***Official*** Australia in India

[andyc]

If you play 10 Twenty20s in a row, you can't put money on who's going to win because it's so variable. But in 50-over cricket, the better side will win more often than not.

That's certainly having a go at the format, tbh.

More a dig at India than the format itself, I suspect.

 

[sideshowtim]

More a dig at India than the format itself, I suspect.

Both digs were called for. Hopefully India have come crashing back to reality after being smashed around in the first 2 ODIs

India have just won the Twenty20 world cup and then come back home against a depleted Aussie side to get hammered in 2 ODIs. Doesn't say much for T20 cricket really...

 

[Perm]

I believe he's right though. As indicated by the two teams who made the final. India and Pakistan aren't among the two best cricket sides in the world. Australia are. And they only won half their Twenty20 games. Yet they won all their World Cup 07 games. 50 over cricket is a truer test of cricketing ability, and therefore the winner will be the overall better team more often than 20/20 cricket.

Take off your rose tinted glasses buddy.

 

[sideshowtim]

Are you going to try and tell me that India and Pakistan are better cricketing outfits than Australia?

 

[Perm]

Back up some of his talk? In what way? When did he ever say he was going to take it to the Aussies with the bat? He is yet to back up his talk. He said he aimed to take a 5 for at his home ground and he failed miserably and fairly got carted, picking up 2 late wickets when Symo and Hopes were going the tonk.

When SS was batting, the game was dead, and the Indians knew it was over, the security guards were out and Dhoni was knocking it around to get his 50. It doesn't really deserve any amount of special credit. He was nearly out about 10 times in those 25 balls anyway.

Dhoni really could've at the very least had a crack at it. Was very disappointed that he didn't.

Talk is talk. Yes he said he was aiming to take a 5'fer at his home ground, but he never said that he would definitely do it. the young guy is full of ambition and aggression, and I admire his attitude. He backed up some of his talk that he dished out during the game, by managing to survive so many deliveries and not give his wicket away.

The game was dead, true. However, there was a small part of play that I daresay Sreesanth cared about and he didn't want to disappoint himself by going for a slog or giving away his wicket. I'm not saying it was a fabulous innings, just that I'm pleased he lasted for as long as he did and played with some pride.

 

[Perm]

Are you going to try and tell me that India and Pakistan are better cricketing outfits than Australia?

In Twenty20 cricket, yes.

 

[sideshowtim]

In Twenty20 cricket, yes.

I personally believe there is no such thing as the best T20 side in the world as the format is too unpredictable, and thus the side with the best cricketers won't win as much as in the other formats. It's a leveller, and that's probably why people enjoy it so much, as it provides great competition...but Gilchrist is right in saying the best side won't win as much as in Tests and ODIs. 50 over cricket is different and a better test of cricketing ability.

 

[Matt79]

However, there was a small part of play that I daresay Sreesanth cared about and he didn't want to disappoint himself by going for a slog or giving away his wicket. I'm not saying it was a fabulous innings, just that I'm pleased he lasted for as long as he did and played with some pride.

Did you actually see him bat? Because there were some of the wildest slogs I've ever seen in it. I'm not having a go at him out of any dislike, but he was very lucky not to be out in his first half-a-dozen balls.

 

[Perm]

Did you actually see him bat? Because there were some of the wildest slogs I've ever seen in it. I'm not having a go at him out of any dislike, but he was very lucky not to be out in his first half-a-dozen balls.

No, I didn't see him bat. Guess my comments were wrong Still good to see him last that long.

 

[Perm]

I personally believe there is no such thing as the best T20 side in the world as the format is too unpredictable, and thus the side with the best cricketers won't win as much as in the other formats. It's a leveller, and that's probably why people enjoy it so much, as it provides great competition...but Gilchrist is right in saying the best side won't win as much as in Tests and ODIs. 50 over cricket is different and a better test of cricketing ability.

The best cricketers in that format of the game aren't from Australia though, it's plan to see. You've got little time for the format and constantly wish to knock it because Australia lost, it's plain to see. Twenty20 requires different ability to ODI and Test cricket, which is why it's so challenging. You don't beleive there is a thing as the best Twenty20 team because Australia didn't win the World Twenty20.

 

[Matt79]

No, I didn't see him bat. Guess my comments were wrong Still good to see him last that long.

Yeah, the kid is a tryer, you can't deny that. He's still learning the art of being aggressive without being a dill, but that will come - and even the most practiced exponents of that art occasionally get it wrong anyway. He bowled poorly yesterday aside from his first two overs, but that will happen against a really good opponent.

 

[Jono]

Are you going to try and tell me that India and Pakistan are better cricketing outfits than Australia?

Were the WI the best cricket outfit circa 2004? Because they won the Champions Trophy, in a ODI tournament where surely the best team would win? Since the best team didn't, does that make ODI cricket a poor format too?

And I'm not even a huge fan of 20/20 cricket mind you, but you can't say that because a team that wasn't the 'best' won a multi-team tournament, the format is flawed. Its flawed for various reasons, Australia not winning isn't one of them.

 

[hardnut]

Given that both of our ODI openers could be retiring relatively soon, we should start trying out replacements, maybe towards the end of this series.

I reckon Clarke should open with Hayden, Gilly batting down the order. Clarke has the technique and the temperament, he can build an innings and can score quickly.

 

[pasag]

It's an interesting discussion as to whether the team that wins a World Cup is the best side in the world for that moment of time and the near future. Is Italy the best soccer team in the world and does being the best include a factor of performing at big tournaments in it? I'm undecided tbh. If Misbah would have hit another 6 would that make Pakistan the best side in the world and if India played a Twenty20 match against Australia today how many people would bet on India and if the majority would go Australia (again, if) how could India rightly be called the best in that case? But does that matter at all? Probably deserves its own thread tbh.

 

[SJS]

Even in 50-50 its not as if the best side always wins. There are umpteen examples of the weaker side winning. Its just that the 'chanciness' of the format increases as you start reducing the number of overs. Make it ten overs a side and it will become even more of a lottery. Thats all there is to it.

 

[silentstriker]

Are you going to try and tell me that India and Pakistan are better cricketing outfits than Australia?

Were Australia really the better ODI cricketing outfit than South Africa in 1999? Were WI (as Jono said) better in 2004? Were India better in 2001?

They were all better in that specific game or series - same as in Twenty20. What about Australia in World Cup soccer? Surely they were better teams that didn't go as far, so therefore that tournament is irrelevant too. Oh, and if Federer ever loses, that tournament sucks and is useless. Whenever Tiger gets beat, its the format that must have done it. Oh, and if Ian Thorpe loses in the Olympics, it's the olympic event that should be scrapped as obviously the 'best' does not win.

Seriously, give it a rest. Otherwise, let's just go by rankings and not play the games. This is such a ridiculous argument.

 

[silentstriker]

if India played a Twenty20 match against Australia today how many people would bet on India and if the majority would go Australia (again, if) how could India rightly be called the best in that case? .

Actually, I would probably put money on India. Australian winning % in Twenty20 cricket is only 55% (6-5), whereas India are 5-1-1, which is excellent. The sample size is still small, but Australia have some problems setting targets. When they've lost, its been frequently big, such as the 100 run loss to England, five wicket loss to Zimbabwe, and a six wicket loss to Pakistan. That's three out of their five losses by pretty significant margins.

 

[pasag]

Actually, I would probably put money on India. Australian winning % in Twenty20 cricket is only 55% (6-5), whereas India are 5-1-1, which is excellent. The sample size is still small, but Australia have some problems setting targets. When they've lost, its been frequently big, such as the 100 run loss to England, five wicket loss to Zimbabwe, and a six wicket loss to Pakistan. That's three out of their five losses by pretty significant margins.

Agree, that's why I said if. Am thinking more in terms of SA here actually. Until Australia figure out the format properly there is no way they can be considered the best unless you're going on a)paper and b)ODI performances. But yeah, it's hard to discuss this with such a tiny sample size.

 

[sideshowtim]

Even in 50-50 its not as if the best side always wins. There are umpteen examples of the weaker side winning. Its just that the 'chanciness' of the format increases as you start reducing the number of overs. Make it ten overs a side and it will become even more of a lottery. Thats all there is to it.

Exactly.

 

[pup11]

Gilly said a better team wins an Odi game more or less on every occasion, he was trying to say that a team which plays better cricket on that given day more or less wins an Odi game.
Its definitely not the case with a T20 game though, T20 WC final is one of the prime examples of that where Pakistan probably played better cricket than India through 70% of the game but in the end India still managed to pull off the victory.
If Gilly was having a dig at the Indian team then TBH i think the Indian team asking for it, their whole attitude has changed since the T20 WC win (it seems like the win has gone to their heads) their on-field behaviour has been really pathetic and they deserve whatever they get.