Australia tour of South Africa 2018

[master110]

Aus can't win with two players banned this is the end for AUS.

 

[ShamiLoverGlipGlops]

Many wont agree to this but the Indian series and Indian bowling lineup was much better to Aussies bowling lineup. I can agree that Aussies got hit in the final test with two of their best not playing but Aussies played with a strong side throughout. Indian bowlers ran through the batsman, the pitches were a little better for Aussies too.

 

[hammadahmed88]

Many wont agree to this but the Indian series and Indian bowling lineup was much better to Aussies bowling lineup. I can agree that Aussies got hit in the final test with two of their best not playing but Aussies played with a strong side throughout. Indian bowlers ran through the batsman, the pitches were a little better for Aussies too.

Yes, I believe you're right. Not many would agree, including myself. Don't get me wrong India definitely had better spin options. But as a unit there is no way I can concur that India's bowling was better. India do not have the pacers of Starc and Hazelwood's quality, let alone what Cummings has produced lately. I can't think of many cricket watchers who'd pick the Indian attack as a whole over the Aussies.

 

[ShamiLoverGlipGlops]

Yes, I believe you're right. Not many would agree, including myself. Don't get me wrong India definitely had better spin options. But as a unit there is no way I can concur that India's bowling was better. India do not have the pacers of Starc and Hazelwood's quality, let alone what Cummings has produced lately. I can't think of many cricket watchers who'd pick the Indian attack as a whole over the Aussies.

I am not sure if you watched the India series so here are some factual stats to prove what I was saying

Indian Bowlers

Overs bowled - 459 overs and 1 ball
Wickets taken - 57 (60)
Average - 27.68

Australian Bowlers

Overs bowled - 738 overs and 1 ball
Wickets taken - 68 (80)
Average - 42.15

So Indian bowlers were able to take 57 wickets out of 60 in 3 test matches and the average average of Indian bowlers was 27.68 versus 68 wickets out of 80 by so called better bowling attack with an average of 42.15. Starc who went in with all hype took just 12 wickets in 4 test matches. Cummins was the only bowler who shined as other "best bowlers" averaged 35+.

So for a change there is no harm in admitting Indian bowling was good and better. Also people tend to overhype players but Shami and Kumar are as good as Hazelwood if not better. Starc might just edge them both but Aussies do not have such a "world class" bowling either. Probably they can scare the English out of their own home turf but who does not now a days? A Lion is always dangerous in its own home, come to another jungle and your are a cat.[DOUBLEPOST=1522781044][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh btw, South Africa took 77 out of 80 Australian wickets so no it was not only a batting paradise just before someone finds a way or reason

 

[ShamiLoverGlipGlops]

India definitely had better spin options.

Oh btw, Indian spinner (Ashwin) took only 7 out of those 57 wickets whereas the better fast bowling unit of Australia had their spinner take 16 wickets out of 68. Which when you do the math, only 42 wickets were taken by better pacers . India had 50 wickets taken in 1 fewer test by pacers

 

[Jalen]

I am not sure if you watched the India series so here are some factual stats to prove what I was saying

Indian Bowlers

Overs bowled - 459 overs and 1 ball
Wickets taken - 57 (60)
Average - 27.68

Australian Bowlers

Overs bowled - 738 overs and 1 ball
Wickets taken - 68 (80)
Average - 42.15

So Indian bowlers were able to take 57 wickets out of 60 in 3 test matches and the average average of Indian bowlers was 27.68 versus 68 wickets out of 80 by so called better bowling attack with an average of 42.15. Starc who went in with all hype took just 12 wickets in 4 test matches. Cummins was the only bowler who shined as other "best bowlers" averaged 35+.

So for a change there is no harm in admitting Indian bowling was good and better. Also people tend to overhype players but Shami and Kumar are as good as Hazelwood if not better. Starc might just edge them both but Aussies do not have such a "world class" bowling either. Probably they can scare the English out of their own home turf but who does not now a days? A Lion is always dangerous in its own home, come to another jungle and your are a cat.[DOUBLEPOST=1522781044][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh btw, South Africa took 77 out of 80 Australian wickets so no it was not only a batting paradise just before someone finds a way or reason

No possible way shami and bhuvi are better than hazlewood. Hazlewood is extremely underrated and is probably the best of the 3 of them on a good day. The pitches in the India series were also more bowling friendly. Starc Hazlewood Lyon and Cummins hands down is the best bowling attack. I'd go with SA for 2nd with Philander Rabada Maharaj and Steyn

 

[Satan666]

Many wont agree to this but the Indian series and Indian bowling lineup was much better to Aussies bowling lineup. I can agree that Aussies got hit in the final test with two of their best not playing but Aussies played with a strong side throughout. Indian bowlers ran through the batsman, the pitches were a little better for Aussies too.

Think it comes down to the India performing better as a complete bowling unit. They executed better than the Aussies and pose more problems for the SA batsmen.

 

[Satan666]

No possible way shami and bhuvi are better than hazlewood. Hazlewood is extremely underrated and is probably the best of the 3 of them on a good day. The pitches in the India series were also more bowling friendly. Starc Hazlewood Lyon and Cummins hands down is the best bowling attack. I'd go with SA for 2nd with Philander Rabada Maharaj and Steyn

Hazlewood was very unlucky in this series, bowled amazingly well but just couldnt pluck more wickets.

I’d give SA the edge on the better bowling lineup though.

 

[Satan666]

I am not sure if you watched the India series so here are some factual stats to prove what I was saying

Indian Bowlers

Overs bowled - 459 overs and 1 ball
Wickets taken - 57 (60)
Average - 27.68

Australian Bowlers

Overs bowled - 738 overs and 1 ball
Wickets taken - 68 (80)
Average - 42.15

So Indian bowlers were able to take 57 wickets out of 60 in 3 test matches and the average average of Indian bowlers was 27.68 versus 68 wickets out of 80 by so called better bowling attack with an average of 42.15. Starc who went in with all hype took just 12 wickets in 4 test matches. Cummins was the only bowler who shined as other "best bowlers" averaged 35+.

So for a change there is no harm in admitting Indian bowling was good and better. Also people tend to overhype players but Shami and Kumar are as good as Hazelwood if not better. Starc might just edge them both but Aussies do not have such a "world class" bowling either. Probably they can scare the English out of their own home turf but who does not now a days? A Lion is always dangerous in its own home, come to another jungle and your are a cat.[DOUBLEPOST=1522781044][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh btw, South Africa took 77 out of 80 Australian wickets so no it was not only a batting paradise just before someone finds a way or reason

I dont rate Starc as much but Cummins if he can add on a little more pace consistently could prove to be the best bowler of this generation.

 

[Bigby Wolf]

Many wont agree to this but the Indian series and Indian bowling lineup was much better to Aussies bowling lineup. I can agree that Aussies got hit in the final test with two of their best not playing but Aussies played with a strong side throughout. Indian bowlers ran through the batsman, the pitches were a little better for Aussies too.

I disagree with this solely because the pitches were more bowler friendly when India played South Africa only the Centurion was a bit dry and perhaps the best batting wicket in the whole series

 

[Velocity]

Many wont agree to this but the Indian series and Indian bowling lineup was much better to Aussies bowling lineup. I can agree that Aussies got hit in the final test with two of their best not playing but Aussies played with a strong side throughout. Indian bowlers ran through the batsman, the pitches were a little better for Aussies too.

Felt like the pitches were spicier in the Indian series. Even if you take the Wanderers where it was just crazy, all those pitches were tough to play on as batsman. In this Aus series, it looks like a couple of good batting tracks were made for this series. The Aussie's cashed on it in the first few tests, but they've just batted badly. In this fourth test, it's clear that some players didn't get enough exposure the conditions (Burns, Renshaw, Handscomb).

The Aussies bowled decently, just like the Indians and I think they are quite equal in terms of how they did in SA. After the heat and controversy over pitches in the India series, I think it was just difficult to take wickets in the Aus as these tracks had a lot for batsmen as well. The Indians bowled well, but just like the Aussies had to work hard to get wickets. More importantly, we kept ABD quiet which proved the difference in performance.

 

[Jalen]

Felt like the pitches were spicier in the Indian series. Even if you take the Wanderers where it was just crazy, all those pitches were tough to play on as batsman. In this Aus series, it looks like a couple of good batting tracks were made for this series. The Aussie's cashed on it in the first few tests, but they've just batted badly. In this fourth test, it's clear that some players didn't get enough exposure the conditions (Burns, Renshaw, Handscomb).

The Aussies bowled decently, just like the Indians and I think they are quite equal in terms of how they did in SA. After the heat and controversy over pitches in the India series, I think it was just difficult to take wickets in the Aus as these tracks had a lot for batsmen as well. The Indians bowled well, but just like the Aussies had to work hard to get wickets. More importantly, we kept ABD quiet which proved the difference in performance.

all 3 of them are good players. They didn't get use to the conditions, Prior to the ashes Handscomb was averaging 50 and was in superb form. If he didn't bat as deep in his crease and doesn't place as much front foot to pacers. I really want to see Handscomb and Renshaw playing when smith and Warner come back. Though Shaun Marsh did well in the ashes, it's time to let him go aswell as khawaja. They're both too inconsistent and the younger players should be given a chance. Handscomb and Renshaw are great talents and hope to see them in the squad for years to come. I'd back Renshaw and Warner to open, Bancroft at 3, Smith at 4, Handscomb at 5, Mitch marsh 6, don't know how much longer Paine has in the team then cummins turning into a fine allrounder and showed so much fight along with starc hazlewood and Lyon rapping up the tail. I'd also like to see Pattinson make a comeback and Australia allow him to join the 3 paceman. MMarsh might have to be dropped, keeper bats at 6 cummins 7 and so on.

 

[hammadahmed88]

I am not sure if you watched the India series so here are some factual stats to prove what I was saying

Indian Bowlers

Overs bowled - 459 overs and 1 ball
Wickets taken - 57 (60)
Average - 27.68

Australian Bowlers

Overs bowled - 738 overs and 1 ball
Wickets taken - 68 (80)
Average - 42.15

So Indian bowlers were able to take 57 wickets out of 60 in 3 test matches and the average average of Indian bowlers was 27.68 versus 68 wickets out of 80 by so called better bowling attack with an average of 42.15. Starc who went in with all hype took just 12 wickets in 4 test matches. Cummins was the only bowler who shined as other "best bowlers" averaged 35+.

So for a change there is no harm in admitting Indian bowling was good and better. Also people tend to overhype players but Shami and Kumar are as good as Hazelwood if not better. Starc might just edge them both but Aussies do not have such a "world class" bowling either. Probably they can scare the English out of their own home turf but who does not now a days? A Lion is always dangerous in its own home, come to another jungle and your are a cat.[DOUBLEPOST=1522781044][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh btw, South Africa took 77 out of 80 Australian wickets so no it was not only a batting paradise just before someone finds a way or reason

It's very easy to throw numbers around without considering any of the variables. Cricket is complex that way as has already been mentioned by some here. But, if you truly believe that Shami and Kumar is a better duo than Starc and Hazelwood than you're entitled to that opinion. I personally think that is ridiculous and I'll leave it up to people here to make up their own minds.

 

[Yash.]

IPL Window is in ICC's FTP. So they actually can't.

That is from 2019 I think.

 

[Yash.]

Hazlewood is extremely underrated and is probably the best of the 3 of them on a good day

Shami, yes. But, Kumar, no hell no.

Bhuvi is one of the best bowlers currently going around, based on the sole fact that he is the most consistent performer across all formats.