• 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*** India in Australia 2011/12

benchmark00

benchmark00

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I would've liked to have seen Ponting get the MOTM. Was involved in two crucial partnerships which gave Australia a chance.
 
Teja.

Teja.

Global Moderator
I'm really not that disappointed with this test tbh. More positives to take from this test than a considerable number of wins over the last couple years. Good to see Zak last an entire test and bowl extremely well. Yadav showed lots of potential and worked brilliantly as an aggressive impact bowler though he's too erratic to lead the attack. Ashwin was unlucky to end up with only four, did a pretty good job nonetheless, fair job with 60 runs with the bat too, really think we might be on to a very very talented all-rounder.
 
pup11

pup11

International Coach
benchmark00 said:
Would be more relevant than your 'must show intent' bull**** that you come out with every time.
Click to expand...
Amazing ain't it that the same intent bull**** helped Huss and Punt put together a vital partnership from a grim situation that later won us the game.
 
Zinzan

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well played Australia, thoroughly comprehensive victory in the end. If the pitches for the rest of the series are spicy I can't see the Indian batsmen coping.
 
Spikey

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
pup11 said:
Amazing ain't it that the same intent bull**** helped Huss and Punt put together a vital partnership from a grim situation that later won us the game.
Click to expand...
No I'm pretty sure it was just good batting

(and a couple of lucky umpiring calls)
 
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
Be very interesting to see what happens next test with regards to our bowling attack. Harris will surely be good to go then, but who would he replace? All of the bowlers, on the whole, did very well. Even Hilfenhaus was pretty excellent. But is he better than Harris? Or can we trust he will bowl as well again, because he did show extended periods of the old Hilf early on, and we can't afford that. IMO a fit Harris is still better than Pattinson and the seemingly improved Siddle.
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
pup11, in the end you're rating people's attitude towards batting by their result. Sometimes you get out.

I mean, Michael Clarke was pushing at the ball, probably trying to force it somewhere to get a single. That's "showing intent" too. Ed Cowan shows intent in the way that he moves his feet and leaves the ball, he made an error not because he wasn't showing intent, but because he chose the wrong ball to leave.
 
Zinzan

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ruckus said:
Be very interesting to see what happens next test with regards to our bowling attack. Harris will surely be good to go then, but who would he replace? All of the bowlers, on the whole, did very well. Even Hilfenhaus was pretty excellent. But is he better than Harris? Or can we trust he will bowl as well again, because he did show extended periods of the old Hilf early on, and we can't afford that. IMO a fit Harris is still better than Pattinson and the seemingly improved Siddle.
Click to expand...
Honestly. If it wasn't Sydney, I'd suggest they go in with 4 seamers & drop Lyon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top