***Official*** Australia in India

[Prince EWS]

jeez, just read wht harbhajan had to say..he is saying aussie players are after him still becuase of the defeat..

After the match Harbhajan was not laughing and said the Australians had shown themselves to be bad losers after their defeat to India in the semi-finals of the Twenty20 World Cup. "They clearly did not like that," Harbhajan said in the Sydney Morning Herald. "They are a very good cricket side, but that does not mean that they can do whatever they want to do.

and i dont see any reason not to belive him with the way aussies where talking to sreesanth and harbhajan during the game

and pls dont consider that i approve wht sreesanth and harbhajan do..i dont and i dont like people talking during the games...........

There's no reason to believe it had anything to do with the Twenty20 games though, other than Harbhajan's assumptions which I believe to be wrong.

 

[pup11]

Is Punter fit enough to play in tomorrow's game?
It would be great to have him back in the side and controlling his side, though Gilly captained the side very well, i still think Australia looks a much side when Ponting is leading them.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

dunno abt that but Gilchrist whining about T20 not being the true test of skills and making it seem as though ODIs are true test of skills etc. doesn't exactly show that they are too much "over" it, tbh... They didn't enjoy getting beaten and the fact of the matter is they were beaten reasonably comfortably as well and they didn't enjoy the way Indians celebrated it either. It probably fired them up and perhaps we are seeing the results in the way they are playing, they are clearly playing with a lot of focus, esp. the bowling and fielding, but there is nothing wrong in what Harbhajan said vis-a-vis them not being over their T20 defeat.


His comments about sledging on the other hand....... Pot. Kettle.Black.

Same with Symonds. He is a real loser, AFAIC.

Have you not noticed Gilchrist saying the exact same things about 20/20 for the last couple of years? It's not that hard to follow, really. Gilchrist doesn't think much of 20/20. Gilchrist plays in a 20/20 tournament in which Australia lose, and continues not to think much of 20/20. Gilchrist is endlessly asked the same questions about 20/20 and the loss to India, and responds by dismissing the issue using the same complaints he has consistently made about the format. Unless any criticism of 20/20 by a team that didn't happen to win the recent tournament qualifies as "whining", I don't see why Gilchrist should be singled out.

AFAIC, his complaints are perfectly valid, and would be equally if Australia had gone through the 20/20 tournament undefeated.

 

[biased indian]

There's no reason to believe it had anything to do with the Twenty20 games though, other than Harbhajan's assumptions which I believe to be wrong.

which i belive to be true

 

[Burgey]

It's only up to counteract whatever power Wright's avatar has.

Ah I see.

Truly an axis of evil then.

 

[honestbharani]

Have you not noticed Gilchrist saying the exact same things about 20/20 for the last couple of years? It's not that hard to follow, really. Gilchrist doesn't think much of 20/20. Gilchrist plays in a 20/20 tournament in which Australia lose, and continues not to think much of 20/20. Gilchrist is endlessly asked the same questions about 20/20 and the loss to India, and responds by dismissing the issue using the same complaints he has consistently made about the format. Unless any criticism of 20/20 by a team that didn't happen to win the recent tournament qualifies as "whining", I don't see why Gilchrist should be singled out.

AFAIC, his complaints are perfectly valid, and would be equally if Australia had gone through the 20/20 tournament undefeated.

tbh, no, I have not heard Gilchrist say the same things before. I guess there was a time when Twenty20 was just coming in and virtually everyone was saying that it won't be a true test of cricketing skills. But I didn't hear Gilchrist say this just BEFORE or DURING the ICC Twenty20. He did say he would rather watch it than play it but that could mean a million things.... And if he thinks ODIs are a true test of cricketing skills, then...

 

[Matt79]

He did say things along those lines before, during and after the T20 World Championship. He and Ponting have been among the most prominent critics of the format. He, along with some of the other players, made a few conciliatory comments in the immediate lead up to the tourny, but they've never liked it. And as Fuller said, he most likely mentions it in press conferences because people keep asking him about it and guys like Harby keep throwing the "The Aussies are upset about the T20" line out there and he's asked for a response.

My point about their supposed distress not being at all apparent is valid I think: they've played very very well, so it hasn't affected their performance. And they've done a lot of talking and needling of their opponents, which has a notable feature of the Australian game for the last decade. The closest thing to any indication they were annoyed was Symonds' original comments that seeing the Indians overcook, in his opinion, their celebrations had sparked an extra hunger to beat the Indians. That was one comment before the current series started.

If anything I think Sreesanth's clownish antics, whether provoked or not, will be the bigger motivating factor for the guys like Symonds now.

 

[honestbharani]

He did say things along those lines before, during and after the T20 World Championship. He and Ponting have been among the most prominent critics of the format. He, along with some of the other players, made a few conciliatory comments in the immediate lead up to the tourny, but they've never liked it. And as Fuller said, he most likely mentions it in press conferences because people keep asking him about it and guys like Harby keep throwing the "The Aussies are upset about the T20" line out there and he's asked for a response.

My point about their supposed distress not being at all apparent is valid I think: they've played very very well, so it hasn't affected their performance. And they've done a lot of talking and needling of their opponents, which has a notable feature of the Australian game for the last decade. The closest thing to any indication they were annoyed was Symonds' original comments that seeing the Indians overcook, in his opinion, their celebrations had sparked an extra hunger to beat the Indians. That was one comment before the current series started.

If anything I think Sreesanth's clownish antics, whether provoked or not, will be the bigger motivating factor for the guys like Symonds now.

well, Symonds didn't hit much off Sreesanth anyway. So he can use all the motivation, I guess.


but the thing is, I keep saying this again and again, if Gilly and Punter and these guys think ODIs are a real test of cricketing skills, that's really stupid.

And no, it is not a very diplomatic way of putting across things when you keep pointing out that T20 is not a real test of cricketing skills. At the end of the day, even though it is only 20 overs, batsmen still try to hit the ball and bowlers still try to either get them out or try to make sure they can't hit the ball. The basics remain the same and AFAIC, it is not all that inferior to ODIs at all. Wonder if Aussies will accept it if some other team becomes the better test team and they keep saying Test cricket is the real cricket and the rest don't matter. To keep saying that after they lost the T20 while they said some nice things about before and during the tourney sounds like whining, whether it is truly whining or not is another story, but that is just based on opinion.

 

[R_D]

I think its the Indian media that has added fuel to fire, just before the start of the series they said how Australians would struggle without McGrath, and how the Australian players are too old to perform at this level now, all sort of trash that one can think of was dished out by the Indian media which probably has only made the situation between the two teams a lot worse.
The same Indian media which was hailing the Indian team after their T20 triumph have now started criticising the Indian team and now they are raising the question whether there is place for the big 3 Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid in the current Indian team which is obviously is a pathetic thing to do (and all this is happening just because India lost one match!!)

I find it hard to beleive this... Indian media and critsing the aussie team ?
They love them so much you'd think they were the home team while critisizing every move of team India. Have things change or you just making things up ? Everytime Australia tours India the media gives them royal welcome.. praising anything the aussies do. While soon as any opposition teams arrive in Aus.. former players start with pot shots and than the rest of the media follows over here.

 

[R_D]

I disagree. The Indian public and players seem to be going on about it quite a bit, but no-one else really cares anymore, including the Australian players. Sreesanth and Symonds went off at each other because it's in their nature; that's their character. It had nothing at all to do with a game a few weeks ago which no-one cares about anymore.

Did you read Symmonds comment just before the start of the series... clearlyshowed Aus were very upset and couldn't believe they lost. Anyway Australia playing good cricket and clearly are focused while Indians don't look very focused. The same problem of the spinners not being able to buy any wickets in the middle order hurting the team badly.

 

[Mister Wright]

Anyone else think is an absolute joke that this "free hit" crap has seeped into ODIs now? Such an abysmal rule, even the super sub was better.

Yeah, not a fan of the free hit. However it was mentioned in the first S.L. v England game that there was a lack of front foot noballs in the game.

 

[Matt79]

well, Symonds didn't hit much off Sreesanth anyway. So he can use all the motivation, I guess.


but the thing is, I keep saying this again and again, if Gilly and Punter and these guys think ODIs are a real test of cricketing skills, that's really stupid.

And no, it is not a very diplomatic way of putting across things when you keep pointing out that T20 is not a real test of cricketing skills. At the end of the day, even though it is only 20 overs, batsmen still try to hit the ball and bowlers still try to either get them out or try to make sure they can't hit the ball. The basics remain the same and AFAIC, it is not all that inferior to ODIs at all. Wonder if Aussies will accept it if some other team becomes the better test team and they keep saying Test cricket is the real cricket and the rest don't matter. To keep saying that after they lost the T20 while they said some nice things about before and during the tourney sounds like whining, whether it is truly whining or not is another story, but that is just based on opinion.

Tbf, they did accept their defeat in the Ashes 05 - they provided no excuses but went away and evaluated what they needed to do to reassert their supremacy and did that.

I can accept that the Aussie teams pride has been stung by not winning the tournament, but not that as a consequence they've changed their opinion of T20 or that as a consequence they now have a huge issue with the Indian team. I've no doubt they want to win the T20 championship next time, but they'd regard it as a lesser tournament than the WC, and both limited overs forms as less important than Tests - so while they hold the World Cup and are win every test series they play, I don't think they'll lose much sleep about only making the semis in the first T20 tourny they entered. And they're not alone there - a South African player, Boucher IIRC, said exactly the same thing about the relative importance to players of each format before the T20 World Championship. If anything, T20 has risen in the estimation of the Aussie players as a result of the T20 WC.

 

[Matt79]

Did you read Symmonds comment just before the start of the series... clearlyshowed Aus were very upset and couldn't believe they lost. Anyway Australia playing good cricket and clearly are focused while Indians don't look very focused. The same problem of the spinners not being able to buy any wickets in the middle order hurting the team badly.

Not sure about your first sentence, as I said to HB I think that might be overstating things. Your second sentence is interesting though. India will have to learn to do something that has tripped up lots of teams in the past - dealing with your success so that you continue to perform at your best.

 

[honestbharani]

Tbf, they did accept their defeat in the Ashes 05 - they provided no excuses but went away and evaluated what they needed to do to reassert their supremacy and did that.

I can accept that the Aussie teams pride has been stung by not winning the tournament, but not that as a consequence they've changed their opinion of T20 or that as a consequence they now have a huge issue with the Indian team. I've no doubt they want to win the T20 championship next time, but they'd regard it as a lesser tournament than the WC, and both limited overs forms as less important than Tests - so while they hold the World Cup and are win every test series they play, I don't think they'll lose much sleep about only making the semis in the first T20 tourny they entered. And they're not alone there - a South African player, Boucher IIRC, said exactly the same thing about the relative importance to players of each format before the T20 World Championship. If anything, T20 has risen in the estimation of the Aussie players as a result of the T20 WC.

maybe... put it this way. Even I think the rating goes as this:

Tests





ODIs

T20s


I have no doubt that I will rate an ODI series win over a T20 series win and an ODI WC win over a T20 WC win. But the way the Aussies are putting it is just carrying it a little too far. There is no way ODIs are a real test of cricketing skills and there is no way in hell is it THAT superior to Twenty20. And maybe it is just the Indian media questioning Australia too much on this, but I do think they were hurt and hurt badly by that Twenty20 loss. Anyways, as I said, it is all just opinions here and none of us really know how much the T20 is occupying either team's mind.



And BTW, I think I confused the run out attempt of Sreesanth as the LBW appeal. I think what happened was, Haddin was rapped on the pads, Sree went up in appeal, the ball dropped near Haddin and they tried to sneak a run so Sree quickly gave up his appeal and ran to pick up the ball. He picked it up, and then it is not clear who said what but words were seemingly exchanged between Haddin and Sree and then when Sree was walking back to his bowling mark, Symonds must have left the crease to have a go at Sree and/or to have a word with Haddin and then Sree hit the stumps and appealed for the run out.

Sorry that I confused it, I was attending to my 4 month old nephew at that time and didn't concentrate on the match at that point too much, so I had confused it as the continuation of the LBW appeal. Apologies to everyone.

 

[pup11]

It isn't as if that Australia didn't knew that they weren't playing good cricket in the T20 WC and they even accepted that, so they hardly have any reason to get shocked when they lost the game to India.
If anything they would have been suprised that how they managed to reach the semi-final stage with the quality of cricket they were playing in that tournament.

 

[Perm]

Anyone else think is an absolute joke that this "free hit" crap has seeped into ODIs now? Such an abysmal rule, even the super sub was better.

No, it's a sensible law to try and eliminate no-balls from being bowled. If bowlers become more conscious of the fact they are bowling them, and the punishment for doing so is harsher, then hopefully it will inspire these bowlers to put more work into that aspect of their game.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, it's a sensible law to try and eliminate no-balls from being bowled. If bowlers become more conscious of the fact they are bowling them, and the punishment for doing so is harsher, then hopefully it will inspire these bowlers to put more work into that aspect of their game.

What? We already had a law to stop no-balls being bowled. It gave a free run to the opposition, requried another ball to be bowled, and stopped that illegal delivery from taking a wicket. That's a huge deterrant and obviously no bowler would ever bowl a no-ball on purpose with that rule in place. However, that rule didn't create a situation where a batsman could slog the ball in the air or even allow themselves to be bowled and run a single without risk of losing their wicket, off a legal delivery.

It's completely contrary to the principles of the game. If they wanted to make the penalty more harsh that's fine (although unnecessary IMO), but that's a stupid way to do it. You could simply penalise the bowler more runs.

 

[NUFAN]

What? We already had a law to stop no-balls being bowled. It gave a free run to the opposition, requried another ball to be bowled, and stopped that illegal delivery from taking a wicket. That's a huge deterrant and obviously no bowler would ever bowl a no-ball on purpose with that rule in place. However, that rule didn't create a situation where a batsman could slog the ball in the air or even allow themselves to be bowled and run a single without risk of losing their wicket, off a legal delivery.

It's completely contrary to the principles of the game.

I agree completely with the above.

 

[The Sean]

Loving the aggression TBH. Just what cricket needs IMO, as long as it goes no further than this there shouldn't really be a problem.

Agreed mate, I'm loving this.

It just means that it's all going to be so on by the time the real (ie Test) action comes around in Australia in a few weeks.

 

[age_master]

What? We already had a law to stop no-balls being bowled. It gave a free run to the opposition, requried another ball to be bowled, and stopped that illegal delivery from taking a wicket. That's a huge deterrant and obviously no bowler would ever bowl a no-ball on purpose with that rule in place. However, that rule didn't create a situation where a batsman could slog the ball in the air or even allow themselves to be bowled and run a single without risk of losing their wicket, off a legal delivery.

It's completely contrary to the principles of the game. If they wanted to make the penalty more harsh that's fine (although unnecessary IMO), but that's a stupid way to do it. You could simply penalise the bowler more runs.

Agreed, i think a 2 run penalty would be far more appropriate. I don't mind the free hit in 20/20 as a gimmick but it shouldn't be part of ODI's.