Australia's Mental State

[stephen]

Don't think Neser is good enough to be considered as one of the four bowlers in a bowling attack, but since he plays most of his cricket at the Gabba, there was a case to drop either Green,Wade or Harris in the last test and have Paine bat at 6 and Neser bat at 7 and also contribute as a genuine 5th bowler.

Would have helped the Australian cause of distributing workload among a tired bowling attack, far efficiently.

Picking a 5th bowler and weakening the batting to do so sounds *insane*. Couldn't *possibly* work. You'd have to be mad to consider it.

 

[Smudge49]

Picking a 5th bowler and weakening the batting to do so sounds *insane*. Couldn't *possibly* work. You'd have to be mad to consider it.

When you concede 300 plus twice on Day 5 and mentioned batmen were going at an average of 30 at best then as surprising as it may seem, batting wasn't the real concern at that point.

 

[trundler]

Australia's worst problem is its batting. Playing one fewer batsman is the opposite of fixing that. The pace fetish is stupid and Neser should definitely get a go but only as a frontline bowler.

 

[stephen]

In case you were wondering I was being sarcastic because that's exactly what India did.

 

[Smudge49]

Australia's worst problem is its batting. Playing one fewer batsman is the opposite of fixing that. The pace fetish is stupid and Neser should definitely get a go but only as a frontline bowler.

Yes, in general it is the major problem, but in the last two tests that fragile Australian batting still gave the bowling attack more than 300 runs to play with in the last innings, which should be more than enough for any half decent bowling attack to if not win then at the very least defend.

Australian bowling line-up was shot out after bowling 130 overs in Sydney and the layover between Sydney and Gabba test was just a couple of days.

Starc was clutching his hamstring constantly and bowling waywardly in Sydney, yet the same bowling attack was persisted with. Green who is in the side as much for his bowling as his batting bowled a total of 3 overs on Day 5 at the Gabba.


On the other hand, even after being blown away for 36. India decided to go with a 5 man bowling attack through the rest of the series, which helped them eventually despite falling behind Australia's 1st inning totals both at Sydney and Brisbane.

 

[Smudge49]

In case you were wondering I was being sarcastic because that's exactly what India did.

Throw <--- this bad boy in there, the next time you do that.

 

[honestbharani]

Australia's worst problem is its batting. Playing one fewer batsman is the opposite of fixing that. The pace fetish is stupid and Neser should definitely get a go but only as a frontline bowler.

Ah yes, the same was told to me when I suggested we replace Virat with Jadeja after the 36 all out.

 

[the big bambino]

Jadeja a better bat than neser though

 

[Smudge49]

Jadeja a better bat than neser though

Thakur, Sundar? Eventually it's all about giving yourself every chance of taking those 20 wickets, without them you can't win a test. Headingley, Sydney, Brisbane were recent reminders of the same.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Yes, in general it is the major problem, but in the last two tests that fragile Australian batting still gave the bowling attack more than 300 runs to play with in the last innings, which should be more than enough for any half decent bowling attack to if not win then at the very least defend.

Nope. At SCG 450 was minimum par on that pitch (which was rightly downgraded by Boon) and that is what could have given the winning edge to the bowlers. Not to mention some previous resting time as well.

Even at Brisbane 400 was a given.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Thakur, Sundar? Eventually it's all about giving yourself every chance of taking those 20 wickets, without them you can't win a test. Headingley, Sydney, Brisbane were recent reminders of the same.

Heh, at Gabba, there was no choice really. Those were the guys left and they had to be played.

 

[the big bambino]

Thakur, Sundar? Eventually it's all about giving yourself every chance of taking those 20 wickets, without them you can't win a test. Headingley, Sydney, Brisbane were recent reminders of the same.

But we’ve won more tests with four bowlers. Sundar’s fc ave is better than neser’s. Thakur took Ashwin’s spot at 8. Whereas you’d have to bat neser at seven and push Paine to six. India have stronger batsmen in those spots and also at eight. They have the leverage to play 5 bowlers whereas we are better off with Green as our 5th bowler

Edit. As SS says India had little option but to play them anyway

 

[stephen]

I could understand if Pattinson was fit playing him at 7, but Neser is a step down from Patto with both bat and ball.

 

[Smudge49]

But we’ve won more tests with four bowlers. Sundar’s fc ave is better than neser’s. Thakur took Ashwin’s spot at 8. Whereas you’d have to bat neser at seven and push Paine to six. India have stronger batsmen in those spots and also at eight. They have the leverage to play 5 bowlers whereas we are better off with Green as our 5th bowler

Edit. As SS says India had little option but to play them anyway

India needed just a draw to retain the BGT at the Gabba. They could have hunkered down and played Sundar for Ashwin and gone in with six batsmen with Pant batting at 7.

However they took the aggressive approach and eventually it paid off, they sent Pant at 5 both at Sydney and Brisbane on the last day where they were looking to save those games.

These little read of the games and looking to play with the mindset to win is what brings in the results, that's how a second string Indian side managed to beat a full strength Australian team.

Also if a prolonged four man attack is a good bet always for Australia, then why guys like Cartwright, Henriques, Green, Mitch Marsh, Symonds, Watson keep getting into the top six at the cost of a genuine batsman?

 

[honestbharani]

I see good points on both sides of the argument but can see why smudge49 will feel this way - Green did not make big runs and a 5th bowler could have won you the game ultimately.

 

[the big bambino]

India needed just a draw to retain the BGT at the Gabba. They could have hunkered down and played Sundar for Ashwin and gone in with six batsmen with Pant batting at 7.

However they took the aggressive approach and eventually it paid off, they sent Pant at 5 both at Sydney and Brisbane on the last day where they were looking to save those games.

These little read of the games and looking to play with the mindset to win is what brings in the results, that's how a second string Indian side managed to beat a full strength Australian team.

Also if a prolonged four man attack is a good bet always for Australia, then why guys like Cartwright, Henriques, Green, Mitch Marsh, Symonds, Watson keep getting into the top six at the cost of a genuine batsman?

You know the circumstances around sundar and thakurs selection. They’re better options at 7 and 8 than if we played neser anyway,

The group of players you mention in the last para are far better batsmen than neser and offer the respite (in watsons case much better) that allows us to play 4 bowlers.

 

[Smudge49]

I see good points on both sides of the argument but can see why smudge49 will feel this way - Green did not make big runs and a 5th bowler could have won you the game ultimately.

It need not have been Green, it could have been Harris or Wade also. At the end it was about making that call realistically seeing the way series went.

An average return from either of those three batters was 30-40 runs with a century being the best outcome, which would made India's target 388 instead of 328 maybe with Neser at #7 that target would have been 290-300.

Either way Australia's challenge was always going to be taking those 20 wickets, with a weary bowling attack post Sydney and they just didn't give themselves that chance.

 

[Smudge49]

You know the circumstances around sundar and thakurs selection. They’re better options at 7 and 8 than if we played neser anyway,

The group of players you mention in the last para are far better batsmen than neser and offer the respite (in watsons case much better) that allows us to play 4 bowlers.

On one hand your argument is four bowlers are good enough to get the job done and there is no reason to weaken an already weak batting line-up by including Neser.

Now none of those all-rounders barring Green (on his shield form) even deserve to be considered among top 6 bats in the nation at their time of selection. However they all made it to side ahead of a pure batsman predominantly because they could roll their arms over.

How is it then inconceivable that in a test where Aus must take 20 wickets, that Neser should then play at #7 as cover to the three fast bowlers, who were coming into Brisbane after bowling a massive number of overs in Sydney.

If he nor Abbott can even come into the equation to replace any of the first choice fast bowlers when they are weary, nor they can play as a bowling all-rounder then why are in the squad at all?

 

[the big bambino]

I’m just responding to your additional point. The players you mention were picked as batsmen who could provide relief to an attack that didn’t need anything more than that. Whereas picking Neser weakens the batting when he’s only on a 5th bowlers quota anyway. If you had a compulsory 100 overs a day then yes ..,

The fact that he or Abbott weren’t picked does probably tell you about how much confidence selectors had in them.

 

[Smudge49]

I’m just responding to your additional point. The players you mention were picked as batsmen who could provide relief to an attack that didn’t need anything more than that. Whereas picking Neser weakens the batting when he’s only on a 5th bowlers quota anyway. If you had a compulsory 100 overs a day then yes ..,

The fact that he or Abbott weren’t picked does probably tell you about how much confidence selectors had in them.

That's the point mate, Australian think tank can pick a batsman who can bowl over a pure batsman even if it further compromises a brittle top 6 but they can't take a risk with an extra bowler in a must win game.

My opinion of Paine aside, he was Australia's 3rd best batsman through the series, he should have taken the extra responsibility of batting at 6 and giving his bowlers a bit more of wiggle room.