India were much better as a group and I'd say they were generally on par or better individually, but it did help them they were bowling to batsmen who looked beaten when they arrived at the crease. They were way better at plans and tying down the batsmen and not being afraid to go negative and bowl well wide of the stumps if needed. In contrast we had Starc who still can't do line and length and tries to blast batsmen out, and more worryingly Hazlewood was doing the same thing. He's much better when he bowls within himself, close to the stumps and hits the seam, whereas he was too often wide of the stumps trying to bowl the Jimmy Anderson special. And he kept offering up friendly half volleys, I think due to trying to bowl too fast.
both can be true tbf. mostly i'm just objecting to the idea that you can put fast bowlers in who wouldn't make a sheffield shield team and somehow expect to win test matches
It's not controversial. No one's disagreeing with it, at all.
You've lost me
