Australia Losing Could Save Test Cricket

[Johnners]

It doesn't have to work that very over for it to be successful.

It didn't work at all though

The wickets came about because they finally played attacking cricket, and bowled some very good deliveries. If they had bowled to either Hayden or Hussey like Mishra did when he came on, from the start of their partnership I very much doubt they would have scored as prolifically as they did, and a wicket would have been lost much sooner.

 

[Top_Cat]

Then you will be cringing at Australia's whitewash of India in 99-00, where regularly the same tactics were used. Right? Say that please.

I watched it at the time. The cricket was different so no, not comparable from my perspective.

 

[silentstriker]

This is the crux of my personal objection, though; going defensive relies on the opposition playing their part and doing some of the work themselves. If Australia just batted time, I have a fair bit of faith the match would have been a draw. Lots of captains over the years would have been quite happy to lose 1-0 than 2-0.

I don't know about that. Many of the wickets, like that Hussey one for example, just reared off the pitch. Wouldn't have mattered. A couple though, were certainly due to attacking shots. But considering how many overs were left, I'd say Australia trying to block it out would have backfired.

The Aussie side of old imposed themselves on a match right from the start so that it really didn't matter what the opposition did or didn't do, they were going down unless they matched them. Made for more attractive cricket to watch. And it's not just about 4's every ball, it's about attacking bowling too.

It's very easy to take that road when you have McGrath, Gillespie and Warne as your bowlers. Johnson didn't use 'attacking bowling', and I didn't hear any complaints. The fact is, it was working for him, and good for him.

It just comes down to personal preference in the end. I prefer seeing a contest where both sides are going at it and attacking, not where one side is mainly trying to find ways to shut down the opposition. Again, personal preference, but I'd rather the Aussie side lose than play like India did.

So you'd rather see them lose attacking than win by defense - which is what India did? Personal preference I guess, but for me defense and containment is a huge part of Test cricket, and I wouldn't want it any other way. It's part of what builds excitement for Test cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

So you'd rather see them lose attacking than win by defense - which is what India did? Personal preference I guess, but for me defense and containment is a huge part of Test cricket, and I wouldn't want it any other way. It's part of what builds excitement for Test cricket.

Like I said, personal preference. And yep, I would rather the Aussie side lost. I barely saw any of 2004 and don't feel like I missed much.

Again, I'm not saying no-one should be allowed to play defensively and I'm not arguing whether it has its place or not. But I won't be watching and I'll respect less anyone who does it, Aussie team included. Just my opinion.

 

[Burgey]

I don't know about that. Many of the wickets, like that Hussey one for example, just reared off the pitch. Wouldn't have mattered. A couple though, were certainly due to attacking shots. But considering how many overs were left, I'd say Australia trying to block it out would have backfired.



It's very easy to take that road when you have McGrath, Gillespie and Warne as your bowlers. Johnson didn't use 'attacking bowling', and I didn't hear any complaints. The fact is, it was working for him, and good for him.



So you'd rather see them lose attacking than win by defense - which is what India did? Personal preference I guess, but for me defense and containment is a huge part of Test cricket, and I wouldn't want it any other way. It's part of what builds excitement for Test cricket.

Personally, I thought Johnson was as boring as bat **** when he bowled like that, and I thought a lot of people posted about the line he was bowling.

 

[silentstriker]

Personally, I thought Johnson was as boring as bat **** when he bowled like that, and I thought a lot of people posted about the line he was bowling.

It always looks bad when it doesn't come off though. I don't remember too many posts in the forum about it though, certainly not what this is becoming, but not even a moderate displeasure. But I could be wrong of course, I didn't read every page.

 

[Burgey]

It always looks bad when it doesn't come off though. I don't remember too many posts in the forum about it though, certainly not what this is becoming, but not even a moderate displeasure. But I could be wrong of course, I didn't read every page.

Might have been more people saying he's only getting his wickets through batsman error TBF.

 

[Precambrian]

It didn't work at all though

The wickets came about because they finally played attacking cricket, and bowled some very good deliveries. If they had bowled to either Hayden or Hussey like Mishra did when he came on, from the start of their partnership I very much doubt they would have scored as prolifically as they did, and a wicket would have been lost much sooner.

Precisely how many overs did the Indians adopt this strategy? And the only spinner to possibly use the leg stump line was Sehwag, he bowled only 4 overs and was carted for 23 runs!!

 

[Precambrian]

I watched it at the time. The cricket was different so no, not comparable from my perspective.

No, nothing different. Ishant Sharma bowled a line very similar to McG. The difference was then it was the RHBs now it were the LHBs.

This is the scorecard of the match I was referring to, the Melbourne test.

http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63866.html

The second innings of that match.

And here is the bulletin from Cricinfo, aptly titled

Waugh of attrition again goes Australia's all-conquering way

Excerpt:

On a pitch that remained true in pace and bounce to provide some of the best batting conditions of the match, the pace bowlers to a man adhered to the disciplined principle of bowling in the narrow corridor outside off stump for most of the day. Warne also refused to be bowed when his time-honoured strategy of pitching into footmarks outside the leg stump of the Indian right handers did not gain him success initially and his ability to ultimately claim Tendulkar told its own story about the quality of his effort.

Says the story, doesnt it?

 

[honestbharani]

Hayden fell AFTER Hussey, up until Hussey's dismissal, they were not attacking anything other than dhonis pads outside leg/off.

I really LOL'd at that one..




And tbh, yeah, they weren't great tactics.. I think Dhoni just panicked a little bit seeing Hayden go like that.




But come on, give the guy a break. Hayden has done that to better and more experienced captains too and Dhoni was under intense pressure.. Imagine the reactions had Australia continued and won the game while he was still trying to attack... Losing the trophy after that position, he would have been crucified by the media and the fair weather fans... I am sure he will learn from this and get better with time as a captain.

 

[SJS]

Honestly, I am more worried about Australian cricket going into a tail spin. This is not something completely out of the realm of possibility. It has happened before to all teams who have dominated world cricket including Australia.

That cant be good for world cricket since West Indies are already closer to the minnows than the top slot and Pakistan is sliding fast. South Africa is less of a side than they were even two years ago. India in another two years will lose all their middle order giants and one cant see, for all the rhetoric of Indian fans and the silly electronic media, anything remotely of the same magnificence in sight.

I am afraid, I don't relish watching close contests between mediocre sides just as I dont want to watch Australia versus Bangladesh.

 

[Flem274*]

New Zealand, rebuilding since 1930

Not sure even NZ is capable of losing to Aus 5-0 though

5-0


5-0
5-0
5-0







5-0



hurting yet?

 

[masterblaster]

Competitive test cricket is what's best for the game. Now the gulf between Australia and the other nations is not so wide, which ultimately is fantastic for the game.

If India do manage to achieve the number 1 position, they will find that holding onto top spot is much, much harder than achieving it. With everybody gunning for your spot, it's really tough to retain it.

I would love to see the top 4 test teams in the world battling it out for a number 1 position, with the number 1 ranking changing hands fairly quickly. That would make it a lot more exciting and appealing.

 

[Mister Wright]

Competitive test cricket is what's best for the game. Now the gulf between Australia and the other nations is not so wide, which ultimately is fantastic for the game.

If India do manage to achieve the number 1 position, they will find that holding onto top spot is much, much harder than achieving it. With everybody gunning for your spot, it's really tough to retain it.

I would love to see the top 4 test teams in the world battling it out for a number 1 position, with the number 1 ranking changing hands fairly quickly. That would make it a lot more exciting and appealing.

Totally agree with this. Would be evern better if it was 8 teams. But will settle for 4.

 

[Richard]

By your logic, Aus have been stupid for years for batting quickly and wrapping up Tests in 3 days when they could have played far less risky cricket and still won easily. I know what I prefer to watch.

It just comes down to personal preference in the end. I prefer seeing a contest where both sides are going at it and attacking, not where one side is mainly trying to find ways to shut down the opposition. Again, personal preference, but I'd rather the Aussie side lose than play like India did.

So you'd rather see them lose attacking than win by defense - which is what India did? Personal preference I guess, but for me defense and containment is a huge part of Test cricket, and I wouldn't want it any other way. It's part of what builds excitement for Test cricket.

Like I said, personal preference. And yep, I would rather the Aussie side lost. I barely saw any of 2004 and don't feel like I missed much.

Again, I'm not saying no-one should be allowed to play defensively and I'm not arguing whether it has its place or not. But I won't be watching and I'll respect less anyone who does it, Aussie team included. Just my opinion.

I'm really rather disappointed you'd respect less a team\player for playing that way TBH. I can understand people holding the opinion that attack is more enjoyable than defence (it's an opinion I revolt myself, any time attack outdoes defence it's nowhere near as interesting to me as when there's a proper level balance) but I can't see why you'd respect someone more for looking to always attack than looking to defend.

I think too much attack kills Test cricket, myself. For most of its existence it's been a game where to err on the side of defence is more preferable than to err on the side of attack.

The main reason I hate Twenty20 is because there's just virtually no defence involved. And one of the biggest things I like in cricket is the balance between attack and defence.

FTR, if it gets tipped too far on the side of defence that's very boring to me as well. But I just don't much enjoy seeing wickets tumbling alongside high run-rates. No appeal whatsoever, and what's sustained Test cricket for a century and more isn't akin to that.

 

[Richard]

If you take India's tour to Australia in 1999-2000, in one of those matches, India were something like 26-1 in 25 overs. Why? Same line by the same McGrath and Gillespie (IIRC)

Wouldn't have been Gillespie FTR, he missed that whole summer with the horrific injury he sustained in the spring series in Sri Lanka.

Probably McGrath and Fleming.

 

[Precambrian]

Wouldn't have been Gillespie FTR, he missed that whole summer with the horrific injury he sustained in the spring series in Sri Lanka.

Probably McGrath and Fleming.

Yep - Fleming it was and Lee.