WTC Final Australia v India Only Test June 7-11 1800hrs @ the Oval

Who will win?


  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

How about our record under our captain?

Ashes series win that was so dominant that it was the death knell for the English captain and coach ✅

First away series win in almost a decade where he stood up and largely bowled us to victory on a road in the decider (along with another whipping boy in Starc) ✅

Drawn series against Sri Lanka where we were demolished last time around ✅

5-0 dominance on home soil last year ✅

World Test Champions ✅

A personal bowling average of 22.2 since taking on the role despite having to bowl on pitches that gave pace bowlers almost nothing in India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka ✅

3rd ranked bowler in the world ✅

And all his detractors have to point to as far as Tests go is one series - which was ultimately lost by our batters - in the hardest place to tour in the world while his mum was dying. What a bunch of losers.

Will go down as one of the GOAT fast bowlers. Absolute champion.
 
England's probably the place most likely to get good crowds for neutral matches.

Actually think locking it in like that makes a lot of sense. It becomes a regular part of the schedule, every second year, first week of June, you know the WTC final will be in England.

Not sure about the first bit, but the second is true.

Having one cycle be 2.5 years and the next be little over a year would be bad.

That said, other options for hosting would be good, if only to ensure a neutral venue. If England qualifies, then it should be moved.
 
People are making a big deal about the margin.

Worth pointing out that there was really only one partnership difference between the 2 teams.

Take out the Smith/Head first innings 285 and there really wasn't much in it as apart from that, it was 4 relatively low scoring innings.

Now don't get me wrong, it was some excellent batting and meant the result was deserved, but a little luck and a couple of wickets could easily have swung the match.
Taking the 2 best scores out of a teams innings will usually make it look less impressive.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Taking the 2 best scores out of a teams innings will usually make it look less impressive.
Yeah, if you take out Siddle and Lyon's knocks in the second innings of Cape Town 2011, we only scored 21 :moustache:
 
Taking the 2 best scores out of a teams innings will usually make it look less impressive.

Yes, but it's also not often that one partnership is both mre than 50% of that innings and similar in size to the other 3 completed innings.

As I said "it was some excellent batting and meant the result was deserved" so I'm not tryign to take anything away, just pointing out that if it wasn't for that one partnership we'd be discussing this very differently.
 
Not sure about the first bit, but the second is true.

Having one cycle be 2.5 years and the next be little over a year would be bad.

That said, other options for hosting would be good, if only to ensure a neutral venue. If England qualifies, then it should be moved.
Agreed should be in England every cycle unless England qualify, then should be anywhere else not in the subcontinent
 
Yes, but it's also not often that one partnership is both mre than 50% of that innings and similar in size to the other 3 completed innings.

As I said "it was some excellent batting and meant the result was deserved" so I'm not tryign to take anything away, just pointing out that if it wasn't for that one partnership we'd be discussing this very differently.
Actually, I would imaging a 200+ run partnership would be a significant portion of the runs in most evenly matched tests.

Take Rahane out of the match, what’s Indias score card look like. Take Kohli and Rahane out of the second innings, how do they look?

Take Tex Walker out if Adelaide’s team on the weekend, and it’s about a par win for the crows.

It’s a dumb comment that gets used on this board all the time.
 
We could have bowled much better in this match
To be fair, so could have India.

Both teams probably could have batted better too (excepting Smith and Head in the first innings).

There was definitely a bit of rust about. Good to have dealt with that before the Ashes.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

We’ve got an opener that should’ve retired, the other opener takes too long to get going, the No. 3 sleeps on the job, the middle order goes alright I suppose, the new boys a bit Green, the keeper lets too many byes through, the left armer is a pie man, the captains got no idea, the spinner could he take any easier wickets and don’t talk to me about VicBias. For a bunch of spuds we did alright. /s
 
mmm player ratings, always fun for debate/melts

Herald Sun:
Warner 5.5
Khawaja 1
Labuschagne 5.5
Smith 9.5
Head 10
Green 7
Carey 8
Starc 7
Cummins 7
Lyon 9
Boland 9.5


Fox Sports:
Warner 5
Khawaja 3
Labuschagne 6
Smith 9
Head 9
Green 6
Carey 8
Starc 5
Cummins 6
Lyon 8
Boland 9

The Age:
Warner 6
Khawaja 4
Labuschagne 7
Smith 8
Head 9
Green 7
Carey 8
Starc 6
Cummins 7
Lyon 8
Boland 9
Fox Sports would be the closest to my thoughts
 
Last night was only the 3rd time we had won at the Oval since 72 actually looking at the records
Usually the last test of a 5 / 6 Test Series - rarely the series is live and once upon a time they would have been away from home for 4 months and played a million games and Criss crossed the UK in Coaches, knowing that as soon as the game is over they’re on the next ✈️ home - I reckon Shaun Young actually got a Test one year when they literally ran out of players
 
Yes, but it's also not often that one partnership is both mre than 50% of that innings and similar in size to the other 3 completed innings.

As I said "it was some excellent batting and meant the result was deserved" so I'm not tryign to take anything away, just pointing out that if it wasn't for that one partnership we'd be discussing this very differently.

We were pretty sloppy with the bat after that partnership though if we are arguing hypothetical you could argue we would have batted differently and more responsibly had we not had that huge partnership as a buffer, maybe not maybe yes but you cant remove something like a 250 run partnership and then assume everything else goes exactly as it did.
 
People are making a big deal about the margin.

Worth pointing out that there was really only one partnership difference between the 2 teams.

Take out the Smith/Head first innings 285 and there really wasn't much in it as apart from that, it was 4 relatively low scoring innings.

Now don't get me wrong, it was some excellent batting and meant the result was deserved, but a little luck and a couple of wickets could easily have swung the match.
So you are saying that the result of a test match comes down to partnerships….

Jeez, who would have thought that?
 
As a result of slow over rates, the entire Indian team have been fined 100% of their match fees while the Australian team has been fined 80% of their match fees. Shubman Gill has been fined a further 15% of his match fee for his reaction to being given out on day 4.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

WTC Final Australia v India Only Test June 7-11 1800hrs @ the Oval

Back
Top