Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
Fixed and +1ed
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Australia in South Africa
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
yes, apart from a first innings collapse in the first test, they did well in the next 5 innings
And test cricket is the poorer for it sadly. It wasn't too long ago that mid 30's was considered a decent average & someone in the 40s was considered a really good player.
The ICC has done a spectacular job in beating all the nuance out of the game and what makes it even more silly is that now that there isn't any, commentators have to try to manufacture it so the game seems more entertaining.
I mean these days if a ball seams off the wicket at Durban it's a notable event, but almost without fail, the hack on air will say "Ooh, looks like a Kingsmead green Mamba is waiting for the (ugh) batters today." Huh? Err, no.
I say bring them all on, dustbowls, greentops, four day tests for the win. They almost always produce an unquestionably exciting game.
Isn't it sad that curators almost never get reported for pitches that are bowler's graveyards, yet they get hammered for anything that does a bit. Which side of caution would you err on in that situation? Yet which of those 3 has contributed the most to test cricket's boring image?
Besides, isn't moaning about those cheating foreigners and their pitch tailoring ways one of the best bits of a tour?
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I think it is good to see players struggling to cope with bowler friendly conditions. If it happens often enough, techniques will start improving. It has always happened in the game whenever there has been a new problem faced by the batsmen, the game has benefitted.
The switch from underarm to overarm brought back foot play into importance although the first reaction was to ban the new form of "throwing"
The googly made batsmen start watching the bowlers hands from before he released the ball.
In more recent times, I suspect, the UDRS system and other aspects of technology have made umpires give, correctly for sure, more batsmen out leg before where they earlier took it for granted that plonking your left foot well forward was a great insurance against this form of a dismissal. I suggest batsmen will start playing more with the bat and that can only be good for the game.
It was interesting to see Sachin, after his initial problems with Mendis, decide to step out and take him on the half volley. It was lovely to watch and in due course the master batsman started reading the bowler's variation better.
The authorities need to understand that cricket, historically is a game where the proactive opponent is the bowler and the batsman has to react and respond to what the bowler dishes out. The game (batting in particular) has evolved with the evolution of the art of the bowler. To pretend that the game is all about batting, as the shorter form of the game tends to dictate, is to change the one of the basic foundational principles of the game and this can only have disastrous long term effects for the game. Unfortunately, the people at the helm of the ICC, and many of the boards (the one's that matter the most) have no clue about the nuances of the game and even less about its history and evolution.
MCC was not doing a great job and we got the ICC but MCC had at least one advantage - It consisted of people who were seeped in the game's tradition and history. Today the past, the present and the future has just one common objective $$$$$$$$
The switch from underarm to overarm brought back foot play into importance although the first reaction was to ban the new form of "throwing"
The googly made batsmen start watching the bowlers hands from before he released the ball.
In more recent times, I suspect, the UDRS system and other aspects of technology have made umpires give, correctly for sure, more batsmen out leg before where they earlier took it for granted that plonking your left foot well forward was a great insurance against this form of a dismissal. I suggest batsmen will start playing more with the bat and that can only be good for the game.
It was interesting to see Sachin, after his initial problems with Mendis, decide to step out and take him on the half volley. It was lovely to watch and in due course the master batsman started reading the bowler's variation better.
The authorities need to understand that cricket, historically is a game where the proactive opponent is the bowler and the batsman has to react and respond to what the bowler dishes out. The game (batting in particular) has evolved with the evolution of the art of the bowler. To pretend that the game is all about batting, as the shorter form of the game tends to dictate, is to change the one of the basic foundational principles of the game and this can only have disastrous long term effects for the game. Unfortunately, the people at the helm of the ICC, and many of the boards (the one's that matter the most) have no clue about the nuances of the game and even less about its history and evolution.
MCC was not doing a great job and we got the ICC but MCC had at least one advantage - It consisted of people who were seeped in the game's tradition and history. Today the past, the present and the future has just one common objective $$$$$$$$
Sign me up as another supporter of variety in cricket wickets, including a few spicy ones. Cricket shouldn't pander to the type of knob-end fanboys and girls whose sole interest is jumping and down in front of the cameras every time a batsman bludgeons another boundary,
Still, Having caught up with the highlights of the Aussie 2nd innings, I am pretty gobsmacked about how they dealt with it. It looks like a bowler friendly wicket but not a complete minefield.
Still, Having caught up with the highlights of the Aussie 2nd innings, I am pretty gobsmacked about how they dealt with it. It looks like a bowler friendly wicket but not a complete minefield.
correct me if im wrong but lets see here:
1st test 1st innings: crumble
2nd innings: road-400+ in response to 600+ declared
2nd test 1st innings: poor score
2nd innings: crumble, laxman single handedly revived fortunes
(won due to laxman+bowling)
3rd test 1st innings: crumble except gambhir and tendulkar revived fortunes
2nd innings: managed to draw it (again gambhir)
so 3 batsmen did anything in this series. the only reason india managed to draw and even to almost win was due to good bowling and clutch batting from 3 guys.
Last edited: