Aggressive Ozzies

[zubinpepsi]

My A.rse.... the 1st innings. RR:2.86.. (though major part of the innings they were hovering around 2.2) and 2nd innings RR until now: 2.14 (though they were arnd 1.9 before tea) all this BS talking of the P.rick that we will play attractive cricket and thats how we play a level different from the rest are all proved to be utter tripe... the fact is ozzies dont hafa good team and they know it they cant play the way they had been playing all these years... so they r playing ordinary cricket like any other team.. and thats exactly why they have been less vocal even before the series.. so ozzies and their agggressive cricket are all history now.. :finger:

[DomainK]

Exactly what I was wondering. I am very surprised at their scoring rate in the second innings so far. At this rate they would have a lead of a little above 220 by the end of play today. They will need at least another 25 overs tomorrow before declaring.

[zubinpepsi]

if our overhyped middleorder and dumbles cant win this series... then they should gracefully quit playing cricket and take the blame of loosin this series to an ordinary ozz team.. youngsters cudnt have done much worse.. even if they did worse.. they r jus newbies n they will learn.. and good for furture investment..

[Sachinism]

They've got to 2.83 now but still nowhere as good as India's 3.02 :D

[Ram]

All this talk of them not being aggressive will mean nothing if they go on to win the game, which they very much can. It doesnt matter how quickly you score, if you can get the job done. This thread is a typical example of nitpicking to find something to criticize.

[umpire]

well you can't be aggressive all the time. Australians have toned down great deal atleast against India, after their Adelaide defeat.

[SachDan]

well you can't be aggressive all the time. Australians have toned down great deal atleast against Australia, after their Adelaide defeat.

:isalute:

[zubinpepsi]

All this talk of them not being aggressive will mean nothing if they go on to win the game, which they very much can. It doesnt matter how quickly you score, if you can get the job done. This thread is a typical example of nitpicking to find something to criticize.

we will loose not cuz we have fragile middle order with all the oldies farckin up big time for quite some time..esp our great captain.. n not cuz ozzies were playing their natural aggressive game..

[Predator_05]

Sunil Gavaskar was talking about this "aggressive" reputation they have yesterday. If an Indian captain, or any other captain for that matter, set defensive fields for tailenders, he would be widely ridiculed. But when the Aussies do it, there is nothing wrong with it. Anyway, it's not the kind of pitch on which you can score at 3.5 an over. It's impossible to get your eye in even after an hour because the odd ball will always kick off, keep really low, leaving you at the mercy of the pitch and the fielders. They have done well to score as many runs as they have

[Dravid]

even w/o being aggressive, they r in a good position, and we will have to bat out of our asses to get a draw.. so...

[King]

There is no chance any team would have scored at over 3.5 or 4 rpo in this test match given the pitch conditions. That said Aussies have definitely been defensive not just the way they have batted but their field set as well. Even to Indian lower order Ponting did not want more than a slip and that is carrying smart cricket a bit too far. Either he doesn't trust his bowlers or reckons India is too good a team. It has to be said Anil Kumble has not been aggressive either. I suppose both teams don't want to lose this test. I reckon the one that will go on to win the test will have an upper hand through out the series and will take the series. If they come out with a draw (I don't reckon India is capable of that) it sets up the series quite nicely. Aggressive or not the first test has lived up to its bill as a start to an exciting series. I just wish the pitch was better for an encounter such as this.

[Ram]

The Aussies dont given an impression of a defensive team. Rather, they look like a team who have done their homework, weighed in their weaknesses and the opposition's strengths and formulated plans according to that. All this talk from guys like Ian Chappell that 'attack is the best form of defence' is just BS. The captain is there to win games and its upto him to use his brain to come up with the most effective strategies to counter the opposition. And thats exactly what Australia did in 2004 and what was the result? Their first series victory in India in 35 years. There is no such thing called attacking captaincy or defensive captaincy. According to me, the only classification is: Captaincy that works and the captaincy that doesnt.