Aussie Cricket
-
Everyone decided to head to the pub by the looks. Rain and more rain forecast. India win 2-1. Once they tweaked a couple of selections - particularly the opening bats - they just had too much.
Our bowlers had a sniff with some help from the deck in Perth, but the bowlers didn't have enough discipline in Melbourne on a less variable wicket, where India did.
When the batsmen crumbled, the bowlers ended up spending too much time in the middle, and their line and length got worse. Sure, Warner and Smith are worth runs, but it is sad that Australian cricket has been reduced to the point where two batsmen are the difference between winning and losing.
The record books will say 2-1 but it could really have a 4-zip.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Cricket:
Everyone decided to head to the pub by the looks. Rain and more rain forecast. India win 2-1. Once they tweaked a couple of selections - particularly the opening bats - they just had too much.
Our bowlers had a sniff with some help from the deck in Perth, but the bowlers didn't have enough discipline in Melbourne on a less variable wicket, where India did.
When the batsmen crumbled, the bowlers ended up spending too much time in the middle, and their line and length got worse. Sure, Warner and Smith are worth runs, but it is sad that Australian cricket has been reduced to the point where two batsmen are the difference between winning and losing.
The record books will say 2-1 but it could really have a 4-zip.
Is that the first time India has won a series in Oz?
-
@canefan said in Aussie Cricket:
@NTA said in Aussie Cricket:
Everyone decided to head to the pub by the looks. Rain and more rain forecast. India win 2-1. Once they tweaked a couple of selections - particularly the opening bats - they just had too much.
Our bowlers had a sniff with some help from the deck in Perth, but the bowlers didn't have enough discipline in Melbourne on a less variable wicket, where India did.
When the batsmen crumbled, the bowlers ended up spending too much time in the middle, and their line and length got worse. Sure, Warner and Smith are worth runs, but it is sad that Australian cricket has been reduced to the point where two batsmen are the difference between winning and losing.
The record books will say 2-1 but it could really have a 4-zip.
Is that the first time India has won a series in Oz?
The Indian Australian next to me with the big shit eating grin says yes.
-
@NTA said in Aussie Cricket:
When the batsmen crumbled, the bowlers ended up spending too much time in the middle, and their line and length got worse. Sure, Warner and Smith are worth runs, but it is sad that Australian cricket has been reduced to the point where two batsmen are the difference between winning and losing.
I think the two batsmen aren't the difference between winning and losing. The Indians scored over 600 in the first innings of the last test, which isn't the batsmen's fault.
Perhaps the difference between winning and losing is the amount of sandpaper applied to the ball.
-
Australia ODI squad: Aaron Finch (c), Usman Khawaja, Shaun Marsh, Peter Handscomb, Glenn Maxwell, Marcus Stoinis, Mitchell Marsh, Alex Carey, Jhye Richardson, Billy Stanlake, Jason Behrendorff, Peter Siddle, Nathan Lyon, Adam Zampa.
The axe has been swung - Lynn and Short are dumped, the three test quicks rested and spaces found for the S&M Marshes.
-
@canefan said in Aussie Cricket:
@NTA said in Aussie Cricket:
Everyone decided to head to the pub by the looks. Rain and more rain forecast. India win 2-1. Once they tweaked a couple of selections - particularly the opening bats - they just had too much.
Our bowlers had a sniff with some help from the deck in Perth, but the bowlers didn't have enough discipline in Melbourne on a less variable wicket, where India did.
When the batsmen crumbled, the bowlers ended up spending too much time in the middle, and their line and length got worse. Sure, Warner and Smith are worth runs, but it is sad that Australian cricket has been reduced to the point where two batsmen are the difference between winning and losing.
The record books will say 2-1 but it could really have a 4-zip.
Is that the first time India has won a series in Oz?
First time any subcontinent team has won a series in Aus. This is pretty massive - a big psychological barrier overcome. Well done the Indians - if they can harness their population, they will be very very hard to beat with the money they have.
-
I thought the Indians actually demonstrated a blueprint for winning cricket in Australia on modern ocker pitches, right in the gaze of the Aussies!
Don't try to dominate early in your innings. Trust patience and the rewards will come.
Leave the ball, often
Play the ball under your eyes with soft hands
Defend, evade and think " meh" for all the short bowling. Don't look to score boundaries or hit the short stuff out of the attack for a long time.
Leave lots so they straighten their line then get bread and butter runs through mid wicket
If you attack Lyon, do it straight, don't sweep.Bowl outside off but predominantly pitch it up.
Use the short stuff as an exception not a rule
3 and 4 over spells with lots of rotation. Some seamers bowled 2 short spells in 60-90 minutes
Use 2 spinners to take the pace off. Aussie pitches hardly resemble the traditional pitches of a decade ago, so take some pace off and build pressureFielding was pretty similar for both teams
Field placements were as conservative as ever but square sweepers in the first hour seem to be a given these days. Similar from both teams overall
Aussies ran better between wickets but that's about it
It was an historic victory borne from 3 years prep ( just like when Aus finally won in India) and Kohli and Shastri deserve huge praise for fitness levels and preparing the seamers for the challenge.
As for Australia, get rid of Hohns and Chappell. For 5 years now those two have churned through untold project and potential players in what can only be described as pick and hope. How they didn't get the new broom treatment beggars belief.
Would've been a wise man to predict 2-1 at the start of the series.....😉
-
-
@Chester-Draws said in Aussie Cricket:
Perhaps the difference between winning and losing is the amount of sandpaper applied to the ball.
Lol that's funny Hansie. You should do comedy... Oh wait, you can't because you're dead, you match fixing fuck.
-
-
@NTA said in Aussie Cricket:
@Chester-Draws said in Aussie Cricket:
Perhaps the difference between winning and losing is the amount of sandpaper applied to the ball.
Lol that's funny Hansie. You should do comedy... Oh wait, you can't because you're dead, you match fixing fuck.
I'm a Kiwi, so I would be Cairnsy, not Hansie.
-
@rotated True. And they won two very important tosses in Melbourne and Sydney, which helped as well.
But in the end they made their own luck, a bit like Australia in India back in 2004. As Malcolm Knox pointed out in the SMH last week, India went to shit in that series, but that's been largely forgotten by history.
As much as people will point to Pujara's batting, for me it was the fast bowling that was most impressive. Siam said it, but it bears repeating - full and fast, not falling into any of the usual traps that visiting sides do: over-reliance on the short ball, lack of patience when the ball isn't swinging, incredible discipline.
Our batting is a bit of a mess, but it's been like that for a while now. The shortcomings have been brutally exposed without our two best bats, which is entirely predictable. The thing that got me was the scoring - it wasn't that they were nicking off for low scores, unable to handle the bowling or just outclassed by the opposition. They were doing the hard yards and getting to 20-30, then getting themselves out.
So it wasn't that the batsmen weren't good enough, really. They defeated themselves more often than not. Travis Head is a prime example - he was caught at third man twice, he chipped a full toss back to the bowler, he was clean bowled trying to hit Bumrah over cow. All of these are fine if you're 4/450, but we were in trouble on each occasion.
India were good enough to feast on our errors, and make very few of their own. There were no reckless dismissals at all, barring Rohit in Adelaide. They were just so consistently good in all facets.
A bit of a shame Sydney was such a fizzer in the end. All over on day 1. But it was nice to have a live Summer series, even if it was only for a week or so.
-
For Sri Lanka, I'm picking a team with an eye on the Ashes. There are three batting spots available, and I'm turning this into a live audition for five lucky batsmen.
Harris, Burns, Labushagne, Khawaja, Head, Handscomb, Paine, Cummins, Starc, Lyon, Hazelwood.
The Shaun Marsh era comes to an end, and Labushagne gets another start after his decent 40-odd in Sydney. Burns comes in to open with Harris, and Head and Handscomb hold on.
If you score a ton, you get a ticket. It's that simple.
-
What about wade as a batsman only? Sounds like he's carving up in state cricket.
-
@barbarian when is Smith and Warner back in the team? Or when do their bans expire
-
@Paekakboyz Wade is doing OK. He's averaging 60 this year with five 50s and one century. Good numbers but not a huge sample size.
He's scored a few test centuries, so I wouldn't be opposed to giving him a chance as a batsman. Though I don't think he'd be radically better than Handscomb or Head.
