Australia Tour of India 2013 |Feb-Mar|

[GautiMaan]

Ishant i fear may not be dropped as the selectors may feel he has developed a new wicket taking ball.

[JaFanatic]

Ishant i fear may not be dropped as the selectors may feel he has developed a new wicket taking ball.

:hysterical:

[carnish]

Cowan' date=' Khwaja or Huges at 3 & Watson at 5 or might open the innings along with Warner.[/quote'] I think a better lineup would be if Warner and Watson open, followed by Cowan at 3 and Clarke at 4. They should get Khwaja at 5 and then maybe play Smith at 6 who I think can be better than Maxwell with bat against spin and also will be bowling leg cutters which may be good in helpful tracks. Wade can come in at 7.

[Lord]

this 'should' be the team imo: Watson Cowan Warner Clarke Khawaja Henriques Wade Starc/MJ Siddle Patto Lyon/Doherty

[carnish]

What will be the Ausies team XI for 3rd test Too early to Predict..but we will see what their best options.. I guess ---- David Warner Ed Cowan Shane Watson Michael Clarke Usman Khawaja Moises Henriques Matthew Wade/Phillip Hughes Mitchell Johnson Ashton Agar/Glenn Maxwell Xavier Doherty James Pattinson Nathan Lyon

There I corrected your best lineup. I still dont think they would win but can compete a little better maybe. However I disagree with your batting order. I want Watson to open with warner and Cowan at 3.

[SLICKR392]

^ Warner should open with Cowan at 3. I don't see Warner going down the order, especially at that #3 spot.

[NareshK]

Watson Cowan Clarke - this guy has to bat higher up the order. Henriques Khawaja - will probably struggle but cant do worse than Hughes Wade Maxwell Mitch Johnson - has experience in Indian conditions Pattinson Siddle Lyon - blunder to leave him out in 2nd test Warner doesnt seem like the type of batsman who can grind and spend time at the crease against spinners. I think Australia will train very hard and will fight in next game. They dont give up easily and India has to do well to beat them.

[Lord]

just checked next match is on 14th:blink:

[Bradman99]

Seeing as we have struggled to post a decent score yet, I'd like to see a long batting line up. I would get rid of Doherty and replace him with O'Keefe. My line up: Warner Watson Cowan Clarke Khawaja Henriques Smith/Maxwell Wade O'Keefe Starc Pattinson In this line up you would have Pattinson, Siddle and Henriques as the pacers and O'Keefe and Smith/Maxwell, Clarke as the spinners. I just think it's worth a go because at least it extends the batting line up and we aren't really missing out on much by leaving Doherty and Lyon out, as they both got battered anyway.

[Mahaa Raavana]

Lyon must play...He's the best they have...

[velu]

The day Sabby gets laid

today is sabby's deflowering day :nervous:

[skindia]

they need mike hussey

[G_B_]

Do India need to play big teams at strongholds? I am from mumbai (originally) and notice that India have a **** record in Mumbai v SA England (especially) and Australia. Infact when india won 1-0 v England due to the mumbai terror attacks that might as well have been 1-0 to England if not it was moved to our stronghold of chennai. India have lost test 3 series at home in the past 20 years. Two of them (south africa and england) involve losses at Wankhede (2000 and 2012). While the third series loss in 2004 to australia involved a close win by 13 runs. Infact England have won at mumbai in 2006 and 2012. Clearly England seem to like Mumbai. Compared to mumbai places like Chennai and Mohali have been dominant places for the Indian cricket team. We have lost once in chennai in 29 matches (something like that) while we have lost once in Mohali after playing there many times. But, Eden Gardens, Inida have played 38 times won 10 and lost 9 times. The real question is should we be playing Australia England and SA at these grounds where we have patchy records or at those which are our strongholds? Maybe next time when England tour we need to make them play at Chennai and Mohali at the very least.

[carnish]

Does Not matter where we play unless we play well. We could not even win against West Indies at Mumbai, so doesnot matter if we play strong or weak teams, we need to play well to win, otherwise BCCI can scrap wankhede totally from their list of test venues. I dont think that will be a very good decision though.

[Pagalpanti]

The Mumbai pitch was tailor made for Indians last time around. It was our inept batting in 2nd innings which cost us. We did everything right. Won the toss - batted first. Didn't put up a good total but good enough (300+). We fked up while batting 2nd, can't blame venue for that.

[G_B_]

yeah but come on you cant tell me its a co incidence that big teams like SA aus and England have done well at mumbai in recent times? and its not just the pitch, the breeze in mumbai at wankhede does aid swing.

[Crookbond]

It's just how South Africa keep losing at Durban. We need to move beyond venue influences even if there might be one, that's the challenge.

[G_B_]

It's just how South Africa keep losing at Durban. We need to move beyond venue influences even if there might be one' date=' that's the challenge.[/quote'] india have 43 venues. many of these countries dont have the luxary. Its about time we make use of our geographic depth to our advantage. Play sri lanka at wankhede and eden gardens. They have never won a test match in india

[adi B]

i always thought the same regarding mumbai and bangalore.but its the team who have to play well.why deprive the crowd of a good test match at these venues

[Crookbond]

india have 43 venues. many of these countries dont have the luxary. Its about time we make use of our geographic depth to our advantage. Play sri lanka at wankhede and eden gardens. They have never won a test match in india

I don't think the venue should matter - we aren't that abysmal as yet. The geographic depth is used well enough by asking teams to travel between Test matches. One of the reasons why a tour to India is considered 'tough'.