Australia vs India, 4th test at the SCG, Jan 3rd - 7th

Remove this Banner Ad

LukeParkerno1 said:
This is what we should have done this year. This was a year where we had 4 tests at home, why weren't we not give a few young guys a go. Why play Finch when say Renshaw could have played. (just an example). You get my point. We should have used this year to find batting depth, and now what depth have we found?
Click to expand...

To be fair, where is the batting depth at Shield level. We produce roads to play on and don't produce players who can do the hard yards against a moving ball or spin.

We need a fundamental rethink of how we go about developing players
 
Last edited:
thejockey said:
We thought we would steamroll India's batting over here with our bowling attack and that would paper over the cracks of our weak batting . Its backfired big time. It was arrogant and we've got what we deserved against a far better side then us .
The result of this series should not be a surprise . They would have beaten us with Smith and Warner anyway , it just would have been a bit closer .

Time for a reboot , take the hit, take the pain and pick batsman who show a willingness and application to be test batsman . If it means picking young players on 'potential' and 'mindset' at this stage then do it. Just make it clear that's the plan.
Click to expand...
Hmmm....

See, if we play on that Adelaide deck and Smith/Warner contribute with the bat, I can't see us losing that match. After all, there were only 30 runs in it at the end, and Bumrah hadn't hit his straps yet. If we win that match, this series looks radically different, and as poor as we've been they can smash us by an innings in the final two tests and reclaim the Border-Gavaskar, but they still wouldn't have won a series here.

Not to mention how much better Hazelwood/Starc bowl when there's run pressure on the batsman, how much better Khwaja plays when he's not the main man, whether Harris might have gone on with it with some better senior support...

Ah, what if?
 
imperial_oz said:
To be fair, where is the batting depth at Shield level. We produce roads to play on and don't produce players who can do the hard yards against a moving ball or spin.

We need a fundamental rethink of how we go about developing players
Click to expand...

That’s where you take a few risks. Let’s see if a few of these players can make it. Sort of has worked with Harris. Laubashgne looked good last innings. Why not try a Patterson at 3 or 4 for instance?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Swans Blog said:
Amazing. The doco on Foxtel shows the massive difference between the mentality of Cricket in Australia and India. For so many people it's a way out of poverty. In Australia, it's just another sport.
Click to expand...

What's the name of it? That's an interesting angle I'd never really considered (oh the irony!).

I guess one can draw a parallel with many South American soccer players and how the perception of them being 'dirty' players is actually a desperation they've had ingrained from an early age for the same reason.
 
beta_condition said:
Jason Sangha should provide a lot of hope, second youngest player to score a first class 100 againist England.
Click to expand...
Pucovski, Sangha and Renshaw are the hopes for the future I think but they’re definitely not ready for test cricket yet.
 
Gethelred said:
Hmmm....

See, if we play on that Adelaide deck and Smith/Warner contribute with the bat, I can't see us losing that match. After all, there were only 30 runs in it at the end, and Bumrah hadn't hit his straps yet. If we win that match, this series looks radically different, and as poor as we've been they can smash us by an innings in the final two tests and reclaim the Border-Gavaskar, but they still wouldn't have won a series here.

Not to mention how much better Hazelwood/Starc bowl when there's run pressure on the batsman, how much better Khwaja plays when he's not the main man, whether Harris might have gone on with it with some better senior support...

Ah, what if?
Click to expand...

Yes, the First Test was very close. Even just for that reason have Smith and Warner, even Smith alone, and we win the series seeing this Test looks a draw. Often, if you have a star batsmen to play around as your rock the rest often play alot better. Toss decided the 3rd Test. Imagine if Pujara and Kohli were out of India's side. without Pujara to bat around they'd have fallen in a screaming heap.

For us though it gave us a chance to expose pour batsmen under pressure. That could only be a good thing in regards to who is good enough for the future.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
That’s where you take a few risks. Let’s see if a few of these players can make it. Sort of has worked with Harris. Laubashgne looked good last innings. Why not try a Patterson at 3 or 4 for instance?
Click to expand...

That's not enough in my opinion.

I look at WA in the Shield, as I know them better, and they exhibit the same features as the Test team. They have no staying power at the crease.

I think it's because we keep producing batter friendly pitches that help cover up our deficiencies. Producing wickets that give the bowlers some assistance would create a need to identify and eliminate flaws.

What we have now is a generation of soft batters who cannot produce when things aren't completely easy. If you can't fix the issues at Shield level then you won't fix them at Test level
 
Stopher said:
What's the name of it? That's an interesting angle I'd never really considered (oh the irony!).

I guess one can draw a parallel with many South American soccer players and how the perception of them being 'dirty' players is actually a desperation they've had ingrained from an early age for the same reason.
Click to expand...
Not sure, they were showing it on Fox Cricket during the rain delay. It was a development league founded to help develop kids. One guy hurt his arm and couldn't bowl with it for 8 months, so learned to bowl wrist spin with his left hand so he could keep playing. Described it not as a sport, but his life.

Really makes sense when you watch someone like Kuldeep or Bumrah come in and genuinely look delighted to be involved, even if they're not playing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jimthegreat said:
Yes, the First Test was very close. Even just for that reason have Smith and Warner, even Smith alone, and we win the series seeing this Test looks a draw. Often, if you have a star batsmen to play around as your rock the rest often play alot better. Toss decided the 3rd Test. Imagine if Pujara and Kohli were out of India's side. without Pujara to bat around they'd have fallen in a screaming heap.

For us though it gave us a chance to expose pour batsmen under pressure. That could only be a good thing in regards to who is good enough for the future.
Click to expand...
See, I agreed with the bans; you've to stand for something, and you cannot rhapsodize about "tough but fair" to and about your opposition without being able to live it. This bit, the fact that India are going to win their first series in Australia because we've played with our hand tied behind our back, is both.

And I wanted to see what we could do with out backs to the wall. Suffice to say, I wouldn't want to share a foxhole with anyone from the Australian team other than Cummins, Lyon and Paine, and while Harris has shown a little he's unable to survive 60 balls without giving a chance at his wicket, and you don't survive for long in test match cricket with that.
 
Xtreme said:
We could watch highlights of the many 50's and 100's India scored this series. Something Australia has forgotten how to do ;)
Click to expand...
I am happy India have finally won a series here albeit against a severely weakened side with fixturing altered to suit BCCI’s demands. Good on them!
 
Last edited:
LukeParkerno1 said:
That’s where you take a few risks. Let’s see if a few of these players can make it. Sort of has worked with Harris. Laubashgne looked good last innings. Why not try a Patterson at 3 or 4 for instance?
Click to expand...


We tried a young Steve Waugh in 1985/86 v India
4 innings for 13 runs.
Took him until 1989 Ashes tour of England to make his first Test century.
Just realise if we play guys like Pucoski, Sangha, Mac Harvey or Jake Edwards early on it will likely take 3 or 4 years of learning to play at senior level for pay off to be realised.
Most fans do not have this patience despite long term it is likely where we are at. It is like Carlton playing all these new draftees since 2016. It is a long hard road and most cannot handle or understand it as fans. Whatever we do in next couple of years we are not going to be a top side no matter how much anyone wishes we can turn it around in a month or two,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gough
  • Poll
Third Test Australia v Pakistan Jan 3-7 1000hrs @ the SCG
171 172 173 174 175
Replies
4K
Views
76K
Tonga Bob
Tonga Bob
Gough
  • Poll
2nd Test Australia v West Indies Jan 25-29 1430hrs @ the Gabba
198 199 200 201 202
Replies
5K
Views
84K
BGman
BGman
Gough
  • Poll
1st Test Australia v West Indies Jan 17-21 1000hrs @ the Adelaide Oval
92 93 94 95 96
Replies
2K
Views
43K
Silver Tongue
Silver Tongue
Jascave
Test Pick a likely Australian Test team for next summer's series against India
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
4K
Around the Wicket
A
N
South Africa v India Dec 10, 2023- Jan 4, 2024 3 T20s 3 ODIs 2 Tests
16 17 18 19 20
Replies
496
Views
11K
PhatBoy
PhatBoy
LukeParkerno1
Australia v India Women’s series
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
343
Views
8K
sidewinder
sidewinder
Gough
  • Poll
Border Gavaskar Trophy, India v Australia, 4th Test 9-13 March, 1430hrs at Ahmedabad
188 189 190 191 192
Replies
5K
Views
78K
Jimthegreat
J

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top