you people need to stop saying aus with smith like its a ****ing red herring ffs
Yeah but England were missing James Anderson there, one of their most important players was missing. Australian posters like to point Smith missing for the 2018 home series against Ind but conveniently manage to omit Anderson being missing in England (similar to the Lyon vs Ashwin/Jaddu arguments). It doesn't work both ways. Fact of the matter is despite all the bravado by most Australian posters Australia has lost to India both HOME and AWAY. Ind start as favorites against Aus anywhere.
Away also includes WI and SL. And they won in Aus.
Your point being?
So they are also an ATG team in certain away conditions
That's not how it works..
Maybe it does
Rubbish in some conditions + ATG in others = decent
Jofra Archer was more than an adequate cover for Anderson. And I'm not an aussie poster. Right after the SL win in RSA, cricinfo did a ranking of top 6 series upsets ie underdogs winning. Wi beating England was on there, so was SLs win in RSA. India won in Australia for the first time ever but no one really was surprised or thought it was an upset. Two guesses why....
cause they were the favorites.
This is factually wrong because I was very surprised.
Anyone who saw the England-India series and thought India were rubbish wasn't paying attention. Unless they also thought England were rubbish, then that's fair game.Rubbish in some conditions + ATG in others = decent
Wasn’t meant to be a serious comment. I was just replying to this poster using his own logic.
I wasn't and it seems most pundits werent either.I wish I could find the posts leading up to that series but everyone thought that this would be the best opportunity for India to win down under and we all know why that was. Again india is a very good team away. No one is disputing that just that they're not favorites away to any of the so called SENA teams.
They have been saying that for 5 years everywhere we tour. And our losses have been really close where we have lost tests in one bad session rather than being outplayed for days. Some because of selection blunders by the think tank and some because of the skill of the opposition. Smith wouldn't have made a difference in Aus because their losees were not close contests where one guy could have made a difference. He'd have been not out in one end while we got others out - best case.
Umm Smith wasn't the only person missing. David home track bully Warner was as well. And the first test was not a thrashing by any means; india won by 31 runs. ???? The third test, india put 400 on the board and oz made 150 odd. Considering what smith has always done to India at home and warner yeah no way Australia get rolled for 150. So yeah those two players most certainly would have made a difference.
yeah the one reason was an in form pace attack
