Summer of Cricket

[WaynesWorld19]

I'm mostly skipping over your posts - but you KNOW India has the IPL, right?

Again, you're commenting without having read the article

 

[jackster83]

The BBL feels too long this year. Feels like there's not as much importance in winning each game - even sides that have totally sucked so far have another half a dozen games to try and get back in finals contention.

The Ryobi/JLT cup (or whatever it's called at the moment) needs to be discarded and the shield season brought forward.

Also whoever had the idea of playing ODI's against SA prior to the test series should be sacked. Waste of time for a series that hardly anyone watched and it deprived players of red ball cricket ahead of a series against the best side in the world. Any ODI's should be after the test summer has concluded.

 

[Elite Crow]

Feel free to point out my inaccuracies. You don't do that very often - you just tumble into your crazy rants.

Oh such a witty reply. I’ve picked up your biased hypocritical garbage plenty, now it seems you’d like me to do it more.

India played disciplined good cricket. Their batters were patient and didn’t throw away their wickets. Their bowlers again were accurate and maintained the pressure. Their bowlers moved the ball when ours couldnt.

Our batsmen weren’t getting out to unplayable bowling they were getting out because of rash shit shot making. Our bowlers were pedestrian.

Rain saved us from going down 3-1.

Talk India down as much as you want to protect our own, but that’s exactly what Rowey does, so if the shoe fits.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

So many people with so many different "Ashes" team ......the Australian Test Team should almost pick itself .....just shows how poor our depth & performances are, that so many experts can vary so much on their team

 

[CrowBloke]

Nothing wrong with speculation if it’s based on agreeable observations.

This forum, not just this thread, is filled with speculations before the event which can be interesting for sure, fun even:
--- who might get picked/dropped
--- who might play where
--- who might win/lose
--- winning margin etc.
However, your examples are "if-only" flights of fancy:
"“If only we didn’t get injuries to half of our team, we could have won it instead of a draw”.
“If only the frees weren’t 50-10 against us, we could have won it instead of a 2-goal loss”. "
which are utterly pointless. For example: "IF ONLY Paine had won the toss ..." --- there is no information to say that the Australians would/would not have been bowled out for 80, or 200, or 700. Don't you get it??

JW, Vader , Kristof ... do you ever buy a Lotto/Powerball ticket? It's human nature to wonder before the event what one might do, if the right numbers are picked,
BUT,
do you ever say to yourself after the event:
"IF ONLY my numbers had come up, because then I would have won it"? It makes as much sense as saying: "If I had won it, I'd have won it" .
IF Douglas had not taken out McGovern, or IF Gallucci had not run forward, or IF a legal tackle was made on Motlop, the Crows would have won that Showdown.
How about: IF Port had kicked (any number of goals) instead of points, they would have won, anyway? OR
IF the Crows were 7 points up at that time, they'd have won by a point, or a million other hypotheticals?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

This forum, not just this thread, is filled with speculations before the event which can be interesting for sure, fun even:
--- who might get picked/dropped
--- who might play where
--- who might win/lose
--- winning margin etc.
However, your examples are "if-only" flights of fancy:
"“If only we didn’t get injuries to half of our team, we could have won it instead of a draw”.
“If only the frees weren’t 50-10 against us, we could have won it instead of a 2-goal loss”. "
which are utterly pointless. For example: "IF ONLY Paine had won the toss ..." --- there is no information to say that the Australians would/would not have been bowled out for 80, or 200, or 700. Don't you get it??

JW, Vader , Kristof ... do you ever buy a Lotto/Powerball ticket? It's human nature to wonder before the event what one might do, if the right numbers are picked,
BUT,
do you ever say to yourself after the event:
"IF ONLY my numbers had come up, because then I would have won it"? It makes as much sense as saying: "If I had won it, I'd have won it" .
IF Douglas had not taken out McGovern, or IF Gallucci had not run forward, or IF a legal tackle was made on Motlop, the Crows would have won that Showdown.
How about: IF Port had kicked (any number of goals) instead of points, they would have won, anyway? OR
IF the Crows were 7 points up at that time, they'd have won by a point, or a mil
lion other hypotheticals?

Totally agree ....everyone's an expert in retrospect, yet the opinions can never be proven either way

 

[Vader]

Yeeeaaaah ... BUT they didn't. Plus, they won the series 2-1 in actual fact, and dominated every major statistic along the way wrt to batting and bowling (have a look:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ing_bowling_by_team.html?id=12384;type=series).
Who's to say that Australia would have won the Adelaide Test if they batted first? Why not speculate about another middle order collapse that gets them done by an Innings+runs? (well, because that didn't happen, either ).
Test results don't add the "But ifs" that you and Vader have speculated about. There's no mention of toin coss outcomes, weather, badly prepared wickets (eg batting roads where India made 6/622 and all we could manage was 300 all out), or wickets that turned sideways etc nor what might-have-happened if things were different.

India were very good in beating the team that we presented.
Australia was poor, by comparison.

Nobody is saying that Australia would have won the Adelaide test. However, if they did, then the series would have ended 2-1 in Australia's favour - which would have been an absolute travesty of justice considering how the Melbourne & Sydney tests panned out.

What we do know is that Paine has a perfect 100% correlation between winning/losing the toss, and winning/losing the subsequent test matches. We also know that India enjoyed the best of the batting conditions in Adelaide, having won the toss & decided to bat.

It is possible, and highly plausible, that Australia may have won that test if Paine had won the toss. The game was only decided by 31 runs, and it's quite plausible to believe that this result could have been reversed if the coin toss had gone the other way.

Yes, it's also possible that India still would have won the game, and the series. But that's not the point. The point is that the series ultimately came down to that Adelaide test, and it is quite possible that Australia could have won the series 2-1 if the toss had gone differently in Adelaide. Yes, that would have been an absolute travesty of justice, and a case of daylight robbery, given how superior India were in the last 2 tests.

 

[CrowBloke]

Did you just use a thousand words to say "but that's not what happened"?

Was it a thousand words? I didn't count. Who made you the word-length Police? It's not my fault or problem if posts longer than a sentence test your patience, concentration and comprehension.
To my knowledge, the Mods have set no word limit on posts. If they do (and please let me know), I'll make a point of posting within the rules which I am doing at present.
Your posts keep saying "If something different had happened, the result would have been different" .

But that's not what happened .

 

[CrowBloke]

1) Australia could have easily won Adelaide and Melbourne, with a different result at the toss.
2) And that doesn't change the fact we were embarrassingly bad.

1) But that's not what happened .
2) Now you're talking! Totally true, but if we had been better things would have been different, right?

 

[CrowBloke]

WTF!! Did you just AGREE with a post that said the Indians got the best of the conditions?! That was because they won the toss!!

Calm down.
NO, this is what I agreed with: "I think the pitches in Melbourne and Sydney hurt us more than the toss. ".
Those dud pitches favoured the Indians' batting strengths, plus their bowlers stuck to their plans and executed brilliantly.

Preparing wickets with little bounce/seam did not help the Aussies, at all.

 

[CrowBloke]

It is possible, and highly plausible, that Australia may have won that test if Paine had won the toss. The game was only decided by 31 runs, and it's quite plausible to believe that this result could have been reversed if the coin toss had gone the other way.

Vader, with respect, given the talent we had and the way/s they performed it's equally possible, and highly plausible (in the IF-ONLY Universe of Speculation), that Australia would still have lost that Test match.
We will never know!
As I said before, speculations before the event can be interesting and fun. After the event, not so much (to me, anyway).
You seem to like to focus upon the toss, when that was only one of many variables eg
Australia got to 291 in their first dig because their last 5 batsmen made 148 runs, 15 more than the Top 6 (10 extras).
IF they made only 72 runs, we'd have lost by 103 runs (<== pointless speculation, not even interesting).
OR
In the second dig, those 5 batsmen made 54 runs.
IF they had made only another 32 runs (possible and plausible given their first dig total), we'd have won that Test (<== more pointless speculation, independent of the toss).

IF the toss was the ONLY variable, the ONLY thing that might have changed, well, maybe the result might have been different. But it's not, and it wasn't, and that's not what happened! *tears out hair, rends T-shirt*

 

[Vader]

Vader, with respect, given the talent we had and the way/s they performed it's equally possible, and highly plausible (in the IF-ONLY Universe of Speculation), that Australia would still have lost that Test match.
We will never know!
As I said before, speculations before the event can be interesting and fun. After the event, not so much (to me, anyway).
You seem to like to focus upon the toss, when that was only one of many variables eg
Australia got to 291 in their first dig because their last 5 batsmen made 148 runs, 15 more than the Top 6 (10 extras).
IF they made only 72 runs, we'd have lost by 103 runs (<== pointless speculation, not even interesting).
OR
In the second dig, those 5 batsmen made 54 runs.
IF they had made only another 32 runs (possible and plausible given their first dig total), we'd have won that Test (<== more pointless speculation, independent of the toss).

IF the toss was the ONLY variable, the ONLY thing that might have changed, well, maybe the result might have been different. But it's not, and it wasn't, and that's not what happened! *tears out hair, rends T-shirt*

Did you even bother reading the paragraph which directly followed the one you quoted?

You have a remarkable knack of completely missing the point of the whole discussion.

 

[GROTTO]

Nobody is saying that Australia would have won the Adelaide test. However, if they did, then the series would have ended 2-1 in Australia's favour - which would have been an absolute travesty of justice considering how the Melbourne & Sydney tests panned out.

What we do know is that Paine has a perfect 100% correlation between winning/losing the toss, and winning/losing the subsequent test matches. We also know that India enjoyed the best of the batting conditions in Adelaide, having won the toss & decided to bat.

It is possible, and highly plausible, that Australia may have won that test if Paine had won the toss. The game was only decided by 31 runs, and it's quite plausible to believe that this result could have been reversed if the coin toss had gone the other way.

Yes, it's also possible that India still would have won the game, and the series. But that's not the point. The point is that the series ultimately came down to that Adelaide test, and it is quite possible that Australia could have won the series 2-1 if the toss had gone differently in Adelaide. Yes, that would have been an absolute travesty of justice, and a case of daylight robbery, given how superior India were in the last 2 tests.

I think the margin of victory for India in the Adelaide test flattered us, sure it was 31 runs but in reality we were at one stage. 7-187 chasing 323. India arguably should have won a lot more comfortably by around 100 runs.

While I do believe the coin toss does play a massive role in the result, nothing can dispute the fact that in the Sydney test we still had good batting conditions and still got rolled for 300 and arguably again 9-258 at one stage.

In the Perth Test, one could only imagine if India had picked a spinner instead of a 4 pace bowling attack.

I think the 2-1 final series scoreline was flattering given India's dominance.

With that said, had we rolled India out for u150 when they were 6-130 in Adelaide I actually believe psychologically we would have broken them for the rest of the series.

 

[CrowBloke]

Vader , yes, I read the following:

Yes, it's also possible that India still would have won the game, and the series. But that's not the point. The point is that the series ultimately came down to that Adelaide test, and it is quite possible that Australia could have won the series 2-1 if the toss had gone differently in Adelaide. Yes, that would have been an absolute travesty of justice, and a case of daylight robbery, given how superior India were in the last 2 tests.

with more respect and courtesy than you've given me in this reply:
"

Did you even bother reading the paragraph which directly followed the one you quoted? You have a remarkable knack of completely missing the point of the whole discussion.

".

Re this:
"The point is that the series ultimately came down to that Adelaide test, and it is quite possible that Australia could have won the series 2-1 if the toss had gone differently in Adelaide.".
No, that's not the point at all. The series was decided by the Four Tests, not just Adelaide. Why not the Melbourne Test, or Perth, or any of them? You might as fruitfully, or meaningfully, say that if we'd won all 4 Tests the result would have been 4-0 .
Australia certainly could have won the series if they'd batted better, but they didn't.
You're happy to keep the other results the same, but are totally focused upon the Adelaide coin toss (producing a different result). There are many possible outcomes before a series/Test begins, but not after it's concluded! The end product of what you and Kristof have been saying is:
"It all would have been different, if it had been different".
That applies to anything that we look back on with hindsight.

Btw, I began that post by addressing you, personally --- "Vader, with respect ..." and I meant it based on your many good posts in here. I'd appreciate that to be reciprocated since I have made no personal attacks or disparaging remarks about you.

 

[Vader]

Vader , yes, I read the following:

with more respect and courtesy than you've given me in this reply:
"".

Re this:
"The point is that the series ultimately came down to that Adelaide test, and it is quite possible that Australia could have won the series 2-1 if the toss had gone differently in Adelaide.".
No, that's not the point at all. The series was decided by the Four Tests, not just Adelaide. Why not the Melbourne Test, or Perth, or any of them? You might as fruitfully, or meaningfully, say that if we'd won all 4 Tests the result would have been 4-0 .
Australia certainly could have won the series if they'd batted better, but they didn't.
You're happy to keep the other results the same, but are totally focused upon the Adelaide coin toss (producing a different result). There are many possible outcomes before a series/Test begins, but not after it's concluded! The end product of what you and Kristof have been saying is:
"It all would have been different, if it had been different".
That applies to anything that we look back on with hindsight.

Btw, I began that post by addressing you, personally --- "Vader, with respect ..." and I meant it based on your many good posts in here. I'd appreciate that to be reciprocated since I have made no personal attacks or disparaging remarks about you.

Once again, you continue to miss the point.

Melbourne & Sydney were ritual slaughters. Australia was fortunate to have the rain intervene in Sydney, but there is nothing to suggest that the Melbourne result was ever going to be changed by the toss of the coin - Australia were comprehensively outplayed. Australia won in Perth. That leaves Adelaide as the only test match in the series, where Australia were competitive but still managed to lose - and the only test match which Australia may have won if they'd had more luck with the coin toss.

 

[FR0GGY]

No marshes! Burns, Renshaw and Pucovski in!

 

[Cap]

hellehah ! no Marshes!

I can watch the matches with interest now.

 

[Vader]

Gotta be happy with this lineup. Even if they do lose, at least the selectors can say that the team was picked based on form, ability, and talent, with a view towards the future - as distinct from the previous teams, which were selected on the basis of nepotism.

 

[Vader]

Burns should have been in the team from the first ball of the Indian series. It's absolutely disgraceful that he's had to wait so long for selection.

Pucovski is only 20, and has only played 8x First Class games, but his form & batting averages stack up very nicely. However, I can't criticise the selectors for his non-selection against India. Pucovski was on leave, while he sought treatment for a mental illness. Apparently the selectors were considering him for the India series, but had to change their plans due to Pucovski's illness. Fair enough. At least they've brought him straight in as soon as he returned to action.

Renshaw has ability, but hasn't shown any form at all in the Shield this season. I can't blame the selectors for overlooking him against India. I hope he manages to find some form against the Sri Lankans.

 

[Brenton Davy]

Nobody is saying that Australia would have won the Adelaide test. However, if they did, then the series would have ended 2-1 in Australia's favour - which would have been an absolute travesty of justice considering how the Melbourne & Sydney tests panned out.

What we do know is that Paine has a perfect 100% correlation between winning/losing the toss, and winning/losing the subsequent test matches. We also know that India enjoyed the best of the batting conditions in Adelaide, having won the toss & decided to bat.

It is possible, and highly plausible, that Australia may have won that test if Paine had won the toss. The game was only decided by 31 runs, and it's quite plausible to believe that this result could have been reversed if the coin toss had gone the other way.

Yes, it's also possible that India still would have won the game, and the series. But that's not the point. The point is that the series ultimately came down to that Adelaide test, and it is quite possible that Australia could have won the series 2-1 if the toss had gone differently in Adelaide. Yes, that would have been an absolute travesty of justice, and a case of daylight robbery, given how superior India were in the last 2 tests.

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

THAT would be a travesty of justice...

 

[hey shorty]

Gutsy selection to pick a kid who hasnt played Shield for a while and Renshaw who barely made a run, but they're looking toward the future.

Surely that's the end of Smarsh's test career

 

[Vader]

Surely that's the end of Smarsh's test career

The one big positive to come out of the India series.

 

[John Who]

Vader , yes, I read the following:

with more respect and courtesy than you've given me in this reply:
"".

Re this:
"The point is that the series ultimately came down to that Adelaide test, and it is quite possible that Australia could have won the series 2-1 if the toss had gone differently in Adelaide.".
No, that's not the point at all. The series was decided by the Four Tests, not just Adelaide. Why not the Melbourne Test, or Perth, or any of them? You might as fruitfully, or meaningfully, say that if we'd won all 4 Tests the result would have been 4-0 .
Australia certainly could have won the series if they'd batted better, but they didn't.
You're happy to keep the other results the same, but are totally focused upon the Adelaide coin toss (producing a different result). There are many possible outcomes before a series/Test begins, but not after it's concluded! The end product of what you and Kristof have been saying is:
"It all would have been different, if it had been different".
That applies to anything that we look back on with hindsight.

Btw, I began that post by addressing you, personally --- "Vader, with respect ..." and I meant it based on your many good posts in here. I'd appreciate that to be reciprocated since I have made no personal attacks or disparaging remarks about you.

I think you’re getting a bit carried away with the anti-what-if rants.

I see it as some are tackling it from an angle of relative perspective. Deep down, I think we all acknowledge the Indians deserve the win, just that the series wasn’t as lopsided as it seems.

Pitch conditions were crap and no doubt teams batting first had an advantage, particularly in 3rd and 4th Tests.
Note: all 4 Tests, the team batting first won or likely to have won!

 

[mattyb2607]

WTF!! Did you just AGREE with a post that said the Indians got the best of the conditions?! That was because they won the toss!!

The difference between day one and day three in Melbourne was enormous - and they had that advantage because they won a coin flip.

That being said - terrible pitch preparations that offered us no advantage would be right up there with shit selections for "things that lost us the series".

Tim Paine did say he would have bowled first in Melbourne if he had one the toss, so if we won the toss, the result would have be most likely the same

 

[Vader]

I've just realised that there is one downside to the axing of MMarsh. He'll probably never be able to regain his title, as the worst #6 batsman in the history of test match cricket. Doh!