'Tendulkar should consider quitting' by Ian chappel

[Dasa]

The other rational explanation: he didn't even play.

Not talking about India in Aus 2004, but Australia in India in 2001.

 

[adharcric]

Nice edit.

 

[honestbharani]

It is debatable to be honest...what that Indian batting line up had in its favour was that it was playing against the weakest Australian line up for the last 18 years

As compared to the super strong INDIAN bowling line up that Australia were facing?????????????????

 

[Swervy]

The line about conditions favouring Laxman whenever he looked good is a load of BS.....the 167 was scored on a pitch offering seam movement (I watched the innings in entirety at the SCG), the 281 came on a wearing Indian picth with the supposedly the greatest spin bowler of all time in the opposing lineup.

read what I said.....go on......actually read, word for word what I said

Oh go on then , I will help you....

'but when he looked good, he looked really really good, but conditions tended to favour him when that was the case'

does not mean that everytime he did well the conditions suited him, it means it TENDED to be like that.

I know the 167 was in relativly bowler friendly conditions, it was a great great innings, as was the 281, but other than those, Laxman I personally dont think pushed on in the way he should have done. A very good batsman, but I really dont think he would have gotten into the Australian batting line up, certainly not on a consistant basis anyway. Maybe my opinion is skewed by me watching him vs England and looking pretty much out of his depth.

 

[Swervy]

As compared to the super strong INDIAN bowling line up that Australia were facing?????????????????

I dont think there was much difference to be honest, in fact I would have said India shaded it

 

[honestbharani]

read what I said.....go on......actually read, word for word what I said

Oh go on then , I will help you....

'but when he looked good, he looked really really good, but conditions tended to favour him when that was the case'

does not mean that everytime he did well the conditions suited him, it means it TENDED to be like that.

I know the 167 was in relativly bowler friendly conditions, it was a great great innings, as was the 281, but other than those, Laxman I personally dont think pushed on in the way he should have done. A very good batsman, but I really dont think he would have gotten into the Australian batting line up, certainly not on a consistant basis anyway. Maybe my opinion is skewed by me watching him vs England and looking pretty much out of his depth.

WEll, there was a period when he would have definitely made the Aussie line up, but I agree that it was a significantly small period time, relatively speaking.

 

[Swervy]

What i dont understand is how people can be so scathing of a current line up, and quite touchy about a past line up, when in actual fact there probably isnt really that much difference between them talent wise, and maybe a few (and really it is only a few) really big scores that they produced back then that they might not be getting now.

Back to Tendulkar, he was struggling back when he made the 241* as well, so not much has changed with him to be honest

 

[Salamuddin]

read what I said.....go on......actually read, word for word what I said

Oh go on then , I will help you....

'but when he looked good, he looked really really good, but conditions tended to favour him when that was the case'

does not mean that everytime he did well the conditions suited him, it means it TENDED to be like that.

I know the 167 was in relativly bowler friendly conditions, it was a great great innings, as was the 281, but other than those, Laxman I personally dont think pushed on in the way he should have done. A very good batsman, but I really dont think he would have gotten into the Australian batting line up, certainly not on a consistant basis anyway. Maybe my opinion is skewed by me watching him vs England and looking pretty much out of his depth.

Why not ?? I don't see how Laxman was any inferior to Mark Waugh when he played in the team prior to 2002 and after that, well I don't see how he was any inferior to the likes of Michael Clarke or Simon Katich or Andrew Symonds who played since....

Laxman averages 48.33 from Kolkata 2001 (his last 60 tests) onwards...if that's not the mark of a damn good player....I don't know what is....

 

[Salamuddin]

read what I said.....go on......actually read, word for word what I said

Oh go on then , I will help you....

'but when he looked good, he looked really really good, but conditions tended to favour him when that was the case'

does not mean that everytime he did well the conditions suited him, it means it TENDED to be like that.

.

That's a very silly line of reasoning dude.
You do realise you could say that for a lot of batsmen, especially those who've played in the post 2000 period.

 

[Salamuddin]

I dont think there was much difference to be honest, in fact I would have said India shaded it

4th test:
Aus: Lee, Gillespie, McGill, Bracken
India: Pathan, Kumble, Karthik, Agarkar

3rd test:
Aus: Lee, Bichel, McGill, Williams
Ind: Zaheer, Nehra, Kumble, Agarkar

2nd test:
Ind: Kumble, Pathan, Nehra, AA
Aus: Gillespie, Bichel, Williams, McGill

1st Test
Ind: Zaheer, Nehra, AA, Harby
Aus: Gillespie, Bichel, Bracken, McGill

Australia undoubtedly had the better pace attack.....India had Kumble who was better than McGill but overral Australia definitely had the better attack especially when you consider they were playing at home as well.

I thought India were unlucky not to have Harby for the Sydney test....I think he would have been a far tougher proposition on the Sydney wicket than Murali Kartik.

 

[Ikki]

Not talking about India in Aus 2004, but Australia in India in 2001.

But we actually were talking about how the Aussies had a depleted/poorer bowling line-up. Warne would have surely helped in the Sydney test, where such huge scores were posted.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not trying to make the Indian line-up look any better than it was to excuse the Aussie loss, but the figures here speak a louder story.

Agarkar was better than Gillespie. Kumble was clearly the best bowler there. MacGill took 1 wicket, in two innings, on the most receptive pitch in that series and ended up with figures that compare to Tendulkar. Lee and Bracken just bled runs. If they were better, you wouldn't have known it looking at those figures.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not trying to make the Indian line-up look any better than it was to excuse the Aussie loss, but the figures here speak a louder story.

Agarkar was better than Gillespie. Kumble was clearly the best bowler there. MacGill took 1 wicket, in two innings, of the most receptive pitch in that series and ended up with figures that compare to Tendulkar. Lee and Bracken just bled runs. If they were better, you wouldn't have known it looking at those figures.

That is all fine and dandy, but there is the small point that the Indian batsmen played the Aussie bowlers better than the Aussie batsmen played the Indian bowlers.

Not every run the batsmen scored were because of poor bowling, was it? And almost every FAIR commentator who had watched that series mentioned that the Indian batting and fielding(actually, catching) was definitely better than Australia's and that Australian bowling was just a little bit better than India's.

 

[Ikki]

That is all fine and dandy, but there is the small point that the Indian batsmen played the Aussie bowlers better than the Aussie batsmen played the Indian bowlers.

Not every run the batsmen scored were because of poor bowling, was it? And almost every FAIR commentator who had watched that series mentioned that the Indian batting and fielding(actually, catching) was definitely better than Australia's and that Australian bowling was just a little bit better than India's.

I actually did watch that series, and I agree with you. My point is that if they were supposedly poorer, they certainly didn't play that way.

But on the other hand, this was the weakest bowling line-up Australia had in yonks, and inexperienced too. I'm not saying that is why the Indians scored more runs, but it was certainly a factor.

I do see how it is debatable whether Australia had such a great bowling line-up. IMO, the difference was minimal either way.

 

[Salamuddin]

I'm not trying to make the Indian line-up look any better than it was to excuse the Aussie loss, but the figures here speak a louder story.

Agarkar was better than Gillespie. Kumble was clearly the best bowler there. MacGill took 1 wicket, in two innings, of the most receptive pitch in that series and ended up with figures that compare to Tendulkar. Lee and Bracken just bled runs. If they were better, you wouldn't have known it looking at those figures.

But look at their career records.....unquestionably, Austrlia had the better bowlers. McGill's record is not that inferior to Kumble's and the Indian pace attack was garbage.
The fact that the series ended up 1-1 lends credence to the idea that the Indian bats outperformed their Aussie counterparts.

 

[Ikki]

But look at their career records.....unquestionably, Austrlia had the better bowlers. McGill's record is not that inferior to Kumble's and the Indian pace attack was garbage.
The fact that the series ended up 1-1 lends credence to the idea that the Indian bats outperformed their Aussie counterparts.

Macgill goes in and out of the side too often, not often is he the lone spinner. Bracken was new. The only two you could say that were established were Gillespie and Lee. Not having McGrath or Warne there is a big factor. Gillespie did not lead the attack well at all and neither of the other 3 stepped up. I am not making an argument here to take away credit from the Indian batsmen, they were very good. But I also throw into the hat that the Australian bowling line-up IMO was poorer than the Indian bowling line-up. I contend that if you/others disagree, that the difference really is minimal anyway.

 

[honestbharani]

But look at their career records.....unquestionably, Austrlia had the better bowlers. McGill's record is not that inferior to Kumble's and the Indian pace attack was garbage.
The fact that the series ended up 1-1 lends credence to the idea that the Indian bats outperformed their Aussie counterparts.

Also, the catching of Australia was horrible.

 

[Salamuddin]

Also, the catching of Australia was horrible.

Actually, India's fielding effort wasn't that much better.

I read a statistic that India dropped 4 less catches than Australia but also missed 2 easy stumpings sourtesy Parthiv patel.

 

[honestbharani]

Actually, India's fielding effort wasn't that much better.

I read a statistic that India dropped 4 less catches than Australia but also missed 2 easy stumpings sourtesy Parthiv patel.

Indian catching, except Parthiv, was very very good.

 

[Jono]

Haha, people love laying the boot into Indian bowlers whenever possible, and now some people are going to come out and suggest that Gillespie, Lee, Bichel and MacGill (with a **** Bracken and Williams) are a worse bowling line-up than Kumble away from home, Agarkar, an unfit Zaheer, Nehra (FFS NEHRA!!!), Pathan on debut aged 19, Murali Kartik and Harbhajan for 1 match each.

Need I remind you that this was played IN AUSTRALIA! On Australian wickets! Just because Australia's bowling figures looked worse than India's doesn't mean they, on reputation and career, weren't better bowlers. What it means is, India belted them around, because they weren't as good as McGrath and Warne (even with his poor record), who they had to face for most of their encounters in the past (Look at 1999!).

Honestly come on guys, what are you trying to prove? In 2003, India's middle order in my honest opinion was the better line-up. That's not bias, because when taking the whole batting line-up into perspective, Australia's trumps it quite easily. Because they had Hayden and Langer opening instead of Sehwag and Chopra, and Gilly at 7 instead of Patel, they were far superior overall.

But for mine, at that point in time, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Laxman was a better middle order batting line-up then Ponting, Martyn, Waugh, Katich. Is it honestly that hard to fathom? You can argue Tendulkar was as mediocre as he is now, but he was still better than 2003 Steve Waugh. Laxman was better than Katich at that point in time, and Dravid and Ponting were toe to toe. Martyn vs. Ganguly, well I'd take Martyn but Ganguly played better in that series.