i agree totally on tendulkar. if he didnt have a bad elbow you may have gotten alot closer. but the fact of the matter is i just dont buy into the fact that the 11 guys that took the field didnt try. ganguly has always done very little but they cant find a captain that can do a good enough job. dravid would be the closest i would have thought. but the aussies planned so well before they went over that the had figured every one of the guys in what could be the strongest batting lineup in the world out. but the way they bowled at them gave them nothing. dravid looked as though he had no defence and laxman looked nothing like he has. if australia lost to zimbabwe or bangladesh now they would hang their heads in shame to, and it could just be the death of cricket in australia lol. but while you reckon that the indians didnt try credit must be paid to the likes of martyn gilchrist and wonder boy clarke. as for beating south africa, i think what england did to south africa in their own country sums up the state of south african cricket, and the fact that its in a decline. as for TRYING and BEATING pakistan, i dont know if you saw the results from pakistans last tour out here but from what we all saw, their not much chop at all. they play alot better without shoab who looks as though he brings the whole team down to his level.
Winning a series doesn,t mean australia are a better test team than india
- Thread starter theman
- Start date
indiancricketer
International Coach
MWaugh you make some good points your a good person to argue a topic with lolz
T20
Panel of Selectors
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
on the last series? I think India were not at their best for one and we will never know which way the series would have gone if they were at top of their game like in Australia. Having said that, full marks to Australia for the way they played and for me even more for the way they prepared (I guess that's the crucial difference between other teams and them?) and in the end the better team won :cool:
indiancricketer said:MWaugh you make some good points your a good person to argue a topic with lolz
thanks indian cricketer, same to you. i always enjoy trading bits of information. and arguing is always fun hahaha. if you have any other issues relating to the indian australian cricketing circle id be glad to discuss. haha
Shailesh said:
i think that is probably the major difference between them and some of the other nations. if you look at how much they were looking forward to that tour it probably is shown in the results. they had been preparing for that match i would guess from the moment the last test against india in sydney finished. however the entire series and the results is proof of the importance of tendulkar to indian cricket
indiancricketer
International Coach
MWaugh said:thanks indian cricketer, same to you. i always enjoy trading bits of information. and arguing is always fun hahaha. if you have any other issues relating to the indian australian cricketing circle id be glad to discuss. haha
WHy stop there we can argue about other stuff to enojy it 2 mWaugh do you have msn i could add you and we can talk from there
sachinisgod
International Cricketer
most probably they were preparing for this one since the time they lost the 2001 series...and perhaps the experienced gained over so many years(and defeats) culminated in this victory... Indian teams' abysmal form coincided... but it will remain a big "What if" question - what if Tendulkar had been 100% fit and Laxman and Dravid in half the form they had been in previous two series? or for that matter what if monsoon in Chennai had set in 8 hrs later?MWaugh said:
sachinisgod said:
i think cricket is built on what ifs, what if alan donald didnt run like a headless chicken in the 99 world cup. while i agree with your point regarding sachin being in the team for the entire series i have opposing views regarding dravid and laxman. im not totally convinced that it was just a lack of form. it appeared as though the pair had been worked out by the bowlers. i have a bit of a left field thought but what if stuart macgill played? the 2nd test was a little bit of a green top but it would have definatly given greater stregth to an allready strong bowling attack. what if warne played in the final test on the cowpaddock? in the end we can always ask what if, i would put it down to both perfect planning and good timing by the world champions, i think the former is what makes them world champs in the first place though
as for your comment angry angry, im not excactly sure what that has to do with the test tour to india, but we won anyhoo
squiz
International Coach
*Gives MWaugh some rep*
I agree 100% with that post. There is a lot of luck involved in cricket, but saying that, Australia are still the best team in the world and it has come from perfect planning, skillful players, and also a fair bit of luck to add to that.
I agree 100% with that post. There is a lot of luck involved in cricket, but saying that, Australia are still the best team in the world and it has come from perfect planning, skillful players, and also a fair bit of luck to add to that.
sohum
Executive member
The re-surfacing of this topic is really hilarious because things that have already been discussed are being re-discussed. Oh well, whatever for the benefit of the new members, I guess. I have already stated my opinion on the pitch, the teams, etc. and don't feel like making them again. Though I just might.
However, I believe that even if Shane Warne was to play on the 'cow paddock' as you call it, he would not have made much of a difference. Shane Warne has a ghastly record against India--he may play well against other teams but India is one nut that he hasn't been able to crack. He only got his first five-wicket haul against them (or some similar feat) this series and that in itself should tell you something. This has not got to do with India's fast-bowling weakness only, unless Aussie strategy is stupid enough to bowl with only fast-bowlers in India's HOT and SPIN-FRIENDLY pitches. Aussie cricketers are not dumb--Shane Warne just doesn't trouble Indian batsmen like he does others.
As for Michael Clarke--the pitch definitely helped him. But as I have said elsewhere on this forum, it is possible that he was just in the zone for that game. And the complacency of the batsmen of playing a relatively unknown bowler did contribute the wickets falling. Besides, Clarke also picked up 4 wickets in an India vs Australia ODI match in Mumbai the previous year, so this could also be one of his 'happier' grounds.
Anyhow... credit is definitely given to Australia for pulling off the series victory in India. I think had the series been 1-1 or even 2-1 to India going into the Mumbai match, Australia would have been able to pull off a victory in Mumbai. Mentally, the Aussies had relaxed because their whole purpose (and their meticulous planning--for decades) had finally paid off--the Final Frontier had been conquered. Despite however much they would have tried to pep themselves up, when you do something without anything to gain, you do not put in as much into it.
That's all for now.
However, I believe that even if Shane Warne was to play on the 'cow paddock' as you call it, he would not have made much of a difference. Shane Warne has a ghastly record against India--he may play well against other teams but India is one nut that he hasn't been able to crack. He only got his first five-wicket haul against them (or some similar feat) this series and that in itself should tell you something. This has not got to do with India's fast-bowling weakness only, unless Aussie strategy is stupid enough to bowl with only fast-bowlers in India's HOT and SPIN-FRIENDLY pitches. Aussie cricketers are not dumb--Shane Warne just doesn't trouble Indian batsmen like he does others.
As for Michael Clarke--the pitch definitely helped him. But as I have said elsewhere on this forum, it is possible that he was just in the zone for that game. And the complacency of the batsmen of playing a relatively unknown bowler did contribute the wickets falling. Besides, Clarke also picked up 4 wickets in an India vs Australia ODI match in Mumbai the previous year, so this could also be one of his 'happier' grounds.
Anyhow... credit is definitely given to Australia for pulling off the series victory in India. I think had the series been 1-1 or even 2-1 to India going into the Mumbai match, Australia would have been able to pull off a victory in Mumbai. Mentally, the Aussies had relaxed because their whole purpose (and their meticulous planning--for decades) had finally paid off--the Final Frontier had been conquered. Despite however much they would have tried to pep themselves up, when you do something without anything to gain, you do not put in as much into it.
That's all for now.
