Rank the 10,000 club

[OverratedSanity]

I was thinking aloud. I'm open to discussion on this. What are the mechanics of how batting together in tests help you? I don't think having a better partner suddenly makes you a better player of out swing bowling for instance, nor does it make the bowlers poorer at bowling it. May be it's that when a good partnership is going on the fielding team is not attacking anymore. That may be it.

Batting in partnerships doesn't make you automatically play better but I can think of lots ways where having a good partner can make things easier for you. A batsman new to the crease may choose to get to the other end asap to give the strike back to the other guy who's set and seeing the ball well, batsmen frequently try and face more of a bowler they find easier to face than their partner does, a solid defensive batsman can provide a stroke maker with a degree of confidence to play more freely than he would if it was a muppet on debut at the other end, etc.

As an example, the Pujara-Rahane partnership in bangalore vs Australia turned the series around and it was built on good communication and planning. They both actively shielded the other from specific bowlers at various points of that partnership when they looked like they were struggling.

 

[ankitj]

Batting in partnerships doesn't make you automatically play better but I can think of lots ways where having a good partner can make things easier for you. A batsman new to the crease may choose to get to the other end asap to give the strike back to the other guy who's set and seeing the ball well, batsmen frequently try and face more of a bowler they find easier to face than their partner does, a solid defensive batsman can provide a stroke maker with a degree of confidence to play more freely than he would if it was a muppet on debut at the other end, etc.

As an example, the Pujara-Rahane partnership in bangalore vs Australia turned the series around and it was built on good communication and planning. They both actively shielded the other from specific bowlers at various points of that partnership when they looked like they were struggling.

Fair. I don't know how often this happens and can it happen to a degree that your averages start looking better?

I think the fielding team is attacking or not can be a big factor too.

 

[vcs]

I thought Sehwag made it easier for lots of batsmen when he was in his pomp. He'd smash his way to 150 or so at close to a hundred SR, while Dravid or Tendulkar at the other end would just sneakily get to 40(80) or so without anyone noticing, while only just giving him the strike.

Fielding teams would just be so terrified and confused that all their plans of attacking, building pressure and taking a wicket would be completely disrupted as long as he was around.

 

[h_hurricane]

Wait you're serious about that? thought you were joking. No, I don't think the absence of 2004 Ponting, who had just bossed Sri Lanka a few months ago, was not an advantage for Australia, regardless of how poorly he had done in India in previous series when he was a much different player than in his peak.

Not all caveats are equal. I haven't a clue about what happened in 1986, but nothing in 2004 comes close to the advantage India got in 2018-19 by having Aus' 2 best batsmen by a country mile out of the side.

Even players at their peak struggle in some countries against some players and not so much in some other countries. Perhaps, Ponting's performance in the one test he played in 2004 gives you an idea. Even with his team in box seat for most of the match, he looked as clueless as he did in 2001.

Back to the original point which I mentioned though, I had followed 1991-92 series closely. Not so much the test matches live, but the one hour highlights package at the end of the day. I remember Richie Benaud saying at the end of the first day of the first match in Brisbane "2 evenly matched teams, should be a great series". This is what reputations do. India had played in some close series in down under in 1977, 1980-81 and 1985-86.

We were blanked 4-0 in 1991-92 and 3-0 in 1999-2000. The team which toured in 2003-04 had no reputation.

 

[ankitj]

Yes, Sehwag was in my mind as a counter to my own point. He certainly and visibly made the opposition plans fall apart.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Fair. I don't know how often this happens and can it happen to a degree that your averages start looking better?

My opinion is that it's virtually negligible. Probably a controversial one and I can see how it would be counter-intuitive.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Even players at their peak struggle in some countries against some players and not so much in some other countries. Perhaps, Ponting's performance in the one test he played in 2004 gives you an idea. Even with his team in box seat for most of the match, he looked as clueless as he did in 2001.

Back to the original point which I mentioned though, I had followed 1991-92 series closely. Not so much the test matches live, but the one hour highlights package at the end of the day. I remember Richie Benaud saying at the end of the first day of the first match in Brisbane "2 evenly matched teams, should be a great series". This is what reputations do. India had played in some close series in down under in 1977, 1980-81 and 1985-86.

We were blanked 4-0 in 1991-92 and 3-0 in 1999-2000. The team which toured in 2003-04 had no reputation.

See I don't think it does. That pitch was a crap-shoot. That was the Michael Clarke 6 for 9. I wouldn't be predicting anything based on that.

Agree with your main point though.

 

[stephen]

ITT: people implying that India were disadvantaged by facing MacGill instead of Warne.

Even if Warne took wickets that series at 45 it would have been better than taking them at 50 like MacGill did. But I don't think he would have been that bad, it was the first series against India that Warne was actually fit and in decent form for.

 

[Burgey]

This got me looking at t rebel tour squads for some stupid reason. The following traitors were missing in 85-86, I've bolded those who I think would have been in or about the side back then:

Kim Hughes
Steve Rixon
Greg Shipperd
Terry Alderman
John Dyson
Peter Faulkner
Mike Haysman
Tom Hogan
Rodney Hogg
Trevor Hohns
John Maguire
Rod McCurdy
Carl Rackemann
Steve Smith (not that one)
Mick Taylor
Graham Yallop

Hughes, Alderman and Hogg would probably have been locks for the Australian side that summer. Likely McCurdy and Yallop too. Could never understand why Smith went tbh. He'd played some ODIs for Aus the previous summer or two and at least looked a decent prospect, same with McCurdy and Rackemann. Alderman was probably most badly missed on the 85 Ashes tour. Yallop was a spud but he dined out at home vs anything not too pacy (see for example his Pakistan series in 83/84).

FMD I remember watching Rackemann in a one dayer at the SCG early in his career (maybe 82-83 vs the Poms) with my grandfather and a group of mates from my junior side. Back then you could buy an outer ground ticket and sit in the concourse under the Bradman Stand. In the second session the security guards knocked off so we ranamok up in the stand including somehow getting into the area behind the press box. Looking up that rebel tour side has jogged that memory for me, and the fact I got to meet Alan McIlvray that night when he was out behind the ABC box having a fag.

 

[trundler]

Neither Warne or Ponting ever faced India at their best. How convenient.

 

[Burgey]

Ok

 

[harsh.ag]

Hey, I'm just calling out dumb **** when I see it. Maybe they do come across as making excuses but can you honestly say that anything I've said is wrong?

You really think Australia would have lost the 2018 series if Smith and Warner were there? You really think predicting Ponting's performance in 2004 based on his other tours when he was half the player is sensible?

also tbf I didn't come out and start throwing out these excuses from no-where, it was in response to others bringing up the reverse

This would be accepted in good faith if you did the same to stephen's dumb ****

 

[h_hurricane]

Neither Warne or Ponting ever faced India at their best. How convenient.

Something similar to saying Mcgrath never faced Dravid's best isn't it

 

[h_hurricane]

ITT: people implying that India were disadvantaged by facing MacGill instead of Warne.

Even if Warne took wickets that series at 45 it would have been better than taking them at 50 like MacGill did. But I don't think he would have been that bad, it was the first series against India that Warne was actually fit and in decent form for.

There is no guarantee that Warne would have averaged less than 50 against that batting line up on those tracks.

 

[vcs]

MacGill was generally taken apart in that series but he did bowl one important spell in Melbourne which eventually helped Australia draw that series.. India really should have posted a first innings total of 500+ in that match after the start Sehwag provided.

 

[h_hurricane]

Warne averaged 42 in 1999-2000 against an Indian lineup weakened by Gandhi, Ramesh, Kanitkar, MSK Prasad, Bharadwaj and Agarkar on an ATG duck streak. If he wasn't good enough then, I don't see him being any good against the best batting lineup India ever had.

Also averaged 62.55 at home against India through his career.

 

[ankitj]

ITT: people implying that India were disadvantaged by facing MacGill instead of Warne.

Even if Warne took wickets that series at 45 it would have been better than taking them at 50 like MacGill did. But I don't think he would have been that bad, it was the first series against India that Warne was actually fit and in decent form for.

Ah the fitness excuse. #AussieExcuses

 

[_00_deathscar]

Ah the fitness excuse. #AussieExcuses

It’s not just about being fit, it’s about being fit, in form, and the moon has to be in its third phase or it doesn’t count.

 

[stephen]

There is no guarantee that Warne would have averaged less than 50 against that batting line up on those tracks.

Still, with all this nonsense about excuses nobody has explained to me why they think Warne would have done worse than MacGill in 02/03. MacGill was an objectively worse bowler than Warne. And the gap between them was pretty huge. Bringing up how bad Warne was after his shoulder surgery to suggest he would be bad three years later after he was fully healed is absurd.

I think it's far more likely that Warne would perform at a similar level to what he did in India 2004 where he averaged 30 and took a five wicket haul.

 

[morgieb]

Nah I think we'd have been a 1999/00 series from Warne - one decent spell but not much to write home about.

Question is whether he'd have been the same sort of run leaker that MacGill was. That seems dubious. Not sure if it would've helped Gillespie get better rewards but it might've.

Obviously McGrath was the far bigger absence and Australia likely win comfortably without him.