Gabba 2021 vs MCG 2024.- compare and contrast

[BacktoCricaddict]

Similarities 

 

Day 5 target 329 vs 333.

Good batting conditions

Starc, Cummins, Lyon, Hazelwood vs Starc, Cummins, Lyon, Boland

Pant, Sundar

 

Differences:

MCG larger ground

MCG slower outfield 

 

Add your thoughts 

 

 

[Number]

I was wondering about it too.

And I came to a conclusion that probably Gill's knock there was a big difference maker. 

He was cutting driving a lot of 5th 6th stumps balls to the boundary. Here we were petrified of similar deliveries.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Number

[CG]

Its pressure.We were not expected to win or save that day with young team.But once you did it you are expected to deliver

[vvvslaxman]

We didn't have Kohli

We did have Kohli

 

We did have Pujara

we didn't have Pujara

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by vvvslaxman

[Ultimate_Game]

BGT 2020-21: Our "senior" runs away after a defeat and we win the series on the backs of our youngsters.

 

BGT 2024: Our "senior" strolls into the team (with one already there) after a win and the two seniors ensure all the hard work of Bumrah and youngsters (Jaiswal, Reddy) is undone and we lose the series.

 

This is what you get with the so called "experience".

[Vijy]

12 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

BGT 2020-21: Our "senior" runs away after a defeat and we win the series on the backs of our youngsters.

 

BGT 2024: Our "senior" strolls into the team (with one already there) after a win and the two seniors ensure all the hard work of Bumrah and youngsters (Jaiswal, Reddy) is undone and we lose the series.

 

This is what you get with the so called "experience".

That's why they say that experience is irreplacable, especially for the other team

[zen]

As I said before, no Pujara, no series win in Aus. 
 

Hopefully, a new built team will recreate the magic in Aus in future. 

[Ultimate_Game]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

As I said before, no Pujara, no series win in Aus. 
 

Hopefully, a new built team will recreate the magic in Aus in future. 

 

It's not absence of Pujara which was the difference. It was the presence of Rohit and Kohli. Remove those two leeches and we don't lose to this Aussie team.

[zen]

1 minute ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

It's not absence of Pujara which was the difference. It was the presence of Rohit and Kohli. Remove those two leeches and we don't lose to this Aussie team.

That is speculation as Pujara carried heavy burden of India’s batting in terms of both runs and balls faced - close to 600 runs in 2018, and 3 50s in last 2 tests in 2021 where he took a lots of balls on his body too.

 

[Ultimate_Game]

1 minute ago, zen said:

That is speculation as Pujara carried heavy burden of India’s batting in terms of both runs and balls faced - close to 600 runs in 2018, and 3 50s in last 2 tests in 2021 where he took a lots of balls on his body too.

 

 

Not speculation at all. We won at Perth easily without the genius captain. And even in this Test we had to play just 12 more overs for a draw. Replace Kohli and Rohit with any half decent batters and we easily draw the match.

 

They're so poor that they cost us series at home against kiwis for crying out loud! India is currently playing with 9 men and that too under a poor captain which drags us down further. Will say it again, replace the two leeches and we don't lose to this Aussie team with Bumrah as captain.

[zen]

Just now, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Not speculation at all. We won at Perth easily without the genius captain. And even in this Test we had to play just 12 more overs for a draw. Replace Kohli and Rohit with any half decent batters and we easily draw the match.

 

They're so poor that they cost us series at home against kiwis for crying out loud! India is currently playing with 9 men and that too under a poor captain which drags us down further. Will say it again, replace the two leeches and we don't lose to this Aussie team with Bumrah as captain.

 

Things can click for a team in a test in a series but to win one needs someone to have an exceptional series.
 

While Kohli and Rohit’s replacement could have done relatively better, I am not sure about consistency required to bring in a series win. 
 

The issue with India is a batsman having 1 (or 2) good inning(s) in a series and then going missing. By the time, the series progresses to the last phase, most have exhausted their quota of good performances.

[Ultimate_Game]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Things can click for a team in a test in a series but to win one needs someone to have an exceptional series.
 

While Kohli and Rohit’s replacement could have done relatively better, I am not sure about consistency required to bring in a series win. 
 

The issue with India is a batsman having 1 (or 2) good inning(s) in a series and then going missing. By the time, the series progresses to the last phase, most have exhausted their quota of good performances.

 

Kohli and Rohit's performances have been equivalent to a tailender, and not even a decent tailender but a proper no. 11. If we replace them with any half decent batter we don't lose. Same against NZ at home. If we play Jurel and Axar instead of these two clowns we win at home just like we did against Eng when "King" Kohli decided to take a "Break".

 

 

When Pujara played, he had likes of Gill, Pant, Mayank Aggarwal (2018), Sundar etc. performing and there was no passenger. In BGT 2020-21 every single person played their part. You can't find anyone who was simply there to add "experience". Plus you had Rahane's stellar captaincy.

 

Here we're saddled with two seniors who're there simply to make up numbers along with Rohit's atrocious captaincy. That has been the difference, not absence of Pujara. If Pujara had to play with this version of Rohit & Kohli in 2020 BGT series, we lose that one too. In fact we got lucky that Kohli ran away in that series coz he alone would've been enough to sink our chances.

 

[zen]

3 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Kohli and Rohit's performances have been equivalent to a tailender, and not even a decent tailender but a proper no. 11. If we replace them with any half decent batter we don't lose. Same against NZ at home. If we play Jurel and Axar instead of these two clowns we win at home just like we did against Eng when "King" Kohli decided to take a "Break".

 

 

When Pujara played, he had likes of Gill, Pant, Mayank Aggarwal (2018), Sundar etc. performing and there was no passenger. In BGT 2020-21 every single person played their part. You can't find anyone who was simply there to add "experience". Plus you had Rahane's stellar captaincy.

 

Here we're saddled with two seniors who're there simply to make up numbers along with Rohit's atrocious captaincy. That has been the difference, not absence of Pujara. If Pujara had to play with this version of Rohit & Kohli in 2020 BGT series, we lose that one too. In fact we got lucky that Kohli ran away in that series coz he alone would've been enough to sink our chances.

 

IIRC, Kohli scored a 100 in the test that India won. KL did well initially. 
 

What India lacked was consistency that is required to win a series. Only Jaiswal was relatively consistent. 
 

Pujara had been super consistent in 2018, and in the last two tests in 2021, even playing out difficult sessions and shielding other batsmen. 
 

 

 

[Ultimate_Game]

6 minutes ago, zen said:

IIRC, Kohli scored a 100 in the test that India won. KL did well initially. 
 

What India lacked was consistency that is required to win a series. Only Jaiswal was relatively consistent. 
 

Pujara had been super consistent in 2018, and in the last two tests in 2021, even playing out difficult sessions and shielding other batsmen. 
 

 

 

 

That match was already won. Kohli came in when the score was 300/2. Kohli as usual showed up to fill his boots like the downhill skier he is. Scoring runs against Labuschagne, Marsh and Lyon when Aussies are simply waiting for you to declare is not scoring runs when they're needed.

 

In 2020-21 we didn't have any passenger, here we had two. Replace the passengers with any decent contributors and we win. Conversely bring back Kohli or add passengers to 2020 and we lose. The 2020 team wasn't a 9 man team carrying corpses and dead weight of two players. Here we are. That's the difference.

 

Else how do you explain losing to NZ at home? Was Pujara needed there as well when in our entire history, we haven't been white-washed at home? They cost us the NZ series and have continued the trend in Aus. It's not absence of Pujara but presence of 2 passengers making this a 9 man team.

 

If we had passengers like these two in 2020, we don't save the SCG test and we lose at Gabba making the scoreline 3-1 in Aus favor. And this is exactly what's happening here.

[Lord]

Rohit's captaincy is biggest difference

[zen]

Just now, Ultimate_Game said:

 

That match was already won. Kohli came in when the score was 300/2. Kohli as usual showed up to fill his boots like the downhill skier he is. Scoring runs against Labuschagne, Marsh and Lyon when Aussies are simply waiting for you to declare is not scoring runs when they're needed.

 

In 2020-21 we didn't have any passenger, here we had two. Replace the passengers with any decent contributors and we win. Conversely bring back Kohli or add passengers to 2020 and we lose. The 2020 team wasn't a 9 man team carrying corpses and dead weight of two players. Here we are. That's the difference.

 

Else how do you explain losing to NZ at home? Was Pujara needed there as well when in our entire history, we haven't been white-washed at home? They cost us the NZ series and have continued the trend in Aus. It's not absence of Pujara but presence of 2 passengers making this a 9 man team.

 

If we had passengers like these two in 2020, we don't save the SCG test and we lose at Gabba making the scoreline 3-1 in Aus favor. And this is exactly what's happening here.

Well, we cannot be taking credit away where it is due. Kohli scored a 100 in a win and if Padikkal or Eashwaran (in the squad if I am not wrong) had played the series instead, I doubt if it would made any impact to Ind’s fortunes.

 

The issue is a lack of consistency among batsmen. We have players who play 1-2 good knocks in a series (Jadeja would have played 1 too) and then fizzle out. It is a relatively old issue where Tendulkar used to score 1 100 per series, get his avg in order, and think job is done. 

As the series progressed, many were bound to go through low scores after 1-2 good performances. The last test at SCG could benefit due to familiar conditions where consistency can be improved.

[Ultimate_Game]

Just now, zen said:

Well, we cannot be taking credit away where it is due. Kohli scored a 100 in a win and if Padikkal or Eashwaran (in the squad if I am not wrong) had played the series instead, I doubt if it would made any impact to Ind’s fortunes.

 

The issue is a lack of consistency among batsmen. We have players who play 1-2 good knocks in a series (Jadeja would have played 1 too) and then fizzle out. It is a relatively old issue where Tendulkar used to score 1 100 per series, get his avg in order, and think job is done. 

As the series progressed, many were bound to go through low scores after 1-2 good performances. The last test at SCG could benefit due to familiar conditions where consistency can be improved.

 

Nope, that 100 against Labuschagne, Marsh and Lyon with the match already done after Jaiswal and Rahul's hard work is not an example of an impactful innings.

 

Any other batter - Jurel, Padikkal, Sarfaraz - would've been much better than the tailenders we have. It's not just 1 or 2 bad scores, with Rohit and Kohli it's a continuous theme. They average in single digits in 1st innings across the last 8 Tests. That's not inconsistency but not showing up at all. No team can play with 9 players and win.

 

I'll ask you again, what happened against NZ at home? Did we need Pujara there as well?

[zen]

13 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Nope, that 100 against Labuschagne, Marsh and Lyon with the match already done after Jaiswal and Rahul's hard work is not an example of an impactful innings.

 

Any other batter - Jurel, Padikkal, Sarfaraz - would've been much better than the tailenders we have. It's not just 1 or 2 bad scores, with Rohit and Kohli it's a continuous theme. They average in single digits in 1st innings across the last 8 Tests. That's not inconsistency but not showing up at all. No team can play with 9 players and win.

 

I'll ask you again, what happened against NZ at home? Did we need Pujara there as well?

It is difficult to say that as if so Ind would have declared before Kohli walked in and we saw a collapse in the 4th test.

 

There is a difference b/w being relatively better and actually having a big series that can win a team the series. 
 

Yes, Pujara in form is a beast in subcon. He and Sehwag are beast ina such conditions. 

[Ultimate_Game]

1 minute ago, zen said:

It is difficult to say that as if so Ind would have declared before Kohli walked in and we saw a collapse in the 4th test.

 

There is a difference b/w being relatively better and actually having a big series that can win a team the series. 
 

Yes, Pujara in form is a beast in subcon. He and Sehwag are beast ina such conditions. 

 

My point being that India lost at home to NZ as well when we haven't in our entire history before these two passengers became walking wkts and made us into a 9 man team. This shows where the actual problem lies and not absence of Pujara.

 

And yes, India would've declared earlier if not for Kohli's 100. You could see Bumrah itching to have a go in the dressing room and we all saw what happened right after he declared. He wanted more overs at Aussies in the evening session but had to wait for "King" to get to his meaningless 100.

[zen]

3 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

My point being that India lost at home to NZ as well when we haven't in our entire history before these two passengers became walking wkts and made us into a 9 man team. This shows where the actual problem lies and not absence of Pujara.

 

And yes, India would've declared earlier if not for Kohli's 100. You could see Bumrah itching to have a go in the dressing room and we all saw what happened right after he declared. He wanted more overs at Aussies in the evening session but had to wait for "King" to get to his meaningless 100.

It is not about the “100” (it is being mentioned as it is what he scored) but he contributed in a test that India won (could have been a 60 as well).  India could have declared before Kohli scored a 100 is not the same as India would have declared before Kohli walked in.
 
While someone else may (or may not) have done better, it is difficult say that “India would won the series just by replacing X and/or Y”.