Australia Losing Could Save Test Cricket

[Johnners]

Really? How come they took 8 wickets for just 166 runs on the day these tactics were in place? The bottomline is India set a superb trap, into which Aussies blindly walked into.

The last day was completely different to what happened on day 3, I don't see how people can think they were the same

Hayden & Hussey didn't fall into any trap at all, it was a fantastic delivery from Mishra that broke their partnership, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[silentstriker]

By your logic, Aus have been stupid for years for batting quickly and wrapping up Tests in 3 days when they could have played far less risky cricket and still won easily. I know what I prefer to watch.

That's not my logic at all. People should do what they think will allow them to win the Test. Australia did it by being aggressive. But in India, they lost doing it.

So what did they do?

The smart move, and went defensive and won. That wasn't bad cricket. That was smart - if they were too stubborn to do it, they might have lost and cricket would be poorer if teams did stupid things like that.

If I want to see fours every ball, I'll watch a T20.

 

[silentstriker]

As much as I don't think overrates are as big a problem as has been/is made out, 20 overs in 2 hours was by far the worst overrate seen in the series. The worst session previous to that was 24 by Australia in the first session of the 4th match when Sehwag went nuts (literally), and at no stage were there 2 spinners bowling at the same time. Hussey & Hayden weren't even scoring as fast as Sehwag and co. were that session.

I wasn't talking about overrates. I fully support a 5 run penalty per over behind.

 

[Burgey]

Because when the team chasing 380 is 2-bugger all, and you have a front line spinner bowling outside leg, with the keeper standing outside leg as well, its negative.
If Ponting did that you'd be all over him like a cheap suit. It's akin to the Giles bowling to Tendular outside leg from left arm over.

I'm not saying it didn't work. I'm saying it's negative.

Edit - and I didn't quote Precambrian's post, to which this is a response.

 

[Johnners]

That's not my logic at all. People should do what they think will allow them to win the Test. Australia did it by being aggressive. But in India, they lost doing it.

So what did they do?

The smart move, and went defensive and won. That wasn't bad cricket. That was smart - if they were too stubborn to do it, they might have lost and cricket would be poorer if teams did stupid things like that.

If I want to see fours every ball, I'll watch a T20.

Gaaaaaah, ffs SS nobody is saying that they want to see 4s every ball so stop fricking mentioning it!

 

[Precambrian]

Depends on the nature of said attrition. McGrath-like outside off-stump attrition = good Test cricket. What we saw yesterday = "Hmmmm.......what's on the other channel?" The difference between the two in the respective skill involved in both. Bowling like McGrath takes a lot of skill. Bowling a foot outside leg-stump to a guy looking to hit you around knowing he'll sky one eventually requires much less skill.

Bearing in mind, I'm in no way advocating that India shouldn't have done it or that it should be sanctioned because it's part of the game and at that level, I'd prefer the team to win than be nice. But it was quite dull to watch and I didn't find it a celebration of the skills of either side.

By your logic, Aus have been stupid for years for batting quickly and wrapping up Tests in 3 days when they could have played far less risky cricket and still won easily. I know what I prefer to watch.

I think you're selectively speaking then. If you take India's tour to Australia in 1999-2000, in one of those matches, India were something like 26-1 in 25 overs. Why? Same line by the same McGrath and Gillespie (IIRC), outside off stump line, which the Indians didnt even go anywhere near. Nobody blamed McG then for slowing things down to sleep. Good cricket? For me yes, same as now at Nagpur.

And didnt Johnson use the same line against Tendulkar & Co? He got Tendulkar chasing a wide one in the first test. But after that he was wary and was leaving outside off stump, and Johnson had "immaculate" figures of 10 overs 18 runs. Nobody regarded that as negative,

Zaheer and Ishant bowled only about 1.5 hours of outside off stump line, and Katich and Hayden chose to leave everything, even those which were periliously close to off stump. And once that became the norm, Indians started to attack the stumps regularly, and got them all out.

Further, spinners adopting negative line is a joke, because Bowden was signalling wide at the first instance of Sehwag bowling one outside leg. And if you note, Bhajji was bowling around the stumps at Hayden into the rough. Is that negative?

 

[Burgey]

The last day was completely different to what happened on day 3, I don't see how people can think they were the same

Hayden & Hussey didn't fall into any trap at all, it was a fantastic delivery from Mishra that broke their partnership, nothing more, nothing less.

And a delivery which was bowled in an attacking manner with a field to match.

 

[silentstriker]

If Ponting did that you'd be all over him like a cheap suit.

Would I? Really? When have I done that? That's unfair. If he wins that test, the strategy is vindicated.

Because when the team chasing 380 is 2-bugger all, and you have a front line spinner bowling outside leg, with the keeper standing outside leg as well, its negative.

Not if it works. Purposefully not bowling overs is negative, which should be punished.

It's akin to the Giles bowling to Tendular outside leg from left arm over.

And I've said, even in the Australia vs. India thread, that it was a great idea. Which worked.

 

[Precambrian]

The last day was completely different to what happened on day 3, I don't see how people can think they were the same

Hayden & Hussey didn't fall into any trap at all, it was a fantastic delivery from Mishra that broke their partnership, nothing more, nothing less.

Haha. You didnt watch the Hayden dismissal I suppose. Bhajji was bowling around the wicket slightly wide of off stump regularly to Hayden, and Hayden was looking to walk across the stump to thwack it, when Bhajji suddenly topspun one into the stumps, Hayden had no chance, and was plumb. That's what I call a trap.

 

[silentstriker]

I think you're selectively speaking then. If you take India's tour to Australia in 1999-2000, in one of those matches, India were something like 26-1 in 25 overs. Why? Same line by the same McGrath and Gillespie (IIRC), outside off stump line, which the Indians didnt even go anywhere near. Nobody blamed McG then for slowing things down to sleep. Good cricket? For me yes, same as now at Nagpur.

And didnt Johnson use the same line against Tendulkar & Co? He got Tendulkar chasing a wide one in the first test. But after that he was wary and was leaving outside off stump, and Johnson had "immaculate" figures of 10 overs 18 runs. Nobody regarded that as negative,

Spot on.

 

[Johnners]

Would I? Really? When have I done that? That's unfair. If he wins that test, the strategy is vindicated.



Not if it works. Purposefully not bowling overs is negative, which should be punished.



And I've said, even in the Australia vs. India thread, that it was a great idea. Which worked.

It didn't work yesterday morning though.

 

[Burgey]

Would I? Really? When have I done that? That's unfair. If he wins that test, the strategy is vindicated.



Not if it works. Purposefully not bowling overs is negative, which should be punished.



And I've said, even in the Australia vs. India thread, that it was a great idea. Which worked.

Mine was in response to Precamb's, damn for not hiutting the quote button!!

 

[silentstriker]

It didn't work yesterday morning though.

It doesn't have to work that very over for it to be successful.

 

[Top_Cat]

The smart move, and went defensive and won. That wasn't bad cricket. That was smart - if they were too stubborn to do it, they might have lost and cricket would be poorer if teams did stupid things like that.

This is the crux of my personal objection, though; going defensive relies on the opposition playing their part and doing some of the work themselves. If Australia just batted time, I have a fair bit of faith the match would have been a draw. Lots of captains over the years would have been quite happy to lose 1-0 than 2-0.

The Aussie side of old imposed themselves on a match right from the start so that it really didn't matter what the opposition did or didn't do, they were going down unless they matched them. Made for more attractive cricket to watch. And it's not just about 4's every ball, it's about attacking bowling too.

It just comes down to personal preference in the end. I prefer seeing a contest where both sides are going at it and attacking, not where one side is mainly trying to find ways to shut down the opposition. Again, personal preference, but I'd rather the Aussie side lose than play like India did.

 

[Precambrian]

Because when the team chasing 380 is 2-bugger all, and you have a front line spinner bowling outside leg, with the keeper standing outside leg as well, its negative.
If Ponting did that you'd be all over him like a cheap suit. It's akin to the Giles bowling to Tendular outside leg from left arm over.

I'm not saying it didn't work. I'm saying it's negative.

Edit - and I didn't quote Precambrian's post, to which this is a response.

They were offspinners who were trying to slow things down by bowling outside leg, and pray only Sehwag did it and for maybe 2 or 3 overs, the first instance of the ball not connected outside leg stump was signalled wide by Bowden. So it's pretty lame to say that the Indian spinners were negative just because of two or three deliveries.

Bhajji was continously bowling around the stumps which negates any kind of outside leg stump bowling.

 

[Johnners]

Haha. You didnt watch the Hayden dismissal I suppose. Bhajji was bowling around the wicket slightly wide of off stump regularly to Hayden, and Hayden was looking to walk across the stump to thwack it, when Bhajji suddenly topspun one into the stumps, Hayden had no chance, and was plumb. That's what I call a trap.

Hayden fell AFTER Hussey, up until Hussey's dismissal, they were not attacking anything other than dhonis pads outside leg/off.

 

[Precambrian]

This is the crux of my personal objection, though; going defensive relies on the opposition playing their part and doing some of the work themselves. If Australia just batted time, I have a fair bit of faith the match would have been a draw. Lots of captains over the years would have been quite happy to lose 1-0 than 2-0.

The Aussie side of old imposed themselves on a match right from the start so that it really didn't matter what the opposition did or didn't do, they were going down unless they matched them. Made for more attractive cricket to watch. And it's not just about 4's every ball, it's about attacking bowling too.

It just comes down to personal preference in the end. I prefer seeing a contest where both sides are going at it and attacking, not where one side is mainly trying to find ways to shut down the opposition. Again, personal preference, but I'd rather the Aussie side lose than play like India did.

Then you will be cringing at Australia's whitewash of India in 99-00, where regularly the same tactics were used. Right? Say that please.

 

[Burgey]

They were offspinners who were trying to slow things down by bowling outside leg, and pray only Sehwag did it and for maybe 2 or 3 overs, the first instance of the ball not connected outside leg stump was signalled wide by Bowden. So it's pretty lame to say that the Indian spinners were negative just because of two or three deliveries.

Bhajji was continously bowling around the stumps which negates any kind of outside leg stump bowling.

Personally don't see it that way tbh, but that's the nature of these things .
Also don't see it in the same way as the day 3 stuff personally. 1st seesion yesterday and last session the day before were two of the more bizarre I've seen in recent times tbh.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think you're selectively speaking then. If you take India's tour to Australia in 1999-2000, in one of those matches, India were something like 26-1 in 25 overs. Why? Same line by the same McGrath and Gillespie (IIRC), outside off stump line, which the Indians didnt even go anywhere near. Nobody blamed McG then for slowing things down to sleep. Good cricket? For me yes, same as now at Nagpur.

No. They're different. Skills levels, as I said. It takes far more skill to maintain an off-stump line than well outside off-stump. I watched the series and the field wasn't stacked, either.

And didnt Johnson use the same line against Tendulkar & Co? He got Tendulkar chasing a wide one in the first test. But after that he was wary and was leaving outside off stump, and Johnson had "immaculate" figures of 10 overs 18 runs. Nobody regarded that as negative,

If you asked me, I'd have said otherwise.

 

[Precambrian]

Hayden fell AFTER Hussey, up until Hussey's dismissal, they were not attacking anything other than dhonis pads outside leg/off.

Wrong, hate to repeat this, but Bhajji was always bowling around the wicket, and when you do that you can't bowl the leg stump line.