Australians more defensive than before - Tendulkar

Australians more defensive than before - Tendulkar

Sachin Tendulkar has said the current Australian team is more defensive than its predecessors. "In 1991, they did not go on the defensive if an Indian batsman played a couple of shots," Tendulkar told the Hindu.

"In the recent series, however, they immediately posted a deep point. This did not happen in 1999 or in 2003. This was the first time they set a scattered field."

However Tendulkar, who has toured Australia four times since 1991, said it was nice to play them as the game always moved at a different pace altogether. "I have not had a look at their juniors, but from the look of it that's how they play. The bowlers like to challenge the batsmen even in their domestic competition. There were verbal exchanges as well."

As a batsman, the defining moment of the tour for him was his two shots over the wicketkeeper off Mitchell Johnson.

Assessing the Australian bowlers he has faced over his career, Tendulkar put Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne at the top of his list, followed by Brett Lee, who, with 24 wickets, was the leading wicket-taker of the Test series, and Craig McDermott. But Tendulkar said Australia's batting had been more of less the same as before and it was the Indian bowlers on this tour who had challenged them more often. "On various occasions their [batsmen's] temperament was tested. We created and sustained the pressure and the intensity was great.

Though he praised younger cricketers like Praveen Kumar, Ishant Sharma and members of the victorious Under-19 squad, Tendulkar said there was a need to look back to find out how many youngsters made it to the Indian team as teenagers and then went on to play for a long time. "Ishant had a terrific tour, his future looks very good. But it's equally important not only for him, but everyone else not to get carried away.

"We need to strike that balance between staying in the present and also looking at the future. But one cannot forget that the Test team has also tasted success. We should not forget that what the seniors did in the Tests laid the foundation for the tour."

Yuvraj Singh and Wasim Jaffer were in poor form during the tour but Tendulkar said this wasn't because the two have trouble playing on bouncy seaming tracks. "Australia is not the only place in the world where there is pronounced seam and bounce and both these batsmen have scored runs on those tracks. It's a case of ups and downs and it was just a coincidence that it happened in Australia."

Tendulkar said this tour was the most special of all four he'd bee on because of India's win in the Perth Test. "If one looks back at the series we challenged them more than they did us."

Do Aussie fans agree with Tendulkar on this?

I too remember Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh not deploying 3rd man during their Indian tours of '98 and '01 despite Indian batsmen plundering runs at will against their attack.

Ponting looked a bit more defensive in that regard in this series though this was also the first time his team was challenged since Ashes '05.

"If one looks back at the series we challenged them more than they did us."

India bowled well to win the 3rd test in Perth, but they were already down 2-0 and then struggled to bat out the final day of the 4th test to save themselves from losing 3-1. Fark, imagine what he'd say if India were ever ahead in the series?

SG wrote:Do Aussie fans agree with Tendulkar on this?

Yes and it's all Vaughan's fault (and the fact Ponting is a touch simple).

The tactic of posting a deep point was used to great effect by the Poms in the 05 Ashes. It kept their runs down and added to frustration which resulted in the odd thrown away wicket.

Ever since then Captain Dumpy Drunky has been quick to use it at the first sign of aggression. (He is not alone in doing this - virtually every side does it now)

Woody, you will remember how Punter was criticised by all and sundry for not using a 3rd man to stop easy runs, so part of the use of a deep point would be in response to that . . . and part because he has a new bowling line up that he wants to protect.

Taylor too didn't have a great attack in '98 apart from Warne. I don't remember him using much of scattered fielding on that tour.

I think the defensive fields were a good move, one of the very few on this tour, by Ponting. Dry up the boundaries and more often than not, most Indian gift their wickets away. And that did happen in Melbourne. The next 3 tests, we adjusted rapidly and got over that. Keeping defensive fields then was a huge mistake.

It would have worked better in Perth and Adelaide if the Aussies had caught better. Poor catching, more than anything, kept the series closer than it should have been.

doremi wrote:And that did happen in Melbourne.

As has been said quite a few times what a pathetic move it was not to use Sehwag in first 2 tests!!! That dumb move plus idiotic planning by BCCI showed this series far more closer than it should've been.

tac wrote:Woody, you will remember how Punter was criticised by all and sundry for not using a 3rd man to stop easy runs, so part of the use of a deep point would be in response to that . . . and part because he has a new bowling line up that he wants to protect.

Aye taccy, one his failings is an over-reaction to criticism. Still 25 years ago 3rd man wasn't all that common a position and now it's the norm, so no doubt deep point will go the same. I was even watching a game from the 70s a while back and Chappelli didn't even have a fine leg ffs and there were times that there was no deep backward square for the spinners - unthinkable these days

G.Wood wrote:

tac wrote:Woody, you will remember how Punter was criticised by all and sundry for not using a 3rd man to stop easy runs, so part of the use of a deep point would be in response to that . . . and part because he has a new bowling line up that he wants to protect.

Aye taccy, one his failings is an over-reaction to criticism. Still 25 years ago 3rd man wasn't all that common a position and now it's the norm, so no doubt deep point will go the same. I was even watching a game from the 70s a while back and Chappelli didn't even have a fine leg ffs and there were times that there was no deep backward square for the spinners - unthinkable these days

Yeah, Woody, amazing they couldn't score at more than 3 runs an over with those fields.

tac wrote:


Yeah, Woody, amazing they couldn't score at more than 3 runs an over with those fields.

Maybe it was a legacy of going without bananas and oranges and they weren't physically strong enough to reach the boundary.

They truckled, mate, they downright truckled!

If I was weedy little pommy batsman I would truckle to DK and Thommo as well

Like David Lloyd . . . he was robbed of his banana as well.

tac wrote:Like David Lloyd . . . he was robbed of his banana as well.

I think Bumble and that statement was the original "Poms are funny" pom

tac wrote:

"If one looks back at the series we challenged them more than they did us."

Fark, imagine what he'd say if India were ever ahead in the series?

I didn't hear Tendulkar say anything when we were ahead in 2003 after winning the 2nd test.

And it is a fact that despite having much worse attack in 2003, Waugh was less defensive than Ponting even then!

tac wrote:Poor catching, more than anything, kept the series closer than it should have been.

Sage.

Chandan wrote:

tac wrote:

"If one looks back at the series we challenged them more than they did us."

Fark, imagine what he'd say if India were ever ahead in the series?

I didn't hear Tendulkar say anything when we were ahead in 2003 after winning the 2nd test.

And it is a fact that despite having much worse attack in 2003, Waugh was less defensive than Ponting even then!

And Waugh was lucky to draw that series. Punter was far less defensive in this sereis than Kumble, so what does that say? India were the ones under pressure most often.

Haven't they always been under pressure, and isn't Australia the number 1 test team?

It is a fact that we challenged Australia much more that any team has done in past 20 years!

When the 2GM are your bowling attack and you want to go defensive ...they will bowl a defensive line to stop the flow of runs ...When Bung is your bowling attack and you want to go defensive you put in a third man to stop his short wide stock ball going for 4

Chandan wrote:Haven't they always been under pressure, and isn't Australia the number 1 test team?

It is a fact that we challenged Australia much more that any team has done in past 20 years!

But that's not what Tendulkar said, so you agree his opinion is wrong.

Chandan wrote:Haven't they always been under pressure, and isn't Australia the number 1 test team?

It is a fact that we challenged Australia much more that any team has done in past 20 years!

No it isn't a fact. The SA team in the late 80's pushed them far more.

Don't think SA visited Australia from 87-89 till India played that series in 91-92.

Correct me if I'm wrong!