Australia v India, 4th Test, Sydney, 6-10 January 2015

Red wrote:

skully wrote:The villains of the series were the curators. Who'd be a bowler?

An article yesterday pointed out that nobody averaged below thirty-two with the ball and yet there were tons and half tons galore. Hard to know how good the batsmen are really on these pitches and with a lack of firepower.

Hazlewood finished on 29.33

Red wrote:Gosh Warnie has never heard of the idea that silence can be golden.

ohhhh the irony

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:

Red wrote:Gosh Warnie has never heard of the idea that silence can be golden.

ohhhh the irony

Aye, I almost used exactly the same words. It is on a par with horrie accusing Bradders of trolling.

Clearly 2015 wil be the year of the iRony.

Aditya wrote:

Red wrote:
Smith deservedly named MOTS.

Admirable jingoism

you dont think successful captaincy counts?

Aditya wrote:

Red wrote:.

Smith deservedly named MOTS.

Admirable jingoism

That would be the TV ump.

last home Test for Rogers, Haddin and Harris?

henry
might i remind you that australia lost all ten wickets in only two of eight innings.  india did it in six and the two exceptions were fighting for a draw
kudos to them for hanging on but those matches were only in a position to be drawn because of declarations

now i dunno about you but to me that suggests that the australian players outdid the opposition in every game

Nath wrote:last home Test for Rogers, Haddin and Harris?

And Watson.

Red wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

lardbucket wrote:Starc and Burns come out of this game with credentials enhanced; that's about it.

Apart from his fielding. He will still need to prove himself overseas.

Surely the jury is still out on Burns; he played well yesterday but came in under no pressure on a flattie against an impotent attack.

Smith deservedly named MOTS.

Of course the jury's still out on Burns, he's only played two Tests FFS! Yeah this pitch was a shocker but over the two innings he outscored Warner, Watson, Marsh and every Indian bat except the SpB....and they were all playing on the same pitch whenever I was taking notice. And in dig 2 his innings started before Australia was anywhere near safe - 4-140, Haddin who's out of form and the bowlers (which this time didn't include Johnno) to follow. If either he or Smith had got out early Australia could have been well up the creek.

Henry wrote:Lyon really doesn't like being 'the man', does he.

2-0 is probably a fair result. Australia were better, but not THAT much better. With a bit more composure in the big moments, India could actually have won the series.

such comments were scornfully labelled 'delusional' after Ashes 2005, which was closer

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:Lyon really doesn't like being 'the man', does he.

2-0 is probably a fair result. Australia were better, but not THAT much better. With a bit more composure in the big moments, India could actually have won the series.

such comments were scornfully labelled 'delusional' after Ashes 2005, which was closer

Well true. But 2005 was only close because of one man- Shane Warne.

Obviously cricket is full of 'what ifs', but India were clearly in with a shout at Adelaide and Brisbane, only to let the emotions of the key moments get the better of them.

The batting was pretty much even, but Aus won with the better bowling attack and better temperaments under pressure.

Well done to India for gutsing it out, but they are not winning a test away from home anytime soon unless they sort out their bowling attack which is on the shitty side of woeful.

Kumar's fine with a Reader in his hand on a misty moisty day in England, but he's several degrees below test class otherwise.

Agree Henry. Australia's bowling was on the bad side of mediocre, whereas India's was on the bad side of absolutely bloody awful.

Aye, the bowling attacks were the difference. On paper the Indian batting was better but didn't necessarily outshine the Aussies. Ironically, Elmer was the "star" series bowler, yet never looked like bowling us to a win today.

Aus shaded India in fielding, with our Sydney effort bringing us closer to even.

India now ranked seventh, so officially the worst of the serious Test teams 

I assume they now have nothing but home tests for the next two years? Tends to be the pattern.....

Fred Nerk wrote:Agree Henry. Australia's bowling was on the bad side of mediocre, whereas India's was on the bad side of absolutely bloody awful.

I though Aust bowled pretty well on the whole and India batter very well.

Aust batted very well but India's bowling was shite.

Both sides' fielding was embarrassing at times.

JGK wrote:

Fred Nerk wrote:Agree Henry. Australia's bowling was on the bad side of mediocre, whereas India's was on the bad side of absolutely bloody awful.

I though Aust bowled pretty well on the whole and India batter very well.

Aust batted very well but India's bowling was shite.

Both sides' fielding was embarrassing at times.

When teams are in transition, sometimes it's the fielding factor which goes unnoticed. Marsh looks an ordinary specialist catcher while Burns is obviously unsuited to short leg. Haddit has been on the skids for some time despite the odd screamer. When a cordon is settled and reliable it takes a while to successfully replace them.

Burns has never fielded in that spot for Qld. It seems the main reason he's there is because he doesn't feel comfortable as the team new boy telling the captain to b!@@#$ well go in there himself.

It's always the new boy's spot isn't it, whichever team you are talking about, as nobody else wants it!

beamer wrote:India now ranked seventh, so officially the worst of the serious Test teams 

Still on top according to Karti though.

Henry wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:Lyon really doesn't like being 'the man', does he.

2-0 is probably a fair result. Australia were better, but not THAT much better. With a bit more composure in the big moments, India could actually have won the series.

such comments were scornfully labelled 'delusional' after Ashes 2005, which was closer

Well true. But 2005 was only close because of one man   - KP

Fixed.

beamer wrote:It's always the new boy's spot isn't it, whichever team you are talking about, as nobody else wants it!

It's a bit amateurish that it's the new guy who gets the job, rather than the fielder who is best in that position. A specialist short leg can be a big asset.

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:

lardbucket wrote:

Henry wrote:Lyon really doesn't like being 'the man', does he.

2-0 is probably a fair result. Australia were better, but not THAT much better. With a bit more composure in the big moments, India could actually have won the series.

such comments were scornfully labelled 'delusional' after Ashes 2005, which was closer

Well true. But 2005 was only close because of one man   - Ian Ronald Bell

Fixed.

Fixed again.

Imagine if we'd had Thorpe in the middle order rather than little Ronnie in the headlights.

Re short leg again:

Rogers did OK there. Cowan was very good there.