Why do certain teams play well against particular opponents?

[The Outsider]

There are a few rivalries in which one of the teams manages to raise their game above their general trend. India-Australia is one such rivalry. Australia are the best team in the world and have been for a long time but even in their heyday, an India-Australia contest was always close. During the 80s, similar thing could be said of Pakistan-WI. Despite being far and away the best team in the world, WI were always run close by Pakistan. Some more examples would be of South Africa-India where South Africa manage to raise their game above their general trend, specially when playing in India. Also, India-Pakistan where Pakistan tend to do better when playing India. Perhaps, NZ-England can also be added to the list, where NZ tend to do better when playing England. South Africa-Australia is one contest where South Africa perform decidedly worse than their general trend and form. Some of the above can be brought down to pure cricketing terms and skills, some to individual team's style of playing, and perhaps some is purely psychological. The fact that India played Warne so well immediately took out a huge threat when playing Australia, the fact that WI in the 80s were poor players of spin in general and Pakistan in Qadir had the best spinner of the 80s can explain to an extent the result of Pak-WI test series from those times. South Africa's good show against India can at least in part be attributed to their highly professional and planned approach to the game, something which subcontinental teams find tough to tackle. India-Pakistan and South Africa-Australia results are probably explained to an extent by psychological reasons of Australia and Pakistan holding a general psychological edge over their rivals for the greater part of their cricketing history. More reasons, more theories, more rivalries????

[siddhu]

I agree and its mostly psychological... i guess. Players like Laxman, when playing against Aus, raises his game, but playing against equally ranked or lower ranked opponents tends to fail usually as pointed by his lower average(44) (although he still brings in a beautiful inning from somewhere). Probably feels bored against other oppositions. I think it depends on what certain people think as a challenge. For Pakistan-India, i think its more of a fear of what people will do their houses or to themselves or their family... even in the past... although it has mellowed down a little due to overkill of Ind-Pak matches. For India-Australia, Aus seems to be the ultimate challenge for India and we seem to take our game to the next level but against other oppositions we definitely tend to loose that focus. Current Pakistan team eventhough filled with crap players ran India close in a 3 test series eventhough we won the 1st test comfortably. India-SA, also i thought would be cakewalk... but 76 AO opened my eyes.

[flamy]

It's not little, its completely about motivation. Playing the best team in the world has a way of motivating you more than any pep talk. That's why the India-Aus matches are so intense. Case in point: T20 World Cup Semi-Final Ind Aus. I havent seen more intense and high quality cricket than that.

[diegovegaz]

pakistani players become superheroes when they come against india the fact is, india changes the standard of their game they can bring it down to the likes of bangladesh rise it to the levels of australia

[Tapioca]

Nice question and waiting to read more posts in this thread. I don't have any answers except that Australia's attacking style used to suit Indian batsmen more. South Africa play a more closed, defensive game which seem to choke the Indian batsmen. That's all. Nothing useful to add !

[King]

I guess it's what we call as "Bogey team". Pakistan used to beat India in the past, Australia has always found India a bogey team and for India Saffies and Sri Lanka are a bogey team too. I guess the same set of players coming up against a bogey team can cause a bit of tension and loss of confidence. This is where mental make up comes into picture. Often we have seen the likes of Shoaib Akthar and Warne, two devastating bowlers in their own right struggle against India. Not that they cannot bowl well or forget all the techniques they are so used to but the external factors can be quite a distraction. This in terms of people that work with sporting minds term as "External pressure or distractions". This is not only related to just a team or an individual. There are instances when some players just can't seem to perform in a particular venue or two. Rahul Dravid in Bangalore has struggled as we all know. I think it's a mix of pressure and what they call external distractions. A bit more on this one, why is that most players find it easy to play in their home town or home country? That is because they are used to the set up and soak in the external distractions. External distractions can be the field set up or pressure from the crowd or even the complacency that sets in knowing the conditions too well. I know a lot of players practice concentration techniques to overcome this sort of problem. These days it's lot easier with so much information available readily. Something that the cricket followers don't know is that the players usually don't just turn up at the game time. They come in a lot early, have a look around to get used to the surroundings and psyche themselves up by having a dummy bowl or bat. It's one vast area of sports and is dealt in good detail in the Level 3 & 4 coaching courses.

[DomainK]

It is remarkable how India can change the quality of the game according to the opposition. When they play Bangladesh, they play cricket of Bagladesh's quality and allow things to get tight. Same with Australia.

[Vignesh]

It is remarkable how India can change the quality of the game according to the opposition. When they play Bangladesh, they play cricket of Bagladesh's quality and allow things to get tight. Same with Australia.

:hysterical:

[flamy]

It is remarkable how India can change the quality of the game according to the opposition. When they play Bangladesh, they play cricket of Bagladesh's quality and allow things to get tight. Same with Australia.

no wonder watching India play is so exciting! :yay:

[Bumper]

Good thread. Considering Ind-Aus rivalry, I think the (batting) conditions in the respective countries have more to do with our success. At home, its a no brainer. We play well because our batsmen are damn good players of spin (who can blunt Warney) and pace attacks are usually blunted by our pitches. In addition, we exploited Australian batsmen's traditional weaknesses against spin, marvellously. The times, the Aussies have beaten us convincingly, such victories have come on pitches conducive to seam bowling (Bangalore'04, Nagpur'04, Mumbai'01 etc). Pretty much all other contests have been even stevens, because of the nature of the pitches. In Australia, pitches dont seam around much. Except WACA (where the bounce is unusually high), on pretty much all other pitches, the bounce is true & normal. Hence quality batsmen can score runs. For this reason, on many occassions, in recent encounters, we've batted ourselves into a position from which we could not lose. Its only when the ball moves side ways for sustained periods of time, Indian batsmen are all at sea (as is the case in NZ, SA). Aussie pitches are still a huge challenge for mortals, but given the quality of our batsmen, we can mount a reasonable challenge most of the time. I also think, its impossible for teams with a weak batting lineup (regardless of the bowling strengths) to compete with the Aussies consistently. Pakistan & South Africa are great examples. Regardless of the bowling quality, Aussie batsmen will always find a way to out bat the opponents. In addition to all the above, the SINGLE BIGGEST reason we've done well against the Aussies, recently is Veeru. Yes, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman are all great batsmen, but put them under pressure (25/2 or 50/3), they are more likely to fail. India is so fortunate to have Veeru in its ranks. No other team has such an explosive opener of such quality. He makes a big difference to psyche of the respective teams when they play each other.

[Laaloo]

wat abt hayden??

[Rajiv]

While it can be a simple matter of competitiveness, I feel that certain teams know their oppositions game through common tactics and trends which they have been using A classic example is the recent Ind-Aus series, where Australia wasn't ready for an Indian fightback ( on the field and words ), they lost on a pitch where they gave India no chance at all Confidence and past history also plays a big role as well

[Predator_05]

In addition to all the above' date=' the SINGLE BIGGEST reason we've done well against the Aussies, recently is Veeru. Yes, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman are all great batsmen, but put them under pressure (25/2 or 50/3), they are more likely to fail. India is so fortunate to have Veeru in its ranks. No other team has such an explosive opener of such quality. He makes a big difference to psyche of the respective teams when they play each other.[/quote'] Saying Sehwag has been the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success vs AUS is absurd since Sehwag's contribution in all of India's big wins against them has been minimal. He wasn't around in '01 [the last series India actually WON against them], he did precious little at Adelaide in '04, did nothing in India's win over them at Mumbai later that year, precious little at Perth in the last tour.

[ludhianvi]

Perhaps the combination of type of batsmen/bowlers favour the batsmen/bowlers of certain teams better and hence the close competition

[Bumper]

Saying Sehwag has been the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success vs AUS is absurd since Sehwag's contribution in all of India's big wins against them has been minimal. He wasn't around in '01 [the last series India actually WON against them]' date= he did precious little at Adelaide in '04, did nothing in India's win over them at Mumbai later that year, precious little at Perth in the last tour.

But what about the games, he saved almost single handedly ? Eg: Chennai'04, Adelaide'08 And the ones in which he played a crucial role ? Perth'08, Sydney'04, Adelaide'04 (Two useful 40s. Replace him with Jaffer, we'd have lost that game). Without veeru our middle order will be shitting like they did back in 1999. Why go that far ? We lost the only two tests Veeru did not play in the recent tour. Without Sehwag, we wouldnt have a respectable recent record against Australia, period.

[Predator_05]

We lost the only two tests Veeru did not play in the recent tour. Without Sehwag' date=' we wouldnt have a respectable recent record against Australia, period.[/quote'] ...and yet, the only two series India have ACTUALLY WON against Australia were WITHOUT Sehwag. So your argument of "Without Sehwag, we wouldnt have a respectable recent record against Australia, period" is crap. If he really was THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success (VICTORIES) against Australia as you say he is, how come India have NEVER won a series against Australia when he has been in the side and how come they managed to BEAT Australia WITHOUT a substantial contribution from him ?

[Bumper]

"Without Sehwag, we wouldnt have a respectable recent record against Australia, period" is crap

Lets see. Without Veeru we'd have lost the Chennai test in 2004 & likely the Adelaide test in 2003/04 as well and most definitely the Adelaide test in 2008. So instead of a 1-1 in 2003, 1-2 in 2004 and 1-2 in 2008 which look respectable, the numbers would read: 0-2 in 2003, 1-3 in 2004 & 1-3 in 2008 -- hardly an evenly contested rivalry. Even if you argue that we'd have somehow won at Adelaide with a Jaffer inplace of Sehwag (never mind, he scored two useful 40s), it'd still be a record far from respectable. So, the thought that without Veeru our record wont be as respectable is more than merit worthy!

If he really was THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success (VICTORIES) against Australia

To borrow CC's phrasing, thats a 'binary mode of thought' Success against Australia does not mean victories. Was our 2003-04 tour a success ? Did we win the series ? Was our recent tour a success ? Did we win the series ? Success against an all time great test team, is surpassing everyone's expectations, which we clearly did!

[Predator_05]

Lets see. Without Veeru we'd have lost the Chennai test in 2004 & likely the Adelaide test in 2003/04 as well and most definitely the Adelaide test in 2008. So instead of a 1-1 in 2003, 1-2 in 2004 and 1-2 in 2008 which look respectable, the numbers would read: 0-2 in 2003, 1-3 in 2004 & 1-3 in 2008 -- hardly an evenly contested rivalry. Even if you argue that we'd have somehow won at Adelaide with a Jaffer inplace of Sehwag (never mind, he scored two useful 40s), it'd still be a record far from respectable. So, the thought that without Veeru our record wont be as respectable is more than merit worthy!!

But pre-Sehwag, India's record against Australia WAS respectable - probably moreso !!! India beat them in two back-to-back series at home and then in '01. The only blip was the 3-0 in AUS back in '99. So the count reads 3 series for IND, 1 for AUS. India didn't need Sehwag to beat Australia. I am not going to get into the specifics of what Sehwag did in each and every damn match he played against AUS. I just think your argument of Sehwag being the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success against AUS is totally off the mark. Your argument would have made sense if Sehwag had top scored in a few of those wins and if India had an awful record against Australia prior to his arrival. But as it stands in reality, that wasn't the case. Judging by the way India managed to win 3 test matches against them without any substantial contribution from him, it's obvious that he clearly ISN'T the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's impressive track record against Australia. I really don't know how you can contest that, but you're more than welcome to keep digging

[The Outsider]

Without Veeru we'd have lost the Chennai test in 2004 & likely the Adelaide test in 2003/04 as well and most definitely the Adelaide test in 2008. So instead of a 1-1 in 2003, 1-2 in 2004 and 1-2 in 2008 which look respectable, the numbers would read: 0-2 in 2003, 1-3 in 2004 & 1-3 in 2008 -- hardly an evenly contested rivalry. Even if you argue that we'd have somehow won at Adelaide with a Jaffer inplace of Sehwag (never mind, he scored two useful 40s), it'd still be a record far from respectable.

Not discounting Sehwag's value to the team or his performances against Australia one bit, I would surely object to calling him the single biggest reason. Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar, Kumble, Harbhajan(to an extent) have been equally if not more important. Turning your argument around, if Laxman had not played brilliantly at Brisbane, Adelaide, and Sydney we could have easily lost 0-3 or if Laxman had not won us the Mumbai test we would have lost 0-3 again, or if Laxman again had not played superbly at Perth we would have lost 0-3, and in 2001 would have ertainly lost 0-3. Similar arguments can be made for any of Tendulkar, Dravid, and Kumble and at least for one series for Harbhajan.

[Bumper]

But pre-Sehwag' date=' India's record against Australia [b']WAS respectable - probably moreso !!! India beat them in two back-to-back series at home and then in '01. The only blip was the 3-0 in AUS back in '99. So the count reads 3 series for IND, 1 for AUS. India didn't need Sehwag to beat Australia. I am not going to get into the specifics of what Sehwag did in each and every damn match he played against AUS. I just think your argument of Sehwag being the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success against AUS is totally off the mark. Your argument would have made sense if Sehwag had top scored in a few of those wins and if India had an awful record against Australia prior to his arrival. But as it stands in reality, that wasn't the case. Judging by the way India managed to win 3 test matches against them without any substantial contribution from him, it's obvious that he clearly ISN'T the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's impressive track record against Australia. I really don't know how you can contest that, but you're more than welcome to keep digging

What respectable record ? Aussies have been India's whipping boys at home for close to three decades. So a victory at home in the 90s was almost taken for granted. So the argument that India competed well at home till 2001, doesnt hold much water (though the 2001 series was special because of some individual heroics, which you dont see in every series). But it is when India started competing in Australia, the world took us seriously as a test force & rightly so. Even in the recent tour, had we come back with a 3-0 or a 4-0 whipping, our morale as a test side, would have been vastly different. In the 90s, India were routinely reduced to 20/2 & 40/3. The innings stalled after that! Even in the recent Melbourne test, we saw our innings stall due to lack of early momentum. Its easy to underestimate Veeru's genius & the difference he makes to our psyche. But it is because of the force that he is, we are able to pile on the big scores that we are used to. Take Veeru out, India would barely have a record better than Pakistan, against Australia!