Australia vs India, 4th test at the SCG, Jan 3rd - 7th

[DT_fanatic]

Lol. Of course it was.

To imply that the pitch and conditions were the same on days 3 and 4 to what they were when India batted for the opening two days is laughable.

India made the most of winning the toss and getting use of the best conditions for batting.

Clearly was. The pitch hadn’t deteriorated that much, Australia just can’t bat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HLM*]

Clearly was. The pitch hadn’t deteriorated that much, Australia just can’t bat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

India lost 8/78 on that pitch as well. Who ever won that toss was always more than likely going on to win that match.

 

[DT_fanatic]

DT_fanatic Park cricketer, where have this generation of India's fast bowlers emerged from? Is it because groundskeepers are finally making home wickets conducive to pace bowling, or because they finally got development right?

Mostly just a summary of Park cricketer’s comments, but I think the improved development of fast bowlers is because

A) better opportunities and investment made in them at the lower levels. It looks like there is more of an acknowledgement that fast bowlers are just as important as spin bowlers. The MRF academy is obviously bearing some fruit consistently now - the bench strength is good as opposed to before, so it’s not just these guys playing atm.

B) We aren’t getting as excited and ruining the careers of prospective fast bowlers like we have in the past. See Irfan Pathan, Munaf Patel...there’s a couple others. People like Bumrah are getting the proper oversight and development they need. I believe he has a specially devised program. I think generally as well I’ve noticed we don’t rush (don’t have to) or play fast bowlers if they’re not fit.

C) Kohli’s mentality - we hear a lot about how spin bowlers need the captains support. I think the same applies for Indian fast bowlers. He wants them to be wicket taking options and they’ve responded. He also leads by example when it comes to fitness and everyone seems to have subscribed to that. In places like Australia, if your fast bowlers aren’t fit you’re screwed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DT_fanatic]

India lost 8/78 on that pitch as well. Who ever won that toss was always more than likely going on to win that match.

Nah, Australia wouldn’t have had the temperament to score 440 odd. We lost wickets due to some poor shots too, but that was the exception than the norm for us in this series.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Richard Pryor]

Congratulations to India, and congrats Pujara on a well-earned Man of the Series.

 

[HLM*]

Nah, Australia wouldn’t have had the temperament to score 440 odd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s no surprise that the only toss we managed to win, we went on to win that match.

 

[barrackers]

... or, you know, only getting 25 overs in over the final two days of the match out of a potential 180 due to rain.

Nah. Couldn't be that!

Or they could have considered the weather forecast and set a target of 450-500 , which still would have been more than enough to secure the win while also giving them more time to do so.

I don’t think they care. I know I don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No doubt India's mentality was to not lose instead of chasing a win, just a shame for their fans though that they were denied a more exciting moment with the series clinched during play. Getting a win is always good, but I'd much prefer the to see an exciting finish.

 

[Gough]

It’s no surprise that the only toss we managed to win, we went on to win that match.

I think there was a bit more to it than that. India were clearly the better side, you can argue that with Smith and Warner the result may have been different but Pujara didn't twat us because India won the toss.

 

[HLM*]

I think there was a bit more to it than that. India were clearly the better side, you can argue that with Smith and Warner the result may have been different but Pujara didn't twat us because India won the toss.

Pujura was amazing, but would he have gotten the same returns if his side didn’t bat first? He scored bugger all in the only test India got second use of the pitch..

 

[Doss]

In the end Australia are lucky to get out of it only 1-2 I think. India were clearly better.

However, they would do well to reflect that, with less ridiculous batting at Melbourne, they could well have escaped with a draw there too. Some of the shots in the first innings there were especially reprehensible, but the second innings had some shockers too. With a bit more application, and without underplaying how well Bumrah in particular bowled, Australia could have scored another 100-150 runs in that first innings and that ultimately might have been the difference between the loss and scraping a draw.

It would have been a pretty undeserved drawn series if that had eventuated, if we're being honest. But, the lesson needs to be heeded; put some value on your ****ing wickets. Stop being profligate. Start giving a shit. Start having some situational awareness. Be prepared to knuckle down and grind it out; just look at Pujara for your perfect example. Or, if you want to maintain some chest beating faux patriotic crap about keeping it all about taking inspiration from within Straya, look to Cummins FFS; he put more value on his wicket than any of the batsmen, and that is an indictment on them.

As for the bowlers, Starc in particular can either pull his finger out or rack off. Hazlewood's outing in Sydney was better and that alone earns him less censure in my book. Cummins - can't ask for much more, although I will admit that I do believe he could pitch it up more at times. Lyon is fine for the moment so no issues there.

Anyway, yay for India being here yet again in only two years for another four Tests. Not.

 

[PT Bar None]

Probably a fitting end to an ordinary Test. Nah

... Pujara didn't twat us because India won the toss.

I've clearly been watching the wrong thing

 

[Gough]

In the end Australia are lucky to get out of it only 1-2 I think. India were clearly better.

However, they would do well to reflect that, with less ridiculous batting at Melbourne, they could well have escaped with a draw there too. Some of the shots in the first innings there were especially reprehensible, but the second innings had some shockers too. With a bit more application, and without underplaying how well Bumrah in particular bowled, Australia could have scored another 100-150 runs in that first innings and that ultimately might have been the difference between the loss and scraping a draw.

It would have been a pretty undeserved drawn series if that had eventuated, if we're being honest. But, the lesson needs to be heeded; put some value on your ******* wickets. Stop being profligate. Start giving a shit. Start having some situational awareness. Be prepared to knuckle down and grind it out; just look at Pujara for your perfect example. Or, if you want to maintain some chest beating faux patriotic crap about keeping it all about taking inspiration from within Straya, look to Cummins FFS; he put more value on his wicket than any of the batsmen, and that is an indictment on them.

As for the bowlers, Starc in particular can either pull his finger out or rack off. Hazlewood's outing in Sydney was better and that alone earns him less censure in my book. Cummins - can't ask for much more, although I will admit that I do believe he could pitch it up more at times. Lyon is fine for the moment so no issues there.

Anyway, yay for India being here yet again in only two years for another four Tests. Not.

Loose shots in Adelaide were particularly costly when we only went down by 31 runs.

 

[Park cricketer]

So you're saying you need to win all the tosses to win at home against an asian team playing in alien conditions?

 

[HLM*]

So you're saying you need to win all the tosses to win at home against an asian team playing in alien conditions?

Neither team were good enough this series to win a test match after losing the toss. Think it’s pretty evident through how the series panned out how crucial/defining batting first was.

You can critique Australia’s paper thin batting unit all you want, or how ineffective our bowlers were at times. But the fact is the one occasion we managed to win a toss, our bowlers took 20 wickets and our batsman scored more runs than the Indian batsmen.

 

[Marshland]

Apparently India drew a series here as recently as 2003/4.

1-1.

So they have come close to a series wins before, just failed to push over the line to eventually net one.

 

[Park cricketer]

Neither team were good enough this series to win a test match after losing the toss. Think it’s pretty evident through how the series panned out how crucial/defining batting first was.

You can critique Australia’s paper thin batting unit all you want, or how ineffective our bowlers were at times. But the fact is the one occasion we managed to win a toss, our bowlers took 20 wickets and our batsman scored more runs than the Indian batsmen.

That's all well and right except for the fact that Australia is playing at home in home conditions in front of their home crowd. India is the visiting team here and it needs to overcome the challenges of playing in overseas conditions before they even start playing the series. India needed to adapt to the Australian conditions first and then play at a level to beat the home team in their own conditions. You're creating a sense of equivalency here when it's always an uphill battle for touring teams to adapt to the home conditions first and then compete and win, and not the other way around.

If Australia or England win in India, I won't blame tosses for the defeats because it's a credit to touring teams if they adapt to alien conditions and win there, especially in an era when teams get battered and bruised badly whenever they step outside their home.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Apparently India drew a series here as recently as 2003/4.

1-1.

So they have come close to a series wins before, just failed to push over the line to eventually net one.

2014 went right down to the wire. A win in Adelaide would have definitely set up a series win.

 

[Doss]

Apparently India drew a series here as recently as 2003/4.

1-1.

So they have come close to a series wins before, just failed to push over the line to eventually net one.

They drew 1980-81 (1-1) and 1985-86 (0-0) here too.

 

[The Swans Blog]

I don't blame tosses, I blame the entire cricket setup. Selectors for bizarre choices, batters for shocking shots and strike bowlers bowlingas if they were plucked straight from 4th division club cricket.

Worst of all the pitches offering **** all. India were a lot better and deserved to win the series.

 

[Doss]

2014 went right down to the wire. A win in Adelaide would have definitely set up a series win.

Nah, Australia were comfortably the better side in 2014-15. 2-0 was about right.

 

[Gethelred]

Or they could have considered the weather forecast and set a target of 450-500 , which still would have been more than enough to secure the win while also giving them more time to do so.

Um, no, it wouldn't have been.

It would've meant that, at the very least, India would've had to bat again. How many wickets did India get because Australia was chasing 620 odd, and felt that pressure? How much easier would it have been to bat with a bit of freedom, on that deck, when your opposition declared prematurely, on a deck where they really could've brought the pain?

Make no mistake, the game doesn't conclude in 3 days on that batting strip

 

[lionbear]

Well done to India, even though our batting line up was depleted, I think fact that both Australia and now India have only done this once shows how tough it is to win away.

Pujara was the difference, take him out and Australia win 2-1, add in Smith and we win 3-0.

 

[HLM*]

That's all well and right except for the fact that Australia is playing at home in home conditions in front of their home crowd. India is the visiting team here and it needs to overcome the challenges of playing in overseas conditions before they even start playing the series. India needed to adapt to the Australian conditions first and then play at a level to beat the home team in their own conditions. You're creating a sense of equivalency here when it's always an uphill battle for touring teams to adapt to the home conditions first and then compete and win, and not the other way around.

If Australia or England win in India, I won't blame tosses for the defeats because it's a credit to touring teams if they adapt to alien conditions and win there, especially in an era when teams get battered and bruised badly whenever they step outside their home.

To suggest the pitches and conditions were ‘alien’ is garbage. There was nothing foreign in the flat decks that Indian batted first on. They had also toured South Africa in the same year so to suggest that our conditions were alien like to the Indian’s is wrong.

I haven’t created a sense of equivalency. Cricket Australia did that by getting rid of our two best players, and bowing down to the BCCI’s demand for avoiding playing a day/night test. Any perceived advantage from the conditions (which to be fare was minimal anyway) is nullified.

 

[Park cricketer]

To suggest the pitches and conditions were ‘alien’ is garbage. There was nothing foreign in the flat decks that Indian batted first on. They had also toured South Africa in the same year so to suggest that our conditions were alien like to the Indian’s is wrong.

I haven’t created a sense of equivalency. Cricket Australia did that by getting rid of our two best players, and bowing down to the BCCI’s demand for avoiding playing a day/night test. Any perceived advantage from the conditions (which to be fare was minimal anyway) is nullified.

Lol yeah sure, Adelaide which had very good pace, bounce and carry for the fast bowlers was a flat wicket. Even at MCG, a number of Indian batsmen (and Aussie batsmen) got received numerous body blows on the head, elbow, back, groin and pretty much everywhere. An Australian wicket is still an Australian wicket no matter how flat it is and Indian batsmen hardly get hit on the body in India because of the lack of bounce.

What Australia did with Smith and Warner is none of India's concerns, so no point bringing that here. BCCI didn't pressurise CA into banning them. It's funny how you keep mentioning day and night match as if India hasn't got a pace attack. I would've loved to see Bhuvi, Ishant and Bumrah hooping the pink ball around under lights against the Australian batsmen, unfortunately it was not meant to be.

At the end of the day, when none of the Australian batsmen could outscore what the Indian no.8 in Jadeja scored during the entirety of the series, it's clutching at straws blaming the flatness of wickets for the series loss.

 

[Cleavy]

Anyway, yay for India being here yet again in only two years for another four Tests. Not.

but we "might" have our collective shit together by then for some revenge!