fineleg Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 So, what really happened to our bowling when #9 Mitch Jo was going bonkers!? Ok, Great, nah Terrific, to win at Perth. But what really happened? Ok, tailenders (or even "bowling allrounders") swing and can play some good 'cricketing shots' as well. All fine and dandy. But, Indian bowlers and captain(?) lost their plot too? Why the heck will you bowl bouncer after bouncer and even Stuark Clark was smashing and pulling it! How many runs did M.J. score in the arc between midwicket to long on? *Boss Bhai* - any info on this? Why could we not bowl much better line and length? We were doing it and thats how we eventually got the last 2 wickets! Link to comment
talksport Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 His risks came off....and rode his luck India were just waiting for the new ball....Thats taking advantage of the cushion of lead. It generally happpens with tailenders, they bat freely as if nothing to lose with no pressure and when the Target becomes closer, the pressure comes back and then they buckle. Kudos to India and Pathan... Link to comment
fineleg Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 I think MJ is a shade better than tailenders - but still...let him take risks or whatever - but I'm talking abt our bowlers here. Their line and length was awful after these 2 started throwing their bats around. Our bowlers lost the plot for a while. Had we bowled the Lines we were bowling an hour ago, and if MJ still succeeded thats another story? But we unnecesarily tried too many things. Link to comment
Dhondy Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I think MJ is a shade better than tailenders - but still...let him take risks or whatever - but I'm talking abt our bowlers here. Their line and length was awful after these 2 started throwing their bats around. Our bowlers lost the plot for a while. Had we bowled the Lines we were bowling an hour ago, and if MJ still succeeded thats another story? But we unnecesarily tried too many things. Oh, do shut up, Fineleg!:haha: Can't you ever find it within yourself to be happy for the team for a change! Link to comment
beetle Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Come'on finey...you didn't expect them to gently roll over and play dead ,did you? They are world champions for a reason.They showed gret fight when most other teams would have given up. Besides at that time...they had nothing to lose by being offensive.....we had already taken the match away.They were just giving it one last shot. And at such times....luck really counts. Any of the those near catches would have put an end to it....You could say luck favoured the brave for a while ......:D Link to comment
ludhianvi Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I think the bowlers were trying to do too much. Trying short pitched stuff,etc. Also, if you notice, both Clark and Johnson were scoring heavily only on the legside just like Tanvir. They just needed to plug those areas and bowl to a different side. I also didnt see them bowl change of pace deliveries as well. Link to comment
Mandrake Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Not an excuse but RP and Laxman also had a partnership of 50.....maybe India were too eager at that point and lost the plot a bit....credit to the Aussies for fighting it out till the end. Link to comment
Cricketics Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 fineleg, may u answer, what happend to aus bowling attack which was just running through our batting line up after getting sehwag, dravid, tendulkar, ganguly... why did it let it go.. even though symo and clarke bowled overs in between, still when rp came clark and lee weren't really able to get them out easily... why so??? it happens in test cricket.. tailenderz are bloody nuisance... they are capable of playing risky shots which bringz them more runz as the ball goes @ unique fielding places.. and add to that bowlers tend to get sometimes bit carried away with that even after bowling good deliveriez and try to put a lot lot more effort in geting the wicket of that tailender.. Link to comment
fineleg Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 fineleg, may u answer, what happend to aus bowling attack which was just running through our batting line up after getting sehwag, dravid, tendulkar, ganguly... why did it let it go.. even though symo and clarke bowled overs in between, still when rp came clark and lee weren't really able to get them out easily... why so??? it happens in test cricket.. tailenderz are bloody nuisance... they are capable of playing risky shots which bringz them more runz as the ball goes @ unique fielding places.. All the above is fine. and add to that bowlers tend to get sometimes bit carried away with that even after bowling good deliveriez and try to put a lot lot more effort in geting the wicket of that tailender.. Above is the issue. Trying too many things. Just bowl like you were bowling an hour ago. You'll get the wickets even if they throw their bats around. Thats what Pathan did (eventually!, phew!) @Dhondy: I am very happy Doc. This post is despite that. I want to make sure no loose ends when we go into Adelaide:D @Beetle: Sure they are world champs and all that. Focus is not on them, focus is on us maintaining our bowling. They can fight, not fight, thats upto them. We just maintain focus, and do our best. Link to comment
Cricketics Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 All the above is fine. Above is the issue. Trying too many things. Just bowl like you were bowling an hour ago. You'll get the wickets even if they throw their bats around. Thats what Pathan did (eventually!, phew!) well its not really issue for India, fineleg.. its for each and every bowling attack thing is if lee bowlz an unplayable yorker to Dravid and bowlz a same yorker to say Murlaitharan.. then there are more chances of ball going to the boundary for four when murali is batting and not dravid.. this is because murali, a tailender would come and play his funny shots and ball could end up going in a funny unique place where offcourse opposition captain wouldn't havce a fielder.. its part of game.. it happenz with everyone.. Link to comment
Ram Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Anyone who knows his cricket will know that there will be passages of play when Aus will look to run away with it and that is what happened with Johnson and Clark. They were playing a shot-a-ball, Johnson was bowled once off a no-ball and nearly held out to Sehwag. It was only a matter of time they got themselves out, which is what happened. India possibly lost the plot a bit by making RP bowl all short pitch at Clark, but unluckily for us, he kept connecting, but our tactics were understandable. In the end, better sense prevailed, Pathan bowled line and length and Clark got out. However, once Michael Clarke got out, Victory only a matter of when and not a matter of If ! Link to comment
ranj Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Spot on, Fineleg. Spot on. Also, I noticed Ishant was wearing half spikes instead of the conventional full spikes. No wonder it took him 7 overs to get Ponting out. He also didnt tie his shoes in a double knot, preferring the reckless single sailors knot instead. We need to make sure we tie up these loose ends before Adelaide, otherwise the Aussies will wipe the floor with us. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Spot on, Fineleg. Spot on. Also, I noticed Ishant was wearing half spikes instead of the conventional full spikes. No wonder it took him 7 overs to get Ponting out. He also didnt tie his shoes in a double knot, preferring the reckless single sailors knot instead. We need to make sure we tie up these loose ends before Adelaide, otherwise the Aussies will wipe the floor with us. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Perfect reply, ranj. Link to comment
yoda Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Spot on, Fineleg. Spot on. Also, I noticed Ishant was wearing half spikes instead of the conventional full spikes. No wonder it took him 7 overs to get Ponting out. He also didnt tie his shoes in a double knot, preferring the reckless single sailors knot instead. We need to make sure we tie up these loose ends before Adelaide, otherwise the Aussies will wipe the floor with us. :hysterical: finey, btw, there were several wild swing mis hits which fell in no man's land. Link to comment
Guest dada_rocks Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 See I am confident if there was lesser deficit team india wud have neutered them earlier.. it's all about complacency and over-trying which makes these tailenders score.. all they needed is one full over of good-length ball outside off stump one of those hoicks wud haveresulted into nick Link to comment
King Tendulkar Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Spot on, Fineleg. Spot on. Also, I noticed Ishant was wearing half spikes instead of the conventional full spikes. No wonder it took him 7 overs to get Ponting out. He also didnt tie his shoes in a double knot, preferring the reckless single sailors knot instead. We need to make sure we tie up these loose ends before Adelaide, otherwise the Aussies will wipe the floor with us. spot on :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Link to comment
Cricketics Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Spot on, Fineleg. Spot on. Also, I noticed Ishant was wearing half spikes instead of the conventional full spikes. No wonder it took him 7 overs to get Ponting out. He also didnt tie his shoes in a double knot, preferring the reckless single sailors knot instead. We need to make sure we tie up these loose ends before Adelaide, otherwise the Aussies will wipe the floor with us. lol @ tie shoe loses.. dude he wil tie according to what makez him feel comfortable.. that was one strange comment from you Link to comment
ranj Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 lol @ tie shoe loses.. dude he wil tie according to what makez him feel comfortable.. that was one strange comment from you Sorry Cricketics, I know. He can tie his shoelaces any way he wants. But it's been proven that single sailor knots lead to serious metatarsal injuries. I just cant get my head around how he could be so unprofessional about his footwear. It makes me so angry. You'd never see Bret Lee being so irresponsible. You know he has Tim Neilson tie his boots before every session? I think it used to be Shaun Tait, but I heard someone say that he isnt fit to tie Lee's shoelaces. It's that level of professionalism which still separates the two sides. Link to comment
Cricketics Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 ranj mate, once more, u quoted mein thrice teen tigada, kaam bigaada do it four times mate pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee edited - o u deleted one, so 2 left Link to comment
Cricketics Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Sorry Cricketics, I know. He can tie his shoelaces any way he wants. But it's been proven that single sailor knots lead to serious metatarsal injuries. I just cant get my head around how he could be so unprofessional about his footwear. It makes me so angry. You'd never see Bret Lee being so irresponsible. You know he has Tim Neilson tie his shoelaces before every session? I think it used to be Shaun Tait, but I heard someone say that he isnt fit to tie Lee's shoelaces. It's that level of professionalism which still separates the two sides. isn't fit to tie shoelaces.. rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now