This Australian team does not seem to have the same hunger

Would agree with that regarding Indian attack. For most part of this test match, Indian attack meant only its pacers.

Woody said "Maybe Josh has confused lack of ruthlessness/quntishness with a lack of hunger" -

Yep, that would be closer to what I intended to convey as opposed to lack of hunger.

Punter's pre-game jibe about the ageing Indians and how we'll play a new age form of cricket that will leave them behind.

This is what Ponting had to say about Zaheer's comments about Australian tactics,

"I don't know what he means, to tell the truth," he said. "We were the only ones trying to take the game forward. We played aggressive cricket. He can have a little bit of a chuckle on the inside at what he's had to say. I don't think it means too much to us."

lol! was he drunk again?

G.Wood wrote:

SG wrote:Media spotlight is definitely there on both the teams for their behavior. This I concede.

One can't sledge the opposition like one used to do.

Still I don't believe once for a moment that Australian didn't want to win this test as dearly as say any other Australian team that toured India. I think this team would've wanted to win this test as badly.

Even though Indian team is capable enough to self destruct, Australians are clearly lacking the right personnel to win in India is crystal clear to everyone.

Yup, without question.

Maybe Josh has confused lack of ruthlessness with a lack of hunger.

(and both those things go down merely by the fact that the mon symonds isn't there)

I don't think I agree with whatever you people are saying. Wasn't Australia clearly the better team in this test?

They batted better
They bowled better
And they fielded far far better than what India could.

Okay, they couldn't dismiss India cheaply even when they had them 7 down for just 232. But don't think it was the lack of ability of their bowlers. Harbhajan has played such knocks before too.

And they were less ruthless? No way! Their intensity, their fielding was making me shudder here in my living room watching the match on TV. The way they were trying to upset Zaheer in the first inning and then Gambhir and Laxman/Ganguly in the second inning was visible to every one.

India could barely save the match with credit to the tailenders in the 1st inning and then their main batsmen's resolute in the second inning. No way can I say that India would have been more confident going to the second match!

I would imagine the team for series v the saffies will have a very different look with no Fleas or Watson.[/quote]

As things stand without injuries Yt will make way for Roy.Jaques or Katich/ Hayden will open depending on form.Watson is their future allrounder hope and has it over Yt at the moment.

Long way to go yet but Watto has the huge advantage of being economical and can reach 140 kmh. Roy and Clarke will be the part timers. They are better than YT anyway.

Para Batsman wrote:I would imagine the team for series v the saffies will have a very different look with no Fleas or Watson.

As things stand without injuries Yt will make way for Roy.Jaques or Katich/ Hayden will open depending on form.Watson is their future allrounder hope and has it over Yt at the moment.

Long way to go yet but Watto has the huge advantage of being economical and can reach 140 kmh. Roy and Clarke will be the part timers. They are better than YT anyway.[/quote]

I agree, there's more potential with Watson's bowling than White's and a bowling all-rounder is more dangerous.

Stop repeating yourself.