*Official* India Tour of Australia 2018/19

[StephenZA]

I didn't follow it as closely but from all accounts they absolutely did. There was a lot of discussion on here about it at the time. I don't know of SL even used a seam bowler in half the innings, and SAs star quicks bowled far less than you'd expect. That isn't proof in and of itself but it seemed that there was definitely some specifically deliberate pitch preparation going on.

Yes there was a bit of doctoring, nothing unexpected though.... RSA just batted like ****, totally undercooked,

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yes there was a bit of doctoring, nothing unexpected though.... RSA just batted like ****, totally undercooked,

Very similar to Aus over there in 2016 i think. Combination of poor preparation, loose techniques, pitch doctoring and possibly a bit of overconfidence. And Fatty.

 

[StephenZA]

Just as a comment on the recent Zim win, but people seem to be forgetting that the Bangladesh surfaces are very similar to what Zim play on at home. Low, slow and dry. You can even see it with the makeup of the Zim and Band team with the slow spinner allrounders etc. So from a pure 'acclimatization' point of view suits Zim perfectly.


Edit: Probably wrong thread to post this in though.... so won't mention it again.

 

[Daemon]

I got a good chuckle out of this. It's funny because it's true.

That match was so great. Not least of which because Warne had to eat humble pie about O'Keefe.

He still tried to spin it as a win for himself by going on and on about how he had wanted O'Keefe to change ends.

 

[Cruxdude]

You are getting confused because you are looking only at India, who have generally been the stronger team in normal Asian conditions in those series. Hence why doctoring dustbowls hasn't necessarily helped them. Because they don't need to do it to win and it just brings the opposition into the game.

I've specifically been talking about SL and Bang and not India for this reason. They haven't been the better sides, dustbowls helps them win. It's as simple as that.

Look at aus tour of India 2004. Aus were the stronger team, even in normal Indian conditions. The one Test India won that series? On a dustbowl. Because they were the weaker team.

I should have been more specific earlier saying that doctoring dustbowls is specifically effective for the weaker Asian teams. Which is why I have been leaving India out of it.

If only the last day of the Chennai test wasn't washed out

 

[howardj]

My Aussie team for the 1st Test:

Renshaw
Finch
Usman
Handscombe
Maxwell
Head
Paine
Cummins
Starc
Hazlewood
Lyon

Very conventional line-up, no tricks or gimmicks.

And certainly reinstating two of the best performed FC bats in 2017/2018, namely Maxwell and Renshaw

 

[stephen]

Welcome back HowardJ.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Just a reminder that this Indian team's home dominance is comparable to ATG teams, so the fact that they're only as good/**** as everyone else away from home doesn't mean they don't deserve the No. 1 ranking.

Thrashed in SA and UAE but will be no. 1 if they can win one home series? makes sense

What's problematic about the ICC ranking system isn't that they don't make any difference between away or home matches. While I do think away wins are harder and hence deserve more points, this criteria does not actually offer any team advantage over another because it applies to all teams.

What's problematic about the rankings is what's problematic about world cricket as a whole - the greater power that Big 3 teams and boards have which allows them to shape world cricket in a way that favours them. Australia, India and England play each other almost every 1-2 years in big 4-5 match series, plus they also get the heaviest home schedules of at least 5-6 Test matches per year. India had 13 Test matches in their 2016-17 home season. It's a fair question to ask how many teams in the world would get a home season like that and would India have gained the buffer at the top they did without that home season?


Before anyone misunderstands me, this isn't to say India don't deserve the number 1 ranking and they didn't have to play great cricket over that period to win those series. All those things a just as true for India as any other team - you have to win test match after test match to become a number 1 team. But there are a lot of teams who barely play 4 test matches a year, and that's what puts them at a disadvantage in earning points when competing with someone who plays 13 test matches at home.

So that's why you have a situation where Australia have had a pretty terrible year in Test cricket yet just one home series win against India will take them within the top 3 rankings. Same with England - got hammered in Australia, drew at home against Pakistan, but one series win against India at home and can easily make up for all the series lost.

Other teams who don't get to play as much or as regularly against these teams, never get that opportunity.

The schedules are geared in a way that India, Australia and England will always be within the top 3-4 ranked teams in the world over a period of time.

 

[marc71178]

Yet again you fail to understand the concept of an average when talking about team ratings.

 

[akilana]

Doesn't work out that way though. If you want to look at it from an Aus point of view just look at the most recent tours of SL and Bang. Openly doctored pitches that exploited Aus' weakness against spin. As a result an inferior SL team won 3-0, and a vastly inferior Bang drew 1-1. They were not your average SL and Bang pitches either, they were openly made more spin friendly.

Pune 2017 test where India crumbled to Sok was an aberration, not the norm.

Nothing wrong with that. You don’t go to Australia expecting spin friendly pitches the same way you don’t visit SL, expecting fast and bouncy pitches. SL were the better team in those conditions.

 

[Burgey]

If you leave a pitch unattended with only the basic curation, you get something closer to many SC wickets.

If you put tons of effort into it (including the ability to lift the entire thing out of the ground) you get Australian wickets.

Hence Australians are the real pitch doctors.

Yet another emphatic victory for Daemon.

So you’re saying the SC is basically dry, slow and low by nature, favouring less manly pursuits rather than those which require more physical effort, endurance and power?

Sounds about right tbh.

 

[Burgey]

My Aussie team for the 1st Test:

Renshaw
Finch
Usman
Handscombe
Maxwell
Head
Paine
Cummins
Starc
Hazlewood
Lyon

Very conventional line-up, no tricks or gimmicks.

And certainly reinstating two of the best performed FC bats in 2017/2018, namely Maxwell and Renshaw

Hopefully the weather is set fair for that combination, and it’s all set up for a thrilling denouement.

Welcome back mate.

 

[Burgey]

If only the last day of the Chennai test wasn't washed out

You spuds. Always saying this, based on Sehwag hitting the last ball of day four past McGrath to the fence. Fmd he averaged about 12 in fourth innings. India was most likely going to get bent over in that chase. Just suck it up. They had three other tests to secure the series and weren’t good enough.

Anyway, we all know both teams would have been grateful to get out of Chennai a day early.

 

[Daemon]

So you’re saying the SC is basically dry, slow and low by nature, favouring less manly pursuits rather than those which require more physical effort, endurance and power?

Sounds about right tbh.

Yep. Also that pitches are not naturally occuring patches of dirt. They're all doctored.

 

[Burgey]

No wonder you like Melbourne then.

 

[jimmy101]

Wake me up on the 6th of December.

 

[Gomez656]

Yes we will buzz you 30 minutes before toss

 

[jimmy101]

Thank you.

 

[howardj]

The comments section accompanying articles on newspaper sites are generally a source of great laughter - exposing the lack of knowledge possessed by the casual cricket follower. This stands in stark contrast to the depth of knowledge possessed by the vast majority on Cricketweb. However, this comment is an exception; nailing the folly of the Marsh bros. continued selection:

In what way does Mitch Marsh "probably deserve his chance"? He has been given 30 tests worth of chances and has essentially proven that he is not good enough to be a test cricketer. In 51 test innings he has passed fifty only five times. He has averaged 16 in his last twelve test innings. His overall test average is 26 which is the worst of any Australian top 6 batsman of the last fifty years. His bowling average of 42 is not good enough to even bestow the title of all-rounder on him.
What does he have to do not to get selected?

The Marsh brothers a a big part of the reason that the Australian test team is as poor as it is. They do just enough to hold their own positions, what runs they do score are almost always in big totals on flat tracks at home, and then fail repeatedly everywhere else. Since The Ashes the Marsh brothers have collectively played 24 innings for one fifty between them. That is two thirds of our top six putting out figures a tailender would not be happy with.

 

[Daemon]

I hate how Smarsh gets unfairly lumped in with his brother when it comes to the latest trend of criticising the "Marsh brothers". He may not deserve his spot right now but he has deserved it multiple times over the course of his career unlike Mitch.