***Official Australia in India***

[BoyBrumby]

What's Hussey's out by bowled %? Must be one of the highest in the world amongst specialist batsmen.

26.3% before today, according to HowStat! Does seem high, yes.

For instance, Vaughan, a guy I had down as being bowled rather too often, is down at 15.9%.

 

[Ikki]

I think this is purely a matter of perception. Suppose Hayden didn't get out to the ball he did, and continued to get beaten for ten more overs, he wouldn't have been destined for a 100 as per your analysis. That would be illogical as the batsman who hung on for ten more overs would be deemed less destined for a 100 than the one who was poor enough to get out much earlier going by that reasoning.

I don't see how that is illogical at all. If a batsman is going through more than 1 over (because that is all it was), let's say 10, where he is completely out of it, then yes it wouldn't register as a surprise that he got out. Hayden looked in good knick, regardless what India threw at him. And when he got out the expression on his own face told the true story.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I don't see how that is illogical at all. If a batsman is going through more than 1 over (because that is all it was), let's say 10, where he is completely out of it, then yes it wouldn't register as a surprise that he got out. Hayden looked in good knick, regardless what India threw at him. And when he got out the expression on his own face told the true story.

Yeah, I understand why one would be surprised, but it doesn't seem logical that if he had spent ten more overs out there getting beaten he would be deemed to be less destined for a 100. If anything, the guy spending more time out there would be more destined for the 100, wouldn't he? After all, the guy spending more time out there is in better control of the situation than the guy who lasted just over against the bowler who got him.

 

[Precambrian]

I don't see how that is illogical at all. If a batsman is going through more than 1 over (because that is all it was), let's say 10, where he is completely out of it, then yes it wouldn't register as a surprise that he got out. Hayden looked in good knick, regardless what India threw at him. And when he got out the expression on his own face told the true story.

Hayden looked due for three figures, though he had his own problems against Sehwag. Still, he did well to counter them. It's not like he batted freely and without a chance like Tendulkar did in the first innings.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, I understand why one would be surprised, but it doesn't seem logical that if he had spent ten more overs out there getting beaten he would be deemed to be less destined for a 100. If anything, the guy spending more time out there would be more destined for the 100, wouldn't he? After all, the guy spending more time out there is in better control of the situation than the guy who lasted just over against the bowler who got him.

But you're not getting my point. It's not the fact that he was there for 10 more overs. But the fact that 10 more overs of being wrecked across your crease shows that x bowler had y batsmen around his finger. A single over does not constitute that kind of dominance. Bowlers have overs here and there where one over is better than their others. But when it is sustained and said batsman is obviously pooping himself is when you say "well, he didn't look like he was going to get a tonne there" and you expect a mistake. Whereas with Hayden, no matter what was thrown at him he defended it very well and was scoring runs at a comfortable clip.

If you disagree, that's fair enough.

 

[Precambrian]

But you're not getting my point. It's not the fact that he was there for 10 more overs. But the fact that 10 more overs of being wrecked across your crease shows that x bowler had y batsmen around his finger. A single over does not constitute that kind of dominance. Bowlers have overs here and there where one over is better than their others. But when it is sustained and said batsman is obviously pooping himself is when you say "well, he didn't look like he was going to get a tonne there" and you expect a mistake. Whereas with Hayden, no matter what was thrown at him he defended it very well and was scoring runs at a comfortable clip.

If you disagree, that's fair enough.

Going by that argument, Harby never dominated Ponting in India (atleast prior to the current series) because he hardly lasted an over against him?

 

[G.I.Joe]

But you're not getting my point. It's not the fact that he was there for 10 more overs. But the fact that 10 more overs of being wrecked across your crease shows that x bowler had y batsmen around his finger. A single over does not constitute that kind of dominance. Bowlers have overs here and there where one over is better than their others. But when it is sustained and said batsman is obviously pooping himself is when you say "well, he didn't look like he was going to get a tonne there" and you expect a mistake. Whereas with Hayden, no matter what was thrown at him he defended it very well and was scoring runs at a comfortable clip.

If you disagree, that's fair enough.

lol, yeah, its not that big a deal anyway. My point was just that a batsman A who wasn't good enough to stay out there and face the sustained pwnage is less deserving than the batsman B who was good enough to get pwned for a sustained period just because he was better skilled in actually surviving the balls that would ironically have cut short the very same pwnage as they actually did in the former batsman A's case. In short, batsman A didn't seem to get pwned for a sustained period because he got out at the very beginning of the pwnage, while batsman B was better than batsman A because he actually survived the start of the pwnage, but ironically looks bad because by surviving he's subjecting himself to more extended pwnage while A avoids that embarrassment simply by cooling his heels in the dressing room.

I can't believe I actually typed all that out

 

[Burgey]

Good call, but they'll need to either take it first thing tomorrow morning or throw it to the spinners.

21 runs off the last ten overs, much more effective containment from Dhoni than Ponting managed.

Not compared with the sessions before tea on day 1. Besides, it's apples and oranges given where the teams are at in this match.

Anyways, a good day's play there, with some back bone shown bythe Aussie top order.

Word on the radio here was Ponting's wrist was playing up but he didn't seem in any particular discomfort. Only disappointing thing was everyone who got out bar maybe Hussey was due to batsman error rather than great bowling - Katich & Ponting yorked themselves, Hayden missed a straight break. Still, good to see such a tough day's play.

Big effort required sessions one and two today. If Australia bat those two out, they'd be close to 500, if not a little more, making the chances of a result pretty unlikely.

Did Kumble walk under a ladder or something?

 

[Ikki]

Going by that argument, Harby never dominated Ponting in India (atleast prior to the current series) because he hardly lasted an over against him?

Please, let's use some common sense. Getting out in single figures is much different to getting out in the 80s. In one, you were never set to begin with - the former case, if it's not obvious enough.

 

[ret]

Day 3

decent perfo by Australia to end the day on 338/4 .... the good news for India is that the top 4 Australians batsmen are back in the hut with none of them getting a big score. Day 4 will tell us how much the inability of the top 4 to convert those 50s into a meaningful 3 figure score would hurt Australia

Sehwag 3 for 66!!!! This guy does something either with the bat or the ball .... before hitting the sack last night, I watched the game briefly and watching Kumble bowl was a pain. It was like a bowling machine was throwing balls .... i read that he got injured and was off the field but would like to know what percentage of total overs, he had bowled before he got injured and was it he who had introduced Sehwag?

 

[Precambrian]

Day 3

decent perfo by Australia to end the day on 338/4 .... the good news for India is that the top 4 Australians batsmen are back in the hut with none of them getting a big score. Day 4 will tell us how much the inability of the top 4 to convert those 50s into a meaningful 3 figure score would hurt Australia

Sehwag 3 for 66!!!! This guy does something either with the bat or the ball .... before hitting the sack last night, I watched the game briefly and watching Kumble bowl was a pain. It was like a bowling machine was throwing balls .... i read that he got injured and was off the field but would like to know what percentage of total overs, he had bowled before he got injured and was it he who had introduced Sehwag?

17 out of 53 overs, nearly 33% of overs he had bowled.

And yea, Sehwag was introduced by Kumble in the 40th over.

 

[ret]

17 out of 53 overs, nearly 33% of overs he had bowled.

And yea, Sehwag was introduced by Kumble in the 40th over.

33% when he was not making an impression!!!

 

[Precambrian]

33% when he was not making an impression!!!

He was getting some deliveries to jump from the pitch, but otherwise it was Dhoni who was doing all the jumping,

 

[aussie]

Quite improbable, considering they'd have to move that particular pitch out of the old stadium and into the new stadium plus transfer the curator there too. Besides, the current BCCI chief doesn't have an axe to grind with the BCCI.

Ha i see. India has too many damn grounds..

 

[silentstriker]

In other news the Gambhir banning is HUGE. Getting rid of their in form batsmen who has scored a mountain of runs and has looked brilliant all tour will be such a big boost to Australia, if they can draw this game. If not, it doesn't really matter.

Well, they may appeal the decision, in which case he may play until the decision is reached. If so, he'd miss the first Test against England.

 

[Precambrian]

Well, they may appeal the decision, in which case he may play until the decision is reached. If so, he'd miss the first Test against England.

In that case, Chops must be given a chance. He is way better than Will do-Can't-Can't-Can't-Can't Jaffer.

 

[silentstriker]

In that case, Chops must be given a chance. He is way better than Will do-Can't-Can't-Can't-Can't Jaffer.

On home pitches, Jaffer scores heavily.

 

[Precambrian]

Harby to use banned steroids?



http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/cr...n-gautam/2008/11/01/1224956331111.html?page=2

Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh is on course to be fit for the final Test against Australia in Nagpur next week after getting permission to have his injured left foot treated with a steroid.

The BCCI obtained a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) from the ICC's anti-doping agency for Harbhajan to have an injection of Depo-Medrol, an anti-inflammatory drug which contains a usually banned steroid.

Harbhajan had struggled with the injury since the latter stages of the second Test in Mohali, and was able to bowl only a handful of overs in the nets at the Feroz Shah Kotla ground in New Delhi before being ruled out of the third Test in favour of leg spinner Amit Mishra.

There were reports that Harbhajan's problem was bad enough to keep him out of the rest of the series, given an off spin bowler's reliance on his front foot to pivot and deliver the ball with maximum spin and flight.

But the approval of the foot treatment is expected to have him ready to front up in Nagpur for a match which may or may not decide the fate of the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. "This is definitely good news for us," a team source told The Hindustan Times. "We believe this medication can give him full and instant relief."

Now if he comes back and takes a bagful in the final test, will tongues wag like the Murray Mints incident?

Good news for India though. He's sorely missed in Delhi now.

 

[Precambrian]

On home pitches, Jaffer scores heavily.

So does Chopra, I think he should be No.3 in the Opener's pecking order after Viru and Gauti.

 

[Precambrian]

Pic of the day

Hayden does look in combative mood then also.