Can australian batsman really play spin?

[sachinisgod]

Again, I beg to differ abt Clarke getting his 6 wickets, well on the brute of the pitch it was, the Indian top order which was so shaky as the Bhuj earthquake before the second innings - scored 196 runs(extras included) it was the latter 6( a debutant included) that Clarke took in and he used his head(he has got loads of it)...u cannot compare the latter 6 with the top 5...agreed he got Dravid but not before he took the game away from Aussies...Aussies have some serious difficulty in playing quality spin(though i think English are more troubled)...Indians have the same problem in green conditions...but in both cases the problem(or the characteristic) arises in the first class pitches...

 

[angryangy]

I pretty much agree with Sachinisgod, taking the Mumbai test as an example of Australia being bad against spin is a weak issue. Sure Australia utterly collapsed in the final innings but on a whole we all realise that the conditions were ridiculously tough on both teams' batsmen.

Chennai is a much better example, where the Aussie middle order collapsed for barely anything. However, in their second innings, they rallied and produced a total much closer to India's innings (with Patel's help of course ).

What I am pointing out is that even though a high quality spin attack might be considered the kind which Australia struggles most against, I wouldn't consider it an achilles' heel, as the question "can australian batsmen really play spin?" implies. The Aussie team can score runs, make hundreds and win matches batting against spin bowling on spinning wickets so I believe the answer to the question is yes, they can. The statement "they can't play quality spin" is completely arbitrary. If India's spinners are defined as "quality" then can we decide that "no team in the world can play quality pace" because Australia's pace attack is of such high quality? Fair enough that India's spinners are among the best in the world, but that statement is as meaningful as simply saying "batsmen struggle against quality bowling."

 

[Will p]

i think you are being quite harsh on australia, after all , they do win!!! im not aussie but i respect them and think they are capable of playing spin, but when the ashes come, COME ON GILO!!

 

[sohum]

That is the point of having tours to different countries. Conditions vary. If you went everywhere and found the same batsmen-friendly hard track, then what is the fun in cricket? India is expected to have spinning tracks, as is Sri Lanka and possibly Bangladesh. Pakistan have a good seam attack and they should stick to probably green-tops, with the odd-spinning pitch.

The Aussies would be dumb to prepare spinning tracks in Australia because then they would lose every series to a subcontinent team. Thus they prepare green tops or whatever. Everyone accepts this, but some people seem to think that these Australian pitches are the 'standard'. There is no standard. If there is a standard, you might as well play all the games in some neutral venue like Sharjah and just prepare the standard pitches. Everyone can come and cheer and whatever.

 

[angryangy]

That is the point of having tours to different countries. Conditions vary. If you went everywhere and found the same batsmen-friendly hard track, then what is the fun in cricket? India is expected to have spinning tracks, as is Sri Lanka and possibly Bangladesh. Pakistan have a good seam attack and they should stick to probably green-tops, with the odd-spinning pitch.

The Aussies would be dumb to prepare spinning tracks in Australia because then they would lose every series to a subcontinent team. Thus they prepare green tops or whatever. Everyone accepts this, but some people seem to think that these Australian pitches are the 'standard'. There is no standard. If there is a standard, you might as well play all the games in some neutral venue like Sharjah and just prepare the standard pitches. Everyone can come and cheer and whatever.

I think English pitches are the standard. That is what makes sense. Australian pitches are generally faster than anwhere else. Also, it's generally accepted that most pitches will turn well on the fourth and fifth days, hence another reason for making a test last five days.

 

[sohum]

I still think it is bad for the game of cricket to develop such a standard. Sure--environmental conditions such as the weather and home crowd support add to the atmosphere of a foreign tour, but it is in the end the pitch that is meant to be played on. At the same time, before I hurt any proud Aussies, I believe their preparation for the Indian tour and the execution of the plans is what floated them through to a win. I believe they were not playing at their best in Mumbai, which is why they collapsed. I also think that they are not being good sports by complaining about the pitch--which still produced a good game of cricket.

Think about it as quality vs quantity. Sure--a 5 day game would be a value-for-money prospect for spectators, but this game was no less enthralling. I was one of the spectators at the ground on Day 3, and believe me, I had no problems with the game ending on Day 3. It was almost more exciting, more ODI-ish to see the wickets topple in that fashion. For once, it was not the batsmen dominating but the bowlers. The batsmen may complain that their statistics are messed up--but that is the least important part of cricket. I am sure Sachin, the man with over 60 international centuries, would be the first to admit that.

That's it for now.

 

[angryangy]

The thing is that it just didn't produce a good quality Test match. It produced a close and thrilling game, but the game only played for 2 days. No need to deal with the degradation of the pitch over the course of the match; it was already the worst international pitch for the past year. High score 55? Thats hardly high quality batting. Figures of 6/9 from a part time rookie; well, both teams should have just filled their squads with batsmen, specialist bowlers are obviously no longer necessary in Test cricket.

I'm sorry, I agree that the game was unique and interesting, but it wasn't good Test cricket.

 

[squiz]

The thing is that it just didn't produce a good quality Test match. It produced a close and thrilling game, but the game only played for 2 days. No need to deal with the degradation of the pitch over the course of the match; it was already the worst international pitch for the past year. High score 55? Thats hardly high quality batting. Figures of 6/9 from a part time rookie; well, both teams should have just filled their squads with batsmen, specialist bowlers are obviously no longer necessary in Test cricket.

I'm sorry, I agree that the game was unique and interesting, but it wasn't good Test cricket.

I couldn't of put it better myself.

Think about it as quality vs quantity. Sure--a 5 day game would be a value-for-money prospect for spectators, but this game was no less enthralling. I was one of the spectators at the ground on Day 3, and believe me, I had no problems with the game ending on Day 3. It was almost more exciting, more ODI-ish to see the wickets topple in that fashion. For once, it was not the batsmen dominating but the bowlers. The batsmen may complain that their statistics are messed up--but that is the least important part of cricket. I am sure Sachin, the man with over 60 international centuries, would be the first to admit that.

That's it for now.

Test matches have 5 days, so they're expected to last more than just over 2 days like that test! About it being more ODI-ish, that's why ODI's were created mate. Test cricket should last longer than a little over 2 days. I don't think the batsmen care about their statistics being messed up, they were upset because of the poor quality of the pitch. Arguably the two best batting teams in the world, could only manage to score a little over 600 runs in all four innings. Pitches in the future in India need to be made a little bit better in the future, and like Angry said "the worst international pitch for the past year"

 

[sohum]

I will accept that you have a valid point. The whole point of a test match is that there is no restriction on the amount any one person can affect the outcome of the game, so one has to fair in a test against another's ability. As a result batsmen can take their time to play themselves in and bowlers can bowl more than 10 overs. I will stick by my opinion that I would prefer the above match rather than a 5-day match that ended in a draw.

Anyway...it is probably a one-off what with the strange Mumbai weather (it never rains in November) and the Aussie captains wish to use the rollers. Whatever. :P

 

[Ajit]

Something Sourav Ganguly said about the test

It was good to win in Mumbai. India fought outstandingly to defend 107. Our spinners once again bowled superbly to take the game away from the Aussies. No praise can be too high for the manner in which they went about their job.

I feel Zaheer's role too was quite significant. He bowled beautifully in this match. The manner in which he removed Justin Langer was indeed laudable. We all know that Langer and Matthew Hayden bat well in tandem. This opening duo has tormented teams all over the world. However, it has been seen that once you get rid of one of them cheaply the other usually struggles. The same thing happened in Mumbai.

No matter how helpful the wicket was to the spinners, to dismiss a side for 93 requires special effort, so full marks to the boys.

Good game-plan


Rahul Dravid was spot-on with his field placements. His game-plan of going in with three spinners, too, was the correct one as the end justified the means.

For me, the partnership between Laxman and Sachin was special. Laxman proved once more that he is a match-winner and the manner in which he and Sachin batted was the key. Their aggression created pressure on the Aussies. Test cricket has changed over the years and I believe India always play well when we go in with a positive intent.

This win will certainly boost the morale of the side. It was once again proved that turning tracks are the key to our success at home, especially against teams like Australia, England, South Africa, West Indies and New Zealand. Ricky Ponting, once more, had a tough time against us. He, of course, had similar experiences on the last two tours to India as well. There was a big hue and cry about the wicket among Australians and they made their displeasure clear to all and sundry. In light of all this, I feel a few questions need to be answered.

First, did Ponting's thumb injury take more time than normal to heal or did his record against Harbhajan and Kumble have something to do with it? We should not be jumping to conclusions, but his record in India is indeed pretty ordinary. Secondly, will Ponting and Co. be criticised for the big fuss they made about the wicket which spun and cost them the match? Or, do we have to start learning to live with the idea that rules will be different for touring sides to India and for the home team captain?

A quick look at the statistics on runs scored on greentops and turners in recent times might throw up a few answers.

 

[sohum]

I don't understand when the article ends (if it does) and when you provide your thoughts (if you do). Please clarify.

 

[Ajit]

I didn't provide my thoughts and it ends exactly where it appears to be.

 

[sohum]

So Ganguly wrote all this? When and where?

 

[Ajit]

http://www.hindu.com/2004/11/07/stories/2004110702871900.htm

 

[sohum]

Merci beaucoup. Maybe it will be in ToI tomorrow.