Endless Summer of Cricket

[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!

 

[MatthewB]

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 s**t 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!

 

[Vader]

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

And every single recruiter says "We're really glad to pick up player X at draft position Y, because we had him right at the top of our merit list".

Just because someone says something, it does not automatically make it true.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Shaun Marsh will peel off three tons at the end of the Shield season and get recalled into the Ashes squad

 

[FR0GGY]

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

I thought he said he wasn’t sure what he’d do.

 

[CrowBloke]

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.

I've spent some time thinking about why I find this so irritating.
It's beyond the illogicality, and beyond the pedantic obvious that things did not happen that way.

The series was determined by hours and days of cricket. For many more hours and days than us, the Indians outplayed the Australians in every facet of the game, batting/bowling/fielding. They were tactically superior too and executed their plans ruthlessly. The Pommies have played a lot like that when they've beaten us in recent Ashes series.
In short, they've played as well as we used to.
The "point" that you insist I've been missing is that the Series was "really" determined by the result of the Adelaide Test, which was "really" as a result of the coin toss (<== see? I get it ). This completely overlooks, diminishes and minimises the Indian cricketing superiority over 4 Tests.
Unfortunately, it's you that have missed that point, but I'm happy to go move on, mostly enjoying your posts and having a look at the new Test squad (which I haven't seen yet).

 

[Vader]

I've spent some time thinking about why I find this so irritating.
It's beyond the illogicality, and beyond the pedantic obvious that things did not happen that way.

The series was determined by hours and days of cricket. For many more hours and days than us, the Indians outplayed the Australians in every facet of the game, batting/bowling/fielding. They were tactically superior too and executed their plans ruthlessly. The Pommies have played a lot like that when they've beaten us in recent Ashes series.
In short, they've played as well as we used to.
The "point" that you insist I've been missing is that the Series was "really" determined by the result of the Adelaide Test, which was "really" as a result of the coin toss (<== see? I get it ). This completely overlooks, diminishes and minimises the Indian cricketing superiority over 4 Tests.
Unfortunately, it's you that have missed that point, but I'm happy to go move on, mostly enjoying your posts and having a look at the new Test squad (which I haven't seen yet).

How many times have I stated that Australia winning would have been "a travesty of justice", or words to that effect?

Did Australia deserve to win the series? Hell no. India comprehensively outplayed Australia, particularly in Sydney & Melbourne. That doesn't alter the fact that the series may well have been decided by the coin toss in Adelaide.

 

[CrowBloke]

1) I see it as some are tackling it from an angle of relative perspective.
2) Deep down, I think we all acknowledge the Indians deserve the win, just that the series wasn’t as lopsided as it seems.
3) Pitch conditions were crap and no doubt teams batting first had an advantage, particularly in 3rd and 4th Tests.
4a) Note: all 4 Tests, the team batting first won 4b) or likely to have won!

1) I see it as wishful thinking which minimises and diminishes what the Indians achieved.
2) It was more lopsided than 2-1. Just look at the bowling/batting stats.
3) The Adelaide and Perth pitches were true to themselves, both producing results from absorbing contests between bat and ball. Also, it's called "winning" the toss for a reason and is intended to give the toss-winner a slight advantage. On occasion, winning the toss and bowling first has produced the win.
4a) is true, yes, but 4b) is speculative and will never be known.

 

[MatthewB]

I thought he said he wasn’t sure what he’d do.

i heard towards the end of the match he said he would have bowled, maybe i heard wrong, he did say he wasn't sure at the start of the match

 

[FR0GGY]

i heard towards the end of the match he said he would have bowled, maybe i heard wrong, he did say he wasn't sure at the start of the match

ah ok, that's what I heard.

 

[CrowBloke]

How many times have I stated that Australia winning would have been "a travesty of justice", or words to that effect?

Several times, clearly. I've seen that, but it's not the issue for me.
Here's what I don't get:

... the reality is that we were (possibly) little more than a coin toss away from that outcome.

If it's a "possibility" it's not a reality. It's something that might have happened, if things were different.
But you don't apply that ill-logic to the Perth Test or the Melbourne draw, you've just honed in on the Adelaide coin toss.

You've been unable to persuade me and vice versa. How about we just move on, amicably?