a cause for concern?

[Burgey]

Yeah, I take your point but they were massively under done in Melbourne.
If you look at Australia's performances over the past decade or so, there have been plenty of times they've had failures in the top or middle order, only to have the tail and/ or Gilly or Martyn or S Waugh bail them out. It's a sign of a decent side that they get out of collapses a fair bit.
If we analyse a lot of test innings, they'll be plenty of them where several guys fail and two or three get decent scores. That being so, you could say that any large total where every designated batsman doesn't get 50 or more has been "rescued" by two or three getting tons or largish scores.

 

[ret]

Yeah, I take your point but they were massively under done in Melbourne.
If you look at Australia's performances over the past decade or so, there have been plenty of times they've had failures in the top or middle order, only to have the tail and/ or Gilly or Martyn or S Waugh bail them out. It's a sign of a decent side that they get out of collapses a fair bit.
If we analyse a lot of test innings, they'll be plenty of them where several guys fail and two or three get decent scores. That being so, you could say that any large total where every designated batsman doesn't get 50 or more has been "rescued" by two or three getting tons or largish scores.

thats a fair point too

but looking at the collapses over a few years, I find that the Indian team have lost/drawn more series because of collapses

like the last innings at Cape Town cost Ind the series [1-1 heading into that one], the last innings at B'lore against Pak in 06 cost India the series as it enabled Pak to draw the series [1-0 heading into that one] .... earlier bad batting in Karachi in 05 cost them the series [0-0 heading into that one]

Many times, when glory is just around the corner, when they just have to play sensible cricket, they collapse .... at Chennai, when they just had to play sensibly after a nice set up, they collapse and give the advantage away

I don't know how tolerant we should be towards this and not call a spade a spade

 

[Arjun]

Indian batsmen (particularly Ganguly, Laxman and most Gilchrist imitators) lack the knockout punch. They don't have the firepower that is needed at that stage. Their best performances have been when they've been trying to consolidate, but an attempt to accelerate often results in catastrophe. Dhoni, though, had an off day, but we don't know what happened to Kumble and Harbhajan.

 

[Burgey]

I take back what I said earlier in this thread.

After today, I'd say there is a cause for concern.

 

[Richard]

I'll wait until I've seen the actual wickets (highlights are on 3-and-a-half hours from this post), but looking at the pitch shortly before the game I wouldn't automatically want to call this a shocking collapse:

 

[Arjun]

This is a batting lineup of Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman and Sehwag. Why they should be concerned is a mystery. If anything, it should be the likes of Kallis, Prince, de Villiers, McKenzie and Amla- but they're not too bad on the same pitch.

The pace bowlers get changed frequently, one opener is dropped after one bad match, one of the spinners often misses out abroad, but these four (or five) stalwarts are virtually untouchable, just like Kumble and Harbhajan at home.

 

[Richard]

If the seam-bowlers had done as well in their careers as Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar (yes, not involved in this ongoing-as-of-this-post match I know), Laxman and Ganguly then they'd be untouchable too.

Notice how Kumble, who hasn't been at the level of some of the above batsmen but has certainly been easily good enough to play regardless, has remained an automatic pick.

 

[Arjun]

If the seam-bowlers had done as well in their careers as Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar (yes, not involved in this ongoing-as-of-this-post match I know), Laxman and Ganguly then they'd be untouchable too.

Notice how Kumble, who hasn't been at the level of some of the above batsmen but has certainly been easily good enough to play regardless, has remained an automatic pick.

The (often under-staffed) seam bowlers need an extended run to get set, but in this team, they're in and out like through a revolving door. In comparison, the batsmen have performed well over a long time, but not consistently, rarely collectively, and never when needed most- and Team India has gained nothing from them. They may be experienced, but have nothing else on their side.

And it's not just Kumble, but the spin duo of Kumble and Harbhajan, who still retain their places in home matches, even when they're not performing so well now.

 

[Richard]

India have gained nothing at all from the careers of Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly?

 

[ret]

another disgraceful batting collapse by India .... 5th one in last 6 tests

 

[Arjun]

India have gained nothing at all from the careers of Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly?

They've scored 50's, a few 100's as well, kept averages over 40 and 50, but that's not been enough to win matches. Nor have they been consistent, collectively.

 

[Richard]

Well, I'd say they were rather consistent collectively during this period. Exceptionally so in fact - I can't imagine there'll have been many better batting-line-ups in Test history than they over that period.

They've also contributed to many victories, both home and, remarkably for India (given they did not win so much as a single Test outside the subcontinent between September 1986 and May 2001), away. Not that you can really expect batsmen to win matches - unless 20 wickets are taken (ie, if the bowlers are good enough) you won't win no matter how good the batsmen are.

 

[ret]

^ we know how good they are .... most ppl have grown up looking at their batting .... even a quick glance at the stats can tell you that .... And it's pathetic that you have to go back to 01 to 04 period to show their contributions

let's come back to topic here .... 2008 .... 5th batting collapse in last 6th test

 

[Richard]

And it's pathetic that you have to go back to 01 to 04 period to show their contributions

Not really, if the contention is "they've never played well as a unit".

 

[Arjun]

Well, I'd say they were rather consistent collectively during this period. Exceptionally so in fact - I can't imagine there'll have been many better batting-line-ups in Test history than they over that period.

They've also contributed to many victories, both home and, remarkably for India (given they did not win so much as a single Test outside the subcontinent between September 1986 and May 2001), away. Not that you can really expect batsmen to win matches - unless 20 wickets are taken (ie, if the bowlers are good enough) you won't win no matter how good the batsmen are.

That table shows only ten out of thirty matches, and also lost ten. That's not enough wins for India.

Moreover, if you look at the Indians' performance after that disastrous home series defeat to Australia, they've won only nine Test matches, including merely seven at home.

You talk of only one match won per series. That has been the problem. Not enough matches won with a lineup hyped so much. Blaming the bowlers for not taking twenty wickets (especially when they're under-staffed at four bowlers in a team, and the batsmen contributing next to nothing with the ball) is no excuse. Why, even Australia won a match despite the other team scoring over 500 in Sydney. Compare this top six with Australia's, and you know that this Indian Test lineup is, for a long time, and collectively, all fluff and no substance.

 

[Richard]

If lack of victories is your gripe, it's nothing to do with the batsmen.

Batsmen can only put totals on the board - they cannot win matches. Only bowlers can do that. Criticise batsmen for not doing their job - not for not doing the bowlers' job.

 

[Arjun]

If lack of victories is your gripe, it's nothing to do with the batsmen.

Batsmen can only put totals on the board - they cannot win matches. Only bowlers can do that. Criticise batsmen for not doing their job - not for not doing the bowlers' job.

The bowlers are often not on a job- they're on Mission Impossible. The batsmen have to make up for that, by scoring twice as much, and scoring big consistently. Like I said, in Sydney, the Indians posted over 500, yet it was the Australians who won. Even in the previous edition of the series, in Adelaide and Melbourne, both teams posted gigantic totals at least once, yet there have been results, so it's not only the bowlers who have to win matches. The Australians have won matches with batting and bowling, during their glory days in the early 2000's- their rapid scoring has been a factor in winning matches.

When you've got a lineup of Sachin, Laxman, Ganguly, Dravid and Sehwag, you'd expect a lot more from a team that's got it. The combination of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn , the Waugh brothers and Gilchrist has won several matches- justifying the hype.

 

[honestbharani]

I keep saying this umpteen times... Problem of plenty is never good unless some from that "plenty" actually stand up and show themselves to be "shoe in"s for certain positions... AS of now, with fast bowlers, openers and the 1 middle order slot and even the wicket keeper..... All these positions have a bit of a problem of plenty but no one is exactly standing out..... Never the best sign.

 

[Richard]

The bowlers are often not on a job- they're on Mission Impossible. The batsmen have to make up for that, by scoring twice as much, and scoring big consistently. Like I said, in Sydney, the Indians posted over 500, yet it was the Australians who won. Even in the previous edition of the series, in Adelaide and Melbourne, both teams posted gigantic totals at least once, yet there have been results, so it's not only the bowlers who have to win matches. The Australians have won matches with batting and bowling, during their glory days in the early 2000's- their rapid scoring has been a factor in winning matches.

When you've got a lineup of Sachin, Laxman, Ganguly, Dravid and Sehwag, you'd expect a lot more from a team that's got it. The combination of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn , the Waugh brothers and Gilchrist has won several matches- justifying the hype.

But they haven't, though - it's the McGraths, Gillespies and Warnes that have won the games. Had their attack been West Indies's, Australia would have drawn the vast majority of their Tests of the last 7 years.

Even though there were massive totals scored in the 2003/04 series, both times it was simply one collapse that secured a result. Australia in the third-innings at Adelaide and India in the first-innings at The MCG. Had these not happened, the series would near enough certainly have been a 0-0 draw.

 

[ret]

*bumped*

dear-o-dear, one more collapse .... is it a surprise?

07-08 season

1. Melbourne 196 & 161 - Lost
2. Sydney 2nd innings 210 - Lost [this can be debated wrt umpiring decisions]
3. Perth- Won
4. Adelaide 2nd innings 269 [saved by Sehwag's ton]
5. Chennai Ist inning 481/2 to 627 [again a triple by Sehwag saves the day]
6. A'bad Ist inning 76 - Lost
7. Kanpur Won
6. Colombo 223 and 138 - Lost