Australia Tour Of India 2012/13

[swacker]

I like Phil Hughes. Australia should definitely pick him for the Ashes this summer

6, 0, 19 and 0...

 

[War]

Smart tactic by India, get out to Maxwell and get him selected in the next test. Just need to gift some wickets to Doherty too.

Given all of the foolishness we have seen by the AUS selectors in this test, we should probably expect them to site positives in Maxwell & Doherty picking up cheap wickets & a likely endorsement for the next test.

----------

Poor Hughes, he really seems to struggle with nerves.
I would have liked to have seen Sean Marsh in this squad, he has scored a lot of runs in India, plus he can cover a few positions (opener, 3, middle order), why does horses for courses only apply to bowlers?
Bailey has the right temperament too, would have preferred to see him over Khawaja who still seems a little young.

Bailey should have been in the test squad from the start as everyone knows. If the selectors have any sense & pride remaining, they still can fly him over and save their faces.

----------

As for comments that Ian Chappell is one of the "great minds" of Australian cricket, being aggressively opinionated doesn't make you a thinker.

Some of Ian Chappell's "genius"...

"Dravid should be dropped!!!" (Ian never liked the fact that Dravid was a number 3 who scored slowly at times, and had been banging on about it hoping he would fail for years)...Dravid then goes on to tour England in 2011 and is the only Indian to score any runs...scoring 3 centuries.

"Sehwag is the New Bradman!!!" (An average of 9 v Steyn is hardly an average of 99, nor is a total inability to score any runs anywhere anymore)

"Sehwag is the best offspinner in India!!!" (Yes, so good that the captain has given up wasting time even giving him a bowl).

Yea Chappell is certainly aggressively opinionated & he has made his fair share of crazy & questionable statements over the years.

Chappell has had a love affair with Sehwag, but so did many cricket fans all over the world, before his failures over the last 3 years.

However he has been in commentary for about 30 years now & he has made a lot more wise comments during this period that major faux pas statements. And i'd certainly back him to be a better AUS selector than Trevor Hohns, Hilditch & Inverarity without question.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

chappell was right about sehwag, only bradman esque stat of the last decade is managing to average comfortably over 50 while scoring at an SR over 80.

for me would be an opener in an all-time XI.

 

[War]

Ha, no. Chappell was dead wrong about Sehwag. His failures against quality fast bowling in various conditions over the past 3 years, clearly shows that all the runs he scored opening from 2002-2010, indicated him to be the greatest FTB of the 2000s. He cashed in on the era of average bowling & flat tracks & decline in good fast-bowling more decisively that any batsman during the 2000s.

To suggest Sehwag should be an opener in an ATXI is folly since he wouldn't even qualify to open for an India ATXI. His average last i checked recently dropped under 50 due to his failures in the last few years.

When talking about legitimate openers for an ATXI, players such likes of Gavaskar, Hobbs, Hutton, Barry Richards, Greenidge, Haynes, Boycott, Gooch, would immediately be considered as elite options in cricket history.

To consider Sehwag in this esteem category, is an insult to those players. Sehwag also would not even be among the top 25 openers in cricket history even, which a further slap in the face statement to other players such a Hayden, Sutcliffe, Haniff Mohammad, Majid Khan, Simpson, Lawry, Taylor, Langer, Wessels, Barlow, Slater, Atherton, Colin McDonald, Turner, Trumper, Hunte, Gary Kirsten, Saeed Anwar etc etc...

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

technique is dull, no game in the history of cricket was ever won by technique. they have all been won because one team of players could do stuff the others couldn't. sehwag could score double hundreds at a run a ball, sehwag could put so much pressure on a team that he could force a result even with a flat pitch and very average bowling, sehwag delayed declerations single handedly and launched tricky targets turning them into strolls.

didn't see anyone else doing this in this era of rubbish pitches and bowling so I reckon my opinion of him being one of the greatest openers ever is pretty ok.

 

[shravi]

You both make very good points and I'm not inclined to side either way. However, I will say that India probably hasn't had a game-changer like him, except perhaps Kapil Dev. Flat pitches or not, why were other batsmen not able to do the same as him? I accept that he is poor outside the subcontinent and that this is due to his poor technique. However, in the subcontinent, he has been virutally peerless, not in terms of the amount of runs he has scored, or his average, but how he has single-handedly, not shaped (e.g. Dravid, Zaheer, Tendulkar), but changed matches. For quite a few years, he was a counter-attacking batsman of the highest caliber.

However, it is important to keep things in perspective and realize that he hasn't been performing even in the subcontinent for a while now and in my opinion, no longer merits selection.

 

[Aalay]

Yes, Sehwag can't be in All time 11 but saying that he does not fit in top 25 openers of all time is insane. Out of the names you mentioned, how many of them were able to pass 300 mark 2 times in their career? How many of them scored 4 double centuries? He hasn't performed well in last 3 years or so but still has managed to keep his average around 49 which is excellent.

 

[Satan666]

I agree, have always hold Sehwag in high esteem, he is surely one of the best the game of cricket has seen, as Alay pointed out scoring two triple centuries is no easy feat. Sadly his form has been low of recent, lets see if he can turn things around in the next two tests, hopefully they'll let him play.

 

[War]

Technique is not dull. Technique is very important. It a proven fact throughout test history that only good batsmen with excellent/very good/good techniques have forged excellent careers vs good pace bowling attacks - especially openers. They are very few players that have defied this trend in 136 years of test cricket.

No team with batsmen full of Sehwag like techniques has ever won any test match or series in history, that is for certain.

For all those quick double hundreds Sehwag has scored & did all that you mentioned, he never once did it vs a quality bowling attack on a helpul pitch. All were on roads. Roy Fredericks superb hundred @ Perth in 1976 is the only instance in test history where an opener blasted quality pace bowling attack with such fury on a helpul pitch, that Sehwag played some on his big innings on roads.

This shows clearly how hard & nearly impossible for openers or batsmen in general to be so dominant vs good pace/general bowling attacks in difficult/testing batting conditions.

All of Sehwag's shot gun innings were on roads vs poor attacks. While inversely he has ignominy of having series vs good bowling units where he averaged sub 20 on many occasions. None of the great openers in test history have such a glaring black mark on their records.

This galling trend of his career shows him to nothing more than a FTB. Where were some of those innings in recent times when IND toured ENG, SA, AUS?

The fact that he scored such runs so dominantly more than other batsmen in the 2000s era, which was the worst era of quality fast-bowling & flat pitches since the 1900-1939 era, is not a reason to qualify him as great. That is theory seriously lacking sane cricket logic.

In the 90s for example you only had Lara, Tendulkar, Steve Waugh & Graham Gooch passing the benchmark average of 50 which separated the great batsmen from the rest. In the 2000s, Sehwag was among one of many batsmen (almost 20) who hit a purple patch whose average skyrocketed to & past 50.

Dominating bowlers in during the horror days 2000s era is nothing to write home about for any batsmen. Their records given the paucity of bowling talent they faced needs to taken with greatest pinch of salt & weighed in proper context. Especially when wants to consider them a great batsman in comparison to other batsmen of previous era's who faced top fast bowlers almost every series.

This where i feel batsmen like Mike Atherton & Ian Redpath & Colin McDonald would always be under-appreciated in modern times, but thats a debate for another time.

Considering all these factors & facts to consider Sehwag as an opener in a cricket All-time test XI & one of the greatest openers ever is venturing into the realms of the unhinged.

----------

You both make very good points and I'm not inclined to side either way. However, I will say that India probably hasn't had a game-changer like him, except perhaps Kapil Dev. Flat pitches or not, why were other batsmen not able to do the same as him? I accept that he is poor outside the subcontinent and that this is due to his poor technique. However, in the subcontinent, he has been virutally peerless, not in terms of the amount of runs he has scored, or his average, but how he has single-handedly, not shaped (e.g. Dravid, Zaheer, Tendulkar), but changed matches. For quite a few years, he was a counter-attacking batsman of the highest caliber.

However, it is important to keep things in perspective and realize that he hasn't been performing even in the subcontinent for a while now and in my opinion, no longer merits selection.

Sehwag career as a batsmen is very similar to Kumble as a bowler before the 2003/04 tour to Australia.

Kumble was a beast at home when India were invincible in the 90s, but away from home for more than a decade he was at best average.

In the last 4 years of his career after that AUS series, Kumble became equally good home & away and many then recognized him as a all-conditions spinner.

Sehwag has failed to make than transition as all-conditions batsmen, which a key pre-requisite to being considered a "great". Plus as you correctly said, he hasn't even been able to be dominant in the sub-continent even vs the good bowling teams either in recent years. The improvement in pace bowlers in recent years have even figured out how to keep quiet at home.

That is an area he should still be still be good at, but the fact that he hasn't is another indictment on his career, which is coming to the end of its tether.

 

[puddleduck]

I'm pretty sure most bowlers would have Sehwag in the all time XI too

I'd also rather have someone who churns out 100's everywhere, rather than gets big hundreds once a series when the pitch happens to be flat and he gets a bit of luck early on.

 

[varunvgiri]

All of Sehwag's shot gun innings were on roads vs poor attacks. While inversely he has ignominy of having series vs good bowling units where he averaged sub 20 on many occasions.


The fact that he scored such runs so dominantly more than other batsmen in the 2000s era, which was the worst era of quality fast-bowling & flat pitches since the 1900-1939 era, is not a reason to qualify him as great. That is theory seriously lacking sane cricket logic.


Dominating bowlers in during the horror days 2000s era is nothing to write home about for any batsmen. Their records given the paucity of bowling talent they faced needs to taken with greatest pinch of salt & weighed in proper context. Especially when wants to consider them a great batsman in comparison to other batsmen of previous era's who faced top fast bowlers almost every series.

The improvement in pace bowlers in recent years have even figured out how to keep quiet at home.

Well the fact that he broke the fastest triple hundred record while batting against Steyn, Morkel and Ntini and he had taken the attack to Brett Lee in his boxing day 195 is proof of the fact that he can play the best of fast bowling atleast on flat tracks.

Poor form and age can slow down the best of players. His inability to adjust his game with his slowing reflexes might be a problem. I would be surprised if he doesn't turn it around though.

 

[sifter132]

Found this gem on Cricinfo -

Brydon Coverdale on Twitter:
"Phil Hughes' last 39 balls against
spin this series: . . w . .
w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
w . . . . . . . . w"

Sums it up beautifully. I'm usually the guy who likes stability in selection, but you can't retain Hughes given his results and the way in which he's getting those results ie. looking terribly out of his depth, and having no idea how he's going to score a run vs spin. It's similar to the kind of thing that saw him dropped in 2009 Ashes, looking uncomfortable and showing technical danger signs, despite have scored a couple of centuries in the previous series vs SA. You have to trust your eyes as well as the stats.

I might even argue that David Warner could use a stint on the sidelines as well. His 50 in the 1st Test was incredibly lucky - he could have been out half a dozen times, and since then he's shown continuing poor footwork and indecisiveness.


I know India is still in front, but I had to laugh when I read on Cricinfo that it was clearly India's day. Aussies took 9/192, and made 2/74 in reply. How India 'won' day 3 is beyond me. India are still clearly ahead of course, and it's still a long road back for Aussies, but they did enough to stay in the game yesterday. They just need to bat for 4 more sessions, and they could be leading by 150-200 on the last day. Very easy to say, very difficult to do. But it only takes a couple of guys to stand up. That's all India have had this match.

 

[puddleduck]

On Sehwag. He's gone. He'll never score a run on a pitch that bounces above knee height again

But his career will continue for a few more years because there's plenty of pitches and attacks left where he might just smash a century or two to look like he's still important.

As for Phil Hughes... I think he's perfect for Australia, and should definitely open the batting in the Ashes. Can't play quality seam bowling, and apparently can't play quality spin either (we didn't know this, as our seamers had normally sent him packing long before the spinners had begun begging for some wickets).

 

[spooony]

Sums it up beautifully. I'm usually the guy who likes stability in selection, but you can't retain Hughes given his results and the way in which he's getting those results ie. looking terribly out of his depth, and having no idea how he's going to score a run vs spin. It's similar to the kind of thing that saw him dropped in 2009 Ashes, looking uncomfortable and showing technical danger signs, despite have scored a couple of centuries in the previous series vs SA. You have to trust your eyes as well as the stats.

I might even argue that David Warner could use a stint on the sidelines as well. His 50 in the 1st Test was incredibly lucky - he could have been out half a dozen times, and since then he's shown continuing poor footwork and indecisiveness.


I know India is still in front, but I had to laugh when I read on Cricinfo that it was clearly India's day. Aussies took 9/192, and made 2/74 in reply. How India 'won' day 3 is beyond me. India are still clearly ahead of course, and it's still a long road back for Aussies, but they did enough to stay in the game yesterday. They just need to bat for 4 more sessions, and they could be leading by 150-200 on the last day. Very easy to say, very difficult to do. But it only takes a couple of guys to stand up. That's all India have had this match.

Maybe the fact that India are 190 runs and the Aussies got only 8 wickets left?

 

[Satan666]

Sums it up beautifully. I'm usually the guy who likes stability in selection, but you can't retain Hughes given his results and the way in which he's getting those results ie. looking terribly out of his depth, and having no idea how he's going to score a run vs spin. It's similar to the kind of thing that saw him dropped in 2009 Ashes, looking uncomfortable and showing technical danger signs, despite have scored a couple of centuries in the previous series vs SA. You have to trust your eyes as well as the stats.

I might even argue that David Warner could use a stint on the sidelines as well. His 50 in the 1st Test was incredibly lucky - he could have been out half a dozen times, and since then he's shown continuing poor footwork and indecisiveness.


I know India is still in front, but I had to laugh when I read on Cricinfo that it was clearly India's day. Aussies took 9/192, and made 2/74 in reply. How India 'won' day 3 is beyond me. India are still clearly ahead of course, and it's still a long road back for Aussies, but they did enough to stay in the game yesterday. They just need to bat for 4 more sessions, and they could be leading by 150-200 on the last day. Very easy to say, very difficult to do. But it only takes a couple of guys to stand up. That's all India have had this match.

Are they real? Lolz!