South Africa v India, 3rd Test, Cape Town, 2-6 Jan, 2011

taipan wrote:

horace wrote:erm...taips there are 67 pages of locked 5th test thread..see main page...so there are 85 pages on oz v poms

Sorry but then the title should have reflected that.

Have you swallowed Karti? I wondered where he'd gone ...

Just seen the score. Must say I'm surprised that India didn't have a dip. I noted from the posts last night that the Saffies were bowling pretty well, so I guess they cut their losses.

Gary 111 wrote:India had a good top order. Will they still have one in 6 months time? For the first Test the middle order will be:

Dravid - 38 years & 6 months
Tendulkar - 38 years & 2 months
Laxman - 36 years & 8 months

How many 38 year olds have been successful in Test cricket in recent years?

Like any of them will pass on the chance to play Australia this time next year. Sachin should be buying a massive pair of boots, because he'll fill them to overflowing. Deservedly.

And Laxman? Think I might go and cry now.

horace wrote:sad that the bannies tossed in the towel....still one spineless effort should not detract from what was a cracker of a series

Seriously, what's all this chat of India not going for a win? Was SA playing for a win? How do you make 340 runs in just one whole day on a crumbling, deteriorating pitch against a fiery bowling attack without losing wickets and possibly the game as well? There is no set manual to achieve some objectives. The wicket wasn't exactly conducive to quick batting on last day. Had SA declared at 300 and given 20-25 overs to have a go against the Indians the previous evening, we could have fancied going for it. But having to bat deadset on day five1st ball up on cracking wicket was expecting too much. Indian bats did what best they could once Smith chose safety and closed the doors of a victory on us. We could have done that or chosen to play with reckless aggression that makes Aus lose so many tests these days due to their inability to play any differently.

Ah, so it was a moral victory. Thanks for clarifying that.

Zat wrote:Ah, so it was a moral victory. Thanks for clarifying that.

There was no 'moral victory' but a fair result in a contest among equals.

They didn't even have a go for a few overs at the start f the day.

Too many blokes too scared to have a crack in the name of protecting their averages I reckon.

Looks like Sooky's had enough of Harris.

"As the Test match goes on you're looking for your
spinner to contribute more and more and they got that yesterday with
Harbhajan picking up seven wickets. It does make life a little bit
easier for the seamers."

Zat wrote:They didn't even have a go for a few overs at the start f the day.

Too many blokes too scared to have a crack in the name of protecting their averages I reckon.

I am sure the Aussies were really not happy with losing 2-0 to India a couple of months back and would have settled for 1-1 under the circumstances. I am certain if they could not have won the series they would have settled for a draw overall. I don't see the need for these kind of needless barbs at all. It's history now and the Indian team played as best as they could read the situation. Some time back the Indian team was criticized for not being able to fight out draws in difficult situations on day 5. Now at least we have turned that corner. With our bowling attack we can't afford t go all out the way Tugga's Australians or Loydd's WI could. We are doing the best with our resources and we have no complaints. It would have been nice winning 2-1 and if that is not to be than what we have ain't shabby either.

It was crap when England spent much of the 50s and 60s playing for the draw. It's still crap now when any team does it when there's some chance of them winning.

There was no chance.

Why not? Your guys are meant to be the number one team in the World. You wont be for long with that attitude.

Being the current world number 1 doesn't mean you're as good as Australia circa 1999-2007, it just means you're better than any of the current sides and no current side would have chased it down. Not many would have survived the last day.

spangler wrote:Being the current world number 1 doesn't mean you're as good as Australia circa 1999-2007, it just means you're better than any of the current sides and no current side would have chased it down. Not many would have survived the last day.

Not so sure about that. Pitch was dead in terms of assistance to the quicks, SA doesn't have a spinner and England twice survived more than the last day against them last summer.

I could understand if India set out to chase the target, but shut up shop after losing a few wickets. But right from the start of the day, they had no intention of chasing the runs.

It was weak.

And it's not like they needed 500. 340 over a whole day is a run rate of about 3.8. Definitely achievable with India's batting lineup.

spangler wrote:Being the current world number 1 doesn't mean you're as good as Australia circa 1999-2007, it just means you're better than any of the current sides and no current side would have chased it down. Not many would have survived the last day.

You hit the nail on the head.

There is no doubt that on present form we are ahead and we have worked hard sure enough, but it's also a fact that we won't last there for too long. With Ganguly we started focus on winning tests abroad and then his successors worked on getting a series win abroad even if it is 1-0. We could have tried to get more wins in England, and New Zealand but were happy with a rubber win however small the number of victories than risk losing. India has had to deal with a huge overseas record monkey for too long and we are still a bit defensive there when confronted with the option of holding onto success achieved than taking dynamic risks for more of it. The path that Ajit Wadekar set for us in the only spell of back to back overseas success in 1974 still remains a template for us on account of having constantly unfit and an inconsistent bowling attack that remains among the most unreliable yet. For far too long we depended on Kapil Dev and then Kumble and now Zaheer. That puts a huge onus on our world class batsmen all the time and hence the need to eschew risks increases.

Batman wrote:

spangler wrote:Being the current world number 1 doesn't mean you're as good as Australia circa 1999-2007, it just means you're better than any of the current sides and no current side would have chased it down. Not many would have survived the last day.

You hit the nail on the head.

There is no doubt that on present form we are ahead and we have worked hard sure enough, but it's also a fact that we won't last there for too long. With Ganguly we started focus on winning tests abroad and then his successors worked on getting a series win abroad even if it is 1-0. We could have tried to get more wins in England, and New Zealand but were happy with a rubber win however small the number of victories than risk losing. India has had to deal with a huge overseas record monkey for too long and we are still a bit defensive there when confronted with the option of holding onto success achieved than taking dynamic risks for more of it. The path that Ajit Wadekar set for us in the only spell of back to back overseas success in 1974 still remains a template for us on account of having constantly unfit and an inconsistent bowling attack that remains among the most unreliable yet. For far too long we depended on Kapil Dev and then Kumble and now Zaheer. That puts a huge onus on our world class batsmen all the time and hence the need to eschew risks increases.

So what happens when Laxman, Tendulkar and Dravid retire then? If they all go within twelve months of each other, you might go the same way as Australia.

Henry wrote:I could understand if India set out to chase the target, but shut up shop after losing a few wickets. But right from the start of the day, they had no intention of chasing the runs.

It was weak.

And it's not like they needed 500. 340 over a whole day is a run rate of about 3.8. Definitely achievable with India's batting lineup.

Farkin sage.

Basil wrote:So what happens when Laxman, Tendulkar and Dravid retire then? If they all go within twelve months of each other, you might go the same way as Australia.

And that would be hella funny.

Basil wrote:So what happens when Laxman, Tendulkar and Dravid retire then? If they all go within twelve months of each other, you might go the same way as Australia.

That again is expected. Most Indian fans here have acknowledged it. Once the big 3 depart [and all within 1 to 2 years of each other. Dravid may not survive the next year] we will be right down there scrapping with New Zealand, WI and Pakistan.

I mentioned this before that in that new age we will even struggle to win tests at home and thats when Dhoni or whoever is leading will be truely tested.

The future with the likes of Jadeja, Kohli, Yuvraj, Sharma and Raina playing 'take a turn' after the big 3 era can only be imagined. Gambhir and Sehwag will be the only reliable batsmen left. The gap in the middle order will be our Achilles heel. Pujara and Vijay are good but a long way to go yet for them. They have a lot to prove still. Parthiv Patel should be groomed as a future middle order batsman as he has it in him to do that.

Overall it's going to be pretty tough staying even in the middle of the rankings undoubtedly. There was a time we had crap openers and a great middle order who needed to take most responsibility for the openers failures. Now we will appear a time when we will have great openers but no support in the middle should they fail. Sad but true.