Why do certain teams play well against particular opponents?

[Predator_05]

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!

IND 3-1 AUS is a respectable record. You can try p issing all over India's excellent home record all you like, but you can't say that it isn't a respectable record. India also lost their last test series at home WITH Sehwag in the side. I won't bother with the rest of your post, 'cos i just can't be bothered with hypotheticals. If this, if that...yawn. What's clear is that Sehwag ISN'T the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success (or lack of it) against Australia.

[Bumper]

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.

But Laxman, Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly have all played in Australia in the 90s as well, didnt they ? Why didnt we compete even in a single test in the 1999 tour ? Why couldnt we score 400+ even once ? Why were the powers of our middle order batsmen, reduced so disproportionately ? Now, look at the tests, Veeru has played against Australia. I dont need to dig up stats. Going just by memory, I recall that, whenever Veeru has come off, we have put up a good first innings score, which is the key to compete away from home. The times he has failed, we've struggled more often than not. Without a solid platform, our middle order would be reduced to half their powers. IMO, thats one of the biggest reasons India is a different test side this decade (the others being the resurgence of Kumble & a competent seam attack)

[Bumper]

IND 3-1 AUS is a respectable record. You can try p issing all over India's excellent home record all you like, but you can't say that it isn't a respectable record. India also lost their last test series at home WITH Sehwag in the side. I won't bother with the rest of your post, 'cos i just can't be bothered with hypotheticals. If this, if that...yawn. What's clear is that Sehwag ISN'T the SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success (or lack of it) against Australia.

Oh really ? Which part of the "0-2 in 2003, 1-3 in 2004 & 1-3 in 2008" did you not understand ? Respectable, innit ?

[graphic23]

Bumper, Sehwag has been phenomenal in the matches he has clicked. The 195 at Melbourne was special (though we lost that match.) The recent 151 was the best knock he's played (yeah, even the 300s don't count). But to give credit to Sehwag for all our away wins (in Australia or otherwise) is not correct at all. I'd say that honor belongs to Rahul Dravid. Sachin was awesome on almost all the tours to Australia (though the team could not support him well). Laxman, as is well known, has been tremendous against Australia (in India or in Australia). So to discount all these guys and to give to Sehwag alone is not correct. When Australia visited us in 1998, they were considered the best team in the world (although Sri Lanka won the WC). To demoralize such a side took a special Sachin 155 by absolutely dismantling Shane Warne. I reckon Sehwag has not played Warne too often that too on a spinning wicket like Chennai. When Warne landed his leg breaks on the rough, he saw them hit for a six or a four. He gave away 122 runs in 23 overs or something like that. In 2001, Laxman was awesome. As was Sachin again at Chennai (his 126). 2003-04 tour in Australia almost overwhelmingly belonged to Rahul Dravid (600+ runs in 4 test matches including an awesome 233 and an unbeaten 72* in the 2nd innings). The 2004 tour in India was bad for us because we could not compete well enough and Australia won a series in India after nearly 35 years. Even then, Sachin produced a gem in Mumbai. Yeah, Sehwag had a 155 in Chennai. But look at how much the others have contributed as well. In 1999, Sachin scored a 116 in Melbourne that Ian Chappell still thinks is one of the best innings he's seen in Australia (along with that 114 in Perth 1992). That was when we got beat 3-0 by Australia when Sachin was captain. Sachin scored 155 when Sehwag scored 101 against South Africa in Bloemfontein in 2001(?). He scored 169 against South Africa in Cape Town when India was 61/5. Rahul Dravid, Sachin, and Ganguly were tremendously successful in 2002-03 tour of England. That was the first time when Sehwag was tried as an opener in Test matches. So, I'd say that our away wins have come pretty everytime Sachin, Rahul, and Laxman have been in good form. One team that is absolutely scared of Sehwag and have no response to him is Pakistan (in Test Matches, anyways). He averages 90+ against them. We won that famous series in 2004 because of him. He did well then. But look at how much the others have achieved. I am not at all belittling Viru's value to the team - he adds great value at the top of the order and can the game away from the opposition very quickly. He is not, however, the single most valuable player away from home for us. The other 4 folks have done much much more.

[Predator_05]

Oh really ? Which part of the "0-2 in 2003' date=' 1-3 in 2004 & 1-3 in 2008" did you not understand ? Respectable, innit ?[/quote'] ??? I don't remember these scores ? What are you talking about ?

[Bumper]

graphic, the context is Australia. Am not discounting what others have done in away tours.

[Bumper]

??? I don't remember these scores ? What are you talking about ?

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.

There is a HUGE difference between the Aussie test team of the 90s & the one of this decade. Beating a developing Aussie test unit at home in the 90s is not even comparable to competing well with an all time great test team this decade, esp away from home!

[graphic23]

Oh really ? Which part of the "0-2 in 2003' date=' 1-3 in 2004 & 1-3 in 2008" did you not understand ? Respectable, innit ?[/quote'] 0-2 in 2003? 1st Test at Brisbane was a draw thanks to a superb innings of 144 by Sourav Ganguly. The second test at Adelaide was won by us - thanks to Rahul Dravid We were the first team in Australia to take a lead of 1-0 since Kepler Wessels' South African team did so in the early or mid 90s. The third test was won by them despite Sehwag's 195 at Melbourne(The rest of the team couldn't support him well). The Sydney test was a close draw with us holding the upper hand most of the time - Sachin scored 241* in this game. So, what 0-2 in 2003?

graphic, the context is Australia. Am not discounting what others have done in away tours.

That was the major part of my response. Sachin/Laxman/Dravid have done so much better than Sehwag in Australia. Again I'd like to reiterate that I do understand that we would've lost the Adelaide test without Sehwag's 151 but that innings alone cannot make him the #1 reason why India was winning away in this decade (and I'd even credit Pakistan to him but you said not to count other teams apart from Australia).

There is a HUGE difference between the Aussie test team of the 90s & the one of this decade. Beating a developing Aussie test unit at home in the 90s is not even comparable to competing well with an all time great test team this decade, esp away from home!

Its funny you say that because no team has won a test series in Australia since the West Indies in the early part of 90s (1994 if I'm not mistaken). How is the 90s Australian team not comparable to the present team?

[The Outsider]

But Laxman, Tendulkar, Dravid, Ganguly have all played in Australia in the 90s as well, didnt they ? Why didnt we compete even in a single test in the 1999 tour ? Why couldnt we score 400+ even once ? Why were the powers of our middle order batsmen, reduced so disproportionately ?

Tendulkar did play and played superbly. To be man of the series in a rubber where your team loses 0-3 is a rarity and a testament to the innings he played during that tour. Dravid was hardly the accomplished batsman at that time that he was a few years later and Laxman was really a greenhorn in international cricket. No doubt Sehwag has chipped in with his part, but is certainly not the single most potent force against Australia.

[Bumper]

0-2 in 2003? 1st Test at Brisbane was a draw thanks to a superb innings of 144 by Sourav Ganguly. The second test at Adelaide was won by us - thanks to Rahul Dravid We were the first team in Australia to take a lead of 1-0 since Kepler Wessels' South African team did so in the early or mid 90s. The third test was won by them despite Sehwag's 195 at Melbourne(The rest of the team couldn't support him well). The Sydney test was a close draw with us holding the upper hand most of the time - Sachin scored 241* in this game. So, what 0-2 in 2003? That was the major part of my response. Sachin/Laxman/Dravid have done so much better than Sehwag in Australia. Again I'd like to reiterate that I do understand that we would've lost the Adelaide test without Sehwag's 151 but that innings alone cannot make him the #1 reason why India was winning away in this decade (and I'd even credit Pakistan to him but you said not to count other teams apart from Australia). Its funny you say that because no team has won a test series in Australia since the West Indies in the early part of 90s (1994 if I'm not mistaken). How is the 90s Australian team not comparable to the present team?

graphic, I suggest you read my posts in this thread prior to your post. You are arguing about issues I never contested. Also you seem to have misunderstood some of the numbers from my post.

[Bumper]

Tendulkar did play and played superbly. To be man of the series in a rubber where your team loses 0-3 is a rarity and a testament to the innings he played during that tour. Dravid was hardly the accomplished batsman at that time that he was a few years later and Laxman was really a greenhorn in international cricket. No doubt Sehwag has chipped in with his part' date=' but is certainly not the single most potent force against Australia.[/quote'] During the time he has played Australia, Veeru has been our most consistent performer with the bat. In 2003/04 he had a damn good series along with Dravid & Laxman (SRT wasnt a force for 3 of the 4 tests) In 2004, SRT was injured, Dravid & Laxman were no shows for the most part. Veeru once again was our MVP with the bat In 2007/08, we lost the only two tests we played without Sehwag. At Perth, if you account for his total runs in the match (it was some 80 odd) along with his two wickets, played a crucial role in our test win. At Adelaide, i do not even have to explain. Veeru saved our a$$. There is no doubt in my mind that he was the best batsman of the last three series vs Australia combined (for the impact he had on each series). As for Dravid in 1999, IMO, his failures had more to do with McWarne, than him not being accomplished. (He failed again in 2004 at his peak form, when McWarne returned). Laxman & Ganguly were still very good players, back then (Laxman was still good enough to score 169 at the SCG). But none of them were able to build partnerships, necessary for tall scores. Why ?? With the platform & the momentum Veeru imparted to the innings as an opener, the opponents were already on the defensive. Suddenly all our middle order had to do was carry on the good work & keep up the pressure on the bowlers, as opposed to digging in to construct an innings from scratch. Veeru provided India the luxury, which we never had before. In that respect, I'd put him ahead of all other batsmen as our biggest reason, for success against Australia.

[graphic23]

graphic' date=' I suggest you read my posts in this thread prior to your post. You are arguing about issues I never contested.[/quote'] Perhaps my answers weren't well phrased enough. I was referring to this note by you that said we would've lost the 2003 Australia series without Virender Sehwag and thats a false statement. Sehwag was not the reason we drew that series 1-1 (or rather they drew the series 1-1). Rahul Dravid, Anil Kumble, VVS Laxman had more contributions than Sehwag did. Second point, you said that 90s Australia team was not comparable to this decade's all time great test team. I said that was also not a correct statement going by their record at home since 1994.For the majority of the decade, no one won a series in Australia (1990s is the decade I am referring to). Using your incorrect premise, you made a statement that Viru's innings this decade was more valuable because we were playing a better team than in the 90s, and I said that was false. Perhaps, I misunderstood you here - but I don't think so. Third point, reply to my first post in this thread you said that only Australia was being discussed - not our away record at other places. My response was that I had responded in detail to our away record in Australia in the past ten years and that Viru, though has played 2 or 3 special innings, is not the #1 or the sole reason why our record in Australia is so good. I think that should help put my previous responses in context, and you will find that I was, hopefully, not arguing with thin air but rather responding to your comments, which I though were incorrect.

[graphic23]

During the time he has played Australia, Veeru has been our most consistent performer with the bat. In 2003/04 he had a damn good series along with Dravid & Laxman (SRT wasnt a force for 3 of the 4 tests) In 2004, SRT was injured, Dravid & Laxman were no shows for the most part. Veeru once again was our MVP with the bat In 2007/08, we lost the only two tests we played with Sehwag. At Perth, if you account for his total runs in the match, it was some 80 odd (which along with his two wickets) played a crucial role in our test win. At Adelaide, i do not even have to explain. Veeru saved our a$$. There is no doubt in my mind that he was the best batsman of the last three series vs Australia combined (for the impact he had on each series). As for Dravid in 1999, IMO, his failures had more to do with McWarne, than him not being accomplished. (He failed again in 2004 at his peak form, when McWarne returned). Laxman & Ganguly were still very good players, back then (Laxman was still good enough to score 169 at the SCG). But none of them were able to build partnerships, necessary for tall scores. Why ?? With the platform & the momentum Veeru imparted to the innings as an opener, the opponents were already on the defensive. Suddenly all our middle order had to do was carry on the good work & keep up the pressure on the bowlers, as opposed to digging in to construct an innings from scratch. Veeru provided India the luxury, which we never had before. In that respect, I'd put him ahead of all other batsmen as our biggest reason, for success against Australia.

Perhaps, it would be wise to know that Shane Warne has had little or no effect against India. He has good some good spells against us but largely, has been ineffective. He got Laxman 3 times in that 2004-05 series but apart from that I don't think he's been superb against India, really. So I think you're taking a lot of credit away from Dravid for what he did in that 2003-04 series. Glenn McGrath was successful against us but over all, I think we've played him decently (not very good or great). http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/137408.html Hopefully this would put into context Sehwag's contributions along wtih that of Dravid, Laxman,and Kumble's. I am not disagreeing with you that he did well on that tour but the others did better and deserve more respect than you're giving them. I find it surprising that you call Sehwag the most effective batsman against Australia while the rest of the world and probably Australia themselves, though they fear Sehwag a bit, think that VVS and Sachin have been extraordinary against them. Steve Waugh had actually said that "If you get Rahul Dravid, great. If you get Sachin Tendulkar, brilliant. If you get VVS Laxman, thats a miracle." to Brett Lee. The team wins when 4/6 batsmen play well. So never can you say that one batsman has been the reason for winning us games in Australia.

[Bumper]

Perhaps my answers weren't well phrased enough. I was referring to this note by you that said we would've lost the 2003 Australia series without Virender Sehwag and thats a false statement. Sehwag was not the reason we drew that series 1-1 (or rather they drew the series 1-1). Rahul Dravid, Anil Kumble, VVS Laxman had more contributions than Sehwag did.

Had we played Jaffer in place of Veeru in Adelaide'03, we'd have lost the lone test we won & hence the series scoreline would have been 0-2. If you disagree, please tell me why ?

Second point, you said that 90s Australia team was not comparable to this decade's all time great test team. I said that was also not a correct statement going by their record at home since 1994.For the majority of the decade, no one won a series in Australia (1990s is the decade I am referring to). Using your incorrect premise, you made a statement that Viru's innings this decade was more valuable because we were playing a better team than in the 90s, and I said that was false. Perhaps, I misunderstood you here - but I don't think so.

You have misunderstood my post, I reckon. I argued that beating a developing Aussie test unit at home (in India) in the 90s (with the likes of Blewett, Gavin Robertson & Paul Reiffel) is not comparable to competing well against an all time great test XI (that the Aussie have become), esp in Australia. And the unstated inference is that Veeru has helped us become that good. Infact, I have even asked the question on why our (same) batting lineup minus Veeru did not compete in 1999 ?

Third point, reply to my first post in this thread you said that only Australia was being discussed - not our away record at other places. My response was that I had responded in detail to our away record in Australia in the past ten years and that Viru, though has played 2 or 3 special innings, is not the #1 or the sole reason why our record in Australia is so good. I think that should help put my previous responses in context, and you will find that I was, hopefully, not arguing with thin air but rather responding to your comments, which I though were incorrect.

Read my prev post. If you combine the three series Veeru has played against Australia, you'd agree that he was our best batsman against them.

[Predator_05]

There is a HUGE difference between the Aussie test team of the 90s & the one of this decade. Beating a developing Aussie test unit at home in the 90s is not even comparable to competing well with an all time great test team this decade' date=' esp away from home![/quote'] And there is a huge difference between the Indian test team of the 90's and the one today. The one today, for starters, has better bowlers. Anyway, like i said before - i am not going to bother with your slew of hypothetical "if this" and "if that" claptrap. You can make that argument about any Indian cricketer. Sehwag doesn't contribute to a single Indian test win vs Australia but he's still THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success against them ? You are just digging yourself into a hole, trying to justify the unjustifiable

[graphic23]

Had we played Jaffer in place of Veeru in Adelaide'03, we'd have lost the lone test we won & hence the series scoreline would have been 0-2. If you disagree, please tell me why ?

Okay. I don't ever think Jaffer will match up to Viru. It is not possible for anyone in the present Indian 30-member squad to match up the way he plays. There is no argument there. At Adelaide, Viru made 47 in both innings. I agree that his second innings score was more important than the first innings one (he made 47 in 41 balls out of our team total of 523 in 971 balls). In the 2nd innings, Dravid's unbeaten 72 was the difference between defeat and a win. He was not the only batsman who contributed the most but he batted with resilience and held the innings together. There were good contributions from Viru, Sachin (2nd innings), and Laxman, which helped Dravid (and I'd say it was a good collective batting effort from 4/7 batsmen who were playing). I hardly think that in this situation, Sehwag was the difference between defeat and a win.

You have misunderstood my post, I reckon. I argued that beating a developing Aussie test unit at home (in India) in the 90s (with the likes of Blewett, Gavin Robertson & Paul Reiffel) is not comparable to competing well against an all time great test XI (that the Aussie have become), esp in Australia. And the unstated inference is that Veeru has helped us become that good. Infact, I have even asked the question on why our (same) batting lineup minus Veeru did not compete in 1999 ?

I think the batting lineup did not compete because of the pitches in Australia were what Kumble would call "true." Sachin played tremendously well in that series but apart from Laxman, had no one to support him. Even Laxman couldn't deliver very consistently. I'd say Sachin's captaincy (which was not bad but not at Ganguly's level either) also played a big role in our loss. It is surprising that the greatest batsman on the earth at that time was not a very good captain (but thats not related to this thread).

Read my prev post. If you combine the three series Veeru has played against Australia, you'd agree that he was our best batsman against them.

Considering Sachin and Laxman have been playing them for about 13 years and 8 years, respectively, before Sehwag arrived on the international scene and already troubled them several times, and still do, I'd put both of them before Sehwag. I'd say its a bit of a coincidence that since Sehwag has come that we've started winning. Not to say that he hasn't been influential in our wins but we became better overseas players starting in 2001 because of Sourav's captaincy, Dravid's consistent form, Sachin's good form, our bowlers (the main reason probably).

[The Outsider]

Had we played Jaffer in place of Veeru in Adelaide'03, we'd have lost the lone test we won & hence the series scoreline would have been 0-2. If you disagree, please tell me why ?

And if you replace any of Dravid, Tendulkar, or Laxman with Yuseless(who has been our first choice middle order replacement for the time we are talking about) we still would have ended up with poorer scorelines than we actually ended up with. That's why saying Sehwag is the single biggest factor is a fallacy, IMO.

[Bumper]

And there is a huge difference between the Indian test team of the 90's and the one today. The one today, for starters, has better bowlers. Anyway, like i said before - i am not going to bother with your slew of hypothetical "if this" and "if that" claptrap. You can make that argument about any Indian cricketer.

Then dont bother, save me the trouble of writing up a post.

Sehwag doesn't contribute to a single Indian test win vs Australia but he's still THE SINGLE BIGGEST REASON !!! for India's success against them ? You are just digging yourself into a hole, trying to justify the unjustifiable

Huh ? I have already addressed the very same issues here: http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=380720&postcount=17 And i have already defined what i mean by success, which until you take your blinkers off, wont be visible enough. Feel free to read as much as you write!

[Bumper]

And if you replace any of Dravid' date=' Tendulkar, or Laxman with Yuseless(who has been our first choice middle order replacement for the time we are talking about) we still would have ended up with poorer scorelines than we actually ended up with. That's why saying Sehwag is the single biggest factor is a fallacy, IMO.[/quote'] That would be correct, if its a one off test that Veeru contributed. But thats not the case with Sehwag. He saved our a$$ at Chennai'04, Adelaide'08 (two tests we'd have lost without his contributions) & played a crucial role in two of the three test wins over them (since 2003). The lone win he did not contribute was lopsidedly in favor of bowlers (defended a 100 run total at Mumbai'04) If you take away his contributions, we'd have been dinged in each of the last three series, yes or no ? Laxman is the closest to Veeru interms of impactful contributions. But i rate Veeru a tad ahead, both because of his role in the team (opener) & his overall consistency in all the 3 series he was part of. Stating what i stated earlier

During the time he has played Australia, Veeru has been our most consistent performer with the bat. In 2003/04 he had a damn good series along with Dravid & Laxman (SRT wasnt a force for 3 of the 4 tests) In 2004, SRT was injured, Dravid & Laxman were no shows for the most part. Veeru once again was our MVP with the bat In 2007/08, we lost the only two tests we played without Sehwag. At Perth, if you account for his total runs in the match (it was some 80 odd) along with his two wickets, played a crucial role in our test win. At Adelaide, i do not even have to explain. Veeru saved our a$$. There is no doubt in my mind that he was the best batsman of the last three series vs Australia combined (for the impact he had on each series).

[The Outsider]

That would be correct, if its a one off test that Veeru contributed. But thats not the case with Sehwag. He saved our a$$ at Chennai'04, Adelaide'08 (two tests we'd have lost without his contributions) & played a crucial role in two of the three test wins over them (since 2003). The lone test he did not contribute was lopsidedly in favor of bowlers (defended a 100 run total at Mumbai'04)

If we replace Laxman with Yuvraj in the '03 series we might have lost at Brisbane and certainly lost at Adelaide. So the scoreline would have been either 0-2 or 0-3. If we replace Laxman with Yuvraj in the '04 we would have lost at Bombay giving a scoreline of 0-3. If we replace Laxman with Yuvraj in '08 we would have lost Perth giving a scoreline of 0-3. All the above are worse scroelines than yours in the Sehwag/Jaffer scenario. If we replace Dravid with Yuvraj in '03 we would have lost 0-2. In '04 it still would have been 1-2. In '08 we would have lost 0-3. Overall, a pretty similar scenario to your Sehwag/Jaffer one. If we replace Tendulkar with Yuvraj in '03 it still would have been 1-1. If we replace Tendulkar with Yuvraj in '04 it would have been 0-3.(despite not playing half the series). If we replace Tendulkar with Yuvraj in '08 we would have been whitewashed 0-4. Again, as good if not better than Sehwag/Jaffer.