- Feb 18, 2017
- 4,400
- 5,869
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Thread starter
- #26
Why is Australia the only nation to roll out roads despite fast bowling being our advantage?
- Thread starter Ohitsthatguy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Feb 18, 2017
- 4,400
- 5,869
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Thread starter
- #29
you are so mad
write an article about how mad you are
write an article about how mad you are
Park cricketer
Club Legend
- Nov 29, 2018
- 1,771
- 2,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
It's because in the first two tests which had the most sporting wickets of the series, Australia didn't cross 200 in an innings and even the key players like Smith and Marnus were struggling for form. Australia haven't crossed 400 once in the last 8 tests they have played against India at home. I saw a stat on twitter that showed Ricky Ponting in the list for the most recent 5 century makers for Australia in tests against India before Marnus' century at Gabba, it tells you everything.
I know the bowling has come under the scanner but the main issue for Australia against India is that they don't cross 200 on sporting wickets and they don't cross 400 on flat wickets. Australia lost the series when they made 330 on an absolute road of a wicket at Sydney against an understrength Indian attack
(just for comparison, India made 630 on the same wicket 2 years ago). Or when they couldn't cross 400 on a batting friendly wicket at the Gabba against an attack comprised of largely India's net bowlers. The batting malaise runs more deep than any bowling issues.
I know the bowling has come under the scanner but the main issue for Australia against India is that they don't cross 200 on sporting wickets and they don't cross 400 on flat wickets. Australia lost the series when they made 330 on an absolute road of a wicket at Sydney against an understrength Indian attack
(just for comparison, India made 630 on the same wicket 2 years ago). Or when they couldn't cross 400 on a batting friendly wicket at the Gabba against an attack comprised of largely India's net bowlers. The batting malaise runs more deep than any bowling issues.
Helps if you only play against 2 top quality fast bowlers though who played all series and both of them carried the entire bowlers all series, don't forget this was also the last innings of the last Test and the previously 5th day Test pitch was flat as. The selectors got what they deserved but as supporter we can complain about what they didn't do, even you as a bias against Australia can see how poor form Starc and Lyon were in all series so why couldn't they. Even their replacement wouldn't have perform as bad as them you would think (they were horrible) but if they did and we went back to Starc and Lyon then we wouldn't be as critical on the selectors, they had to be dropped at some point during the Test series.
Last edited:
Blah blah blah
Yes we know, actual results don’t count, it’s just the hypothetical ‘if so and so took more dumps before play each day the scoreboard would have looked different’ factor that counts.
My personal favourite part is how you try and bring my bias into it
Yes my bias against Australia suddenly means my simple philosophy about selection and the same philosophy countless cricket fans and officials have held over a century, must change to suit this debate.
Yep
Most grounds have drop in pitches now because of AFL and they just don’t have the variety that each individual state used to have.
Just don’t deteriorate enough
It’s amazing how on the rare occasions Australia can muster the fortitude to bat out a draw overseas it’s always hailed as a great effort or Ricky Ponting at the oval or khawaja in the UAE have played a momentous knock but any team doing well in the fourth innings here and it’s just the pitch that earned the results
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
A lot of our home victories in recent years have come from grinding opponents into the ground over 4-5 days rather than pitch conditions changing dramatically.
This one for example: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...a-vs-pakistan-2nd-test-1183531/full-scorecard
When you make 3/589 scoring at 4.6 runs an over what team comes out to bat after 5 and a bit sessions in the field and thinks they have something to play for? Generally not touring Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies teams.
What India showed (and others have) is that they are good enough to play us at that game. Their batsmen aren't afraid of extra bounce, their quick bowlers are happy to see any pace friendly conditions and their spinners are obviously used to seeing spin friendly conditions and dealing with low bounce. We won the first test because we dominated a session. All out for 36 on day 2/3 in Adelaide isn't the pitch. We came out and made 2/93 fairly easily. And then we lost the second and fourth tests and drew the third because India won key sessions.
CA love it because more play = more TV ratings. But if we're only going to make 250 first up then we're giving teams a chance to build first innings leads. Likewise if we bowl first and teams make 300+ and bat into day two we are pushing s**t uphill. Twice we were in winning positions going into day 5 and we walked away with a loss and a draw. We set India 407 and they made 5/334. We set them 328 and they made 7/329. I believe that in the same conditions if they were chasing 500 in each test we would've won both. We're used to bullying teams and being in strong positions and when we are challenged we often come up a bit short.
This one for example: https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...a-vs-pakistan-2nd-test-1183531/full-scorecard
When you make 3/589 scoring at 4.6 runs an over what team comes out to bat after 5 and a bit sessions in the field and thinks they have something to play for? Generally not touring Pakistan, Sri Lanka, West Indies teams.
What India showed (and others have) is that they are good enough to play us at that game. Their batsmen aren't afraid of extra bounce, their quick bowlers are happy to see any pace friendly conditions and their spinners are obviously used to seeing spin friendly conditions and dealing with low bounce. We won the first test because we dominated a session. All out for 36 on day 2/3 in Adelaide isn't the pitch. We came out and made 2/93 fairly easily. And then we lost the second and fourth tests and drew the third because India won key sessions.
CA love it because more play = more TV ratings. But if we're only going to make 250 first up then we're giving teams a chance to build first innings leads. Likewise if we bowl first and teams make 300+ and bat into day two we are pushing s**t uphill. Twice we were in winning positions going into day 5 and we walked away with a loss and a draw. We set India 407 and they made 5/334. We set them 328 and they made 7/329. I believe that in the same conditions if they were chasing 500 in each test we would've won both. We're used to bullying teams and being in strong positions and when we are challenged we often come up a bit short.
We have to produce roads because a vast majority of our best batsman in this country are just very average players. Not their fault as they have grown up only playing on roads. All at sea with the slightest of movement.
Still s**t pitches though.
Still s**t pitches though.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Yes the pitches were pretty lifeless and I personally found them dull from a cricketing perspective but as has been pointed out already we just didn't make enough first innings runs when getting continually good batting conditions to ever take India out of the game
Once upon a time when Mark Butcher would play a blinder in the fourth innings to win an Ashes test, Brian Lara would make 153* at Bridgetown, Laxman and Dravid would follow-on and make 461 runs between them, Jacques Kallis would announce himself by batting his team to a draw through 122 overs against McGrath, Reiffel, Kasper and Warne - people would actually sit back and credit the opposition and just say "the other guy was too good today." Yes there was always reflection and analysis, what could we have done better, what could we have done different, did we read the pitch as well as we should have etc. But at the end of the day the conclusion was always the same: "we weren't good enough and they were too good."
i don't recall ever, pre, say, 2005, any loss or draw or series defeat or unexpected result, being greeted with the sort of self-destructive analysis that I've seen in recent years when Australia fails. No captain from Border through to Ponting was ever subjected to the same level of blame when something didn't work as what Paine is. And they had far better players to move around the chess board than what Paine does. i also recall that players in that era were, while still criticised if their skills let them down, not derided as though they didn't give a toss or put in their best effort. It was rare but it DID happen - McGrath didn't always succeed. But the response when it happened was steady - well he put in, he just couldn't get it done today.
i don't recall ever, pre, say, 2005, any loss or draw or series defeat or unexpected result, being greeted with the sort of self-destructive analysis that I've seen in recent years when Australia fails. No captain from Border through to Ponting was ever subjected to the same level of blame when something didn't work as what Paine is. And they had far better players to move around the chess board than what Paine does. i also recall that players in that era were, while still criticised if their skills let them down, not derided as though they didn't give a toss or put in their best effort. It was rare but it DID happen - McGrath didn't always succeed. But the response when it happened was steady - well he put in, he just couldn't get it done today.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
The difference is you could count almost on one hand the number of series defining losses that team suffered in a decade. These blokes suffer it every series.
They do but that comes with being an ordinary player group.
The peak i can recall was an era where all of Hayden, Langer, Slater, Blewett, Elliott, Waugh, Waugh, Martyn, Hussey, Lehmann, Gilchrist, Cox, Siddons, Hills, Divenuto, Law, Love, Ponting, Katich were active as batsmen.
McGrath, Gillespie, Bichel, Fleming, Kasprowicz, Wilson, Angel, Clark, Lee, Bracken, Nicholson, Warne, MacGill were all active as bowlers.
Now not all those players quite made it properly at Test level.
But all of them I think averaged over 40 with the bat in FC cricket or below 30 with the ball in FC cricket.
That is just an incredibly deep pool of elite talent.
At the moment players with an average of 40+ over more than a season or two are as rare as hen's teeth and expectations have to be tempered to allow for that.
Blah blah blah???? It's the truth and why us supporters are so pissed, deep inside you know you are very bias and would be as ropeable if WI continue selecting players who were in as extremely poor form as Starc and Lyon (except for Starc 1st inning in the 1st Test) all series, given the dominate position we were in both Test, I would say any contribution by the replacements we would have won those Test.Blah blah blah
Yes we know, actual results don’t count, it’s just the hypothetical ‘if so and so took more dumps before play each day the scoreboard would have looked different’ factor that counts.
My personal favourite part is how you try and bring my bias into it
Yes my bias against Australia suddenly means my simple philosophy about selection and the same philosophy countless cricket fans and officials have held over a century, must change to suit this debate.
I think Gideon Haigh said it well the other day:
"Cricket in this country struggles sometimes to see victory and defeat, especially at home, in proper proportion. Ten years ago, Ashes defeat inspired the technocratic tinkering of the Argus Review, rebuilding Australian cricket one management diagram at a time.
We may now be simultaneously overreacting to defeat (“Sack the captain!”), underreacting (“We’re 25 million, they’re 1.3 billion”), and wildly generalising (“They’re arrogant!”; “They’re too nice!”; “They’re too rich!”; “They’re too woke!”). A simple summation is best: Australia is a good team drifting, in need of an energising spark. To deal with that, maybe consult that screen again. Remember “humility”? Let’s have some. Doesn’t need to be elite. Just humility will do."
Um, we do??? It doesn't mean magically I think Kane Williamson's double century didn't count for squat because they didn't select and unleash O'Shane Thomas bowling 150kph thunderbolts on a pool table green surface..
I would say that expecting Neser or Swepson to somehow instill the necessary fear and indecision in the current Indian side is tantamount to believing in unicorns.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Yeah and that's what most people are critical of them for - that for Australian players they are actually pretty ordinary!
No way you wouldn't be ropeable if the selectors did nothing and "back the boys in".....don't let your bias cloud you honesty.
Paine deserves all the flak he gets. The bowl short to legside fields stuff was dreadful. Pretty much all the wickets in the last innings came from balls on off stump.
Green bowled three overs in that innings and Marnus one. It's not like Starc and Lyon were setting the world on fire.
That’s fine, but in the butcher innings for example as a talented but underachieving batsman took Warne, Lee, Gillespie and McGrath, the likes of Katich and Mark Waugh bowled 1 over between them in unsuccessfully defending 320. That was Gilchrist in charge for what it’s worth but afterwards the chat was exclusively about the opposition
Similar threads
