***Official*** India in Australia

[Top_Cat]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22872999-2882,00.html

Geez, Jon Pierik forcasting doom ahead.

 

[Athlai]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22872999-2882,00.html

Geez, Jon Pierik forcasting doom ahead.

Australia could easily just play seamers with Clarke and Symo giving them a rest every now and then.


On Hogg at peak performance-
"Australia - and its supporters - will hope that's the case as bleak days await if he is not."

Overkill easily. So Australia don't have a match winning spinner they still have the best fully fit seam attack in the world.

 

[pup11]

Australia could easily just play seamers with Clarke and Symo giving them a rest every now and then.



On Hogg at peak performance-
"Australia - and its supporters - will hope that's the case as bleak days await if he is not."

Overkill easily. So Australia don't have a match winning spinner they still have the best fully fit seam attack in the world.

Mate spinners are not there in the team to give the fast bowlers a breather they are there to take wickets, nowadays we all know wickets are pretty flat even in test cricket and that hampers the effectiveness of fast-bowlers so a having a handy spinner is important to bring a bit of variety in your attack, teams like South Africa and England have tried all pace attack in the past without much success but after they have selected the likes of Harris and Panesar their attack has started to look a lot more balanced and effective (and lets be honest neither Harris or Panesar are world class spinners).

 

[Unattainableguy]

I'm Sreesanth, nobody can scare me

Sydney: Indian pace bowler S Sreesanth said he would not be intimidated by Australian crowds during this summer's series Down Under and was confident of taking wickets.
Sreesanth, who was involved in an on-field verbal clashes with Australian allrounder Andrew Symonds during the ill-tempered India tour which ended in October, said he was undaunted by playing to local crowds.
"I am not scared," he told Inside Cricket magazine. "In fact, I will take it as a challenge."
The Indian bowler, who was dropped for three of the seven one-day games against Australia in the last series, also said he was unfazed by the side which has dominated international cricket for years.
"I am Sreesanth and I'm not scared of any batsman in the world," he said.
"What's the worst that can happen - six sixes? Well, I'm not really worried about that. Whatever I do on the field I do from the core of my heart; I don't act. This is the way I have played cricket all my life." Sreesanth said while the verbal clashes between players during the India series were overplayed, Ricky Ponting's men were more than capable of defending themselves against taunts.
"I think all of that was over-played because it was not the first time in the history of the game that it has happened," he said.
"I didn't do anything close to what the Australians did. I don't want to name any cricketer. But it is just not me, everyone knows who does what on the field."
Australia's tour of India was marred by crowds' racial taunts against Symonds, Australia's only black player, which included monkey gestures. India will play a four-Test series against Australia starting on December 26.


cricketnext

 

[Athlai]

Mate spinners are not there in the team to give the fast bowlers a breather they are there to take wickets, nowadays we all know wickets are pretty flat even in test cricket and that hampers the effectiveness of fast-bowlers so a having a handy spinner is important to bring a bit of variety in your attack, teams like South Africa and England have tried all pace attack in the past without much success but after they have selected the likes of Harris and Panesar their attack has started to look a lot more balanced and effective (and lets be honest neither Harris or Panesar are world class spinners).

MSP is probably one of the best Test spinners in the world, Harris is also quite good in the long version. Neither of those teams have as good a pace line-up as Australia. South Africa could come close yet with the decline of Pollock they went for a safety option, they are just effective without a spinner IMO (this is outside of the sub-continent of course).

Spinners way of getting wickets is long spells where they bog down the batsman, fast bowlers do so in short spurts yet you wouldn't say a spinner is going to be at all as effective as a quickie in that regard outside of the sub-continent (unless they are Murali or Warne and even then the best quicks can do better). Yet spinners are in teams because of the variety they give to the attack, and because of the way they can eat up the overs, bowling for very long periods keeping the quick bowlers in reserve.

A West Indian style pace attack should be more than enough for the Aussies, how often do we see pitches with all that much turn in the modern game? I'm a big spinning fan yet it seems it's just getting harder and harder for them these days and I feel the Australian squad would be just as effective if not more so without a spinner who's place could be put to better use by Tait or Hilfey.

 

[silentstriker]

MSP is probably one of the best Test spinners in the world,

Murali, Kumble are clearly better. And I'd take a couple of second string Indians, even Harbhajan, over MSP at the moment. Vettorri is close. He is clearly better in ODIs, and might be in Tests as well.

The problem is that there is a paucity of spinners in the world, so just by the mere fact that he is indeed a spinner in a Test side, he becomes 'one of the best.' I think he is good with some potential (needs to flight it a bit more IMO), but I don't think its anything more.

 

[pup11]

MSP is probably one of the best Test spinners in the world, Harris is also quite good in the long version. Neither of those teams have as good a pace line-up as Australia. South Africa could come close yet with the decline of Pollock they went for a safety option, they are just effective without a spinner IMO (this is outside of the sub-continent of course).

Spinners way of getting wickets is long spells where they bog down the batsman, fast bowlers do so in short spurts yet you wouldn't say a spinner is going to be at all as effective as a quickie in that regard outside of the sub-continent (unless they are Murali or Warne and even then the best quicks can do better). Yet spinners are in teams because of the variety they give to the attack, and because of the way they can eat up the overs, bowling for very long periods keeping the quick bowlers in reserve.

A West Indian style pace attack should be more than enough for the Aussies, how often do we see pitches with all that much turn in the modern game? I'm a big spinning fan yet it seems it's just getting harder and harder for them these days and I feel the Australian squad would be just as effective if not more so without a spinner who's place could be put to better use by Tait or Hilfey.

Both MSP and Harris didn't had phenomenal domestic records before they burst onto the international scene and since then they have been doing pretty decently in international cricket, the West Indies pace attack had some serious class and they had pitches in those days that were helpful for fast bowling, but at present time one can't expect the Australian pace attack to as effective as the West Indian pace attack as nowadays the pitches around the world really don't have much to offer to the fast bowlers.

 

[Top_Cat]

Mind you, team balance is one thing but what Clive Lloyd said about the WI four-pace attack was and still is crucial; the WI picked the best four bowlers in the WI and they happened to be fast. I just think the selectors should be wary of picking a spinner for the sake of having a spinner in the side.

 

[Prince EWS]

Both MSP and Harris didn't had phenomenal domestic records before they burst onto the international scene and since then they have been doing pretty decently in international cricket, the West Indies pace attack had some serious class and they had pitches in those days that were helpful for fast bowling, but at present time one can't expect the Australian pace attack to as effective as the West Indian pace attack as nowadays the pitches around the world really don't have much to offer to the fast bowlers.

Harris's domestic stats in the seasons just prior to his selection were very, very good and it's not like England have any fast bowlers better than Panesar who aren't playing anyway.

It's not just the fact that Australia don't have great spin options, but the fact that the reserve fast bowling stocks are very good and several players are pushing for selection as it is. Combine all that with the fact that they're playing on bouncy Australian wickets against India and it's really a totally different situation to England and South Africa.

 

[Athlai]

Murali, Kumble are clearly better. And I'd take a couple of second string Indians, even Harbhajan, over MSP at the moment. Vettorri is close. He is clearly better in ODIs, and might be in Tests as well.

The problem is that there is a paucity of spinners in the world, so just by the mere fact that he is indeed a spinner in a Test side, he becomes 'one of the best.' I think he is good with some potential (needs to flight it a bit more IMO), but I don't think its anything more.

Ah yeah pretty much my thoughts on the matter, wouldn't say he's the 'best' just getting up there.

 

[Athlai]

Mind you, team balance is one thing but what Clive Lloyd said about the WI four-pace attack was and still is crucial; the WI picked the best four bowlers in the WI and they happened to be fast. I just think the selectors should be wary of picking a spinner for the sake of having a spinner in the side.

AWTA.

Pick your four best on the day for the conditions. If it so happens to be all pace then go with it, if a spinner deserves a spot more give it to him. I just feel right now Aussie don't have that spinner. Maybe Hogg though.

 

[Richard]

Mind you, team balance is one thing but what Clive Lloyd said about the WI four-pace attack was and still is crucial; the WI picked the best four bowlers in the WI and they happened to be fast. I just think the selectors should be wary of picking a spinner for the sake of having a spinner in the side.

It really is plain crazy that there are so many people who are, essentially, unaware of this simple truth. I just cannot fathom it.

Your best bowlers (and as Athlai says above this changes according to conditions) are your best bowlers. If you've the choice between a good seamer and a crap spinner, I just don't get why anyone would ever countenance going for the latter. Yet so, so many do.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

It really is plain crazy that there are so many people who are, essentially, unaware of this simple truth. I just cannot fathom it.

Your best bowlers (and as Athlai says above this changes according to conditions) are your best bowlers. If you've the choice between a good seamer and a crap spinner, I just don't get why anyone would ever countenance going for the latter. Yet so, so many do.

It's been done, though, and been met with tremendous success. Most notably with Bob Holland (in his forties at the time, if memory serves) against the West Indies in 1984-85 at the SCG.

Favourable conditions are a viable substitute for class on most given days, whether purists are willing to admit it or not. Although, I do grant you, there are occasions when it's been done simply for variety's sake without a wearing wicket in sight.

In Hogg's case, the MCG often turns later on, and the SCG always does, so it's a fair enough inclusion.

 

[Richard]

Oh, picking Hogg at The SCG is quite fair enough (and who knows - maybe at The WACA too but I've not been taking tremendous notice of how it's been playing this year).

But I'm more on about in general than specifically these next 4 Tests in Australia.

And Bob Holland hardly had a successful Test career, just that 1 game in the sun and another besides. What's more, he was in his late-30s (no 40+-year-old has played for Australia since WWII with the exception of Bobby Simpson in the extenuating circumstances of WSC ) at the time and was never anything more than a short-term selection.

BTW, how long do you have to keep Ranatunga for?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

And Bob Holland hardly had a successful Test career, just that 1 game in the sun and another besides. What's more, he was in his late-30s (no 40+-year-old has played for Australia since WWII with the exception of Bobby Simpson in the extenuating circumstances of WSC ) at the time and was never anything more than a short-term selection.

But that, if nothing else, highlights how crap he otherwise was. And the fact he got favourable conditions once, and exploited them better than any conceivable alternative could have, shows how much conditions matter when picking a bowling attack.

It doesn't do a lot to reinforce the notion that a good bowler will always transcend conditions, which seems to be a tenet of your selection policy.

 

[Richard]

Nah, not at all - I said, and believe very firmly and always have, that your best bowlers change according to conditions. Brad Hogg might be one of Australia's best bowlers on a typical SCG wicket, but otherwise there's no way on Earth I think he is.

Having said that, obviously, the very best seamers are outstanding bowlers on any surface. And if you just happen to have 4 of them, I've no truck picking them even on rank turners.

But on a pitch which doesn't offer excessive help to spin, a fingerspinner is almost never going to be one of your best bowlers. And you're always going to be better with 4 (even 5) seamers IMO.

And TBH, I have to doubt whether Brad Hogg would be Test-class turner or non-turner.

And can you answer me bloody question - how long do you have to keep Ranatunga for???

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Nah, not at all - I said, and believe very firmly and always have, that your best bowlers change according to conditions. Brad Hogg might be one of Australia's best bowlers on a typical SCG wicket, but otherwise there's no way on Earth I think he is.

Having said that, obviously, the very best seamers are outstanding bowlers on any surface. And if you just happen to have 4 of them, I've no truck picking them even on rank turners.

But on a pitch which doesn't offer excessive help to spin, a fingerspinner is almost never going to be one of your best bowlers. And you're always going to be better with 4 (even 5) seamers IMO.

And TBH, I have to doubt whether Brad Hogg would be Test-class turner or non-turner.

And can you answer me bloody question - how long do you have to keep Ranatunga for???

What's your vendetta against fingerspinners? Everytime Monty does well, there's some mitigating circumstance (pitch, wind, God, poor strokes, youthful exuberance) that somehow devalues his performance. I'm left with the distinct (and probably wrong) vibe that years of enduring Tufnell and Giles have left their mark.

Re: Hogg, if one takes five-wicket hauls at the WACA against Australian domestic sides (the closest thing to Test-class opposition), then he warrants at least another Test. His current sample size is insufficient to judge him from.

BTW, Arjuna's grown on me - and CBA changing.

 

[Richard]

What's your vendetta against fingerspinners? Everytime Monty does well, there's some mitigating circumstance (pitch, wind, God, poor strokes, youthful exuberance) that somehow devalues his performance. I'm left with the distinct (and probably wrong) vibe that years of enduring Tufnell and Giles have left their mark.

Fingerspinners can only ever do well on helpful pitches, I've always said this. Tufnell, Giles, MSP, they're all the same in this respect. This doesn't devalue anyone's performance when they do perform, as all you can ask of a fingerspinner is that they exploit turning surfaces, something all 3 did plenty of times. But no fingerspinner is ever going to do much on a flat pitch (without poor strokes obviously).

Re: Hogg, if one takes five-wicket hauls at the WACA against Australian domestic sides (the closest thing to Test-class opposition), then he warrants at least another Test. His current sample size is insufficient to judge him from.

It is, and I don't have any great truck with him being given another go. But his career First-Class record is hardly outstanding, even if he's gone OK this season.

BTW, Arjuna's grown on me - and CBA changing.

So art_dogbert_whip is gone forever? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Fingerspinners can only ever do well on helpful pitches, I've always said this. Tufnell, Giles, MSP, they're all the same in this respect. This doesn't devalue anyone's performance when they do perform, as all you can ask of a fingerspinner is that they exploit turning surfaces, something all 3 did plenty of times. But no fingerspinner is ever going to do much on a flat pitch (without poor strokes obviously).

Equally with seamers. Personally, I reckon that seamers take the majority of wickets because they're the majority of an attack. If you picked a flotilla of four offies (or three offies and an SLA, or any permutation you like), they would take wickets on a flat deck - flat enough to eliminate all meaningful purchase from any bowling - at a similar rate.

The exception, of course, is greats like McGrath, Warne and Murali. And they're vindications of the theory that your best attack is picked for a flat wicket. But when conditions overly favour either seam or spin, then a 'horses-for-courses' approach is in order, regardless of class.

So art_dogbert_whip is gone forever? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

These things happen. Want a Kleenex?

 

[Richard]

Equally with seamers. Personally, I reckon that seamers take the majority of wickets because they're the majority of an attack. If you picked a flotilla of four offies (or three offies and an SLA, or any permutation you like), they would take wickets on a flat deck - flat enough to eliminate all meaningful purchase from any bowling - at a similar rate.

The exception, of course, is greats like McGrath, Warne and Murali. And they're vindications of the theory that your best attack is picked for a flat wicket. But when conditions overly favour either seam or spin, then a 'horses-for-courses' approach is in order, regardless of class.

I honestly reckon 4 "decent" seamers (Darren Gough, Paul Reiffel, Javagal Srinath, Shaun Pollock-circa-2003 for instance) will do a way, way better job than 4 decent fingerspinners (say, Robert Croft, MS Panesar, Ashley Mallett, Phillipe-Henri Edmunds) on any non-turning deck.

Obviously, 4 crap seamers are no better than 4 decent fingerspinners.

These things happen. Want a Kleenex?

Think I'll need 50 TBH. Your account will never, ever be the same, especially when puns are in process. Yes, it's a crying shame.