Looks good but I'd say the race between RP, Munaf and Sreesanth is very close. Even if all three are physically and mentally fit, I'm not sure who is the lesser of the three. Let's see how the seamers fare against Pakistan. Anyways, it's a good situation to be in for India.Pratyush said:
Sehwag in recent times:
A test opener and a middle order batsman, both need to know how to leave the ball to become a good batsman more often than not. Obviously you need a lot of special skills to become a test opener and leaving the ball much more, ability to play fast bowlers, ability to play the new ball, the extra bounce all come into it. I am not sure Yuvraj would be bad as an opener. He is very comfortable against fast bowling, is a good batsman and he may seem too good to be left out of the team if he maintains his form (or enhances it) and some other openers don't do particularly well in the future. He might cope with opening, whatever I have seen of him. Obviously we disagree on this.
Sreesanth seems to have the fire power at times. However, he is far too inconsistent. That can hurt India a lot against a side like Australia which will murder bad bowling. It would also mean easing the pressure built. If he improves in this aspect, he is a very good bowler. For now, I would say RP and Munaf>Sreesanth.
Perhaps thats true, however I still feel that we should have at least one fairly aggressive opening batsman to supplement the solid partner at the other end. Not saying that Sehwag should definitely be included but you cannot ignore the success of India with an in form Sehwag opening..Really taking the attack to the bowlers..
True, Sreesanth could perhaps be drawn equivalent to a Tait in Australian domestic cricket
Nor can you ignore the failure of India with an out-of-form Sehwag opening and gifting an early wicket.
Well it's the same thing, that's pretty unavoidable. I might well form different conclusions to it from certain people, though - why all the Zaheer-love I just don't know. If I didn't know better I'd say people were just trying to patronise Vaas.
Sure, but not as ineffective as he has been in Australia. There has to be something besides "they played him well" for a bowler as good as Murali to average 100.
No he's not. There are better batsman in the country at opening in 5 day cricket against quality attacks but he is not dire.
Why? McGill > test bowler than Hogg
Agree with you, but Hogg's sample size is taken from India in 1996 and West Indies in 2003, which - when one factors in the pitches, batting and brevity - isn't really a fair comparison.
Just going by what I've seen of them both in international cricket, both tests and ODIs tbh
I really dont think which spinner Australia picks will have too much of a bearing on the result, tbh I expect the poor soul (whether it be MacGill, Hogg or god help us Dan Cullen) to really struggle for any impact at all and have an uphill battle to play test cricket again after the series. Think the battle which will decide the war is India's batsman v Australian seamers, if the Indians adapt to conditions quickly and play to their potential then we'll likely have a competitive bat-athon with several draws (ala 2003/04), if they dont and the Australian seamers get on top of them they'll be rolled in no time and the series will be pretty boring (ala 1999/00).
For everything else, there's mastercard.
For everything else there is indian middle order
The Indian batsman certainly have struggled against Johnson
