Highlights for all those who missed it :
Limited Overs (ODI and T20) - Yuvraj & Dhoni stand inspire Indian win: 3rd ODI (Delhi) - Part ...
Limited Overs (ODI and T20) - Yuvraj & Dhoni stand inspire Indian win: 3rd ODI (Delhi) - Part ...
Before Highlander and Hmarka generalise, as they love to do, that is not how every Indian supporter feels.
Before Shravi starts to throw his toys out the pram as he loves to do...:sarcasm Give us a break pal, how many times do we have to say we know it's not every Indian supporter!
Before Shravi starts to throw his toys out the pram as he loves to do...:sarcasm Give us a break pal, how many times do we have to say we know it's not every Indian supporter!
Well on the bright side, Dhoni is due a failure now. I'd feel a lot better with someone like Haddin in the middle order.
Give up mate, you're too transparent.
Or maybe medium pace cutters would have been better. What was very good about India was that Dhoni didn't have to use 20 overs of pace. He didn't really get anything bad from his pace trio, but he wasn't forced to push his luck with anyone. The selected lineup suggested a strategy of 30 overs of pace, but they changed it on the fly effortlessly to more than 30 overs of spin. Ponting was much more restricted by his bowlers, although some of his pacemen probably did better. With Henriques, you feel something was always going to happen, but unless the wickets came early, his overs were going to be costly.Our bowlers did an alright job, Bollinger was excellent and Henriques was solid early on. But we are lacking the part time spinning options than India have and the batters to score quickly against them. Although I don't think the extra spinner would have done much difference given the amount of dew that was appearing on the ball in the 2nd innings.
Well on the bright side, Dhoni is due a failure now. I'd feel a lot better with someone like Haddin in the middle order.
Give up mate, you're too transparent.
Or maybe medium pace cutters would have been better. What was very good about India was that Dhoni didn't have to use 20 overs of pace. He didn't really get anything bad from his pace trio, but he wasn't forced to push his luck with anyone. The selected lineup suggested a strategy of 30 overs of pace, but they changed it on the fly effortlessly to more than 30 overs of spin. Ponting was much more restricted by his bowlers, although some of his pacemen probably did better. With Henriques, you feel something was always going to happen, but unless the wickets came early, his overs were going to be costly.
The funny thing is that only six players batted for either team; Australia definitely could have had an extra bowler.
I think he was noting the financial value of this series to Cricket Australia compared to The Ashes. And he's right, unfortunately. A bilateral ODI series with India probably brings in more money from TV revenues in India than the Ashes worldwide. This has nothing to do with the tradition aspect of the puzzle, but cold hard economics. Any moral-agnostic cricket board would happily arrange monstrously long series' with India to get a slice of pie from the BCCI.@Params Lets see how many people turn up to watch Test matches between India and Australia, and compare it to the "little rivalry in the cricket world" we call the Ashes.
Give me a break, I know you are a stubborn and staunchly subjective India supporter, but to compare the Ashes to another over scheduled 7 game ODI series is ludicrous.
You ask any Aussie here. What would they much rather win. The Ashes or vs India. I can guarantee, nearly all of them will say the Ashes.
The funny thing is that only six players batted for either team; Australia definitely could have had an extra bowler.