Ashes 3rd test @ The WACA

[Teen Wolf]

I don’t really get his point either but there is no doubt that teams do produce performances that are born out of hidings they’ve copped. India in 2003-04 played like a team sick of being smashed when they come here.

Oh hey, another example in which our best bowler(s) were absent for multiple matches (no McGrath and Warne for the entire series, in this case). Gotta be a coincidence.

 

[PhatBoy]

Oh hey, another example in which our best bowler(s) were absent for multiple matches (no McGrath and Warne for the entire series, in this case). Gotta be a coincidence.

So the emergence of Dravid - india’s best overseas match winner arguably in their history - following on from an embarrassing debut trip here, had nothing to do with him and everything to do with McGrath and Warne (by the way, what difference Warne would have made is anyone’s guess). The performance of Kumble, still the only spinner I can remember coming here and standing up to the pressure Australia like to put on - that was down to McGrath and Warne’s absence?

There is no spin you can possibly put on it to say that often the best performances and contests are borne out of teams getting so flogged that they completely alter their entire approach and start to fire back.

 

[RookiePick]

you need to take 20 poles to win a test. losing your number 1 and/or 2 wicket takers is far more damaging than losing batsmen.

 

[frankrizzo]

I don't like piling onto an already beaten opponent. It breeds resentment.

I'd like to win away again in my lifetime. They might be s**t, but they imploded in 2006-07, too. See how their next two Ashes went as to how England react to their pride being stung.

We smashed england 8 in a row leading up to 2005, they tried everything they could to beat us but they just lacked the quality to do it and we aren't going to lose in england because we smash them 5-0 here we are going to lose because they know how to bowl very well in those conditions and we don't know how to bat in those conditions, we might as well really belt them here because we ain't winning in england with our current batting stocks.

p.s. if england having a good tour over here is supposed to make them complacent and us more hungry why did we get belted in 2013 next time we toured england after that 10/11 home loss?

 

[DaRick]

So the emergence of Dravid - india’s best overseas match winner arguably in their history - following on from an embarrassing debut trip here, had nothing to do with him and everything to do with McGrath and Warne (by the way, what difference Warne would have made is anyone’s guess). The performance of Kumble, still the only spinner I can remember coming here and standing up to the pressure Australia like to put on - that was down to McGrath and Warne’s absence?

There is no spin you can possibly put on it to say that often the best performances and contests are borne out of teams getting so flogged that they completely alter their entire approach and start to fire back.

India were far better in 2003-04 than in 1999-2000, but McGrath would have made a serious difference and a fully-fit Warne would surely have fared better than Macgill (who averaged 50 for the series). Even Gillespie was not always fit. Lee (out-of-form too!)/Bracken/Williams/Bichel is inferior to pretty much every Australian attack that has played over the past 25 or so years except maybe the woefully out-of-form 2010-11 outfit and the patched-up Hastings/Starc/Johnson attack that played SA in 2012-13 (Starc at that point was entirely unproven at Test level).

Agree that Dravid and Kumble were excellent.

Our fielding was also substandard and the pitches were almost as flat as those in the 2014-15 series too, though that's not India's fault per se.

 

[melanChronic]

I don't like piling onto an already beaten opponent. It breeds resentment.

I'd like to win away again in my lifetime. They might be s**t, but they imploded in 2006-07, too. See how their next two Ashes went as to how England react to their pride being stung.

Yes, but in 2009 we were the better team in all departments, and if not for a unthinkable last wicket partnership to get the draw in Cardiff we would have had the urn wrapped up after the 4th test. Our main problem in that series was a lack of the ruthlessness that had been so impressive two years earlier.
The home ashes, on the other hand, we were just terrible. Sure England were keen to get revenge from 06/07 but they only got their foot in the door because Australian cricket was asleep at the wheel, not that England had some insurmountable will to win.

I agree with you that teams may gain motivation from past floggings, but I don't agree that taking the foot off the throat now is the way to counter that. In fact, I think the attitude of 'let's rest up and blood some pups' in the last two tests would be arrogant and ultimately more detrimental to future success, because it is the beginning of taking the eye off the ball. We need to play every test with the same intensity, because it breeds the ruthlessness you need to seize moments in overseas series.

I definitely would get a lot more satisfaction in a 1-0 win in England vs a 5-0 at home. I just don't think the way to win in England is to butter the Poms up in Melbourne and Sydney. Put them to the goddamn sword. Doing so four years ago hasn't hurt us this time.

One thing I would be in favour of is if the curators make the last two wickets as close to English conditions as possible. The cricket will be better because it gives England a sporting chance, but it will also give our players experience in those conditions that will help with 2019.

 

[Gethelred]

We smashed england 8 in a row leading up to 2005, they tried everything they could to beat us but they just lacked the quality to do it and we aren't going to lose in england because we smash them 5-0 here we are going to lose because they know how to bowl very well in those conditions and we don't know how to bat in those conditions, we might as well really belt them here because we ain't winning in england with our current batting stocks.

p.s. if england having a good tour over here is supposed to make them complacent and us more hungry why did we get belted in 2013 next time we toured england after that 10/11 home loss?

When I started this particular conversation, I said this:

Warner and Khwaja to bulk their averages in Sydney and Melbourne, tonning up when the series is done and dusted...

This concerns me, for several reasons; one, they didn't get their runs when the series was on the line, although Warner hasn't exactly been poor. Two, with the runs they'll make for the rest of the series they'll ensure they're good enough to continue being selected, regardless of whether or not they're up to winning a series themselves; with an eye to South Africa and beyond, is it better to go in there with fresh faces who make their runs when it counts - when their side is in trouble - or players like Khwaja, who make oodles of runs when the going's easy?

And three is that we may lose a few games in search of these players, and I'd prefer to lose a few in pursuit of finding the right people in a dead rubber or two instead of belting the s**t out of a defeated England and making it harder to win over there later on.

 

[Taylor]

Warner is in the top 9 this year for runs scored

 

[PhatBoy]

India were far better in 2003-04 than in 1999-2000, but McGrath would have made a serious difference and a fully-fit Warne would surely have fared better than Macgill (who averaged 50 for the series). Even Gillespie was not always fit. Lee (out-of-form too!)/Bracken/Williams/Bichel is inferior to pretty much every Australian attack that has played over the past 25 or so years except maybe the woefully out-of-form 2010-11 outfit and the patched-up Hastings/Starc/Johnson attack that played SA in 2012-13 (Starc at that point was entirely unproven at Test level).

Agree that Dravid and Kumble were excellent.

Our fielding was also substandard and the pitches were almost as flat as those in the 2014-15 series too, though that's not India's fault per se.

Warne has averaged 54, 41 and 50 in his 3 series against India to that point (not including his debut series). I doubt he would have done anything that Macgill didn’t.

There are other threads in this very forum lamenting that players like Bichel and Macgill would have been 100 Test players in any other era so just because they had a s**t outing of it against India one summer doesn’t suddenly make India’s efforts in a given series worthless.

As for Lee, later that year he would start a stretch where he took 48 wickets at 22 in 9 matches.

Of course McGrath makes that attack a whole lot stronger but it was by no means just garbage. Williams was, though.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes, but in 2009 we were the better team in all departments, and if not for a unthinkable last wicket partnership to get the draw in Cardiff we would have had the urn wrapped up after the 4th test. Our main problem in that series was a lack of the ruthlessness that had been so impressive two years earlier.
The home ashes, on the other hand, we were just terrible. Sure England were keen to get revenge from 06/07 but they only got their foot in the door because Australian cricket was asleep at the wheel, not that England had some insurmountable will to win.

I agree with you that teams may gain motivation from past floggings, but I don't agree that taking the foot off the throat now is the way to counter that. In fact, I think the attitude of 'let's rest up and blood some pups' in the last two tests would be arrogant and ultimately more detrimental to future success, because it is the beginning of taking the eye off the ball. We need to play every test with the same intensity, because it breeds the ruthlessness you need to seize moments in overseas series.

I definitely would get a lot more satisfaction in a 1-0 win in England vs a 5-0 at home. I just don't think the way to win in England is to butter the Poms up in Melbourne and Sydney. Put them to the goddamn sword. Doing so four years ago hasn't hurt us this time.

One thing I would be in favour of is if the curators make the last two wickets as close to English conditions as possible. The cricket will be better because it gives England a sporting chance, but it will also give our players experience in those conditions that will help with 2019.

I'd absolutely agree with the bolded.

My issue is this; we've populated the Australian team over the last ten or so years with incredibly talented yet equally flighty players, who are damaging when things are on their terms yet mentally unable to adjust to another means of playing. Warner is both guilty and not of this, as he's still very much a work in development; the reason he's so short of bravado and dare with the bat is that he trained circumspection for the tours on the subcontinent, and it isn't so easy to just start belting the ball again after training yourself not to.

But Khwaja has demonstrated time and time again that he's able to belt up on weak attacks at home yet looks at sea against competent bowling, especially spin. The selection which has included Mitch Marsh - regardless of his runs - is beyond foolish; if a player cannot be relied upon to stay fit for the duration of a series (Starc, Cummins or Hazlewood; if they weren't right for Perth, pick Behrendorff or Coulter-Nile or Bird) rest them, don't jeopardize the batting at the expense of keeping the bowlers fit. That he made runs is excellent; here's hoping, if they select him in future, he continues to do it.

I do think you're being a bit blase about 2011. Cook was diabolical that series, as was Bell; both plundered the Australian attack, the same one they would lose to in 2013. They did it because they were prepared, their plans worked, and they got out of Brisbane with a draw, but they did it because they wanted it more too.

And they're the last side between the two of us to win an Ashes away.

We need - really, really need - to find a number of players with some backbone; we need to find that second opener, need Warner to finish his development and begin to achieve everywhere. We need for Shaun Marsh to keep on playing well, and keep on making valuable runs when we need them. But most of all, we need to find someone to either replace Khwaja or for him to remake himself as an opener; at 3, he's providing our foes an easy wicket just after they've taken their first. I'd prefer to get a new opener, and a new no. 3; tell them to stay in, tell them to value their wicket with their lives, tell them to dig in and never let go. Bancroft, early on, plays across his front foot on the block; that's not the technique of an opener now any more than it was when Shane Watson did it.

Beyond that, Smith needs to improve as the captain. Hyperbole as it is in here, he's not been as poor as some would suggest, but his fielding positions and bowling changes reflect a lack of plans beyond his bowlers being brilliant, which is all very well and good when they're on top as they've been all series.

 

[DaRick]

Warne has averaged 54, 41 and 50 in his 3 series against India to that point (not including his debut series). I doubt he would have done anything that Macgill didn’t.

Warne would later go to India and average 30 (and he didn't get to play on the same pitch where Clarke took 6/9). I doubt Macgill would have.

In the two series he averaged 50+ he was suffering from injury and hence in 1997-98 was outbowled by Gavin Robertson - that non-descript NSW offspinner who could barely hold a place in his own state side! Shows how poorly he was travelling...

There are other threads in this very forum lamenting that players like Bichel and Macgill would have been 100 Test players in any other era so just because they had a s**t outing of it against India one summer doesn’t suddenly make India’s efforts in a given series worthless.

Macgill maybe, but I honestly never rated Bichel particularly highly - he was too erratic and ultimately the worst-performed Australian quick to play more than 15 Tests over the past 25 years*. I would take his QLD compatriot Kasprowicz over him - more control, more variations and more ability to conjure up something in unforgiving conditions.

*Kasprowicz finished with a slightly higher average, but took over 100 wickets and didn't get to play a county-level Zimbabwe side.

As for Lee, later that year he would start a stretch where he took 48 wickets at 22 in 9 matches.

?

Do you mean Kasprowicz?

Lee didn't play again until mid-2005, and even then he hardly set the world on fire.

Of course McGrath makes that attack a whole lot stronger but it was by no means just garbage. Williams was, though.

Not garbage but not a patch on most Australian bowling units over the past 25 years.

India can ultimately only play the opposition in front of them and they did well to capitalise on Australia's weakness, but a full-strength bowling unit would have made a big difference in this situation.

 

[Teen Wolf]

So the emergence of Dravid - india’s best overseas match winner arguably in their history - following on from an embarrassing debut trip here, had nothing to do with him and everything to do with McGrath and Warne (by the way, what difference Warne would have made is anyone’s guess). The performance of Kumble, still the only spinner I can remember coming here and standing up to the pressure Australia like to put on - that was down to McGrath and Warne’s absence?

There is no spin you can possibly put on it to say that often the best performances and contests are borne out of teams getting so flogged that they completely alter their entire approach and start to fire back.

The only thing you've illustrated with that comment is the value of good cricketers managing to perform at or near their best. Any link between players/teams improving as a result of losing badly in the past would need a lot more thorough exploration. Using examples where the opposition's performance is clearly suffering due to injury/unavailable personnel doesn't hold a lot of weight.

 

[frankrizzo]

When I started this particular conversation, I said this:

This concerns me, for several reasons; one, they didn't get their runs when the series was on the line, although Warner hasn't exactly been poor. Two, with the runs they'll make for the rest of the series they'll ensure they're good enough to continue being selected, regardless of whether or not they're up to winning a series themselves; with an eye to South Africa and beyond, is it better to go in there with fresh faces who make their runs when it counts - when their side is in trouble - or players like Khwaja, who make oodles of runs when the going's easy?

And three is that we may lose a few games in search of these players, and I'd prefer to lose a few in pursuit of finding the right people in a dead rubber or two instead of belting the s**t out of a defeated England and making it harder to win over there later on.

khawaja was our best player vs a top quality SA attack last summer and made tons of runs when series were alive both here and in nz, his issue is playing spin not that he only makes dead rubber runs, warner also isn't known as a dead rubber bully he just has trouble adjusting to certain pitches, i just don't see how it's in our interest for those two to fail in the next few tests right before we have a 4 test tour to a place like SA where both of them should find conditions suited to their skills.

p.s. if dead rubber runs vs a deflated england aren't worth much why would it matter if new people came in and did well?

If a ton for warner and usman means little on boxing day then it means just as little for the bloke taking their place.

 

[PhatBoy]

The only thing you've illustrated with that comment is the value of good cricketers managing to perform at or near their best. Any link between players/teams improving as a result of losing badly in the past would need a lot more thorough exploration. Using examples where the opposition's performance is clearly suffering due to injury/unavailable personnel doesn't hold a lot of weight.

Sorry but South Africa winning here in the most unlikely circumstances had nothing to do with injury or unavailability. It was a team traditionally burdened by not being mentally hard enough under pressure, twice winning from a virtually hopeless position.

Australia winning in 1995 didn’t either. It was a team finally standing up to the fast bowling onslaught that had dominated it for decades.

I could be wrong but Australia finally winning in India didn’t owe anything to missing personnel either. It owed plenty to Damien Martyn proving he was one of the most underrated players of spin in history, a side that wasn’t afraid to finally take a few extra risks (like picking Michael Clarke)

Nor did the West Indies winning the Grovel series. A team who had copped hidings when the going got tough decided they’d play merciless cricket

There are numerous landmark series results that can have at least something traced back to what preceded it.

Dismissing such a notion because some halfwit from Narromine once tripped over a ball is ridiculous.

 

[PhatBoy]

Warne would later go to India and average 30 (and he didn't get to play on the same pitch where Clarke took 6/9). I doubt Macgill would have.

In the two series he averaged 50+ he was suffering from injury and hence in 1997-98 was outbowled by Gavin Robertson - that non-descript NSW offspinner who could barely hold a place in his own state side! Shows how poorly he was travelling...



Macgill maybe, but I honestly never rated Bichel particularly highly - he was too erratic and ultimately the worst-performed Australian quick to play more than 15 Tests over the past 25 years*. I would take his QLD compatriot Kasprowicz over him - more control, more variations and more ability to conjure up something in unforgiving conditions.

*Kasprowicz finished with a slightly higher average, but took over 100 wickets and didn't get to play a county-level Zimbabwe side.



?

Do you mean Kasprowicz?

Lee didn't play again until mid-2005, and even then he hardly set the world on fire.



Not garbage but not a patch on most Australian bowling units over the past 25 years.

India can ultimately only play the opposition in front of them and they did well to capitalise on Australia's weakness, but a full-strength bowling unit would have made a big difference in this situation.

I got that wrong with Lee. It was only two series later, but more than a year on, when he went on that run. My bad.

Whatever angle you try and slant Warne’s efforts on against India, they had it all over him mate. One brief patch of form - and even then he had a higher series average than Kumble, Harbhajan, Hauritz, Clarke, and Murali Kartik, doesn’t alter that. He’d have been trolleyed in 03-04 like he was virtually every other time he played them.

 

[DaRick]

I got that wrong with Lee. It was only two series later, but more than a year on, when he went on that run. My bad.

Whatever angle you try and slant Warne’s efforts on against India, they had it all over him mate. One brief patch of form - and even then he had a higher series average than Kumble, Harbhajan, Hauritz, Clarke, and Murali Kartik, doesn’t alter that. He’d have been trolleyed in 03-04 like he was virtually every other time he played them.

You have a right to your views. It is indeed true that his average against them was significantly worse than every other nation.

There is no doubt though that he was often hampered by injury when he played against them (the 1999-2000 series is an exception but he didn't average 50 during that series).

Moreover, Hauritz/Clarke/Kartik only had a lower series average because they got to play on that Mumbai minefield. Warne didn't.

Also remember that Macgill flopped against SL earlier that year whereas Warne was outstanding. I'm certainly not convinced that Macgill would have performed similarly in India to Warne. More likely he would have averaged 40-50 based on the SL series.

 

[Gethelred]

khawaja was our best player vs a top quality SA attack last summer and made tons of runs when series were alive both here and in nz, his issue is playing spin not that he only makes dead rubber runs, warner also isn't known as a dead rubber bully he just has trouble adjusting to certain pitches, i just don't see how it's in our interest for those two to fail in the next few tests right before we have a 4 test tour to a place like SA where both of them should find conditions suited to their skills.

Both of these players were a part of the eleven that were bowled out for 85 against SA, with Warner being present for the 60 and 136 against England. Warner, at least, has shown signs that he is capable of change; he adopted the very circumspection he is being criticised for at the moment to deal with India and Bangladesh, the kind of application that saw him make two centuries. Khawaja has not demonstrated the capacity to adapt his game in the same way, and his form leading into last summer was breathtaking, yet we lost a home series to SA.

We need to find a player that doesn't simply do as Jimmy Anderson has done this series, and pad his stats after the game is won or lost.

p.s. if dead rubber runs vs a deflated england aren't worth much why would it matter if new people came in and did well?

If a ton for warner and usman means little on boxing day then it means just as little for the bloke taking their place.

It matters to bring them in now because the player whose place they're taking are not long term options if all they're going to do is to belt up on beaten men. Melbourne and Sydney do not matter in the same way they would normally, so let's use these matches as opportunities to find a player who will be there when we next go to England to try and win, instead of needing them then and picking Ashton Agar out of the blue.

And if we think we've someone with the right combination of temperament and technique, by all means get them in. We did it with Renshaw, and he will reward us when he breaks back in in a year or two.

 

[Nodgey]

what is the barmy army singing? it seems like an endless song

Sloop John B - let me go home
I want to go home
I feel so broke up
I wanna go home

Nah there's another one different than that. Keeps going and going. Got it stuck in my head If there's a member of the Barmy Army here, please put me out of my misery!

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Nah there's another one different than that. Keeps going and going. Got it stuck in my head If there's a member of the Barmy Army here, please put me out of my misery!

Sloop John B is perfect for the English team even more than the Barmy Army as it has that verse end and chorus:
'Drinkin' all night
Got into a fight, yeah, yeah,
Well, I feel so broke up,
I wanna go home.
Let me go home (repeat)'