India tour: let's look for some positives

Remove this Banner Ad

Aug 25, 2008
12,464
7,847
Leeds/'Berra/Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
OK, so as far as results go, this tour was pretty much an unmitigated disaster. Lost every match, often quite quickly. Doesn't get much worse than that. But, let's put this in some context. Our current side is really very inexperienced, and playing in India like this will have taught them a bucketload, both about the game and themselves. Make no mistake, they'll be hurting, and they won't want to feel like this again.

So, let's look for some positives.

1. Cowan. Looked completely out of his depth when the tour started. Ended up making more runs than any other Australian. Never went on to make that big hundred, which is nothing new for him, but his ability to play spin improved drastically with each game, to the point where he looked like one of our least comfortable (perhaps behind only Hughes) to one of our most comfortable. Showed great tenacity and character at the crease, and a thirst for self-improvement. I get the feeling he'll be a much better batsman for this tour.

2. Hughes. Yes, Hughes is a positive, of sorts. He was, frankly, atrocious in the first two games. Got unlucky a couple of times, but clearly just had no confidence playing spin. Could not score a run, got bogged down, just looked like a dear caught in headlights. But, to his enormous credit, he turned it around in the third Test, and looked on track for a century before a terrible LBW decision sent him packing. He followed it up with solid-enough performances from there on. He adjusted his game, and more importantly, he quickly got himself out of his rut, which is something he has struggled with in the past. It showed he's developed some much-needed maturity and grit. He still has a long way to go before he's completely fulfilling his potential as a Test batsman, but I feel it was a big step forward for him.

3. Siddle. Showed again what a tough customer he is. He's not the most talented or destructive of players, but he's an impressive cricketer with a gigantic heart. Our first picked bowler for the Ashes.

4. Smith. Came in as a specialist batsman, and took to it like a duck to water. Played like his NSW fanboys have always known he could. Looked supremely confident against some very, very good bowling, and his technique and shot-selection were much improved from his previous stints in the Test side. He still has a bit to work on technically, but he's a lot more solid and is definitely a genuine middle-order option now. Should be selected at 5 or 6 for the Ashes.

5. Lyon. Basically the bowling equivalent of Cowan/Hughes, looked out of his depth and out of form at the start of the tour, to the point he was actually dropped, but his 7-fer in the final test showed he had learned how to bowl in those conditions, to those batsmen. This tour will have been a massively important learning experience for him, and he'll have gained a lot of confidence from the way he finished off the tour.

6. Wade. Coming into the tour, he was struggling badly to keep to spin, and as expected, he continued to struggle. But, as a young keeper used to keeping in Australian conditions, it's really not much of a surprise. However, his keeping improved throughout the tour, and again, he'll have learned a bucketload from this experience. Even Dhoni struggled at times, and he's far more accustomed to both spin bowling and Indian conditions than Wade. The most important thing is that Wade will be a better keeper going forward.

7. Henriques. OK, so he was dropped for the last game, but his debut game showed that he does in fact have the talent to be a Test batsman, which was by no means a given going in. He may not have the consistency yet, but I think it's fair to say he far exceeded expectations in what were very trying conditions.

8. Maxwell. Well, his batting was a complete flop, but his bowling was actually reasonably impressive. Got good bounce, a bit of movement, and wasn't horribly inconsistent, which was nice. Reasonable cricketing brain, at least with ball in hand (I'm afraid I can't say the same for his batting). Wouldn't pick him as a front-line bowler in any but the most spin-friendly conditions, but he comfortably outperformed Doherty, which was nice.

9. Clarke. Continued to show his absolute class. Were it not for his injury in the final Test, we might have been able to nab a win.

The fact of the matter is that right now, we don't have the cattle, but we do have the talent. We just need it to develop, and that requires experience. This tour has provided that in the most brutal possible fashion.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I thought Hughes learnt alot by the end of the series. He's our second best bat imo. He's obviously more suited to pace bowling with his style of play. The way Broad and Finn have been bowling all over the place, especially wide crap, he's my preditiction for a massive Ashes imo.

Siddle's batting and bowling was a huge positive.

For both Siddle and Pattinson to average under 30 in a series we lose 4-0, on those pitches, is a massive positive.


Clarke should of had 2 ton's.

Starc's 99*, although hard to swallow just shows what sort of a cricketer he might be down the track.

Maxwell should spend hours upon hours on his bowling. His batting is embarrassing atm, he won't make it in the side as a batsmen, his best bet is as a bowler. He strikes me as the type that will be a very good cricketer in his late 20's/early 30's.
 
The flip side is the blokes like Warner and Watson DIDN'T learn anything during the tour. They were playing the same dumb shots in the last Test as they were early on.

Also, Starc and Johnson looked pretty toothless when the ball wasn't moving, as we feared they would.
 
I reckon that is a pretty good summing up by the OP.

Not sure about this though?

9. Clarke. Continued to show his absolute class. Were it not for his injury in the final Test, we might have been able to nab a win.
 
The flip side is the blokes like Warner and Watson DIDN'T learn anything during the tour. They were playing the same dumb shots in the last Test as they were early on.
Warner at least made some runs. I thought he would be worse than useless on these pitches, but he scratched a few decent innings. Basically, bar Watson, I thought all our batsmen came out of the tour as better players than they did going in. Lyon too.

Pace bowlers I wasn't particularly impressed by, or Wade. They just didn't seem to learn anything. Siddle and Pattinson got respectable figures but they didn't do it by bowling to the conditions.

If the batsmen apply the lessons they've learned to their batting outside of India, I think we are going to see some massive improvement in this side over the next couple of years. However it's pretty clear from this tour that we still don't know how to win in India.
 
Half of those names could just as easily be written down as negatives.

I don't think so. Hughes perhaps, and maybe Wade's batting, but we had pretty low expectations of Maxwell and Henriques, so I don't think you can consider their exposed limitations real negatives, in terms of actually learning things.

I reckon that is a pretty good summing up by the OP.

Not sure about this though?

9. Clarke. Continued to show his absolute class. Were it not for his injury in the final Test, we might have been able to nab a win.

Think about it. He comes in at 4 in the first innings and makes a score, suddenly we're looking at making 350+ in the first innings. Perhaps with his greater captaincy experience we'd bowl them out for a little less. Instead of trailing by 10 going into our second innings, we could have been leading by 100. We get our tails up, put on another 200 in our second innings, and suddenly we've got a target to defend on an increasingly dodgy pitch in the 4th innings.

I'm not saying we WOULD have won, but having your best batsman and captain can make a big difference.
 
[quote="BarneyBent, post: 27516313, member: 67997"

Think about it. He comes in at 4 in the first innings and makes a score, suddenly we're looking at making 350+ in the first innings. Perhaps with his greater captaincy experience we'd bowl them out for a little less. Instead of trailing by 10 going into our second innings, we could have been leading by 100. We get our tails up, put on another 200 in our second innings, and suddenly we've got a target to defend on an increasingly dodgy pitch in the 4th innings.

I'm not saying we WOULD have won, but having your best batsman and captain can make a big difference.[/quote]

Fair enough. I am a big Clarke fan and believe he would have made a difference.
 
Clarke, Pattinson, Siddle proved they were the only 3 auto selections in the side. The only other one that would be penned in by the selectors is Warner and while pretty average on the tour they will stick with him as he does appear the only potential match winning bat outside Clarke.

Cowan and Lyon had the big question marks over them and while neither would be in a strong australian side (and guess what we suck!!!) so these guys are our best options in their respective spots at the moment so it's good they have solidified their positions for the Ashes.

Watson sucking arse with the bat was good, now the ****ing knob realises he has to bowl again to be in the side.

So for the ashes we have this pencilled in.

1. Warner
2. Cowan
3.
4. Watson (plus bowling)
5. Clarke
6.
7. Keeper
8. Siddle
9. Pattinson
10.
11. Lyon
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Steve Smith stands out for me.

Great to see Cowan finding some consistency too.

I am so relieved to see a positive, optimistic thread on this board, sick to death of all the doom and gloom.

With a decent preparation (and a fit Clarke and Patto) we'll beat England.
 
9 players came out of a 4-0 whitewash as a positive???

Not 9 players, 9 positives. Hughes' form was a shambles, which was a negative, but his improvement was a positive. This isn't about naming players who were positives, it's about naming positives in players. Obviously the 4-0 result speaks for itself.
 
9 positives on a shambolic tour that had about 300 negatives, it's not exactly much to cling to.
Individually and collectively the team improved throughout the tour. Despite the scoreline, we've gone forwards rather than backwards. We now have a better side than we did two months ago.

We all hoped for better, but I think that is a good reason to feel positive nonetheless.
 
We lost the last two Tests as badly, if not worse, than the first two, didn't we?

Not really. Consider that for the 3rd Test we were missing our best bowler, and for the 4th Test we were missing our captain and best batsman, and if we'd actually had a target to bowl to in the 4th innings we might have been able to apply some pressure and actually win. In both Tests, we were at least in the same ball-park after the second innings, which is in stark contrast to the first two Tests.

There are plenty of negatives to take out of the tour, but most of them were negatives we were already aware of. Generally, we suck at playing spin. Our selection policy is at present a complete shambles. Watson is badly out of form and probably can't play as a specialist batsman. Lyon bowled a lot of unthreatening trash. Doherty sucks, full stop. Maxwell is an undisciplined hot-head with the bat. Warner is hit and miss and struggled to get started on the slow Indian decks. Wade struggled keeping to spin. I could go on, but the point is, was any of that in the least bit unexpected? The only really unexpected negatives for me were our batsmen so often failing to go on to make scores when they were in (I was expecting it a bit, but not that much), and Hughes sucking so badly at the start.

The positives, on the other hand, were largely unexpected. Henriques' debut, Maxwell's bowling, Wade's improvement, Hughes' improvement (especially given his previous battles with confidence), things finally clicking with Lyon, all of it tells us more than we already knew. In this case, the positives are much more telling than the negatives. Sure, we might have been hoping for more positives, but in the end, we know more about the side and are in a better position going forward.
 
Most players visibly improved over the course of the series. We had far fewer soft dismissals in the third and fourth tests compared to the first two. The spinners got more potent as the series went on.

The pacemen never really got the hang of things, but that's nothing new for Australians in India. They'll be fine anywhere else in the world.
 
The main positive is a negative for me, i'm happy we didn't win the last game so pressure could be taken off CA who need a huge clean out and get someone in like Eddie who is proactive in getting people playing and watching again.
 
Individually and collectively the team improved throughout the tour. Despite the scoreline, we've gone forwards rather than backwards. We now have a better side than we did two months ago.

We all hoped for better, but I think that is a good reason to feel positive nonetheless.

You really believe that?

Our biggest issue before the series was our weak top 6 and the over reliance on clarke, if anything that situation is worse than before the Indian tour, we have only one member of our top 6 who we know will be in the side after the ashes.

To make maters worse we clearly have a complete breakdown in communication and trust between several members of the team and the captain/coach.

The tour was a complete cluster****, you couldn't have scripted it worse.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

India tour: let's look for some positives

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top