err theres a reason why they play 11 players in a game, and not allow the other 4 to be involved in any aspect other than fielding. cricket is a 11 on 11 game. backups are supposed to fill up the gap,yes, but you'd have to be incredibly deluded if you think that beating a side with mcgrath,warne and co, is the same as beating a side consisting of lee, bracken, williams, bichel and co.Deja moo said:
India missed Zaheer and Harbhajan. Australia missed McGrath and Warne although the Indian batsmen might have been let down by Warnes absence). Both teams missed two of their strike bowlers. Australia had only themselves to blame if their backup bowlers werent good enough to stand up and be counted. Its as simple as that.tooextracool said:
because all of a sudden hes your strike bowler now is it? every series you have a different strike bowler. one day its pathan is the best indian pacer, next its balaji, then its zaheer, now i believe we're back to balaji?Deja moo said:
missed him???Deja moo said:
no, its quite simple, india played against a very ordinary bowling attack and came out with some amount of success. fact is that india couldnt beat a fully fit australian side at home, and that proves enough to suggest that coming out with a 1-1 draw against the likes of bracken and co isnt an achievement.Deja moo said:
I never mentioned anything about him being our strike bowler now. Zaheer was our strike bowler when the tour began, thats indisputable, and the belief was only strengthened after his performance in the first test.tooextracool said:
And the Australians benefitted from Pontings absence in the first three tests on the subsequent tour to India. How would Clarke have fit into the scheme of things if Ponting had been fit ? Youre simply using serendipity as an excuse here. Besides, the Indians could count themselves at a disadvantage similarly since Warne couldnt play the tests in Australia.TooExtraCool said:
I agree to an extent. Similar to how Australia wouldnt have won the last series in India if it werent for Indian injury problems, pitch issues and rain.
the fact that hes not your strike bowler now simply suggests how fickle minded you are about who your strike bowler is, obviously he wasnt much to begin wiith. and yes he took a few wickets in what were surprisingly seamer friendly conditions during that rain affected session, give him a medal.Deja moo said:
exactly, and where have i said that australia missed ponting the batsman? they were clearly better of with clarke.Deja moo said:
even though they got a significantly worse bowler in macgillDeja moo said:
err what? rain had no effect, because theres absolutely no way you can assure me that india would have won that game. and yes india had 1 player missing, which certainly was nowhere near as bad as having your whole bowling attack missing, and even that crosses out somewhat considering that australia were playing without their captain, even if he cant bat in india.Deja moo said:
Granted the conditions were in his favour. Doesnt alter the fact that he was Indias strike bowler at the time. His withdrawal meant we had to pick a bowler from the under 19s to replace him. Thats as sheer a drop as it gets.tooextracool said:
Okay they got a worse bowler to replace an ineffective one.even though they got a significantly worse bowler in macgill
and i dont think warnes figures in india were anywhere near as poor as macgill's were in australia.
Whole bowling attack ? Consisting of McGrath and the great Warne known for his amazing bowling exploits against India ? At most they missed one extremely effective bowler and one relatively poor one.
and that under 19 bowler was just as good as him. and please its not as though this under 19 bowler was a last choice option, hes been overhyped for god knows how long.Deja moo said:
except that the ineffective one did a decent job in the recent series, and i think that making laxman his bunny is something that australia could have used in the last series.Deja moo said:
gillespie as ive said a million times was not fully fit, hence he doesnt count either.Deja moo said:
Well, he wasnt Indias bowler of choice initially. Avishkar Salvi was, and as if to conform to the trend of the series, promptly got injured himself.tooextracool said:
Yes tec, but youve got to question too whether Warne would have been the bowler he was in India were it not for the year away from the game. And it would also be a point to ponder on whether Laxman would have been Warnes bunny in Australia given the pitches and his run of form.
Knew it would happen.Gangster said:
So you could also no doubt beat SL as well then?Gangster said:
and hes significantly better that the above mentioned is it?Deja moo said:
yes its all pure speculation, just like its pure speculation to suggest that india would have had no problems to play warne. either way i think its fairly obvious that warne would have bowled better than macgill did.Deja moo said:
in the unlikely event that that does happen, im fairly sure that there'd be several people on here claiming that it was against an aging aussie side with half their players out of touch.marc71178 said:
And I don't think England would be able to win any with their strike bowlers sitting out.Swervy said:ooops.. think thats Pakistan winning 12 of the last 33 now
Actually, even the strike bowlers went for runs.Swervy said:Deeps where are you... I am going for the hattrick now....Afridi today, out second ball, 9 overs No wickets 82 runs conceded
well its tough innit,players get injured, it is one of those things,it happens to all teams, and I think England have had their fair share of bad luck with injuries.Unfortunately for you,results of games are decided on the pitch , and not on a piece of paper. ...god, you are talking as if Shabbir, and Gul are world beaters....Unattainableguy said:And I don't think England would be able to win any with their strike bowlers sitting out.
