'I don't rate India a long-term No.1'

[sohum]

We still won 2-1.

The best Ishant Sharma got was 2 wickets.

He actually had a 3-fer in the match that RP got injured early.

 

[Cricketdude]

He actually had a 3-fer in the match that RP got injured early.

I mean 2 in an innings. He wasn't that impressive you see.

 

[TumTum]

Young bowlers have a habit of coming to Australia and getting hyped up without really doing much.

 

[Cricketdude]

Actually Sharma wasn't hyped up at all. He was a back up for Zaheer Kahn(who got injured in Australia). Then he just suddenly came out(no...) and bowled with the right lengths.

 

[chiranjitpathak]

Got comments by Chappell and I think the indian bowlers are not nourished properly. If you look at Irfan Pathan , he is no where today but when he started his career he looked like a very good swing bowler for the future and Ishant Sharma , who impressed everyone with his bowling , now is a average bowler and lost his pace. One more thing could be that India play mostly on flat pitches and the Bowlers are smashed everywhere and they loose their confidence.

 

[sohum]

Do you think we would have drawn 1-1 at home if we had Shane Warne and Mcgrath at our peak?

Shane Warne was crap against India and you know it. He averaged 47 against us and his only 5-wicket haul came in his penultimate match against the Indians.

And really, you are delving into far too many conditionals here. It is a fact that India was the only side to challenge the Australian team in this generation. If the Australian team just happened to be depleted when they were playing against India and at full strength otherwise, over and over again, then I say you blame the fitness of the players. I'm sure in at least one of the matches that Australia weren't at full strength, India weren't either.

Secondly, don't forget that even against a strong Australian outfit, who were used to whitewashing all their opponents, the Indians managed to pick up draws and even wins. A dead rubber is still a game and I'd challenge you to find a member of the Australian team who wouldn't mind losing that game. Think of it this way--how many dead rubbers had Australia lost? If Australia had been consistently winning dead rubbers, then losing one was a far bigger positive in India's favour than you are willing to concede.

sohum added 3 Minutes and 21 Seconds later...

I mean 2 in an innings. He wasn't that impressive you see.

You're still wrong, he picked up 3/113 in the 4th Test. Also, he was pretty impressive to watch. Sure, he didn't get the returns, but he was one of the few bowlers who made Ricky Ponting look like a club player. The fact that he did this as a backup, as an 18-year-old with no expectations whatsoever, made it doubly impressive. Then, of course, he went the usual route of becoming overhyped by the media and letting the success go to his head (in this case resulting in him cutting his hair off--but that's a different story).

 

[Cricketdude]

Shane Warne was crap against India and you know it. He averaged 47 against us and his only 5-wicket haul came in his penultimate match against the Indians.

And really, you are delving into far too many conditionals here. It is a fact that India was the only side to challenge the Australian team in this generation. If the Australian team just happened to be depleted when they were playing against India and at full strength otherwise, over and over again, then I say you blame the fitness of the players. I'm sure in at least one of the matches that Australia weren't at full strength, India weren't either.

Secondly, don't forget that even against a strong Australian outfit, who were used to whitewashing all their opponents, the Indians managed to pick up draws and even wins. A dead rubber is still a game and I'd challenge you to find a member of the Australian team who wouldn't mind losing that game. Think of it this way--how many dead rubbers had Australia lost? If Australia had been consistently winning dead rubbers, then losing one was a far bigger positive in India's favour than you are willing to concede.

We don't know how Shane Warne would have went in Australia against India. He played bad over there but in australia he wouldn't have done bad at all.

India may have had a player missing, but they wouldn't have been stars, or star bowlers. When India were in Australia, Australia could hardly bowl them out when they didn't have their star bowlers. Those were the players that for many people, made Australia are dominant side. The only way things could be even in terms of losses is if India lost Tendulkar and Dravid.

I want my team to win all the time obviously and obviously dead rubbers mean less than matches that matter. With a dead rubber the pressure is off, and I highly doubt Pakistan would have lost to Australia in the last test if it was a dead rubber.

Cricketdude added 6 Minutes and 37 Seconds later...

You're still wrong, he picked up 3/113 in the 4th Test. Also, he was pretty impressive to watch. Sure, he didn't get the returns, but he was one of the few bowlers who made Ricky Ponting look like a club player. The fact that he did this as a backup, as an 18-year-old with no expectations whatsoever, made it doubly impressive. Then, of course, he went the usual route of becoming overhyped by the media and letting the success go to his head (in this case resulting in him cutting his hair off--but that's a different story).

Yeah, I agree. I watched all of the matches except the last one when I saw it was already a draw by the 3rd day. That ponting innings was amazing. Just great to watch Sharma coming in with lots of confidence. That seems to have gone now?

 

[Dare]

We don't know how Shane Warne would have went in Australia against India.

He played bad over there but in australia he wouldn't have done bad at all.

hold up didn't you say we don't know how he would have performed against India in Australia.

 

[Cricketdude]

hold up didn't you say we don't know how he would have performed against India in Australia.

The first one was fact - saying we don't know how he would go. Second is my opinion.

 

[Dare]

The first one was fact - saying we don't know how he would go. Second is my opinion.

oooook...

 

[Chetan0304]

Irfan Pathan was a really Bowler.. don't know what happen to him lol

 

[sohum]

We don't know how Shane Warne would have went in Australia against India. He played bad over there but in australia he wouldn't have done bad at all.

Actually, you have no idea about that either. What makes your imaginative musings any more accurate than mine? I'd say the fact that Warnie got smashed at 62.55 at home against the Indians is a pretty good reason to assume that he wouldn't be all that successful.

India may have had a player missing, but they wouldn't have been stars, or star bowlers. When India were in Australia, Australia could hardly bowl them out when they didn't have their star bowlers. Those were the players that for many people, made Australia are dominant side. The only way things could be even in terms of losses is if India lost Tendulkar and Dravid.

As someone mentioned earlier, India was missing Tendulkar in 2 of the 4 Tests in the 2004 series. We've never really had a star bowler. But the point I am making is that if Australia is losing all their players just prior to a series against India, that's not India's fault. The fitness of a player is equally important to how good they are. A legend of a player is no good if they're injured during all the big match-ups.

I want my team to win all the time obviously and obviously dead rubbers mean less than matches that matter. With a dead rubber the pressure is off, and I highly doubt Pakistan would have lost to Australia in the last test if it was a dead rubber.

You still ignored my point. How many dead rubbers had Australia lost in that historical context. Since you don't want to find out, I'll do it for you. In the last 13 dead rubbers Australia had played prior to that Indian series--the number of those matches in this decade (against opposition such as England, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc.)--Australia had won 9. So it's not as if they just gave up on the dead rubber games.

Finally, the summary that the 2-1 series was firmly Australia's because the only game India won was a dead rubber is inaccurate. Don't forget that at Chennai a blistering Sehwag and a line-up consisting of Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly (batting down to number 7 with Irfan Pathan) had 210 runs to chase on the final day before rain washed it all out. If you claim that Warne would have dominated the Indians, then I'll go ahead and claim that the Indian line-up would have dominated the Aussies in that chase and won the match to eventually tie up the series 2-2.

Of course, you see the trouble in making these sort of ignorant conditional statements. We have no idea what would have occurred if and when certain conditions were met.

sohum added 1 Minutes and 5 Seconds later...

Yeah, I agree. I watched all of the matches except the last one when I saw it was already a draw by the 3rd day. That ponting innings was amazing. Just great to watch Sharma coming in with lots of confidence. That seems to have gone now?

He's fallen into the standard Indian fast bowler cycle. Hardly surprising. The only one to have made a successful and strong comeback from there is Zaheer Khan. Don't forget that he fell into it after he made a bang on the scene, too.

 

[aditya123]

I think Chaps is pretty right. See here:

Australia at their peak:
1999/00 in Aus: Aus 3-0
2001 in Ind: Ind 2-1 - Needed the partnership of the decade to win the series.
2004 in Ind: Aus 2-1 - India won the final Test which was dead

Overall: Aus 6, India 3
Series: Aus 2-1

Australia not at their peak:
2003/04 in Aus: Draw 1-1 - No McGrath or Warne. Brad Williams, Andy Bichel and Nathan Bracken (yes in Tests!!) feature in the attack :doh and India racks up big scores. No surprise...
2007/08 in Aus: Aus 2-1 - McGrath and Warne retired. Langer and Martyn too. Big hoo-har in Sydney.
2008 in Ind: Ind 2-0 - Australia's primary spinner: Cameron White :doh
Overall: Ind 4, Aus 3
Series: Draw 1-1

In 2003 your batting was at its peak with Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, S.Waugh, Gilchrist and you had McGill, Lee and Gillespie in the bowling department. McGill has tons of wickets against most sides as well and Aussies rated him highly.
Gillespie was at his peak as well and he was as good as any bowler back then. I don`t think any other side would`ve challenged even the above mentioned side. And the Indian pace attack now is far better than 2003/4. We had Nehra, Agarkar and a debutant Irfan in the test lineup then. Zaheer got injured after taking a 5er at the GABBA. I could easily pick on that one. 2003/04, Australia were at their peak.

You still had Hayden, Gilly and Lee in the 2007/08 series and that side was thrashing teams other than India around. It takes nothing away from the fact that India have been the most successful side against Australia in the past decade or so. I don`t remember SL,Pakistan or NZ winning a single game against Australia all these years. SA could`nt beat them till 2008/09. People still claim how great SA`s win over Australia was. Noone talks about Hayden`s career declining or Lee getting injured in that series.

 

[drainpipe32]

Noone talks about Hayden`s career declining or Lee getting injured in that series.

Because that would be a soft thing to go. We lost the series not because of those two points, but because SA were the better team. End of story.

 

[aditya123]

The series in 2004 we were 2-0 up. They won the dead rubber but it's a dead rubber...

2nd Border Gavaskar test ,Chennai 2004. India needing 213 to win on the last day..............it rained.

aditya123 added 1 Minutes and 13 Seconds later...

Noone talks about Hayden`s career declining or Lee getting injured in that series.

Because that would be a soft thing to go. We lost the series not because of those two points, but because SA were the better team. End of story.

Similarly, it would be nice if you could agree that Australia were`nt clearly the better side against India in the 2000s as some people here want us to believe;