Gangully should be fired as captain

[WCE2000]

That was a pitiful display today from Gangully. No side has ever got more than 250 to win atest in India, let alone 300.

Why he didn't declare overnight was beyond me. I dont think he has taken the match away from Australia. But he took the match away from India.

The odd's of Australia being able to score 384 in 75 overs in nearly nil, but the odds of India dismissing Australia without Srinath or Kumble are even less.

Not only has he given India little time to dismiss Australia, he has given the batsmen confidence. He was basically saying "These Australia are a brilliant side and they are capable of scoring 5 an over"

Even if India win, i still won't agree with Gangully's decision to bat for so long. Anyway, the Indian's are a totally different team than the Auzzies.

If an Indian team draw's, its like a win for them. The Indian's would rather draw if it means risking loss. The Auzzies would rather lose than take the soft option and draw (obviously within reason). If Australia don't go for these runs i'll be very suprised. They will at have a go before a lunch. See where they are at lunch, then make a decision.

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[RogerC]

It's not really a powerful argument for sacking Ganguly - more a strong indication of the respect currently accorded to the Australian team. Strangling a team by giving them nothing to play for can be a potent weapon. It has worked in the past. Also, giving us ANOTHER hour toiling in the field would have helped sap our guys a little more. It's going to be hard for our batsmen to concentrate from here on in.

There's a growing sentiment abroad that test matches should be simply one day games over a longer time period. I don't subscribe to that. Test matches are endurance events - a test of patience, endurance, will, nerve and tactics as much as they are about skill and speed.

A draw against a team that has won 16 matches in a row is a victory of sorts. Taking a gamble and losing (unlikely as it might have been) would have been crushing to an Indian team that battled to such a positive position. If we find australia finishing the day on, say, 2/280, I think Ganguly's tactics would have seemed spot on. But at this point that is a long way away.

 

[kangas biggest fan]

yeah he would wont a draw if anything i mean his to scared to declare at 250-275

 

[jod23]

Talk about eating your words WCE2000. They bowled us out!!!!


This is annoying not only did we lose the test but we lost our world record winning streak. What needs to be done now is to go out there and crush India in the 3rd test and take the series and then whitewash England and get the streak back to 6. Then break our own record

 

[WCE2000]

I know they won and all, but i still don't rate Gangully's decision as very good.

There was only 6 overs to go when they won. More often than not, that match would've been a draw.

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[Arch]

its always easier in hindsight- I personally was of the same opinion at the time WCE2000- that India was more afraid of losing than they were motivated to win- so basically tried to play for a draw against us, which for most teams these days is as good as beating us.

However, im still totally mortified and baffled at how the two Indian Batsmen could stay at the crease for an entire day without getting out, while we got skittled in two bloody sessions- just doesnt make sense to me.

 

[Bernie]

Arch,

There's a logical explanation - they are actually BETTER than us at this time.

Apart from Hayden / Gilchrist ( 1st test ) and S. Waugh / Gillespie ( 2nd test ), tell me who's looked at all like getting any runs ?

Ponting and M. Waugh have looked totally freaked and Slater continues the hit'nhope philosophy ( can work sometimes ). And remember that India doesn't have Violet Krumble and the big fast bowler whose name begins with S and is pretty good. D. Martin, come on down.

 

[ant]

Bernie, pretty much the same could be said about them. Laxman has looked very good this test as has Dravid. Tendulkar also was good in the first test but apart from that their batting has been very brittle. Ganguly hasn't been at his best, their top order is shaky, and the tail doesn't hang around too long. I'm not panicking, the Indians played well, but the one massive partnership they produced was the key, along with Singh's 13 wickets. I'd back us to bounce back at Chennai.

 

[WCE2000]

Bernie:

You can take exactly the same look at the Indians:

Whos looked like getting wickets for them:
Singh took 13 and thats it. No one else has even got more than 3 wickets in the first 2 tests.
Australia have 3 bowlers appraoching double figures for the series already.

Who looked like getting runs:
Laxman got 281 and Dravid got a century, and that's it.
BTW, in the second test, Australia had 5 players reach 40 runs in the first dig.

I dont know about India, but if you have a look at Australian's 16 match winning streak and look at the scorecards, you'll find that in most of the innings weve played in, only 2 or 3, maybe 4 batsmen have got all the runs.
Thats the way this Australian team plays. They rely on a couple of players to score all the runs and its been working.
That may seem like a bad thing, but its never been the same two payers time and time again:

Win 1 v Zimbabwe:
1st Innings, Australia 422 (Steve Waugh 151 not out, Mark Waugh 90, Damien Flemming 65. Langer - 41, Ricky Ponting - 30, the only other players past 10)

Win 2 v Pakistan:
1st Innings, Australia 575 (Michael Slater 169, Mark Waugh 100, Greg Blewett 89, Shane Warne 86, Adam Gilchrist 81. Next highest score: Scott Muller - 6 not out)

Win 3 v Pakistan:
1st Innings, Australia 246 (Michael Slater 96, Justin Langer 59)
2nd Innings, Australia 6/349 (Adam Gilchrist 149 not out, Justin Langer 127. Next Highest Score: Greg Blewett - 29)

Win 4 v Pakistan:
1st Innings, Australia 451 (Ricky Ponting 197, Justin Langer 144. Next Highest Score: Adam Gilchrist - 28)

Win 5 v India:
1st Innings, Australia 441 (Steve Waugh 150, Ricky Ponting 125, Shane Warne 86. Next Highest Score: Michael Slater - 28)
2nd Innings, Australia 8(dec)/239 (Greg Blewett 88. Only 3 batsmen made it past 30)

Win 6 v India:
1st Innings, Australia 405 (Michael Slater 91, Adam Gilchrist 78, Ricky Ponting 67. One of the few innings were more than 4 batsmen made it past 30)

Win 7 v India:
1st Innings, Australia 5(dec)/552 (Justin Langer 223, Ricky Ponting 141 not out. Next Highest Score: Steve Waugh - 57)

Win 8 v New Zealand:
1st Innings, Australia 214 (Mark Waugh 74)
2nd Innings, Australia 229 (Adam Gilchrist 59)

Win 9 v New Zealand:
1st Innings, Australia 419 (Steve Waugh 151 not out, Michael Slater 143, Damien Martyn 78. Next Highest Score: Langer - 12)


Win 10 v New Zealand:
Australia 252 (Damien Martyn 89, Adam Gilchrist 75. Next Highest Scores: Mark Waugh - 28, Justin Langer - 10)
Australia 4/212 (Justin Langer 122 not out. Next Highest Scores: Matt Hayden - 37, Steve and Mark Waugh - 18)

Win 11 v West Indies:
1st Innings, Australia 332 (Brett Lee 62, Michael Slater 54. Another rare occasion where a number of batsmen chipped in)

Win 12 v West Indies:
1st innings, Australia 8(dec)/396 (Mark Waugh 119, Matt Hayden 69)

Win 13 v West Indies:
1st Innings, Australia 403 (Ricky Ponting 92, Michael Slater 83, Mark Waugh 62, Matt Hayden 53. Next Highest Scores: Damien Martyn - 46, Adam Gilchrist 9)

Win 14 v West Indies:
1st Innings, Australia 364 (Steve Waugh 121 not out. Next Highest Score: Adam Gilchrist 37).
2nd Innings, Australia 5(dec)/262 (Justin Langer 80, Mark Waugh 78 not out. Next Highest Score: Matt Hayden - 30)

Win 15 v West Indies:
1st Innings, Australia 452 (Steve Waugh 103, Michael Slater 96, Adam Gilchrist 87, Ricky Ponting 51. Next Highest Score: Collin Miller 37 not out, Mark Waugh 20)

Win 16 v India:
1st Innings, Australia 349 (Adam Gilchrist 122, Matt Hayden 119. Next Highest Score: Shane Warne 39, Justin Langer 19)

You can see from those batting scores that more often than not the Australian's rely on 2, 3 or 4 batmsne to score about 80-90 per cent of the runs for the innings.

So Bernie, your argument by saying only a couple of players have got runs is a little invalid from thos facts i just gave.

You said there missing Kumble and Srinath. Kumble - a slightly above average international bowler. Srinath - a standard international bowler.

Well Australia are missing Lee - a world class bowler.

Anyway, going on the first two matches, i think Australia have done enough for me to call them the best ever. Very few teams can beat India in India, then make India follow on.

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[Bernie]

Don't get me wrong, guys. The batsmen have done well, apart from the Indian tests in India. To beat NZ at home 3-0 was amazing, considering how the Kiwis crank up for us.

What i'm saying sort of is that there is a double spin on the theme - someone always comes good / we don't rely on one player etc - the downside being say if that one or two people don't come good. It seems to give licence to a less-that-solid attitude to hanging-in stype of batting. How can 9, 10 and 11 last considerably longer under more pressure that 5,6,7 and 8 ? It was pretty obvious what was required in the last innings so why go the cross-the-line shots ? I didn't see Glen Mac do one of those ? The Indians had an umpire who was really firing out anything near the pads on the back foot ( see my comment about the switching of Singh in the last couple of overs to get up the 'Indian' end - got a decision very quickly ) - but everyone tried to read it off the pitch and wack it somewhere. It showed no respect for the opposition - wack them around and they'll collapse - and eventually you reap what you sow.

I have faith in Steve Waugh - his 'forgotten' 1st innings century was extraordinary - and his powers but it's time, as HG Nelson would say, to go to the Room of Mirrors and have a good look BEFORE the Ashes.

I lived thru' the dreaded 1981 Botham spectacular, where just one test result scarred the collective Aussie mind for the next decade. That was a 'one of' but boy, did it do damage. England experienced it with the 'Ball of the century'. These events can really impact.

This quest for the series win in India reminds me of Border's quest to beat the Windies - it all came down to that Adelaide test with May / McDermott creeping closer, closer when .. doinggg - off the helmet , lost by 1 run and got poleaxed in the next test to go down again.We, and esp. Slater, have been pushing the envelope and there's a queue to give us a kicking - esp. the Poms. This is always the key battle and now they are getting a vicarious thrill at our trials.

I suggest regroup, get a new batsman, a new bowler and look to the attitude displayed by our 9, 10 and 11 who not only bowled their hearts out but made a contest of it with the bat. Get serious.

 

[Bernie]

BTW WCE2000,

I would suggest that Kumble is a match winner in India - remember our last tour there - and he's taken a 10 for. The theory is that finger spinners do better on their pitches that wrist spinners - I guess Shane may be reflecting on this.

If you saw Laxman's innings in the last test in Sydney, you could see a guy who could really bat. One of the best knocks I've seen.

 

[WCE2000]

I've seen both of Laxman's centures and he has proven to me he can bat. But he hasn't proven to me he can bat consistently. 2 Centures in 21 tests is hardly convincing.

The Australian batsmen, who as individuals are inconsistent aren't as inconsistent as 2 big centuries in 21 tests.

For 16 tests Australia have always had a couple of players make big scores and win the game for us. Now, because we failed in one game its all doom and gloom.

Australia are still the best, in my eyes and other people are are the best ever.

Here's what you've been asking: What happens if two players don't stand up and make a big score.
The Answer: what happened yesterday, we lose.
But how many times has that happened to us, once in the last 17 games.

Obviously Anil Kumble is a big loss to the Indians. His home average is 21, compare that to his career average of 28 and it shows how much of a key he is India.
But we've had our own injury problems with Brett Lee.

I would say, over the first two tests, Australia were the better side. Only slightly, but anyside that can even challenge India in India is a special side.
Australia have done enough for me in these two tests to call them the best ever. If they win the last tests than they should've done enough for most people to call the best ever.

------------------
Join the big footy tipping competition at Footy Tips
Join the BigFooty Cricket Cup
visit the Easts Cricket Club
The ulitimate statistics reference

 

[RogerC]

This is all a bit thoeretical, isn't it? You simply can't call a captain bad when his team has pulled off one of the biggest upsets and most courageous wins ever. We can't sit here and pretend we know what Ganguly should have done, when what he did worked, and worked very well. It wasn't even really a steal. We were outplayed over most of the last three days.

And there's no point dissecting Laxman's career. The innings he just played towers over all his other achievements. He's 26, the same age as Ponting. The only current batsman of his age or younger to have done anything comparable is Sinclair, a batsman written off after not repeating his startling start in the game. Well, Sinclair's just hit another double century.

I saw a telling photo of the Australian team in this morning's paper. The players looked resentful - that's the only way to describe it. I hope they don't feel cheated and go out to try to assert their dominance in the third test, because that will be disastrous. We got where we did not through raw talent (after all, aside from Mark Waugh, Brett Lee, Warne at his best - which isn't now - and McGrath {maybe Gilchrist too}, nobody else is a pure delight to watch), but technique and exhaustive tactical work. We need to keep doing that if we're going to keep winning. The danger comes when the players start to believe the legends about themselves, and they appear dangerously close to that point right now.

 

[GoEagles]

Actually WCE2000 It was me who brought up the Kumble & Srinath debate. I do believe that India would win 3-0 if they had both these bowlers playing for them... but then again Australia doesn't have Brett Lee so it's not a full sided series again.

Just agreeing with Bernie that Kumble is a match winner in India - he took all 10 wickets there didn't he? I'd rather have him bowling there in my team than Shane Warne.