Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rkt.india

'Australia will kill to be in India's situation'

Recommended Posts

Batting was Australia's biggest weakness but there seemed to be problems all around Ian Chappell: The main problem is definitely the batting. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. Most other places than India, Australia's fast bowling is pretty good. But the core problem just hasn't been addressed in Australian batting of quite some time, and the big concern is, if they do address it and if they did get it all perfectly and they start tomorrow, you're still looking at a generation to reap the real rewards. Everyone said, "Why don't they be more patient?" But if you've got the skill, then you are patient. Take a guy like M Vijay. He's got the skill, he knows he needs to survive for quite a while, and if he does survive for a little bit, some runs start to come, the boundaries start to come and everything's fine. But if you are a bit concerned about your technique and survival, in this case against spin, and you are a bit worried about it, that's when a bit of panic creeps in. If you grow up playing spin bowling in Australia, that stands you in good stead wherever you go. The Indian batsmen showed they have the skill to play and bat long in these conditions. But will they be able to do the same overseas? Sharda Ugra: That still remains something the Indian team should fight for. You want to see them do that job, and you'd think a few of them are capable of doing so. Definitely Cheteshwar Pujara will be the kind of guy who will try and work things out. That has to be tested. You can't say, "We play 70 to 80% of our matches at home, so it doesn't matter what happens overseas." It does matter. Was Pujara India's biggest plus in the series? IC: The fact that India have now got three or four young batsmen… I'm not saying they're going to be the next Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, and Sehwag, but they do have the potential to be terrific. Yes, Pujara I think is the standout. Temperamentally I think he is probably ahead of the others a little bit, but I am impressed with the others. That's a situation that Australia will kill for - having young batsmen of that ability coming in. They just haven't got them. India has got a couple more at the Under-19 level. Unmukt Chand is the outstanding one. If Unmukt Chand was in Australia and I was a selector, he'd be in that Test side. You are looking at batsmen who are technically good, are strokemakers, and look like they can take control of things. When I looked at the Under-19 batsmen from Australia, some of them looked good at staying in and so on, but I didn't see someone a step away from Test cricket; they were miles away from Test cricket. The pitches used this series were out of character to how they usually play at the four venues. Are these the only conditions at home in which India can win? SU:You would think that's the conclusion they have arrived at. After India won the Test match against England in Ahmedabad, there was much moping about how you had to work so hard to get wickets. You think, of course you have to work hard to get wickets - that's why it is called Test cricket. We remember the time when India went into the last Test of a series needing a win after being 0-1 down, then you would see that the wicket would be dry, it would crumble and it would turn [in Kanpur against South Africa]. Here it's almost like a pre-planned sort of thing. So one thing that was bothersome in the series was that wherever the teams went, they left the pitches dry. You would think the Australians cannot be compared to the English team that toured here. They are different teams at different points of their development. To do this against Australia was very odd; you could see it. IC: I just don't believe that anybody other than the curator should have anything to do with how the pitch should be prepared. It's about time a bit of integrity came into this thing. That's one thing where I will stand up for Australia. The pitches [in Australia] retain their nature, that's the important thing. Certainly I can't recall an instance in Australia where the pitch you play on in a first-class game is of a certain nature and that's not the Test pitch's nature. It might be a bit better prepared for a Test match, but in general, the nature is the same. Anytime someone comes to curators and says, "I want this sort of pitch", I would like the curator to say, "Get stuffed, mind your own business. You've got pride in what you do as a player, I've got pride in what I do as a curator." MS Dhoni has said the era of aggressive Test fields is over; he set in-out fields during this series. Is that a strategy you approve of? IC: I don't like it at all. The only proviso I would make is that I didn't captain with bats like they use in the modern game. But I just think it's rubbish. I just had a conversation with Ashley Mallett a couple of days back and he said, "One of the things that drives me mad is the batsmen getting singles. I'd rather be hit for four than being constantly hit for singles." If you are going to give good batsmen easy singles, they are going to say, "Thank you very much", and keep taking them. If you are up against a dopey batsman, he might take singles for a little while and then say, "Now I need to hit some fours or sixes", and get him out that way. Another player who made a huge impression was Ravindra Jadeja, especially with his accuracy with the ball. SU: He was the biggest surprise that came out of this series. He came in as the third spinner and ended up being the guy that Dhoni turned to and did much more than Ojha or Harbhajan. Maybe because it was the wickets he was bowling on, but he was able to bowl exactly in the same way and get two different things out of a particular track. He was able to bowl within what may be said are his limited-over limitations, that "I'm not going to try to bowl anything fancy, I'm just going to pitch the ball where I am supposed to and let the pitch do whatever it wants to." And it was almost like he had a hold over Michael Clarke. What I was very impressed by was the innings he played at the Kotla, where he made 43 in 49 balls. You want someone coming in at No. 7 to score enough runs. He came in to bat in Mohali where Dhoni was a bit frozen at the other end and hit a couple of fours, almost saying, "What's the fuss about?" There were problems off the field as well for Australia, and sometimes off- and on-field problems can be related. IC: Yes, they generally are. That was a ridiculous situation before the Mohali Test. These are men. If there are problems you sit them down in a room. The Australian way was probably with a carton of beer, and then you thrash it out. To ask guys to send a text or an email, that's rubbish. If I hear the word "culture" one more time, I think I'm going to throw up. They say we want to develop this culture; there's only one culture we've got to develop and that's a winning culture. What I see, the way they are going about things is, you develop a culture where the guys who cosy up to the important people are going to do all right. That's a rubbish culture. I always felt, as a captain, the guys who probably argued and disagreed with me and were prepared to speak their mind, they were the most important guys in your team. They were generally the better players. They were the last ones to give up a fight. So, you don't want to develop a lot of yes men around you. Do you see Sehwag and Gambhir coming back? SU: Sehwag and Gambhir, because they are opening batsmen, I do think one of them will go to South Africa. I don't know who it will be. You need an experienced opener there. You would hope they find a way to get runs, go on the A tour that is going to supposedly to happen in June or July. The selectors were pretty clear-headed about what they wanted to do for this series: that is, get hold of people who will win you games, and they won you games convincingly. If that meant giving senior players a bit of an elbow, they were able to do it, which is great. It's what the last committee absolutely didn't do. Is Australia's batting side ready for the Ashes? IC: If you see me backing Australia in the Ashes series coming up, you'll know I'm wearing someone else's trousers. Think about how Australia lost the 2005 Ashes series: swing. That batting line-up was a hell of a lot better than what they've got now and they were beaten by good swing bowling. They had problems [recently] with the late-swinging ball, when they had Ponting and Hussey in the side, and you haven't got a better late-swinging bowler in the world than James Anderson. Also, Graeme Swann's a better offspinner than Ashwin. He eats up and spits out left-handers, and Australia have got a whole pile of left-handers in the top order. At this stage, I'd be saying, if Australia defeat England in England, then England have played very badly. Has Tendulkar played his last Test in India? SU: It felt like his last Test match in India. It's almost like he's expended so much energy into a couple of important innings. The next home Test is going to be in October 2014, which is a long way off. Will he go to South Africa? I think he may. IC: I think it's been around for a while. The previous selection panel derelicted duty on a number of occasions, but this new panel seems to be heading in the right direction. I don't think anybody on any selection panel in India is going to have the guts to drop Tendulkar. You haven't really got the argument anymore that you need an experienced bloke in there to help the young players, because the young batsmen are now at a point where they are quite capable of doing the job. Can they do it outside of India? There's only one way to find that out. The selection panel should be asking themselves, "Is he the best man for the job in the Indian side?" With the previous panel, I think he could have tested their patience until the cows came home. With this new panel, he might not want to test their patience too much.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/video_audio/627156.html

Share this post


Link to post
IC: I don't like it at all. The only proviso I would make is that I didn't captain with bats like they use in the modern game. But I just think it's rubbish. I just had a conversation with Ashley Mallett a couple of days back and he said, "One of the things that drives me mad is the batsmen getting singles. I'd rather be hit for four than being constantly hit for singles." If you are going to give good batsmen easy singles, they are going to say, "Thank you very much", and keep taking them. If you are up against a dopey batsman, he might take singles for a little while and then say, "Now I need to hit some fours or sixes", and get him out that way.
That is so true. In the Delhi test, Dhoni should have more fielders in the circle. You want the batsman to take extra risk for their boundary and in these conditions going down the track or trying to put away a short one (against spin) which usually stays low (Watto's dismissal) is easier said than done. If you have players on the boundary lines in the very first over of spin on a square turner it pretty much means you don't trust your bowlers.

Share this post


Link to post

I am worried about Unmukt Chand. The last Indian player Ian Chappel used to have such high praise for was Rohit Sharma, and he's nearly killed his international career. Hope Unmukt doesn't go the same way :pray:

Share this post


Link to post
That is so true. In the Delhi test, Dhoni should have more fielders in the circle. You want the batsman to take extra risk for their boundary and in these conditions going down the track or trying to put away a short one (against spin) which usually stays low (Watto's dismissal) is easier said than done. If you have players on the boundary lines in the very first over of spin on a square turner it pretty much means you don't trust your bowlers.
that is a double sword edge too. In that process batsmen can score quickly through boundaries and more runs than you would expect. Both parties are right in their own way. They mostly played in an era where run rate used to be around 2.5 most of the time and batsmen would rarely think to play shots in the air or play aggressively. The first instinct was to survive. That thought process now has changed. Batsmen are instinctively aggressive, Run rate of 3.5 to 4 rpo is normal in tests and that forces captains to stop the boundary and let batsmen work hard for their runs and here batsmen are tested because they are not as patient as they used to be. Most captains opt for same field especially on Indian pitches, but when we play abroad like SA, Aus, England, Dhoni needs to be attacking because in India he can always come back in a match through spinners even if a good opening start once the ball gets older, but abroad best use of the new ball is important.

Share this post


Link to post

How exactly was Delhi out of character? I have always remembered low scoring games with plenty of wickets for the spinners. Delhi games posters can correct me if they feel i am wrong. same for mohali. It was a flattish wicket with something in it for everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
that is a double sword edge too. In that process batsmen can score quickly through boundaries and more runs than you would expect. Both parties are right in their own way. They mostly played in an era where run rate used to be around 2.5 most of the time and batsmen would rarely think to play shots in the air or play aggressively. The first instinct was to survive. That thought process now has changed. Batsmen are instinctively aggressive, Run rate of 3.5 to 4 rpo is normal in tests and that forces captains to stop the boundary and let batsmen work hard for their runs and here batsmen are tested because they are not as patient as they used to be. Most captains opt for same field especially on Indian pitches, but when we play abroad like SA, Aus, England, Dhoni needs to be attacking because in India he can always come back in a match through spinners even if a good opening start once the ball gets older, but abroad best use of the new ball is important.
I agree in the abroad part. You can have 4-5 slips with the new ball and have some fielders out in the circle once the ball gets old but at home, especially in that sort pitch in Delhi and Chennai you need the batsman to take risk and score boundaries. In the match where Huges scored 60 something was the ugliest innings in the whole series. Gazillions of edges and we could have got him out if he had a gully for Huges. He repeatedly edged towards the gully to Bhuv and a lot of edges against the spinners. Someone like David Warner will "never" or can ever play an innings like he did in Perth in these conditions. He looked clueless even in Windies where there was slight bit of turn. You need to attack players like him who haven't got any sort of patience.

Share this post


Link to post
How exactly was Delhi out of character? I have always remembered low scoring games with plenty of wickets for the spinners. Delhi games posters can correct me if they feel i am wrong. same for mohali. It was a flattish wicket with something in it for everybody.
There was a lot for the spinners but as Dhoni said "If the pitch suits 4 quicks, its a sporty wicket but if it suits 4 spinners, its bad for the game".

Share this post


Link to post
Run rate of 3.5 to 4 rpo is normal in tests
Can you tell me how many tests excluding the exceptionally aggressive batting line up of Australia in the early 00s have managed that RPO on average? Feel free to include Indian tests as well, which are never going to see that kind of run rate after Sehwag and never saw it before Sehwag.

Share this post


Link to post

The worst thing about IC is that once he makes up his mind, its damn difficult for him to change. And often, he makes up his mind pretty early. What exactly has IC watched of Unmukt Chand? a 50 over tournament against kids of his own age? Has he even followed the first class performances of his post that? One big criticism in the 80s and 90s against us and Pakistan (and generally all subcontinent teams) was that we breed players too early in the test matches. Looks like the shoe is on the other foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Can you tell me how many tests excluding the exceptionally aggressive batting line up of Australia in the early 00s have managed that RPO on average? Feel free to include Indian tests as well' date=' which are never going to see that kind of run rate after Sehwag and never saw it before Sehwag.[/quote'] Recent tests Check RR in last 3 innings of the match. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/engine/current/match/598815.html check both Indian innigs. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/engine/current/match/598814.html Check Indian innings. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/engine/current/match/598812.html RR over 3 even here. http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2011/engine/match/518950.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2011/engine/match/518951.html Check Aus score card here. http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2011/engine/match/518952.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2011/engine/match/518953.html Most teams in their own conditions can core quickly and I am not saying every inning is scored over 3.5, but the frequency has increased a lot. The best fast of this time concedes runs at 3.30 in test cricket and has one of the highest ER amongst the ATG fast bowlers and he takes a lot wickets and still conceded runs at high ER and that is not just him, most bowlers right now have high ER because runs are scored quickly. 10-15 years back 3 rpo used to be was exceptional but now now.

Share this post


Link to post

BTW, rkt.india in case you are done farting around gas here are the actual numbers: 1980s: RR of 2.86 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+1989;spanmin1=01+Jan+1980;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate 2000 onwards: RR of 3.20 - no where close to the 4 RPO you were jerking off to despite crap teams like Bangladesh playing: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate So if 3.5-4 is normal in tests, how come the average run rate is 3.2? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
BTW, rkt.india in case you are done farting around gas here are the actual numbers: 1980s: RR of 2.86 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+1989;spanmin1=01+Jan+1980;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate 2000 onwards: RR of 3.20 - no where close to the 4 RPO you were jerking off to despite crap teams like Bangladesh playing: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=aggregate So if 3.5-4 is normal in tests, how come the average run rate is 3.2? :confused:
Did I talk about an average scoring rate of 3.5-4? I said it is common and not rare like it was in the past. Ever second test, you can see teams scoring at that rate. Scoring at that rate is more frequently now than ever and 3.2 is a significant number if you talk about an average scoring rate per test. It depends on pitches and few other factors too like Australia's inability play spin in India so they could not score as quickly as India and India's inability to play pace in Aus, so they could not score at that pace as Aus scored. So this average balances out itself. The scorecard I posted above, check how many innings are of 3.5 or above and that is pretty common. I never talked about 3.5 is average, even 3.2 as an average is significantly high.

Share this post


Link to post

^ So an increase in average run rate of 0.3 is enough to explain all your bowling theories? And when you say 3.5-4 is normal, yes it does imply it's fairly common and should be close to the average. The numbers show you are way off target. Who the frack cares about individual innings - even I can post individual innings from 70s and 80s with higher run rates. Doesn't say anything.

Share this post


Link to post
That is so true. In the Delhi test, Dhoni should have more fielders in the circle. You want the batsman to take extra risk for their boundary and in these conditions going down the track or trying to put away a short one (against spin) which usually stays low (Watto's dismissal) is easier said than done. If you have players on the boundary lines in the very first over of spin on a square turner it pretty much means you don't trust your bowlers.
I think we should just stop being critical of Dhoni. He is a defensive captain. Thats all there is to it. He will not be Mark Taylor. His first priority is to save runs and then maybe take wickets

Share this post


Link to post
^ So an increase in average run rate of 0.3 is enough to explain all your bowling theories? And when you say 3.5-4 is normal, yes it does imply it's fairly common and should be close to the average. The numbers show you are way off target. Who the frack cares about individual innings - even I can post individual innings from 70s and 80s with higher run rates. Doesn't say anything.
Think and imagine when most captains like to stop boundaries by putting in-out fields even then that average ER is 3.2, wonder what can be the scoring rate if captains stop protecting boundaries because of attacking field.

Share this post


Link to post
Think and imagine when most captains like to stop boundaries by putting in-out fields even then that average ER is 3.2' date=' wonder what can be the scoring rate if captains stop protecting boundaries because of attacking field.[/quote'] Since we are imagining, with attacking fields teams would be bowled out for 100 runs in an innings, so run rate won't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Since we are imagining' date=' with attacking fields teams would be bowled out for 100 runs in an innings, so run rate won't matter.[/quote'] You need good bowlers to do that, which are not there anymore. I believe field depends on bowlers and their ability. What a captain thinks of a bowler, whether he can give his captain enough confidence for attacking field. Zaheer at his best will have much more attacking field than any other Indian pacer despite even he bowls a lot of boundary balls but captain has confidence in him that he can come back and get a wicket even if he goes for a boundary or two. When a bowler bowls boundary balls every over, short-wide, or half volley, or down the legs, both sides of the wicket, no captain can go on all out attack. People usually takes name of Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh, etc., but does not look at the kind of bowling attack they had.

Share this post


Link to post

"IC: Yes, they generally are. That was a ridiculous situation before the Mohali Test. These are men. If there are problems you sit them down in a room. The Australian way was probably with a carton of beer, and then you thrash it out. To ask guys to send a text or an email, that's rubbish. If I hear the word "culture" one more time, I think I'm going to throw up. They say we want to develop this culture; there's only one culture we've got to develop and that's a winning culture. What I see, the way they are going about things is, you develop a culture where the guys who cosy up to the important people are going to do all right. That's a rubbish culture. I always felt, as a captain, the guys who probably argued and disagreed with me and were prepared to speak their mind, they were the most important guys in your team. They were generally the better players. They were the last ones to give up a fight. So, you don't want to develop a lot of yes men around you." Hence, I was liked this guy. Even in my disagreements with some of his opinions.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×