Remove this Banner Ad

Make no mistake

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Apart from Smith the batting was pretty poor. The bowling and fielding was superb.

Batting was poor generally. Bar the the Test pitches weren't that conducive to to making big scores. In such foreign conditions we were always going to have a collapse or two. We just didn't have 8 of them like we normally would have.
 
Smith and Warner did what was expected, although Smith was really amazing. To me, Handscomb is the most promising find of this series for Australia. Renshaw needs to develop quite a bit - India figured him out and got him out cheaply 5 times in a row. Maxwell, well is Maxwell. Problem for Australia is that they already have a lottery ticket at the top of the order - carrying 2 of them in the top 6 is a bit iffy.

Actually think it'll be a very strong line-up back in Australia. Warner averages 59 in Australia and Renshaw will go well. Khawaja has batted great at home the last 2 season then you have smith, Handscomb and hopefully Maxwell will do the job. Not on the dodgy indian decks now.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

So their bowlers were far better than the figures indicate? Which is it?

The pitches are are by and large roads every summer. India did better than most.
Unlike the Australian bowling lineup, India couldn't take 20 wickets in a test, hence the argument that they weren't competitive.

Another way of looking at it is that both sides batsman cashed in on runs on the roads, only one sides bowlers took twenty wickets in a test.
 
How does one conclude that India should have lost 4-0 if it's based on India failing to get 20 wickets. Australia also failed to get 20 wickets in the last 2 tests...?
 
How does one conclude that India should have lost 4-0 if it's based on India failing to get 20 wickets. Australia also failed to get 20 wickets in the last 2 tests...?
Australia got 20 wickets in 2 tests, India got 20 wickets in 0 tests. How does one conclude India was competitive?

The draws in that series were the pitches defeating both sides bowlers.
 
Difficult to say IMO. Smith really did carry the batting, and you could say Handscomb and SMarsh showed a lot of temperament in that Ranchi test but would that be offset by the number of failed starts from Handscomb and otherwise relatively poor series from Marsh? What would have really happened if Smith wasn't in that kind of form and scored that many runs. Difficult to say.

Renshaw showed a lot of potential but he'd want to improve on his vulnerability to short ball tactics. Obviously only 20 tho and hasn't had another subcontinent tour previously to compare against.

Warner was Warner.

I think Maxwell is the biggest win especially for future subcontinent tours, he should be a lock for #6. Might still be dismissed to the occasional lapse/poor shot but it looks like he's sorted the mental part of it out for the most part, and he's always had the talent to play spin well.
How did Kohli bat?
Warner, S.Marsh, Handscomb, Renshaw and Maxwell all batted better than him.....
 
Australia got 20 wickets in 2 tests, India got 20 wickets in 0 tests. How does one conclude India was competitive?

The draws in that series were the pitches defeating both sides bowlers.

Most sides get whitewashed or beaten pretty resoundingly in Australia. Not to mention the fact that India were expected to lose 4-0. Clearly that's where the notion of being competitive is coming from. It's a term subject to interpretation anyway, and it doesnt mean anything other than what the scoreline shows, which was 2-0. This also means any argument on the basis that if not for the pitches India would have lost 4-0 is lacking in logic.

Also the pitches in that series, and most other series in Australia over the last few years, are designed to suit Australia's out and out fast bowlers and protect their batsmen. Blind Freddy can see that. Mitch Johnson was clearly affected by the Hughes tragedy.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

History is littered with Australian teams having issues with opposition sides....

The current side appears to be more passive though admittedly.
I'd like a side that could talk and walk and bowl and bat at the same time.
everything is going gang busters for a ripper season ahead but can they just play ball?
Not go on with crap about everything else.
 
We rarely have issues with other sides either, just India.

Right. The South African captain didn't refer to your team as a pack of wild dogs. Ask any Sri Lankan cricketer how they feel about the aussies and be prepared to cover your ears. And didn't your current vice captain sucker punch England's current captain a couple of seasons ago? No, no. But its only India that the Australian team has a problem with. Rrrrrrrright.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom