*Official* VB Series - Australia, India & Zimbabwe

[Salamuddin]

A lot of people are talking like the TVS cup didn't exist. India were completely outplayed on their own turf to a 2nd choice (not string) attack. How do you expect them to crack the nut of winning in Australia? How do you expect Australia to lose in their own fortress to a weak team, whereas a team which is proven to be substandard to Australia to prevail against them?
While we're giving Zimbabwe stupid odds, I'd say they have a better chance than India, they're more likely to handle the conditions better than India. Like I said, while we're being stupid...

Loved this quote. It was good back then wasn't it ged..., those pesky Indians were supposed to be cannon fodder for the Australians entrenched in their fortress.

 

[Neil Pickup]

What nonsense ! Amits' comments are considered derogatory and this isn't ????

Well, it was posted over nine weeks ago now, and that's the first thing anyone's said about it.

 

[Salamuddin]

Well, it was posted over nine weeks ago now, and that's the first thing anyone's said about it.

I'm surprised no one noticed.

India is not as clean as it should be, we all know that, but it does have drinking water !

You are a good man Mr Pickup, you monitor these boards fairly !

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm surprised no one noticed.

India is not as clean as it should be, we all know that, but it does have drinking water !

You are a good man Mr Pickup, you monitor these boards fairly !

I'm not condoning the remark - if you look back at it in context (posts 30-90 on the thread) it was not a pretty episode. I was absent for the day that whole thing kicked off (marching against the occupation of Iraq, if you must know) and to be honest that is the first time I have read that remark.

The whole episode was rebuked at the end - IIRC - with a warning to all involved and a general instruction to cool it.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Loved this quote. It was good back then wasn't it ged..., those pesky Indians were supposed to be cannon fodder for the Australians entrenched in their fortress.

And they've come over here, given us some decent cricket and I'm not complaining.

 

[marc71178]

Rik, Clarke can't bowl and keep at the same time (actually he probably can, but it'd be awfully tiring). :rolleyes:

Looking at his performance in that game, he wouldn't have needed to keep as well when he bowled since the batsmen dealt with the ball quite comfortably!

 

[age_master]

he wouldn't have needed to keep as well when he bowled since the batsmen dealt with the ball quite comfortably!

apart from the missed stumping that is (and a few edges)

 

[Jono]

Lol the comments at the start of this topic and the official test topic were very stupid. That's why I was hoping when the test series had ended a new VB series topic would of been made, one with realistic views from those Australians. :O

 

[ReallyCrazy]

I can't wait for the match in Perth where Ganguly will make a classy 100 and shut all his critics up.

 

[username]

I'm so sick of hearing about how great this Indian team is whilst watching Australia beat them down time and time again. Back when SA were truly viable as a contender to the Australian's best in the world crown, there must have been half as much useless hype mogering. It's a credit to Australia's domination, that any sign of resistance is met with such unrealistic and ludicrous fan faire. Unfortunately for the Indian team, repeating it constantly doesn't make it so. It all culminated in Taylor saying that Australia are 'arguably' the best team in the world. Arguably? Well if you want to argue against, you better bring Johnny Cochran with you.

Australia are bowling horribly, Zimbabwe are bowling better. And check out the Australian's batting averages for this series, dismal by their standards. Australia couldn't play much worse, yet they're still 2-1 up on India, and they are only going to get better. And then you have the final series, India are not a team of champions, they do not rise to the occasion, and they do not beleive that they can beat Australia, Tendulkar and Ganguly included. I'll cite the last 2 big matches India were in as evidence, the world cup and TVS cup finals, where India embarassingly fell flat on their faces both occasions. Gangulys failure at aggressive captaincy both in Sydney and against Australia A just show nothing has changed.

Winning 1 in 3 games against Australia is an acheivement for India however, and they may be on some sort of high. But you just know that when the daunting task of Australia in a best of 3 final series hits home, that once again their thinking will be first and foremost to avoid embarasment. Australia on the other hand? Their record in big games speaks for itself. Australia will win this series comfortably, then the comentators will state that India can hold their head up high. This pretty much sums up the difference between the 2 teams, Australia win another series, 2 wins and a draw out of 3, and India go home happy that they didn't lose by as much as everyone thought they would.

 

[Pratters]

I'm so sick of hearing about how great this Indian team is whilst watching Australia beat them down time and time again. Back when SA were truly viable as a contender to the Australian's best in the world crown, there must have been half as much useless hype mogering. It's a credit to Australia's domination, that any sign of resistance is met with such unrealistic and ludicrous fan faire. Unfortunately for the Indian team, repeating it constantly doesn't make it so. It all culminated in Taylor saying that Australia are 'arguably' the best team in the world. Arguably? Well if you want to argue against, you better bring Johnny Cochran with you.

Australia are bowling horribly, Zimbabwe are bowling better. And check out the Australian's batting averages for this series, dismal by their standards. Australia couldn't play much worse, yet they're still 2-1 up on India, and they are only going to get better. And then you have the final series, India are not a team of champions, they do not rise to the occasion, and they do not beleive that they can beat Australia, Tendulkar and Ganguly included. I'll cite the last 2 big matches India were in as evidence, the world cup and TVS cup finals, where India embarassingly fell flat on their faces both occasions. Gangulys failure at aggressive captaincy both in Sydney and against Australia A just show nothing has changed.

Winning 1 in 3 games against Australia is an acheivement for India however, and they may be on some sort of high. But you just know that when the daunting task of Australia in a best of 3 final series hits home, that once again their thinking will be first and foremost to avoid embarasment. Australia on the other hand? Their record in big games speaks for itself. Australia will win this series comfortably, then the comentators will state that India can hold their head up high. This pretty much sums up the difference between the 2 teams, Australia win another series, 2 wins and a draw out of 3, and India go home happy that they didn't lose by as much as everyone thought they would.

Your reactions pretty much sum up the reactions I feel sections of the Australian Cricket public may feel. Firstly, I would like to say that no way was Australia the best team in the world compared to South Africa in the one day format from 1996-1999. South Africa werent the best team and it was due to a tremendous Australian test side powered by Warne, McGrath, Gillespie (whenever he was not injured) and the strong back up bowler.

India is no way the best team right now and it is due to the inexperienced bowling line up. Not every one is saying India is the best team. People who make that remark do no know the history of test cricket properly or dont have an overview of current nations I feel. However, there is no denying the fact that Australia has been weak. Its not the other country's fault that the Aussies are bowling horribly. To put it as 'the worst Austraila can perform' would be an abberation.

It is also tue that countries like South Africa, New Zealand and India are now close on the heels of Australia.

Your reactions typify the feeling of vulnerability Australia feels it losing its number 1 spot. Its just a sport in the end. If some one becomes the number one country in course of time, it shouldnt feel the end of the world. Putting down the efforts of opposition teams (south africa and india in this case) doesnt solve any purpose at all.

 

[age_master]

Your reactions typify the feeling of vulnerability Australia feels it losing its number 1 spot. Its just a sport in the end. If some one becomes the number one country in course of time, it shouldnt feel the end of the world. Putting down the efforts of opposition teams (south africa and india in this case) doesnt solve any purpose at all.

no, i think his reactions typify the general feeling that india are being particularly ****y cause they finally played a good series away from home, people might think abit more of india if they also do OK vs RSA in RSA and vs NZ in NZ etc...

 

[age_master]

I can't wait for the match in Perth where Ganguly will make a classy 100 and shut all his critics up.

haha i would be more impressed if he got a duck and showed good sportsmanship throughout the game - including getting through his overs on time

 

[Neil Pickup]

haha i would be more impressed if he got a duck and showed good sportsmanship throughout the game - including getting through his overs on time

Please drop the sportsmanship lectures, have you any idea how daft you sound?

 

[Pratters]

no, i think his reactions typify the general feeling that india are being particularly ****y cause they finally played a good series away from home, people might think abit more of india if they also do OK vs RSA in RSA and vs NZ in NZ etc...

As I said, India is not the best side. Whats ****y about competing and being or trying to be good? Atleast finally we r playing well and we r playing damn well even without Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh.

Sme people get sick of seeing Ganguly and say he is ****y. Well he is ****y some times like when he slowed down the play when I did criticise him and he was fine (though fines idneed dont serve a purpose) but other than the minor '****y' things Ganguly does, India is not ****y at all.

 

[username]

No, it's not vulnerability, vulnerability would have been felt chasing a mammoth total in a world cup final against the bowling talents of Donald, Pollock, Symcox and and the 2 best all rounders in the world. Now that is down right scary. What SA had then, what Australia had then, and what Australia have now is all neck and neck. Now compare it to India, the gulf is huge, Kumble and that's it. The addition of Bond doesn't all of a sudden mean New Zealand are closing fast (4-0, no contest), they are closing very minorly, if at all, SA there is some hope for, but they've yet to meet a decent yard stick.

There's no vulnerability, just this hype driven illusion which flies in the face of true competition. I'm not putting the Indians acheivements down, simple fact is they've acheived nothing. And there is a 'purpose to solve' in doing this, it may help to stem the free flowing praise of a team almost content with being consistently second. Why were no questions asked when Ganguly didn't enforce the follow on? Why when it was clear the Australians were prepared to have a dash at around 10 an over off 100 balls on a 5th day pitch with only half the team still in hand did Ganguly not accept the challenge? Why didn't he show the tiniest damn bit of beleif and go for the win? Show the Australians the boundary, encourage them to hit over the top, instead he cheated the game out of 2 overs, spread the feild and played out a draw. They scored 700 runs in the first innings and down the stretch Australia could have won it. Nothing was said of this, instead people were too busy praising the Indian team for not losing.

People need to start asking the right questions, and stop these unrealistic hopes. You can dismiss it as Australian vulnerability if you want, in fact I hope they all do so (not really, I like actual true competition), it'll only serve to ensure they all stay 2nd rate.

As for one day cricket 96-99, check where the big W's all are, that's what matters.

 

[Neil Pickup]

They've acheived nothing.

You do have a semblance of a point but to state that they've achieved nothing is a patent untruth - most of us - if not 90%+ - expected a (near-)whitewash, but it's not happened.

Not achived as much as they might have done, maybe, but achieved nothing? I think not.

 

[Pratters]

No, it's not vulnerability, vulnerability would have been felt chasing a mammoth total in a world cup final against the bowling talents of Donald, Pollock, Symcox and and the 2 best all rounders in the world. Now that is down right scary. What SA had then, what Australia had then, and what Australia have now is all neck and neck. Now compare it to India, the gulf is huge, Kumble and that's it. The addition of Bond doesn't all of a sudden mean New Zealand are closing fast (4-0, no contest), they are closing very minorly, if at all, SA there is some hope for, but they've yet to meet a decent yard stick.

There's no vulnerability, just this hype driven illusion which flies in the face of true competition. I'm not putting the Indians acheivements down, simple fact is they've acheived nothing. And there is a 'purpose to solve' in doing this, it may help to stem the free flowing praise of a team almost content with being consistently second. Why were no questions asked when Ganguly didn't enforce the follow on? Why when it was clear the Australians were prepared to have a dash at around 10 an over off 100 balls on a 5th day pitch with only half the team still in hand did Ganguly not accept the challenge? Why didn't he show the tiniest damn bit of beleif and go for the win? Show the Australians the boundary, encourage them to hit over the top, instead he cheated the game out of 2 overs, spread the feild and played out a draw. They scored 700 runs in the first innings and down the stretch Australia could have won it. Nothing was said of this, instead people were too busy praising the Indian team for not losing.

People need to start asking the right questions, and stop these unrealistic hopes. You can dismiss it as Australian vulnerability if you want, in fact I hope they all do so (not really, I like actual true competition), it'll only serve to ensure they all stay 2nd rate.

As for one day cricket 96-99, check where the big W's all are, that's what matters.

Big wins from 1996-1999. first thing which comes to my mind is titan cup 1996. Australia lost to South Africa and was second rate. India werent much better either but managed to scrape through the finals and beat South Africa with luck. South Africa were the best there.

Australia lost badly in 1996 to India in India in a one off test. They realised they need to improve the subcontinet track record and made a policy decision to tour India and subcontinent more which was a very good choice.

They still did lose to Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. So vulnerability was always there. They have been dominant from 1999-2003 and thats when the bowlers have peaked and the Haydens have shined. Yes, they werent so vulnerable from 99 to 2003.

But he problem is, you dont always remain that way. Thats where I see your reaction coming, when you see other teams improving and Austraila sliding.

Why does some one like Brad Hogg even play for Australia? The clear thing is it will be tough for Australia to match the past success and it will be tough for some fans to feel Australia are beatable.

I totally agree with you that Ganguly should have enforced the follow on. I wrote on this which you may read :- http://www.livejournal.com/community/sixesandfours/142719.html
But teams do make wrong decisions. Thats not the point. The point is India almost beat Australia and its India's stupidity they didnt put the killer shot in the end coupled with Waugh's last stand.

But it does show more about Australia than India.. just keep an eye on South Africa vs New Zealand.. you may find some tough quality cricket going on there. Didnt New Zealand almost beat Australia too?

 

[Mister Wright]

Big wins from 1996-1999. first thing which comes to my mind is titan cup 1996. Australia lost to South Africa and was second rate. India werent much better either but managed to scrape through the finals and beat South Africa with luck. South Africa were the best there.

Australia lost badly in 1996 to India in India in a one off test. They realised they need to improve the subcontinet track record and made a policy decision to tour India and subcontinent more which was a very good choice.

They still did lose to Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka. So vulnerability was always there. They have been dominant from 1999-2003 and thats when the bowlers have peaked and the Haydens have shined. Yes, they werent so vulnerable from 99 to 2003.

But he problem is, you dont always remain that way. Thats where I see your reaction coming, when you see other teams improving and Austraila sliding.

Why does some one like Brad Hogg even play for Australia? The clear thing is it will be tough for Australia to match the past success and it will be tough for some fans to feel Australia are beatable.

I totally agree with you that Ganguly should have enforced the follow on. I wrote on this which you may read :- http://www.livejournal.com/community/sixesandfours/142719.html
But teams do make wrong decisions. Thats not the point. The point is India almost beat Australia and its India's stupidity they didnt put the killer shot in the end coupled with Waugh's last stand.

But it does show more about Australia than India.. just keep an eye on South Africa vs New Zealand.. you may find some tough quality cricket going on there. Didnt New Zealand almost beat Australia too?

In 1996 Australia made the World Cup final and in 1999 they won the World Cup, and I'm pretty sure Australia won every World Series between 1996-1999. They also won many other 1-day competitions, IMO you cannot say that Australia weren't the strongest 1-day side between 1996-99.

 

[marc71178]

haha i would be more impressed if he got a duck and showed good sportsmanship throughout the game - including getting through his overs on time

Just because he slowed the over rate once (when he was rightly censured for it) doesn't mean he's going to do it again.

By the way, why is a slow over rate condemned, but a breakneck over-rate not?

Rushing the batsmen between balls is surely just as harsh as taking ages between them?