1st Test, Aus vs India, Adelaide oval 17th-21st December

[Pup Clarke]

Predictions on India's top 7 for the MCG?

Agarwal
Rohit
Pujara
KL Rahul
Gill
Vihari
Pant

 

[Teja.]

Predictions on India's top 7 for the MCG?

Agarwal
Rohit
Pujara
KL Rahul
Gill
Vihari
Pant

Rahane is the captain.

 

[cnerd123]

Told you we'd find a way to lose

The thing with a collapse is that it's so mental. A player coming in after 2-3 quick wickets is under pressure, nervous, and so becomes indecisive with their footwork and shot selection. Bowlers will have their tail up, bowl more good balls, and wickets become more and more likely.

This is why you need to cash in when you're on top in Test cricket. India should not have collapsed in the first innings, and should have held their catches in the 2nd. Despite being sloppy, they were able to get a 40 run lead. But then Shaw failed to see off the new ball, leading to Bumrah sent out as nightwatchman. Right away next day Bumrah is dismissed and the collapse has been triggered. If India does things properly in Day 1 and 2 we have 300+ on the board in the 1st dig, get Aus a/o for around 150, and this probably never happens.

This is also why having a great bowling attack is the secret to being a great Test team. Bowlers can burst games and turn matches around so dramatically. Incredible stuff.

 

[Pup Clarke]

D'oh haha

 

[cnerd123]

I think all of our batsmen except Virat were done for by slightly lazy footwork. In fact, even lazy is a harsh word. But I think mentally, they relaxed a lot with a 50 run first innings lead and once one went, it just collapsed like it often can, tbh.

Thought the opposite. It was a really good ball and Pujara couldn’t do much about it.

Rahane got a great nut too but was caught on the crease and playing ahead of his body. It wasn’t an unplayable delivery.

The thing is that the 'great' balls don't always get wickets. The great balls set batsmen out to get out to the 'ordinary' ones. Great bowling builds pressure, creates doubt, and leads to poor footwork and shot selection. It's often the ordinary balls that then get the wicket - the ones a batter should hit, and that they feel they can hit, but because they are uncertain they end up nicking/missing/mis-timing.

Looking at a batsman's dismissal in isolation is very misleading in that way. 'Oh he just edged a straight ball, or mis-hit a half volley, or played away from his body to one he could leave'. Well, yes, but also no. He was set up by the all the great balls prior to that.

 

[honestbharani]

Predictions on India's top 7 for the MCG?

Agarwal
Rohit
Pujara
KL Rahul
Gill
Vihari
Pant

Mayank
Rahul
Pujara
Rahane
Vihari
Pant
Jadeja
Ashwin
Saini
Umesh
Bumrah


But they will play,

Mayank
Gill
Pujara
Rahul
Rahane
Vihari
Pant

 

[Prince EWS]

i mean... he is, and the way aus started their innings yesterday is a good example of why. setting the tempo of the innings he does has significant knock-on benefits through the batting order.

I do think you place too much value on things like tempo etc, but all the same I think one of the reasons Australia has been so hard to beat at home despite a largely shaky batting lineup has been the fact that he averages ****ing 66 at home. He could do it striking at 45 instead of 75 and I don't think it'd actually change too many results -- if you've got an opening bat averaging 66 it sets up a potentially great start most times.

The bloke averages 71 at home in the first dig, and ****ing 80 when they bat first. It's just out of this world.

 

[honestbharani]

The thing is that the 'great' balls don't always get wickets. The great balls set batsmen out to get out to the 'ordinary' ones. Great bowling builds pressure, creates doubt, and leads to poor footwork and shot selection. It's often the ordinary balls that then get the wicket - the ones a batter should hit, and that they feel they can hit, but because they are uncertain they end up nicking/missing/mis-timing.

Looking at a batsman's dismissal in isolation is very misleading in that way. 'Oh he just edged a straight ball, or mis-hit a half volley, or played away from his body to one he could leave'. Well, yes, but also no. He was set up by the all the great balls prior to that.

But really apart from 1 or 2, I think our batsmen did fall to the good and great balls, not the ordinary ones.

 

[Spark]

The thing with a collapse is that it's so mental. A player coming in after 2-3 quick wickets is under pressure, nervous, and so becomes indecisive with their footwork and shot selection. Bowlers will have their tail up, bowl more good balls, and wickets become more and more likely.

it's not just nervousness, it's mental preparation too. there's no way vihari would have been prepared to bat five overs into the day or whatever it was and honestly i thought he looked okay under the fairly extreme circumstances.

i think there's a lot to be said for writing today off as a very very bad freak day and not really analysing it beyond trying to rebuild confidence. in terms of what india needs to really address in terms of their concrete cricket, yesterday deserves more scrutiny.

 

[Starfighter]

to be fair to India today, England Also bowled out for 67 2019 Ashes and Also Australia 47 in 2011 it happens.

Yeah, but none of those is 36...

 

[Spark]

But really apart from 1 or 2, I think our batsmen did fall to the good and great balls, not the ordinary ones.

they didn't bat long enough to get undone by a consistent spell of pressure forcing errors anyway. pretty much every second or third ball was a potential wicket taker.

 

[Starfighter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1340169035690852354

 

[Shady Slim]

I do think you place too much value on things like tempo etc, but all the same I think one of the reasons Australia has been so hard to beat at home despite a largely shakey batting lineup has been the fact that he averages ****ing 66 at home. He could do it striking at 45 instead of 75 and I don't think it'd actually change too many results -- if you've got an opening bat averaging 66 it sets up a potentially great start most times.

The bloke averages 71 at home in the first dig, and ****ing 80 when they bat first. It's just out of this world.

i'll reply to yourself and @Spark here in the one post - it's indubitable that he's an ATG bat here on home soil against bowling attacks not suited for these conditions, and even against good bowlers he's still pretty ****ing ridiculous on home soil

but that's too narrow a superlative for me with too many qualifiers, and i don't care how good you are at home if you instantly become rubel hossain in anywhere the ball moves off the square i can't put you in a category of good bats

 

[Andy19]

Yeah, but none of those is 36...

yea your right this is next level horror batting LOL 36.

 

[Spark]

i'll reply to yourself and @Spark here in the one post - it's indubitable that he's an ATG bat here on home soil against bowling attacks not suited for these conditions, and even against good bowlers he's still pretty ****ing ridiculous on home soil

but that's too narrow a superlative for me with too many qualifiers, and i don't care how good you are at home if you instantly become rubel hossain in anywhere the ball moves off the square i can't put you in a category of good bats

i mean making your team extremely difficult to beat in half the games you play at least feels like a higher value add to team than the vast majority of cricketers who are "good" in the sense of having more rounded records.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah this will be like the 47 and 64 type of games. We get hung up with numbers but even if we had say gotten away 5 more boundaries, nothing would have changed except we would have been bowled out for 56 instead of 36. The day should be treated as a freak occurrence and more work done on what we did right and wrong the previous two days coz I genuinely think we can compete in this series if we play properly and without having these odd sessions where we just go missing. Australia have a lot of problems of their own, especially with the batting. We should be thinking how we can beat them, not about a silly session where just about everything went against us. The better teams come back from such maulings, I hope we do too.


Baah.. who am I kidding? Its gonna be a painful 4-0.

 

[Spark]

Yeah this will be like the 47 and 64 type of games. We get hung up with numbers but even if we had say gotten away 5 more boundaries, nothing would have changed except we would have been bowled out for 56 instead of 36. The day should be treated as a freak occurrence and more work done on what we did right and wrong the previous two days coz I genuinely think we can compete in this series if we play properly and without having these odd sessions where we just go missing. Australia have a lot of problems of their own, especially with the batting. We should be thinking how we can beat them, not about a silly session where just about everything went against us. The better teams come back from such maulings, I hope we do too.


Baah.. who am I kidding? Its gonna be a painful 4-0.

to be fair, we did win the game after the 47ao game (and as @Prince EWS will note, in one of my favourite ever Tests) so it's not impossible to bounce back. but you absolutely have to bat well first dig at the mcg, if you don't the psychological collapse pretty much follows inevitably.

 

[Prince EWS]

i'll reply to yourself and @Spark here in the one post - it's indubitable that he's an ATG bat here on home soil against bowling attacks not suited for these conditions, and even against good bowlers he's still pretty ****ing ridiculous on home soil

but that's too narrow a superlative for me with too many qualifiers, and i don't care how good you are at home if you instantly become rubel hossain in anywhere the ball moves off the square i can't put you in a category of good bats

Yeah I'm aware we just have a fundamental difference of ideology on this one (hence my Mahela example).

A theoretical robot batsman who was Bradman at home but Chris Martin away would definitely be an ATG IMO, but nonetheless not as good as Greg Chappell, unless his career was much longer. I'd get all sorts of disagreements with that one in different directions, I suspect.

I think there's a bit a schism on CW sometimes between those trying to measure the level of skill a cricketer has, and those trying to measure their actual usefulness in reality. There are of course different moderations and combinations of these, not to mentions varations on "reality" (reality at the time for the their team, or reality at the time across any team, or reality across any time in preparation for an ultimate fantasy ATXI etc) that make two people comparing the quality of the same cricketer about as aligned as as you and I would be comparing the "quality" of the same IR policy.

Warner is ****ing great though. I don't really love watching him bat and I'd probably rather be Michael Vaughan than him, but he's an ATG bat in a way Vaughan definitely isn't.

 

[honestbharani]

i mean making your team extremely difficult to beat in half the games you play at least feels like a higher value add to team than the vast majority of cricketers who are "good" in the sense of having more rounded records.

Yeah, it is the same reason I think Sehwag and Ashwin are ridiculously under rated here as well. Having them in your side basically guarantees that you win at home. And as long as you have decent players in the other 9, you can still compete away. HTBs are not the problem in test cricket. Sure, there maybe others who are better than them, it does not make them any less special though.

 

[Shady Slim]

i mean making your team extremely difficult to beat in half the games you play at least feels like a higher value add to team than the vast majority of cricketers who are "good" in the sense of having more rounded records.

Yeah I'm aware we just have a fundamental difference of ideology on this one (hence my Mahela example).

A theoretical robot batsman who was Bradman at home but Chris Martin away would definitely be an ATG IMO, but nonetheless not as good as Greg Chappell, unless his career was much longer. I'd get all sorts of disagreements with that one in different directions, I suspect.

I think there's a bit a schism on CW sometimes between those trying to measure the level of skill a cricketer has, and those trying to measure their actual usefulness in reality. There are of course different moderations and combinations of these, not to mentions varations on "reality" (reality at the time for the their team, or reality at the time across any team, or reality across any time in preparation for an ultimate fantasy ATXI etc) that make two people comparing the quality of the same cricketer about as aligned as as you and I would be comparing the "quality" of the same IR policy.

Warner is ****ing great though. I don't really love watching him bat and I'd probably rather be Michael Vaughan than him, but he's an ATG bat in a way Vaughan definitely isn't.

yeah it seems like we all have the same "take" per se on him just we reach a different conclusion based on said take and make different valued judgements on what's in front of us which, fair play i reckon tbh