Australian Tour of India, October 2010/11

[War]

Lee did play at Bangalore, Mohali and Delhi in 2008. He only missed the final test. I don`t know what you are going on and on about. Johnson played the entire series. Clark only missed one test match as well.
EDIT: Lee played all 4 tests in that series.

Clearly you are misinformed sir.

Lee played that entire series vs India injured & slightly undecooked. He said so himself

Plus before that India tour. Lee also had the ignominity of having his personal issues exposed to the public. So Lee clearly went into the series in India not in the perfect state of mind, which cannot be taken for granted. Since the Lee that was bowling vs India in AUS, 6 months before the IND tour. Clearly wasn't the same during that Indian tour.

Stuart Clark played only 2 tests FYI. He got injured after the 1st test & his pace (that made his such a potent force for Aus between SA 2005/06 - WI 08) was clearly lacking when he eventually retured for the 3rd test.

. Which didn't help an also inexperienced paced attack with an raw Johnson - deubutanted Siddle & Krejza & the joke selection of White as the main spinner. Clark paced continued to drop off after that Indian tour & he career

Also again. How can you people compared Mitchell Johnson's bowling in that 2008 series to the bowler he is now??. It is clearly obvious that Johnson during that series was still very much finding his way as a test bowler.

Johnson did not become a test quality bowler until the 2008/09 series vs South Africa. The Johnson that will tour India this year is FARRRR more accomplished test bowler currently, than his 2008 inexperienced self. Debating this unfortunately would show a lack of understanding of Johnson's test career to date.

If you want to bring up excuses like that , India were without Zaheer in Australia last time. Even then we beat you guys comprehensively at Perth against an Aussie quartet. Zaheer was arguably the best seam/pace bowler around at that time.

:laugh

No sir. Nothing I just articulated to you above about the circumstances of the AUS attack during that 2008 series. Is all FACTS - no excuses whatsoever.

Plus whats your point about Zaheer missing test during the 07/08 AUS tour??. Even if he played all tests during that series - he even at his best aint no Glenn McGrath, Hadlee, Lillee, Marshall as a semaer. He wouldn't have made the difference to outcome of that series whatsoever. So get over it, AUS totally dominated that series expect for that Perth test.


But overall lets be clear. Im not saying if AUS had a fully fit Lee/Clark during that 2008 series that they would have won. Definately not.

I wasn't on this planetcricket website then of course. But i personally at the time defiantely expected AUS to lose that series. Since i didn't see how AUS where going to take 20 wickets consistently in IND conditions even if Lee/Clark where @ 100%. Since the back-up options to them at the time was woefully inexperienced.

 

[SciD]

Plus whats your point about Zaheer missing test during the 07/08 AUS tour??. Even if he played all tests during that series - he even at his best aint no Glenn McGrath, Hadlee, Lillee, Marshall as a semaer. He wouldn't have made the difference to outcome of that series whatsoever. So get over it, AUS totally dominated that series expect for that Perth test.

You mean that MJ and company is at par with these bowlers and will dominate Indian test batting side?

 

[aditya123]

If 2-0 was`nt a convincing enough scoreline, Australia lost by 350-odd runs at Mohali, on a pitch which was perfectly acceptable. The Indian seamers bowled well there. Although Zaheer might not be a McGrath, he clearly is a good test bowler. His figures may not show that but he is an effective test match bowler. Zaheer was as prolific in the tests in England as any of the Aussies were in England last year. Australia lost at Nagpur by 170+ runs, again not a small margin and never came close to winning in that test except for a brief period where they got a few wickets on Day 4 but India still had a lead of 250-odd when that happened. India had only lost 4 wickets at Bangalore when the game ended, not as if we held on to it by the skin of our teeth.

 

[rocky_g]

If 2-0 was`nt a convincing enough scoreline, Australia lost by 350-odd runs at Mohali, on a pitch which was perfectly acceptable. The Indian seamers bowled well there. Although Zaheer might not be a McGrath, he clearly is a good test bowler. His figures may not show that but he is an effective test match bowler. Zaheer was as prolific in the tests in England as any of the Aussies were in England last year. Australia lost at Nagpur by 170+ runs, again not a small margin and never came close to winning in that test except for a brief period where they got a few wickets on Day 4 but India still had a lead of 250-odd when that happened. India had only lost 4 wickets at Bangalore when the game ended, not as if we held on to it by the skin of our teeth.

Sorry dude Australia were not at their full strength.

 

[War]

If 2-0 was`nt a convincing enough scoreline, Australia lost by 350-odd runs at Mohali, on a pitch which was perfectly acceptable. The Indian seamers bowled well there. Although Zaheer might not be a McGrath, he clearly is a good test bowler. His figures may not show that but he is an effective test match bowler. Zaheer was as prolific in the tests in England as any of the Aussies were in England last year. Australia lost at Nagpur by 170+ runs, again not a small margin and never came close to winning in that test except for a brief period where they got a few wickets on Day 4 but India still had a lead of 250-odd when that happened. India had only lost 4 wickets at Bangalore when the game ended, not as if we held on to it by the skin of our teeth.

Am i'm not sure what point you are trying to make her sir. As i just said:

But overall lets be clear. Im not saying if AUS had a fully fit Lee/Clark during that 2008 series that they would have won. Definately not.

I wasn't on this planetcricket website then of course. But i personally at the time defiantely expected AUS to lose that series. Since i didn't see how AUS where going to take 20 wickets consistently in IND conditions even if Lee/Clark where @ 100%. Since the back-up options to them at the time was woefully inexperienced.

So you dont need to summarize that series to me. I know what happened. All i'm saying is that AUS attack was clearly under-strenght & that needs not to be forgotten. Since posters on previous pages seem to be forgetting that when speaking about that series.

Winning in India has always been hard since India became a force @ home in the 90s. Much weaker Indian teams than the ones that where present in 2008, where able to beat strong opposition sides in the 90s.

To win in India since India became a force @ home in the 90s. You have to have all bases covered as the AUS 2004, Windies 1983/84, South Africa 2000 showed.

- A strong pace attack - since pace pace is what wins in India. The role of the opposition spinner is the lend support to that pace attack, mainly.

- A batting line-up where the entire top-7 is very good players/solid players of spin. Since as its been proving many times, even if the opposition finds a pace attack capable of owning the Indian batting line-up. The opposition can still lose or draw to India if their batting line-up is weak againts spin. As was the case with the Saffies in 2008 & 2010, England 2005/06, Pakistan 98/99, AUS 2001.

AUS in 2008 just had a batting-lineup capable of winning handling the Indian spinners. (Although the reverse-swing of Khan/Sharma was the difference in that series). They certainly didn't have a strong bowling attack like the one they won from their 2004 win. They where very much in transition mode in the post McGrath/Warne era. Australia have only began to catch themselves when they won in South Africa 2009.

India's win in 2008 againts an AUS team in transition can't compare to their2001 & 1998 wins when AUS toured.

Sorry dude Australia were not at their full strength.

Lame sarcasm. Answer me this then sir. If AUS had won in India 2004 & Kumble/Harbhajan where injured & had not played in that series. Would you have rated AUS win highly?

 

[mattfb]

Indeed. This time it'll be a far improved and hopefully fit pace attack, and while Hilfenhaus and Harris may struggle due to a lack of swing Johnson, Bollinger and Siddle can all be genuine flat wicket bowlers, and are far better than last time.

Never know with Johnson... Could get absolutely caned.

 

[rocky_g]

Am i'm not sure what point you are trying to make her sir. As i just said:



So you dont need to summarize that series to me. I know what happened. All i'm saying is that AUS attack was clearly under-strenght & that needs not to be forgotten. Since posters on previous pages seem to be forgetting that when speaking about that series.

Winning in India has always been hard since India became a force @ home in the 90s. Much weaker Indian teams than the ones that where present in 2008, where able to beat strong opposition sides in the 90s.

To win in India since India became a force @ home in the 90s. You have to have all bases covered as the AUS 2004, Windies 1983/84, South Africa 2000 showed.

- A strong pace attack - since pace pace is what wins in India. The role of the opposition spinner is the lend support to that pace attack, mainly.

- A batting line-up where the entire top-7 is very good players/solid players of spin. Since as its been proving many times, even if the opposition finds a pace attack capable of owning the Indian batting line-up. The opposition can still lose or draw to India if their batting line-up is weak againts spin. As was the case with the Saffies in 2008 & 2010, England 2005/06, Pakistan 98/99, AUS 2001.

AUS in 2008 just had a batting-lineup capable of winning handling the Indian spinners. (Although the reverse-swing of Khan/Sharma was the difference in that series). They certainly didn't have a strong bowling attack like the one they won from their 2004 win. They where very much in transition mode in the post McGrath/Warne era. Australia have only began to catch themselves when they won in South Africa 2009.

India's win in 2008 againts an AUS team in transition can't compare to their2001 & 1998 wins when AUS toured.





Lame sarcasm. Answer me this then sir. If AUS had won in India 2004 & Kumble/Harbhajan where injured & had not played in that series. Would you have rated AUS win highly?

Lame? Thats what you guys were saying isn't it? Go read all your posts again. I find your posts lame. So i don't bother arguing with you. :laugh

 

[War]

Lame? Thats what you guys were saying isn't it? Go read all your posts again. I find your posts lame. So i don't bother arguing with you. :laugh

HA.

 

[P Squared]

@ War-Australia lost in 2008 because they didnt play well. No need to make excuses. If we could make excuses then I would say that India didnt play well in Australia in 2007/08 because our main bowler Zaheer Khan was injured, Ishant Sharma was very much raw since he made his debut in that series. Only Harbhajan Singh was the good bowler we had. If you want more excuses then here's another - Steve Bucknor either had no eyes under those sunglasses in that series or else he was indulging in match fixing. So stop cribbing about the Australian pace attack of 2008.

 

[War]

@ War[/B]-Australia lost in 2008 because they didnt play well. No need to make excuses. If we could make excuses then I would say that India didnt play well in Australia in 2007/08 because our main bowler Zaheer Khan was injured, Ishant Sharma was very much raw since he made his debut in that series. Only Harbhajan Singh was the good bowler we had. If you want more excuses then here's another - Steve Bucknor either had no eyes under those sunglasses in that series or else he was indulging in match fixing. So stop cribbing about the Australian pace attack of 2008.

:laugh. Oh dear another poster who cant read. It seems like some of you dont know the difference between the difference between the word "FACT" & "EXCUSE". Dear GOD..

What is a Fact?.

Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true.

I.e McGrath is the leading wicket-taker of all-time for any fast-bowler in test cricket.

What is a Excuse?

To apologize, defend, explain, clear away, or make excuses for by reasoning.

As i said before. But this it seems like i have to type if bigger:

But overall lets be clear. Im not saying if AUS had a fully fit Lee/Clark during that 2008 series that they would have won. Definately not.

I wasn't on this planetcricket website then of course. But i personally at the time defiantely expected AUS to lose that series. Since i didn't see how AUS where going to take 20 wickets consistently in IND conditions even if Lee/Clark where @ 100%. Since the back-up options to them at the time was woefully inexperienced.

Do you understand this???.

If you 100% understand the definitions of what the difference between a "Fact" & "Excuses". Please tell me how anything i said below is nothing other than FACTS about the circumstances about the AUS attack during the 2008 series:

Lee played that entire series vs India injured & slightly undecooked. He said so himself.

Plus before that India tour. Lee also had the ignominity of having his personal issues exposed to the public. So Lee clearly went into the series in India not in the perfect state of mind, which cannot be taken for granted. Since the Lee that was bowling vs India in AUS, 6 months before the IND tour. Clearly wasn't the same during that Indian tour.

Stuart Clark played only 2 tests FYI. He got injured after the 1st test & his pace (that made his such a potent force for Aus between SA 2005/06 - WI 08) was clearly lacking when he eventually retured for the 3rd test.

. Which didn't help an also inexperienced paced attack with an raw Johnson - deubutanted Siddle & Krejza & the joke selection of White as the main spinner. Clark paced continued to drop off after that Indian tour & he career

Also again. How can you people compared Mitchell Johnson's bowling in that 2008 series to the bowler he is now??. It is clearly obvious that Johnson during that series was still very much finding his way as a test bowler.

Johnson did not become a test quality bowler until the 2008/09 series vs South Africa. The Johnson that will tour India this year is FARRRR more accomplished test bowler currently, than his 2008 inexperienced self. Debating this unfortunately would show a lack of understanding of Johnson's test career to date.

Also what you said about Khan doesn't make sense. India bowling attack for years outside the sub-continent has always been poor due to the lack of proper fast-bowlers. So a fit Khan is 2007/08 certainly wouldn't have made a difference to the outcome of that series.

Plus how can you saw Harbhajan was the only good bowler in that 2008??. Kumble was the best Indian bowler during that series.

Umpiring errors regardless of how shocking they are a part of cricket. Players can do nothing about that, they just have to accept it & move on.

You cannot compare the effect of umpiring erros on a series/match. To the effect teams losing key players during a series via injury etc.

 

[P Squared]

Lame ol' excuses. Nothing more to say. You're saying that Australia are full strength now,aren't you? Well then let's see who beats who in this series.

 

[Robelinda]

There's just no chance for Australia to win in India, now or even in the next few years. Much like India's best chance of winning in Aus was with Warne and McGrath missing in the past, so will Australia's best chance be when Sachin and Harby are missing or retired. Having said that, i'm more confident that previous tours to India where the threat of Kumble and Harby in mental spinning conditions was huge, at least this time there seems to be a weakness in the bowling that we just might take advantage of, which makes me think even more the wickets will be underprepared and dusty.

 

[War]

Lame ol' excuses. Nothing more to say. You're saying that Australia are full strength now,aren't you? Well then let's who beats who in this series.

:laugh. Its funny how Indian fans can say after you quoted me & i've taken the time to rebut your posts - is to say the SAME THING - i'm making "lame excuses". None of you even attempted to reply, What ignorance is this?? :doh.

 

[P Squared]

I said

Lame ol' excuses. Nothing more to say. You're saying that Australia are full strength now,aren't you? Well then let's see who beats who in this series.

and those were lame excuses.

 

[AkshayS]

As for the upcoming series, I can say India have the upper hand with their batting powerhouse and their performance in past 15 tests.

Let's see what Ishant will be like against Ponting.:sarcasm