I read that thread, and I think you misinterpreted a bit. I think as a whole Australians would take winning the Ashes if they could only win one series.. the point people were making was that India are the closest to Australia at this point in time and are the most likely to beat them. The series against India is more of a challenge and more of a worry than the Ashes, even though Australians would rather lose it if they had to lose one of the two.
Tell us the other rivalries that have gone on over a hundred yearsAus-Eng rivalry would have to be one of the longest in sport in general?
I have lots of issues with some of the current people in the Indian side, but Ganguly is quite possibly the best captain in Indian history from the perspective of uniting a side and motivating them (along with John Wright). If the next ten years yields captains like Ganguly in his prime, I'd be a very happy man indeed. He wasn't the best at the tactics side of it, but he was quite adequate, and the the type of confidence and attitude he instilled had more than a little to do with going from 0 Test match wins outside the subcontinent, to quite a few.
On the contrary, I don't think that India brings out the best in Australia - more like the worst. For instance, I've noticed that, all too frequently, we're beset by some kind of notable problem when we play them. In 1997/98, we had a third-rate bowling lineup. For most of the 1997/98 and 2000/01 series, we were missing Brett Lee (when he was still regarded as pace bowling's new sensation) and Shane Warne was, at least psycholgically, underbaked. In 2003/04, we were missing Darren Lehmann (a very good player of spin), along with McGrath and Warne. Even when we're not missing players, an aspect of our game seems to drop off: in 2000/01, we looked like idiots against some pretty good spin bowling and in 2003/04 and 2007/08 our catching was laughable. The only times when we weren't beset by serious issues or lapses in key areas would be both 1999/00 and 2004/05 (when India endured key injuries instead).honestbharani said:
I think you have to separate in India vs. in Australia. Except the last two series, India have not really been competitive in Australia. In 2003/4, India were pretty much peaking while Australia was missing both of its main bowlers. Warne would not have been a big loss, but McGrath certainly would have. In 2007/8, a similar thing happened. McGrath was the danger man vs. India, and coupling that with India being able to get Ponting out cheaply a lot (previously he scored heavily in Australia vs. India) went a long way. And Gilchrist was not the same player either. Of course, India also upped their game and their bowling came a long way - though you have to remember that for most of the series, our best bowler was hurt too.I'd like to beat India the most, from a personal perspective. England and the Ashes come a clear second, though, so don't worry.
I'd also like us not to lose to South Africa - Graeme Smith will be utterly insufferable if they beat us.
On the contrary, I don't think that India brings out the best in Australia - more like the worst. For instance, I've noticed that, all too frequently, we're beset by some kind of notable problem when we play them. In 1997/98, we had a third-rate bowling lineup. In 2000/01, we were missing Brett Lee (when he was still regarded as pace bowling's new sensation) and Shane Warne was, at least psycholgically, underbaked. In 2003/04, we were missing Darren Lehmann (a very good player of spin), along with McGrath and Warne. Even when we're not missing players, an aspect of our game seems to drop off: in 2000/01, we looked like idiots against some pretty good spin bowling and in 2003/04 and 2007/08 our catching was laughable. The only times when we weren't beset by serious issues or lapses in key areas would be both 1999/00 and 2004/05 (when India endured key injuries instead).
If you ask me, I reckon that Adam Gilchrist had at least something to do with this. He averaged 28 against India overall and also dropped several catches and missed at least a few stumpings during this series just gone. Against everyone else, he averaged 40+, which may go some way to explaining our success rate against everyone else.
I agree with the rest of your sentiment, though. India seem to up the tempo when they play us, at the same time when we usually seem to drop off, leading to some competitive series (2000/01, 2003/04 and 2007/08). It's probably good for the game...that being said, I'd still like to beat 'em more than anyone else.
Definitely worth it. Every time.
I don't think they would have. We had spinners in the 90s too, and we had a very good lineup in the nineties as well. But we won 0 Tests outside the subcontinent. Zero. Not series, just TESTS. That is a ridiculous record to have.
Different horses for different courses. The style of captaincy needed to inspire and lead a team that never wins vs. a team that always does is completely different. Ganguly's style may not work in Australian team and Ponting's may not work in the Indian team. Dravid, I felt, was a good captain, but was not good as a motivator and under his leadership the locker room was very factionalized, which happened less so with Ganguly (of course, Ganguly would simply not play the players he didn't like, which was great to see).
I was discussing general trends, but perhaps that would've been the prudent thing to do, yes, given the different conditions, circumstances and mentalities with arise in both Australia and India.
Warne's presence may have galvanised the team - it certainly did in Sri Lanka later on (he also would've done better than Stuart '50' MacGill, too, but that goes without saying). I agree with the rest of this, though.
Yeah, Zaheer Khan (and Sreesanth) had little to no role in the Test series. I still think that Australia was below their best during the series, though (with regards to catching, anyway).
For our part, we probably need to neutralise Anil Kumble and/or Sachin Tendulkar.
I have long realised this...mentioning it, though, would probably make me look graceless. It also wasn't that relevant to my overall argument.
Wtf? How did India create 'jellygate'? England player(s) threw jellybeans on the pitch, and it's somehow India's fault? Not to mention, the Harbhajan/Symonds controversy involved both teams. Really don't see where you get off always having a go at the Indian team, their behaviour of recent times has been nothing worse than we've seen from Australia for the last decade (and more).
Y'think?
I think he was below average at times in terms of stratergies.
The wickets flattening-out may have played a part, certainly, but India hardly lacked tours in the 1990s.
Flattening out of pitches means more draws and sometimes it means India are more competitive, but surprisingly, quite a number of Indian victories have come in pitches like these. That's just an extreme example.
Because that's just one series, there were many. Plus, even with the breaks, India of the 90s was unable to take advantage of them. You'd think that in 15 years before this decade, they'd take advantage of breaks just freaking once and get lucky enough to win a Test - the fact that they didn't tells you quite a bit. And then all of a sudden there was this huge resurgence and India started winning tests on virtually every tour. Huge huge turnaround.
I quite enjoyed the England tour. There was jellygate, but that's a weird thing to blame on the Indian side. I suppose you think its appropriate to throw stuff on the pitch? You would be better off mentioning the beamer to KP and the intentional overstepping by Sreesanth - and as I've mentioned he's one of the idiots and I'd agree with you.
Would he? He averages 62 in Australia vs. India. 50 would have been outperforming his usual (and he might have). It's really not his fault, and it's hard to hold a spinners performance against them in conditions like those, but let's not pretend something that isn't true. I think 62 is probably unlucky for him and doesn't represent his performances (and 5 is probably not quite enough to judge), but around 50 seems accurate in terms of how he bowled and how he was played and the pitches that existed.
Yea, I'd agree with that. Though sometimes pressure can do those things to anyone, especially if you're psyched up to break the world record of consecutive wins in a row and things aren't going your way. Of course, that's a guess and you'd be right in that their catching was not up to par.
Kumble is not the type of player he was, and it would depend on the pitches. If we give pitches like the first two Tests vs South Africa, you can kiss India goodbye. It remains to be seen if we can return to the type of pitches that made India very very hard to beat at home - assist spin throughout. It's getting rarer and rarer to find pitches like that. If we get those, I fancy our chances, but I fear that it maybe a dull drawn series if we get the wrong sort of pitches.For our part, we probably need to neutralise Anil Kumble and/or Sachin Tendulkar.
Yea, I wouldn't have problem calling him average or slightly below. He was adequete as I mentioned considering his other on field qualities (e.g, annoying the opposition).
Misleading comment. Just about any on-field cricketing controversy will involve two (or 'both', as you put it) teams (or possibly even more, if umpires and officialdom comes into the equation).