India in Australia 2003/04 - the final verdict?

[Pratters]

I'm not sure it's worth arguing over who was injured/most injured. Basically Gillespie and Lee couldn't perform to their best ability due to coming back from injury. I wouldn't expect either of them to be as effective as they could be having not had the match practice etc before the whole thing began. As someone else mentioned on here Gillespie actually pulled out injured during the series and then only came back presumably because our other bowlers weren't that effective.

As for evidence re: Indian umpiring here you go, feel free to check out:

usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2001/FEB/077954_SL_26FEB2001.html

newsvote.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2000/england_on_tour/1210975.stm

and here's a quote for you: "England went into lunch on 174 for five before another blunder from Jayaprakash precipitated the final decline. Craig White prodded forward to Muttiah Muralitharan in the 103rd over of the innings and offered a simple bat-pad catch. Jayaprakash ruled not out and the Barmy Army wailed with delight. The next ball White tried to sweep a full-length ball. It struck him outside the line of off stump, but the dreaded finger went up nevertheless."

I'm not saying that Indian umpires are any worse than umpires from any other country. It seems that there's quite a few mistakes being made by umpires from nearly all countries. THe post I originally replied to seemed to be indicating that this is primarily the lot of Aussie umpires though and this is patently not the case.

Anyway........what was the topic of this thread again?

As can be seen from the above post, the final verdict of the series, a 1-1 draw does not quite make it as simple as it sounds.

This topic, as to who got the better of the other team in the series has spilled over a lot of threads.

Indians played very good cricket and it was not their fault that the bowlers they had were not upto the best. India did not ask them to play with a Brad Williams or a Bracken or a half fit whichever player. If they wanted, they could have played Kasporwicz or some one else they really thought would be worth the place in the side.

India missed Harbhajan Singh, the main destroyer in India who would obviously not be as destructive in Australia. India does not seem to complain about missing him or any one else.

The pitches were batting paradise. True. But the Aussies could have chosen Perth or prepared tracks to suit them further. Its not India's fault.

Why cant the Aussies digest India played good cricket and almost beat them in their own back yard. At the end of the series, the Aussies were happier with a drawn series than the Indians. That, for me says a lot about which team 'almost' won the series.

India did not enforce the follow on and there was a missed chance by Patel apart from an umpiring error (which does happen in cricket - its a part of the game). That was not the fault of the Aussies to any extent.

Steve Waugh made the most of the opportunity he got and salvaged a draw of a series. Got the fare well he deserved.

Its no secret that before neutral umpires came into play, most countries had biased umpiring, the Aussies being no exception.

We saw some good batting from the Indians appreciated by one and all from Greg Chappell to the average Aussie on the street. We saw why the Aussies are so tough to beat.

For me, it was a true verdict, a 1-1 draw, even though Indians did come close to an improbable away series victory. Its cricket.

 

[Son Of Coco]

As can be seen from the above post, the final verdict of the series, a 1-1 draw does not quite make it as simple as it sounds.

This topic, as to who got the better of the other team in the series has spilled over a lot of threads.

Indians played very good cricket and it was not their fault that the bowlers they had were not upto the best. India did not ask them to play with a Brad Williams or a Bracken or a half fit whichever player. If they wanted, they could have played Kasporwicz or some one else they really thought would be worth the place in the side.

India missed Harbhajan Singh, the main destroyer in India who would obviously not be as destructive in Australia. India does not seem to complain about missing him or any one else.

The pitches were batting paradise. True. But the Aussies could have chosen Perth or prepared tracks to suit them further. Its not India's fault.

Why cant the Aussies digest India played good cricket and almost beat them in their own back yard. At the end of the series, the Aussies were happier with a drawn series than the Indians. That, for me says a lot about which team 'almost' won the series.

India did not enforce the follow on and there was a missed chance by Patel apart from an umpiring error (which does happen in cricket - its a part of the game). That was not the fault of the Aussies to any extent.

Steve Waugh made the most of the opportunity he got and salvaged a draw of a series. Got the fare well he deserved.

Its no secret that before neutral umpires came into play, most countries had biased umpiring, the Aussies being no exception.

We saw some good batting from the Indians appreciated by one and all from Greg Chappell to the average Aussie on the street. We saw why the Aussies are so tough to beat.

For me, it was a true verdict, a 1-1 draw, even though Indians did come close to an improbable away series victory. Its cricket.

Firstly, my post was a response in another thread to someone stating that India had a certain number of bowlers missing etc etc - not an attempt to detract from the cricket played during the series by either team. The point being made by the inclusion of injured players were that they were the best we had at the time, not necessarily the best we've got but that's beside the point. In another post I'd been asked whether I was embarrassed that there was no bench strength in Australian cricket - then been presented with a list of Indian players who were injured too - the whole post was a response to an ongoing debate on this topic - not just a one off remark trying to discredit the efforts of the team in Aus (you're not a journalist are you? ).

My memories of the final test were of the Aussies having a crack at the total until they lost a few vital wickets and were heading towards the tail, when they shut up shop. Admittedly the opportunity to chase a target in the first place was set up by an Indian declaration. Personally I don't believe the series was dominated by any one team and the result accurately reflects the efforts of both teams. Both batting sides performed very well for the most part, and the bowling in both teams (except for one instance each in the 4 tests) proved to be largely ineffective.

I'm well aware that the Indians played very good cricket in this series and am not trying to say otherwise. As far as preparing wickets go, I think both teams were much the same in the bowling stakes so what suited one would suit the other (with the exception of Kumble being a far better bowler than MacGill).

I think the line of comment this post actually replied to concerned Australian umpires making a series of mistakes (and I was trying to make the point that it happens with all umpires from all countries, as one of those articles suggests).

It would have made it much easier (for me anyway) if you'd have replied to the post on the original thread so what you've reprinted above isn't viewed completely out of context. That way I wouldn't have to recap on what had happened up to the point of that post.

 

[Arjun]

This series was very overrated, for the Indians- they just won 1 Test (a lucky win) and 1 ODI (the only time they ever challenged the Australians) and came back without winning either series.

 

[Dasa]

^Geez, you'll never be satisfied, will you?

 

[Top_Cat]

they just won 1 Test (a lucky win)

Actually that was probably the only Test they thoroughly outplayed the Aussies, particularly with their batting. Yes the Aussies didn't bat well in their second dig (some awful shots) but the Indians bowled straight at least. Dravid and Laxman were just walls in that game (I was there and I barely saw the ball beat the bat all bloody day). The Aussies bowled well too but India were just too good with the bat.

 

[luckyeddie]

Ah, history - with the emphasis on the word 'story'.

Dasa's comment "Geez, you're never satisfied..." sums the whole issue up. No amount of debate or whining is going to change it - just let it go, people, and look forward to the next one.

Incidentally, did the debate start just because the current ODI was rained off? In which case, carry on.

 

[Arjun]

Dean Jones had got it right when he said that the Indians really have to look hard at the Australia series and find what they really achieved.

The Indians started well below-par and were outplayed in the two side matches before the Brisbane Test, which is a far from ideal preparation for the series. Even in the Brisbane Test, all the bowlers bowled rubbish, except Zaheer, who worked hard for his 5 wickets, his best bowling performance in Tests (better than his 5's in NZ) and the most valuable bowling performance of all the players on that tour- he had to WORK for it- it was not GIFTED.

Chopra and Sehwag deserve credit for the 50+ partnership and the former even stuck around longer to help Saurav build an innings- thus doing the job quite well. That set up the platform for Saurav and Laxman to spring up a partnership. The tailenders, except Zaheer and Harbhajan, batted badly- Boycott even asked what Patel and Agarkar were doing ahead of Zaheer. The Australians dominated in the second innings, though the Indians had a lucky break in their second as Dravid rediscovered his form.

In the second Test, Irfan Pathan started his career well, but did nothing of note, while all the bowlers bowled rubbish, as Ponting got over 250. Luckily, Kumble got 5 wickets for which he had to work very hard. The Indian second innings was a decsive one, as the Laxman-Dravid combination put together a partnership that got the Indians in a good position, proving that they are world class players. The Indians had to take 10 more wickets to win the match, and the Australians gifted as many as 7 of them, in a truly MAD batting display, which was far worse than what they did in the mid-80s. It even prompted their coach to write a rather emotional letter to all of them, telling them how badly let down he was with their performance.

That spurred them to do better- or did it? Still, the Australians shook off first day blues to take quick wickets to restrict the Indians to a low total- it could have been a lot more if the Indians scored more runs- weak tail-end batting let them down again. Then came the Australian innings, where they batted the Indians out of the game and the second innings of the Indians was not enough to keep them in it. The Melbourne Test negated the Indians' advantage.

The Sydney Test was dominated by the Indians as they got 700, but how they allowed the Australians to score 400 was a mystery. Agarkar's performance in Adelaide was a one-off, after four years, as his performance here was as bad as it usually is, for that average over 40. Karthik was supposed to be effective in Australia after a good ODI series at home, but bowled way too fast to be of any use, and was too predictable. Irfan Pathan got 3 wickets, which mean nothing, as 3 wickets a match don't CHANGE matches. No follow on? Needs some rethink. Parthiv Patel's drops were evidence of the fact that the Indian team lacks a genuine wicketkeeper. Luckily for the Indians, they could keep the trophy they won in 2001.

The ODI series was what could be considered as yet another one-sided series, as Zimbabwe played their best cricket after being eliminated, and the Indians never looked in contention for the VB Trophy, being outplayed by the Australians in 3 matches, including the 2 finals. It showed the lack of impact of most of India's best players, bar Sachin, Laxman and Dravid. Yet another failure under Ganguly's captaincy. The Indians had played their best cricket to make the final, only to play their worst in it. Nothing's changed for the Indian team. Not for the better. Except for a victory in Pakistan, against a side which could then be at the opposite end of the table.

 

[honestbharani]

It is just amazing to see how much the current form of a side plays a part in judging its previous performances.

 

[Arjun]

It is just amazing to see how much the current form of a side plays a part in judging its previous performances.

Not so much, when there is little difference between then and now, and then being long, long ago.

 

[honestbharani]

No, I meant that if Sehwag does well in Test Cricket over this season, then people would use his performances in that tour to say that it pointed to greater things for him and if he didn't do well this season, they will say that they always said that it was the best he could do. I am just talking hypothetically, here.

 

[Sehwag309]

India will be very successfull, IMO

Without a Waugh, this Indian tour will be very tough for any Auzzie team.
Offcourse it's all prediction and gut feeling

 

[Arjun]

India will be very successfull, IMO

Without a Waugh, this Indian tour will be very tough for any Auzzie team.
Offcourse it's all prediction and gut feeling

With mediocre pie chuckers like Agarkar, Zaheer and Nehra, and India's strike bowler getting treated like a defensive option, the Australians have a better chance. Not to mention a wicketkeeper who drops catches and misses stumpings. And three players who can't field- captain included.

 

[Arjun]

About Sehwag, his triple hundred is reason enough to stick with him. Not to mention he is the only big hitter in this team.

 

[Dar]

I've discussed this a lot so i'll keep it short:

India outplayed Aussies in the tests
India should have won three out of the four VB qualifying games and i mean should have easily won.
India completely screwed up the finals which was incredibly disappointing

 

[marc71178]

And soon the response will be no, no and no.

 

[Dar]

And soon the response will be no, no and no.

Why?

 

[Slow Love™]

I've discussed this a lot so i'll keep it short:

India outplayed Aussies in the tests
India should have won three out of the four VB qualifying games and i mean should have easily won.
India completely screwed up the finals which was incredibly disappointing

I would say that 1 and 3 are true, but as for number 2 - I never accept this type of argument, 'cause it's inherently silly. Somebody was arguing in another thread the other day, that had the Sri Lankans not thrown their wickets away in a game in Australia in '96, they would have beaten the Australians comfortably. It's akin to saying "If Zimbabwe didn't completely SUCK, they'd probably be in the top six sides in international cricket right now." - I mean, what's the point?

I watched the VB series, and India were repeatedly outplayed in the one day series. When it counted, the Aussies always had enough juice in the tank to pull of a win (the Brett Lee six comes to mind). That's the hallmark of a great side. While I think India had slightly the better of the test series, the Australians comfortably had their measure in the one-day game.

 

[Bas]

And soon the response will be no, no and no.

Another of your knee-jerk thoughtless replies i see. "No" - is that your default answer to anything? Why don't you actually read the post - are you saying India didn't screw up in the final?

And Arjun, you're a hater and a loser, too bitter about your own failures in life to give praise even when it is due - and so you dismiss the adelaide victory as lucky.

OK, I beleive no.2 is correct, but that's difficult to prove.

But no. 1 is most certainly true. Lets go through the 20 days of test cricket and see who came out on top.

1. Aus
2. Ind
3. too little play
4. Ind
5. Aus, but by this stage a draw was inevitable

6. Aus
7. even
8. Ind
9. Ind
10. Ind

11. Ind
12. Aus
13. Aus
14. aus
15. too little play

16. Ind
17. Ind
18. even
19. even
20 Aus

Score India 8 - 7 Australia.

Close, but india take it i think.

 

[telsor]

The days don't matter.

The object of the game is to win...days are just a part of that, but without the final result, it's a meaningless (and subjective) stat.

 

[marc71178]

Exactly, I don't feel India outplayed India as much as some people have made out.

Even on here, just about all 3 of those statements have been opposed in a short space of time.