Who is the best current International Coach

[chicane]

Yes, I was talking in that context. Indian fans are extremists. And I meant that's what hurts.

But it does not apply for the India-Australia series and it does not apply to what I'm saying.

 

[Sudeep]

Dude that happens everywhere. In every country. Not just in India. And I think the more intelligent of us will know whether a player is just hyped up or really has substance. When we managed a surprise win over Australia, everyone was creating a hooplah around it because they knew it was not just some one-off upset. You can't seem to understand this. You are like almost blind to what's been going on, all you wanna do is look at the series result. The series result was dissapointing, and the Indians were very dissapointed that they didn't seal it in Sydney, and that says a helluva lot. I mean when they went there and after the first day at Brisbane, the headlines read 'Indian summer over'. Who would've thought the Aussies just about avoided a series-defeat?

No, it happens on a larger scale in India. Either our cricketers are Gods, or rubbish, to the fans.

England won a Test series in West Indies, but of all the expert articles I have read on various sites, they seem to accept that it was a weak Windies side. So even if they won 3-0, they need to prove it against NZ.

What we are trying to do is neglect our inconsistency.

On a day we can be very good, and on the other absolutely crap. And that's not a characteristic of a World Champion side. That's the reason I said we can't say for sure we're are most likely to win a Test series outside Asia right now.

 

[Sudeep]

I always said matched. When marc and you started putting it off as an average series in terms of result, then I had to say we dominated in Adeliade and Sydney and Brisbane was even so we played better cricket. I never ever said we dominated the series. And Kumble's bowling was for our team and he was part of the Indian team. What the hell are you trying to say? We had a very very good chance of winning in Sydney. We had a few vital decisions turned down. You are seriously blind.

Yes Kumble is a part of our team. When did I say he isn't?

 

[Sudeep]

I always said matched. When marc and you started putting it off as an average series in terms of result, then I had to say we dominated in Adeliade and Sydney and Brisbane was even so we played better cricket. I never ever said we dominated the series. And Kumble's bowling was for our team and he was part of the Indian team. What the hell are you trying to say? We had a very very good chance of winning in Sydney. We had a few vital decisions turned down. You are seriously blind.

I don't think that we did, until Waugh and Gilchrist got out in quick succession. But then we had too few overs to make those wickets count.

 

[chicane]

No, it happens on a larger scale in India. Either our cricketers are Gods, or rubbish, to the fans.

England won a Test series in West Indies, but of all the expert articles I have read on various sites, they seem to accept that it was a weak Windies side. So even if they won 3-0, they need to prove it against NZ.

What we are trying to do is neglect our inconsistency.

On a day we can be very good, and on the other absolutely crap. And that's not a characteristic of a World Champion side. That's the reason I said we can say for sure we're are most likely to win a Test series outside Asia right now.

I know all this, I also live in India. I'm not neglecting our inconsistency. I seriously believe we have changed for good with this side, because I have never seen an Indian side so professional and so spirited. Maybe you can't, but I sure as hell see this side winning plenty of away tours. This side is champion material.

 

[chicane]

Yes Kumble is a part of our team. When did I say he isn't?

Then I don't know what you meant by this -

But do you seriously think we had even the tiniest of chances to win the Sydney Test if it weren't for Kumble's bowling?

 

[Sudeep]

You tell me, at the start of Day 5, were we in a winning position?

Of all the teams, which one has the maximum chance of chasing 450, or lasting all the overs? Australia.

So Day 5 start, it's even.

Here are the FOW:

1-75 (Hayden, 16.1 ov), 2-92 (Langer, 19.5 ov),
3-170 (Martyn, 46.4 ov), 4-196 (Ponting, 55.4 ov),
5-338 (Waugh, 89.2 ov), 6-342 (Gilchrist, 89.5 ov).

Ok, the only time, we came close was Ponting's wicket. But we couldn't topple Katich, a relatively new player. If we couldn't do that, if our bowlers can't pick up more than 2 wickets in 35 overs, how can you say we had a better chance of winning? Apart from Kumble, none was looking even close to picking up a wicket. And that none was Karthik for the most part. If we bowl Kartik, who had a horrible series, on Day 5, after 4 wickets have gone, what do you say? We had a chance of winning? No.

 

[chicane]

I don't think that we did, until Waugh and Gilchrist got out in quick succession. But then we had too few overs to make those wickets count.

Test cricket has seen several scenarios where teams have made it count in such situations. And we had some vital decisions turned down.

 

[Sudeep]

Then I don't know what you meant by this -

I meant that we didn't have enough bowler power to topple Australia apart from Kumble.

And that was largely due to bowling Karthik for 26 overs. That brought our chances of winning to absolute zero.

That allowed Katich to get a start, and go on to play a very good innings.

 

[Sudeep]

On Day 5, the only time we came close to have a chance of winning, realistically, was after Ponting's wicket. Before that, even though Australia were 3 down, it was no secret that they have enough batting to not lose.

 

[chicane]

You tell me, at the start of Day 5, were we in a winning position?

Of all the teams, which one has the maximum chance of chasing 450, or lasting all the overs? Australia.

So Day 5 start, it's even.

Here are the FOW:

1-75 (Hayden, 16.1 ov), 2-92 (Langer, 19.5 ov),
3-170 (Martyn, 46.4 ov), 4-196 (Ponting, 55.4 ov),
5-338 (Waugh, 89.2 ov), 6-342 (Gilchrist, 89.5 ov).

Ok, the only time, we came close was Ponting's wicket. But we couldn't topple Katich, a relatively new player. If we couldn't do that, if our bowlers can't pick up more than 2 wickets in 35 overs, how can you say we had a better chance of winning? Apart from Kumble, none was looking even close to picking up a wicket. And that none was Karthik for the most part. If we bowl Kartik, who had a horrible series, on Day 5, after 4 wickets have gone, what do you say? We had a chance of winning? No.

Katich may have been new, but he was no dodo. He played superbly in both innings. We had a few bad umpiring decisions. But the fact that we got a team like Australia playing for a draw says we had the better chance of winning that game. The Aussies themselves admitted they were only trying to save the game.

 

[Sudeep]

Look, we are trying to find stats and stuff to counter-argue with each other, and as a result getting into much more complex arguements.

All I meant to say is:

- We did not have a chance of winning the Sydney Test, because as you said a few posts earlier - we didn't have a top class bowling attack.

- We shouldn't hype our team, as winning anywhere, because we still are too inconsistent (eg. Melbourne, Lahore).

 

[chicane]

I meant that we didn't have enough bowler power to topple Australia apart from Kumble.

And that was largely due to bowling Karthik for 26 overs. That brought our chances of winning to absolute zero.

That allowed Katich to get a start, and go on to play a very good innings.

Yes because our attack was depleted. Kartik was poor and Irfan was new, you couldn't expect so much out of him. Agarkar had some decisions turned down.

 

[Sudeep]

Katich may have been new, but he was no dodo. He played superbly in both innings. We had a few bad umpiring decisions. But the fact that we got a team like Australia playing for a draw says we had the better chance of winning that game. The Aussies themselves admitted they were only trying to save the game.

That's what I'm saying. They had the batting, and we didn't have the bowling. That's why we didn't have a chance of a win.

Australia playing for a draw, doesn't mean that we had a chance of winning. Even at 190/4, they have good enough batsmen to last out, and that's basically what they were doing.

At 190/4, they knew they couldn't win, so they went for a draw. It doesn't necessarily mean that they thought they would lose, and thus settled for a draw.

 

[chicane]

Look, we are trying to find stats and stuff to counter-argue with each other, and as a result getting into much more complex arguements.

All I meant to say is:

- We did not have a chance of winning the Sydney Test, because as you said a few posts earlier - we didn't have a top class bowling attack.

- We shouldn't hype our team, as winning anywhere, because we still are too inconsistent (eg. Melbourne, Lahore).

I know that's what you meant to say. But we had a chance of winning the Sydney test if those decisions were given by Steve Bucknor AND I'm not overhyping our team. Marc was ridiculing them saying they didn't win for 20 years and he started this. So I argued that on current form we can win a series outside Asia.

 

[Sudeep]

To put it better - Aussies didn't want to give us a chance of win, and that's why went for the draw. And not because they were in a losing position.

 

[Sudeep]

I know that's what you meant to say. But we had a chance of winning the Sydney test if those decisions were given by Steve Bucknor AND I'm not overhyping our team. Marc was ridiculing them saying they didn't win for 20 years and he started this. So I argued that on current form we can win a series outside Asia.

We might. We cannot absolutely say for sure that we can win. We are still too inconsistent.

I'm not comparing India with Bangladesh as others, all I'm saying is that we still haven't PROVED to the absolute certainty that we can win a Test series outside Asia.

 

[chicane]

That's what I'm saying. They had the batting, and we didn't have the bowling. That's why we didn't have a chance of a win.

Australia playing for a draw, doesn't mean that we had a chance of winning. Even at 190/4, they have good enough batsmen to last out, and that's basically what they were doing.

At 190/4, they knew they couldn't win, so they went for a draw. It doesn't necessarily mean that they thought they would lose, and thus settled for a draw.

Again the umpiring decisions. I have to say it again and again because it was vital. Since the Aussies couldn't win and we were pushing for wickets, we had the better chance of winning. If we had got Katich(who survived several shouts, some very close) then we were into the tail. Then you can't rule out the tail being knocked over rapidly.

 

[Sudeep]

All I'm saying is that we had the upper hand, but not a chance of winning. Those are two different things.

 

[Sudeep]

Upper hand because yes, we made Australia go for a draw.

Not a chance of winning, because we didn't have the bowling to topple the Aussies line-up.