***Official*** India in Australia 2014-5

[cnerd123]

I agree. Though mostly because Indian home conditions are a lot more beneficial to them than the Australian home conditions have been for the Australians.

How could the current conditions be more beneficial to the Aussies?

 

[OverratedSanity]

I agree. Though mostly because Indian home conditions are a lot more beneficial to them than the Australian home conditions have been for the Australians.

Well, tbh, the conditions in India in 2013 and in UAE recently were extremely good for batting too. None of them were truly big turners except one where Jadeja got a 5fer IIRC. Australia just bowled like ****. Like India bowled like **** here.

 

[cnerd123]

Well, tbh, the conditions in India in 2013 and in UAE recently were extremely good for batting too. None of them were truly big turners except one where Jadeja got a 5fer IIRC. Australia just bowled like ****. Like India bowled like **** here.

It's a different kind of 'good for batting'. These wickets (Adelaide aside) had fairly good pace and bounce, it meant the quick bowlers could be accurate and pose a threat. The pitches in India and UAE were so slow that edges wouldn't carry to the slips.

Similarly, the Aussie batsman cashed in on these decks, but struggled more when the wickets lacked pace. The Asian ability to generate power through wrists and bat speed isn't common with Aussie bats who prefer solid timing and placement on wickets with pace. Backfoot play is also less important on Asian decks as it is here.

Also the Indian spinners would bowl better on Indian flat pitches as the lack of pace and bounce suits them, whereas in Aus a spinner like Lyon enjoys it more as he can exploit the bounce.

And lastly as the pitches deteriorated the Aussie ones tend to become more up-and-down, suiting the quicks and Lyon, whereas in UAE and India they get ragged and start showing signs of turn and have the odd delivery spitting off the pitch. Basically nothing a quick can exploit, but something Ashwin, Jadeja, Babar and Shah become deadly on.

Or IDK, might just be talking out of my ass here.

 

[Antihippy]

Nah a beneficial deck would be one where the Aussie quicks can rip India a new arsehole. It might help the Indian quicks more also but judging by the way they bowl, I doubt the australians will score any less runs.

 

[Daemon]

All Australia need to beat India is to make the chances of them taking 20 wickets negligible. Over a 4 match series, the rest would take care of itself.

 

[santhosh683]

The first match will be between India and Pakistan. But whatever, India team will be India as well as Australian team. Let us see the climax.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Nah a beneficial deck would be one where the Aussie quicks can rip India a new arsehole. It might help the Indian quicks more also but judging by the way they bowl, I doubt the australians will score any less runs.

Every now and then teams go in with this thought process and it ends up backfiring on the home team. England and South Africa to testify.

 

[G.I.Joe]

All Australia need to beat India is to make the chances of them taking 20 wickets negligible. Over a 4 match series, the rest would take care of itself.

This. Flat decks help the home team more than it does India.

 

[Flem274*]

The last thing you ever want to do is prepare a pitch where the gap between the attacks is reduced enough to create a situation where India can win the toss, insert you and roll you.

These blokes can bat away from home. They can't bowl pace though so why give them a pitch that hides it? All you do is create the scenario we've seen in the test India won in England and at the Basin Reserve against both India and Sri Lanka.

 

[Antihippy]

Every now and then teams go in with this thought process and it ends up backfiring on the home team. England and South Africa to testify.

As much as I don't think the Australian batting lineup is that great I seriously don't think they will go down hooking as England idiotically did.

I was also just about to agree with you but then the only match I can think of which applies is the sri Lanka vs England match at headingley recently.

The England tour isn't a great comparison because India lost the series anyway when James Anderson, Stuart broad and moeen Ali went rampant on the Indian batting lineup. So I don't necessarily believe that India can play on tracks that favor the home side (to be fair, I don't think a lot of the other sides can do that anyway). The only reason they won that match was due to a great century by rahane first up, which is why I rate him pretty highly.

 

[Spark]

That and Anderson/Broad were incredibly generous with their lengths on that first morning. No idea what India would have got if they'd bowled like they did at OT in particular, but it wouldn't have been very much.

 

[dermo]

the series could easily have been 4-0 if australia held a few more chances but that wouldnt have been a fair reflection on the performance of india's batting

also think india's bowling are copping a bit more **** than they deserve, there's positives to come out of this series for them. ashwin showed he can bowl well overseas, yadav and aaron certainly showed they have the potential to be good bowlers. the performance in sydney was overall **** and there was certainly long periods of **** bowling in the other tests but i think there was also some long periods of good bowling, e.g. most of the time at brisbane

 

[Burgey]

Mediocre posting. India dropped catches too, and the only reason India lost Adelaide is because they didn't want to draw it. The scoreline was 2-0 because of a lot of stuff, including the fact India batted very well at times against quality bowlers

Ffs Jono they took 12 wickets in Adelaide. They nearly won because there's no mercy rule in cricket.

 

[Jono]

Ffs Jono they took 12 wickets in Adelaide. They nearly won because there's no mercy rule in cricket.

Read the post again. Never said India deserved to win. But they could have drawn that match, and would have had Clarke not declared and given them a chance. All the credit to Australia and Clarke in particular for giving them that temptation. But don't tell me India couldn't have been boring and drawn that match if they didn't want to.

 

[Burgey]

Course they could have. It was a great finish.

It's one of the problems when you're preparing pitches which tend to wait til day five for much to happen. If the two sides both bat well early on, you're really relying on both sides to have a crack in order to induce a result (Adelaide 06/ 07 being the obvious exception in recent times).

 

[Burgey]

I should also say, whilst India did well to draw the last two tests, not enough is being acknowledged about the tragic elephant in the room here: Australia had a player die a week before the first test was scheduled to start. Nearly half the side was on the field when it happened. They then lost Clarke after the first test, who had been amazing leading them through the aftermath of Hughes' death & is their best batsman, while Harris and Johnson only played together in two of four tests.

It seems almost as though the death of Hughes was overlooked towards the back end of the series when it came to analysing the performance of the home players, not that I'm saying it should have been dwelt on. But a bit of an acknowledgment by the TV and radio pundits of what a great effort it was for those blokes to pick themselves up after having that happen would not have gone astray. It must have been an incredibly emotional time for those blokes. They stood up really well IMO.

 

[Jono]

I should also say, whilst India did well to draw the last two tests, not enough is being acknowledged about the tragic elephant in the room here: Australia had a player die a week before the first test was scheduled to start. Nearly half the side was on the field when it happened. They then lost Clarke after the first test, who had been amazing leading them through the aftermath of Hughes' death & is their best batsman, while Harris and Johnson only played together in two of four tests.

It seems almost as though the death of Hughes was overlooked towards the back end of the series when it came to analysing the performance of the home players, not that I'm saying it should have been dwelt on. But a bit of an acknowledgment by the TV and radio pundits of what a great effort it was for those blokes to pick themselves up after having that happen would not have gone astray. It must have been an incredibly emotional time for those blokes. They stood up really well IMO.

Definitely agree, amazing effort by the Australian team when you put it into context of the tragic death before the series. Its tricky though, how much do you keep bringing it up? Right after the last ball in Sydney Smith was interviewed by Nicholas and he mentioned the Phil Hughes situation to Smith and my mate and I at the ground looked at each other, unsure whether he should be asking that question at that time in a public interview. Not saying it was wrong, but its hard to know what is the right thing to do. Should the media and pundits keep bringing it up?

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, and tbh it's probably best to err on the side of not going OTT. I just think the impact of it on the players in the context of a series almost seemed forgotten. If you think about losing someone close to you, especially when they're young, aside from the grief, the shock is overwhelming. You sometimes see in the context of sport a player or a team lift for a game or two after some horrible event, but then when the adrenaline subsides there's often a feeling of emptiness (I'm really only going from my own feelings here, so I don't mean to generalise, it's actually quite hard to put into words what I'm trying to say).

 

[honestbharani]

It's a different kind of 'good for batting'. These wickets (Adelaide aside) had fairly good pace and bounce, it meant the quick bowlers could be accurate and pose a threat. The pitches in India and UAE were so slow that edges wouldn't carry to the slips.

Similarly, the Aussie batsman cashed in on these decks, but struggled more when the wickets lacked pace. The Asian ability to generate power through wrists and bat speed isn't common with Aussie bats who prefer solid timing and placement on wickets with pace. Backfoot play is also less important on Asian decks as it is here.

Also the Indian spinners would bowl better on Indian flat pitches as the lack of pace and bounce suits them, whereas in Aus a spinner like Lyon enjoys it more as he can exploit the bounce.

And lastly as the pitches deteriorated the Aussie ones tend to become more up-and-down, suiting the quicks and Lyon, whereas in UAE and India they get ragged and start showing signs of turn and have the odd delivery spitting off the pitch. Basically nothing a quick can exploit, but something Ashwin, Jadeja, Babar and Shah become deadly on.

Or IDK, might just be talking out of my ass here.

Well, that is why it is called home and away tbh


I agree with all your points but at the end of the day, I don't think one conditions suits better cricket more than the other. Ultimately, both sets of conditions suit a certain type of cricket that the respective home team is really good at...

 

[honestbharani]

All Australia need to beat India is to make the chances of them taking 20 wickets negligible. Over a 4 match series, the rest would take care of itself.

That is what happened this series na?