India's spin bowling options for the tour Down Under

[Perm]

I must respectfully disagree. There is no way we have the pre-requisite skill or class to play the attacking cricket required to even give them a challenge. If we try that, it will be 4-0 for sure. If we don't, we may draw a couple.

Well I think Australia are going to win 4-0 unless Dravid, Tendulkar or Laxman produce something amazing and manage to draw a game. Other than that, I don't think that India posess the players (with a few exceptions) to effectively play the defensive cricket required. They may be able to hold out for a little while, but eventually Australia will crush them. If you attack and really take it to the opposition, then you have a chance of winning. If it turns to crap, you can still try to play for the draw.

 

[pasag]

I know he did brilliantly in the England series but I simply don't see him being anywhere near effective against the Aussies.

He was picked apart in the one day series consistently by the Aussies and I don't see any different happening in the test game. He's an exceedingly average bowler who has a couple of good series when conditions suit him and always will be.

I don't see him being anywhere near as effective in Australia either, I'm still trying to figure out how he is 'utter ****' though.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I can only go by what I see, obviously, but is it really that surprising to see the only reason he has an average under forty is because he lowers his average against the average sides or in conditions that suit him?

29 v England, 29 v Bangladesh, 23 v New Zealand, 29 v West Indies, 27 v Zimbabwe...and so on and such forth. They are OK figures - but you have no realise that he averages well above 35 against Australia, RSA, SL and Pakistan who are all better teams or have conditions that don't suit him.

If that doesn't define utter **** for an international player, then I don't know what does.

 

[pasag]

This is the problem with just looking up stats on cricinfo. The guy is a much improved bowler since his comeback from injury and anyone that has actually watched him since will know this. Looks better every time he plays and to write him off by looking at his averages and stats is unwise.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Again, as I said I can only go by what I've seen - and every time I have seen him in conditions that don't suit him he goes the distance.

I don't rate him - obviously he could change my mind down here but I have obvious reservations of his ability to do that.

In the same way people criticise Samaraweera for being a FTB - Zaheer is one of the biggest fair-weather cricketers in the world from what I've seen of him; regardless of form in England.

 

[silentstriker]

Well I think Australia are going to win 4-0 unless Dravid, Tendulkar or Laxman produce something amazing and manage to draw a game. Other than that, I don't think that India posess the players (with a few exceptions) to effectively play the defensive cricket required.

Well, they certainly don't have the ability to play aggressive enough. There is a better chance of them containing the Aussies than beating them, so that's the way they should go.

They may be able to hold out for a little while, but eventually Australia will crush them. If you attack and really take it to the opposition, then you have a chance of winning.

That's the thing - I don't think you really do have any chance of winning.

If it turns to crap, you can still try to play for the draw.

Doesn't work like that against the Aussies. With other teams, you might be able to salvage something.

They would lose 4-0 if they play that way in my opinion anyway.

Either way, they would likely lose 4-0. My way gives them a bigger chance at minimizing that.

I don't think it is possible to keep them under three an over

Depends. If you try to take wickets - its probably not. You bowl outside leg stump in a very negative fashion, and I think you certainly have a shot to keep them under three. Australian Run Rate for the first innings of this current match was 3.89. I think if you went in with the right bowlers, right plans, and the right field, I don't see why you couldn't shave off one run per over.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I don't believe the Indian attack is any better than the Sri Lankan attack, though. I get the feeling if you just bowl outside leg, you will still go for runs - whereas taking wickets is the best way of reducing run rates.

It is a waste of a tour to play defensive cricket and in all probability have it blow up in your face.

 

[Athlai]

I don't see why you couldn't shave off one run per over.

Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Symonds
Gilchrist

7 good reasons there.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't believe the Indian attack is any better than the Sri Lankan attack, though

At taking wickets, you're right. But that's not what we're talking about here. If you can't keep a Test side to under three runs an over if you set that as your only goal, there is no way you have enough skill to remotely challenge them for the win either, so it's irrelevant.

 

[silentstriker]

Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Symonds
Gilchrist

7 good reasons there.

That's not an answer. They scored at 3.89. If you bowl tight negative lines, and support that with proper fielding, you can reduce that by one run per over.

 

[Athlai]

That's not an answer. They scored at 3.89. If you bowl tight negative lines, and support that with proper fielding, you can reduce that by one run per over.

Hayden
Symonds
Gilchrist

and to a lesser extent Jacques
Are all players who attack regardless of the situation, regardless of the bowling you would be hard pressed to stifle the run flow against them, the greatest hope is to take their wicket with tight bowling.

Ponting and Hussey on the other hand are just so good that unless you bowl perfectly every ball that goes slightly wrong will convert itself into a boundary.

 

[silentstriker]

Ponting and Hussey on the other hand are just so good that unless you bowl perfectly every ball that goes slightly wrong will convert itself into a boundary.

They'll do that anyway. And it'll be much worse if you try aggressive tactics.

Hayden
Symonds
Gilchrist

and to a lesser extent Jacques
Are all players who attack regardless of the situation, regardless of the bowling you would be hard pressed to stifle the run flow against them, the greatest hope is to take their wicket with tight bowling.

But considering that scenario is not in the realm of realistic probability - another solution has to be found. Obviously, if you COULD take twenty of those wickets, then of course you should and there would be no point in even discussing the defensive strategy. I'm coming standpoint that it is not possible to take their wickets, and assuming that is true (which I firmly believe it is), what do you do?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

SS, some food for thought: When was the last time a team batted out time against Australia and forced a draw, with NO rain whatsoever?

There's South Africa in Perth 2005, and India in Sydney 2004 after making 705.

These have both come from doughty batting, not negative bowling.

In any case - it's very, very rare.

 

[silentstriker]

SS, some food for thought: When was the last time a team batted out time against Australia and forced a draw, with NO rain whatsoever?

There's South Africa in Perth 2005, and India in Sydney 2004 after making 705.

These have both come from doughty batting, not negative bowling.

In any case - it's very, very rare.

But how many sides have gone into the match with the intention to draw?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

India certainly did, in the second example. Their only objective was to retain the Border-Gavaskar.

But it was done through a focus on the batting and the pressure on Australia this entailed.

Obviously it's easier to bowl an offensive line when runs are behind you.

 

[Dasa]

India will do better than some people think in this series imo, and they won't do it through playing defensive cricket.

 

[Salamuddin]

I don't believe the Indian attack is any better than the Sri Lankan attack, though. I get the feeling if you just bowl outside leg, you will still go for runs - whereas taking wickets is the best way of reducing run rates.

It is a waste of a tour to play defensive cricket and in all probability have it blow up in your face.

India's attack is surely better than Sri Lanka's. India's seamers were good enough to bowl them to a test win at Jo'Burg in late 2006 and of course the series win in England earlier this year.

I'd definitely take Zaheer, Sree, RP and Munaf over Dilhara, Maharoof, Vaas and Malinga.

 

[Athlai]

India's attack is surely better than Sri Lanka's. India's seamers were good enough to bowl them to a test win at Jo'Burg in late 2006 and of course the series win in England earlier this year.

I'd definitely take Zaheer, Sree, RP and Munaf over Dilhara, Maharoof, Vaas and Malinga.

Malinga > Sree
Vaas > Zaheer
Dilhara/Maharoof =< RP/Munaf
Murali > Kumble

TBH.

 

[Salamuddin]

India will do better than some people think in this series imo, and they won't do it through playing defensive cricket.

Gotta agree Dasa. Think somepeople are underestimating India here as a team....honestly they're the team most likely to beat AUstralia IMO in a test - since Australia became world champions in 1995, the Indians have inflicted more defeats on Australia than any other team. SUre most of their wins came at home but they also remain the only side to have won a 'live' test match in Australia since 1998.

I'm backing Australia to win but I wouldn't be surprised if India were competitive.

 

[pasag]

Malinga > Sree
Vaas > Zaheer
Dilhara/Maharoof =< RP/Munaf
Murali > Kumble

TBH.

Zaheer > Vaas.