flair in batting

[tooextracool]

You're talking about sensiblity?

What if India are 70-7? Isn't it the duty of lower order batsman to be accomplished enough to counter that situation?

couldnt agree with you more.....time and time again we've seen gilchrist and the tail carry australia out of a soup.
for me the australian batting lineup is better largely because they have done well on all kinds of surfaces.....not just flat batting tracks

 

[delkap]

With Sehwag and Yuvraj(if he comes good), I don't see how the Australian openers are far ahead.

but at the moment aus is ahead... if ind gets to no.1 good, i couldn't be happier.. but they r not there yet

 

[chicane]

Ifs...

And anyway, Sehwag and Yuvraj are the most reliable batsmen in the whole wide world.

Sehwag is havig a fantastic career so far, read my sig. Yuvraj has the talent and attitude to be a reliable test opener.

 

[Waughney]

Then how do you explain India having a better recent Track record head to head against Australia? And that too when the bowling was not as good.

2001: Fantastic batting by the Indian team, proved thmaselves, however it was in familiar conditions and for 4 innings not the whole series. Australia batted well aswell
2003-04: Again good batting, on batsmen's paradises, but against a poor attack.

 

[Sudeep]

Then how do you explain India having a better recent Track record head to head against Australia? And that too when the bowling was not as good.

Because they too didn't have the bowling.

The series was 1-1 tied right?

So, if both teams didn't have the bowling, the 1-1 result shows that the batting is even.

And when both teams' bowling is at its best, everyone knows which one is better.

 

[chicane]

Again we venture into this man to man comparison.

So, are we looking for sloggers? Or lower order batsmen who can stick around with a top order player? I'm not necessarily talking about McGrath's ability to do so.

Then what are you talking bout? Balaji can hang around longer than Mcgrath for your info.

 

[tooextracool]

They have one of the most succesful combinations in the history of the game!!!!!

LMAO....look its just pointless, some people obviously believe that unproven players like pathan,yuvraj etc are already amongst the best players in the world

 

[chicane]

Because they too didn't have the bowling.

The series was 1-1 tied right?

So, if both teams didn't have the bowling, the 1-1 result shows that the batting is even.

And when both teams' bowling is at its best, everyone knows which one is better.

India played better cricket than Australia. And you conveniently ignore 2001 where we won 2-1 and they had a better bowling attack, a full strength bowling attack.

 

[Waughney]

couldnt agree with you more.....time and time again we've seen gilchrist and the tail carry australia out of a soup.
for me the australian batting lineup is better largely because they have done well on all kinds of surfaces.....not just flat batting tracks

I think it's more Gilchrist and the tail have significantly improved Australia's position (but they have, as you said pulled Australia out of trouble on a number of occasions to)

 

[biased indian]

couldnt agree with you more.....time and time again we've seen gilchrist and the tail carry australia out of a soup.
for me the australian batting lineup is better largely because they have done well on all kinds of surfaces.....not just flat batting tracks

when was the last time it happened ie aus being less than 100 for 7

 

[chicane]

2001: Fantastic batting by the Indian team, proved thmaselves, however it was in familiar conditions and for 4 innings not the whole series. Australia batted well aswell
2003-04: Again good batting, on batsmen's paradises, but against a poor attack.

Unfamiliar conditions? McGrath, Gillespie and Warne were fairly experienced in indian conditions. And Warne is supposed to be such a great spinner in conditions that favour him so much. And you yourself have admitted in this post that India batted better, 4 innings to 2. We had a poor attack in 2003-04 as well.

 

[biased indian]

LMAO....look its just pointless, some people obviously believe that unproven players like pathan,yuvraj etc are already amongst the best players in the world

every where it has been said that yuvraj have to prove him self

 

[chicane]

The last time India were in such deep trouble, Yuvraj scored a ton and Pathan hung around to make 49. So India are capable of surviving collapses too.

 

[biased indian]

2001: Fantastic batting by the Indian team, proved thmaselves, however it was in familiar conditions and for 4 innings not the whole series. Australia batted well aswell
2003-04: Again good batting, on batsmen's paradises, but against a poor attack.

that bowling attack of australia was better than india and was bowling to a indan batting line up that was weaker than australia batting

but india bowlers where bowling to the worlds best

 

[chicane]

They have one of the most succesful combinations in the history of the game!!!!!

Yeah but this pair have a lot of potential as well. The move to get Sehwag to open has worked wonders and looking at Sehwag's career now, you ca only see big things for him. Yuvraj has proven to be a cool and reliable player in ODI's and has had a great start to tests, he also has a lot of talent, what's to say he will fail, the way everyone's just blindly putting Langer way ahead of him.

 

[Waughney]

Unfamiliar conditions? McGrath, Gillespie and Warne were fairly experienced in indian conditions.

Where did I say unfamiliar conditions?? What I said was that the Indian team batted well in familiar conditions ie. slow, low flat-tracks.

And you yourself have admitted in this post that India batted better, 4 innings to 2. We had a poor attack in 2003-04 as well.

Correction Australia batted better in 3 innings to India's 3
Didn't deny that fact

 

[delkap]

now why on earth are we comparing ind-aus in a thread for batsman with flair ??
Series is coming soon enough, and time will tell who is better. I suggest open up a thread on Ind-Aus series in Oct and discuss these things there (although there is not much point, Aus being daylight ahead of Ind although gap is closing)

Keep the thread to its original topic...

 

[tooextracool]

that bowling attack of australia was better than india and was bowling to a indan batting line up that was weaker than australia batting

but india bowlers where bowling to the worlds best

what you always fail to consider is that that series was played at home....we all know how good a batting side india are at home(or for that matter any flat wicket) but its on the seamer friendly wickets where we've seen them struggle rather pathetically at times.

 

[chicane]

Where did I say unfamiliar conditions?? What I said was that the Indian team batted well in familiar conditions ie. slow, low flat-tracks.

Then what's all this about Australia doing well on all surfaces? India batted well in Australia too.

Correction Australia batted better in 3 innings to India's 3
Didn't deny that fact

Yeah but the result shows that India ultimately batted better.

 

[Waughney]

Yeah but this pair have a lot of potential as well. The move to get Sehwag to open has worked wonders and looking at Sehwag's career now, you ca only see big things for him. Yuvraj has proven to be a cool and reliable player in ODI's and has had a great start to tests, he also has a lot of talent, what's to say he will fail, the way everyone's just blindly putting Langer way ahead of him.

You talking mainly theory here, Yuvraj has played well down the order in ODI's not opening tests. Anyway I have no idea how you can say that a pair that hasn''t even played yet (with one very inexperienced player) is better than one of the most succesful opening combinations in history.