Indian batsmen : still bunnies on pacey wickets?

[Salamuddin]

Yes India are still vulnerable on very bouncy wickets like Perth.

But every team has an Achilles heel. Australia have had their problems on turning wickets on the subcontinentl.

 

[Rik]

To be honest, I would say that apart from the 1-83, he hasn't actually been that bad - 1-29 in 10, 2-46 in 9 and 1-32 in 8 are all reasonable efforts.

Reasonable, but hardly showing much form, especially as the 1-29 and 1-32 were against Zimbabwe...

 

[Rik]

Yes indeed it was . My mistake. However Rik and Marc are two of the Ganguly bashers on this board so I'm sure they'll disagree with what I said.

Ganguly bashers? I'm sorry but I'm hardly a Ganguly basher! The problem with Ganguly is that he has very obvious failings, so since when has commenting on them ment I'm bashing him?

 

[deeps]

A lot was said about Ganguly's weaknesses against the short ball. Then, bowlers started bouncing him repeatedly, after which he was aware of this plan and began scoring runs against them.

Ganguly's no weak link against pace. In the tri-series in 2001 in South Africa, he batted very well, hitting Pollock and his attack all around, like a world class batsman. In the NatWest final, he got a lot of runs, hitting Flintoff off a lot of short deliveries. Even in the Test series, he got more than a few runs. In the tour of NZ and the World Cup, he was a bit disappointing, but he got runs against SA in Dhaka and later on, in Australia, in Brisbane and then Melbourne. He has played for 7 years and he has a good Test and ODI average, so he definitely is one of the better batsmen in this Indian team.

pollock and flitofF? both medium fast at best... i'm sorry i wouldn't realy include them as good quick bowling... most ppl say he struggles against quick short pitch bowling... pollock and flintoff aren't quick

gillespie,lee, akhtar, sami, williams are all quick..maybe even bichel at times...but pollock and flitoff..no

 

[Arjun]

pollock and flitofF? both medium fast at best... i'm sorry i wouldn't realy include them as good quick bowling... most ppl say he struggles against quick short pitch bowling... pollock and flintoff aren't quick

gillespie,lee, akhtar, sami, williams are all quick..maybe even bichel at times...but pollock and flitoff..no

It's not just pace. It's also the quality. Pollock can move the ball quite a bit. He can also get good bounce. To add, his main weapon is his accuracy. He may be only medium-fast, but he's still a quality bowler, especially when he has a bowling average of 21 in Tests and ODI's. To get runs against bowlers like him is nothing ordinary.

As for Flintoff, he's not really a great bowler- that average of slightly under 50 shows how weak he is, but he has had his success against Ganguly.

As for tests, even most Ganguly supporters would admit that at best he is a competent batsman and certainly not in the Tendulkar-Dravid-Laxman class.

He's not as good as Sachin or Laxman, but still very good, since he has got runs against quality attacks, though not so much against the Australians. He's still better than the leading batsmen of some other teams. His best batting is against spin.

 

[FRAZ]

I mean what kind of wickets Australian ground men have been producing . In favour of India or Australia???. On flat tracks Indian and Australian batsman are even .. Thats what showed up in Test series . But thats true that Indian batsmen are bunnys on faster tracks. And who is successful on faster tracks. Offcourse hard hitters and sloggers . Aussies have advantage in that slogging field . And you see only Sehwag is a mighty hitter and a good sloger and only him looked good and also yuvraj did some well in that perh match ...Tis theory of mine also clarifies one mystry that why Pakistani team's Batsman are useful on faster pitches and win series outside more rather than home .. Any one agrees ???

 

[Linda]

The batsmen did a lot better against them, especially Symonds and the part-timers.

Symonds did very well against the Indians! 2/37, I beleive.

 

[Jono]

Lee would of destroyed the Australian batting order as well if he had been wearing an Indian shirt that day. It was a poor batting performance, but had more to do with a good bowling performance by Bret Lee utilising the hard pitch at the WACA.

Exaggerations regarding India's batting order have occurred after this ODI match, it's ashame really. When will these "article authors" learn?

 

[Gaijin-san]

Maybe he took 2/37 but he bowled like crap. It was the worst bowling I've ever seen for that reward.

 

[Top_Cat]

As for the WACA match, Lee simply bowled well, something that hasn't happened for a few ODIs. No denying that, all we can do is hope it doesn't happen again and if it doesn't, that India punish it.

Yup, I spend my every waking moment hoping some players fail too. It just gives me a good feeling.

Then, when I'm in a REALLY good mood, I go out and buy the cutest little bunny I can find from a pet store, find the CUTEST little girl on a street somewhere, grab a bucket full of water and drown the bunny right in front of that cute little girl.

I just feel so much better afterwards.



I've said for a while that it's not the bounce which undoes Indian batsmen on Aussie pitches; it's movement off the seam. None of the decks on their previous tour here were exceedingly quick yet they were beaten 3-0. WHy? Because they were played on an Adelaide deck which moved a bit, a Melbourne deck which had a bit of bounce but a bit off the seam and then they were demolished in Sydney on a pitch which seamed from day 1 to day 5.

The seaming ball magnifies the Indian batsmens' tendency to play at the line of the ball and commit themselves too early. On flat Indian pitches, they can confidently play through the line of the ball knowing it's not going to move late. In Australia, it's a different story and I lost count how many times Dravid, Ganguly (in particular), Laxman and the other less talented players edged the ball behind playing at the line of the ball.

And that's what happened yesterday. Dravid and Laxman didn't cover their off stumps and were beaten many times before Laxman was out caught behind to deliveries which were really just of good length (at extreme pace, mind).

 

[Pratters]

Trust me, Dravid can play on bouncy wickets. He made awesome runs in New Zealand the same tour in which Simon Doull had a great series..

India has atleast 4/6 batsmen who can play on seamy wickets without a doubt on my mind..

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

To put it simply, the Indians were just not up to the good bowling of Brett Lee.

It also shows that the Indians are still only 50/50 in regards to their performances on pitches with bounce, like at the WACA.

 

[Pratters]

To put it simply, the Indians were just not up to the good bowling of Brett Lee.

I wouldnt say the Aussies were good too before Symonds and Gilchrist stuck it on to India.

Any team can have a bad day.. it was a question of a bad performance on one day.. one abtting collapse in such a long tour is appreciable whatever the pitches on the tour were earlier

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Well I agree also that teams can have bad day, though I still reckon that India are 50/50 on pitches with bounce like the WACA one.

The diference in the Australian innings is that whilst quick wickets fell early, Australia had the men (Gilchrist & Symonds) to do the job against the Indian bowlers who (during the Gilchrist & Symonds partnership) lacked any real fire.

Balaji though bowled well IMO

 

[marc71178]

Ganguly bashers? I'm sorry but I'm hardly a Ganguly basher! The problem with Ganguly is that he has very obvious failings, so since when has commenting on them ment I'm bashing him?

I wasn't aware I was a Ganguly basher either!

 

[Richard]

pollock and flitofF? both medium fast at best... i'm sorry i wouldn't realy include them as good quick bowling... most ppl say he struggles against quick short pitch bowling... pollock and flintoff aren't quick

gillespie,lee, akhtar, sami, williams are all quick..maybe even bichel at times...but pollock and flitoff..no

Don't know what you've been watching but I can tell you without any question that Flintoff is faster than Williams and Bichel, and just about the same pace as Gillespie.
And no decent batsmen struggles against a bit of short, quick bowling. They might occasionally look uncomfortable, but they don't get out very much.

 

[Richard]

Yup, I spend my every waking moment hoping some players fail too. It just gives me a good feeling.

Then, when I'm in a REALLY good mood, I go out and buy the cutest little bunny I can find from a pet store, find the CUTEST little girl on a street somewhere, grab a bucket full of water and drown the bunny right in front of that cute little girl.

I just feel so much better afterwards.

Don't know what parrelels you're trying to draw, Corey, but if you want to support every player that's up to you. I personally don't. That is obviously different in my own team, but in games where I don't know the participants I just hope good cricket and bad cricket is shown as I think it should be. Clearly you know more top-level cricketers than I do, so if that has a bearing I don't know...
And I would never drown an animal, however cute and whoever in front of. That would make me feel terrible.

I've said for a while that it's not the bounce which undoes Indian batsmen on Aussie pitches; it's movement off the seam. None of the decks on their previous tour here were exceedingly quick yet they were beaten 3-0. WHy? Because they were played on an Adelaide deck which moved a bit, a Melbourne deck which had a bit of bounce but a bit off the seam and then they were demolished in Sydney on a pitch which seamed from day 1 to day 5.

The seaming ball magnifies the Indian batsmens' tendency to play at the line of the ball and commit themselves too early. On flat Indian pitches, they can confidently play through the line of the ball knowing it's not going to move late. In Australia, it's a different story and I lost count how many times Dravid, Ganguly (in particular), Laxman and the other less talented players edged the ball behind playing at the line of the ball.

And that's what happened yesterday. Dravid and Laxman didn't cover their off stumps and were beaten many times before Laxman was out caught behind to deliveries which were really just of good length (at extreme pace, mind).

I said something of the sort not too long earlier.
No decent batsmen have overt trouble with differences in bounce.
The Indian batsmen were troubled at The WACA by the fact that Lee swung the ball and bowled a good line and length. A deadly combination at 130 ks, let alone 150.

 

[Richard]

Reasonable, but hardly showing much form, especially as the 1-29 and 1-32 were against Zimbabwe...

So were the 8-70-0, 8-72-1 and 10-63-1!
Zimbabwe were one of the few teams who dealt with Lee well.

 

[Don Ricardo]

Trust me, Dravid can play on bouncy wickets. He made awesome runs in New Zealand the same tour in which Simon Doull had a great series..

New Zealand wickets are NOT that bouncy- they are slow and low and offer lateral movement.

The point about dravid, therefore, holds no water.

 

[Richard]

AFAIK most New Zealand pitches are now drop-ins.
Therefore no stereotype can be afforded them.