10 wickets in hand. The Vics for me JJC.

India 426 & 190/2 v Sri Lanka 760/7d

Another fascinating lopsided battle between bat and ball. 19 wickets in 4 days! Its a case of the batsmen getting themselves out rather than the bowlers.

Greg Chappell is right in his predictions.

RIP Test cricket in the sub continent.

  JUMPING JACK CLENNETT said:

This is a great game! We've knocked off 60 of the 250 without loss. BUT, chasing in the 4th innings is always tough, even after great opening stands. You lose 3 wickets, then suddenly you realise there's only one specialist batsman left and you still need 100 odd. The pressure builds. My money's on W.A. I hope I'm wrong.

So glad to see someone else CARES about the Bushies, Titan!

Damn straight JJC!

But I can't get there today to watch them...

Rogers, Hussey and Quiney hopefully are good enough to ensure they don't put in 2 consecutive failures. I worry a bit with Hussey at 3. He's not in terribly good form.

With our top 6, though, 190 odd runs on the 4th day should be gettable.

  Rhino Richards said:

India 426 & 190/2 v Sri Lanka 760/7d

Another fascinating lopsided battle between bat and ball. 19 wickets in 4 days! Its a case of the batsmen getting themselves out rather than the bowlers.

Greg Chappell is right in his predictions.

RIP Test cricket in the sub continent.

Horrible cricket pitch.

But I've followed the game: the first 4 wickets fell in the first session due to good bowling (and swing-favourable conditions). Most of the 7 Sri Lanka wickets fell not to rash shots but to good balls (just weren't enough of them from the Indian bowlers).

Let's not forget that Sri Lanka can win this match, needing 8 wickets on the final day, with Muralitharan in their team. It's not going to happen, but at least one team has a chance.

  titan_uranus said:

Horrible cricket pitch.

... but at least one team has a chance.

That the problem with a horrible cricket pitch.

If even India are bowled out, 27 wickets in 5 days is an embarrassment.

And the batting record that was broken had one of the previous holder being D.G.Bradman. A great effort by the two Sri Lankans in concentration but there is no Bradman quality in that pair.

Go Vics. Humid skies on an interesting wicket. It will be interesting.

  Rhino Richards said:

And the batting record that was broken had one of the previous holder being D.G.Bradman. A great effort by the two Sri Lankans in concentration but there is no Bradman quality in that pair.

Mahela Jayawardene is perenially under-rated by those outside of Sri Lanka. A star. 9000 runs at 55. Not Bradman, of course, but close to the best batsman in the world at the moment.

  titan_uranus said:

Mahela Jayawardene is perenially under-rated by those outside of Sri Lanka. A star. 9000 runs at 55. Not Bradman, of course, but close to the best batsman in the world at the moment.

If he continually bats on feather bed wickets in sub continent he should average 55.

Its no slur on the batsman because he has shown a capacity to concentrate but I feel dead as doornail wickets undermine batsmans and their achievement as much as they undermine bowlers efforts.

  Rhino Richards said:

If he continually bats on feather bed wickets in sub continent he should average 55.

Its no slur on the batsman because he has shown a capacity to concentrate but I feel dead as doornail wickets undermine batsmans and their achievement as much as they undermine bowlers efforts.

Fair point.

However, Jayawardene has scored a Test century against every other country, and in every country except South Africa. 27 centuries in total. Not all Indian, Pakistani and Sri Lankan batsmen average 55, nor do they all hold records like Jayawardene. He stands above most other sub-continental batsmen.

Woohoo! Well done Victoria. I got a bit worried with the rain delays, but class prevailed. Rogers and Hussey made up for their first innings failures. Great stuff.

[quote name='titan_uranus'

You were right, Titan!! The guys did well!

Luckily, I didn't put my money where my mouth was.

If we'd batted when we won the toss, I contend that we'd have got all the points.

Did you hear the rumour on 3AW this AM that Hodgey and Victoria are set to part ways by Christmas? I hope that's not right!

I find the Sheffield Shield fascinating. I really care how we go. I know it's function is as a breeding ground for Test players, but the over-riding strength is the competitive nature of the games.

I want us to gradually catch up on NSW in Shields. This will take till at least 2100!, so I may not see it,but at least I'll see the Demons overtake Carlton, Coll. and Ess for Flags, and clear out on the Tassie Waverley Hawks!

Edited November 20, 200915 yr by JUMPING JACK CLENNETT

  JUMPING JACK CLENNETT said:

Did you hear the rumour on 3AW this AM that Hodgey and Victoria are set to part ways by Christmas? I hope that's not right!

I did. Don't know what to make of that. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Recent articles about Hodge seem to paint the picture that he is loving his time with Victoria and that he wants to continue to do his best for the state in the hope that he gets the call up to Australia again.

How he didn't get selected in either the Australian or the All Star team for tomorrow night's match is beyond me.

  JUMPING JACK CLENNETT said:

I want us to gradually catch up on NSW in Shields.

NSW is a joke. Full of international players, yet from 2 matches they have 0 points. Only team to have 0 points so far.

You'd think with Jaques, Hughes, Katich, Clarke and Haddin batting, and Clark, Bollinger, Lee and Hauritz bowling for you, that you'd do a bit better than that.

NSW in cricket is akin to Collingwood in AFL.

  titan_uranus said:

I did. Don't know what to make of that. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Recent articles about Hodge seem to paint the picture that he is loving his time with Victoria and that he wants to continue to do his best for the state in the hope that he gets the call up to Australia again.

How he didn't get selected in either the Australian or the All Star team for tomorrow night's match is beyond me.

NSW is a joke. Full of international players, yet from 2 matches they have 0 points. Only team to have 0 points so far.

You'd think with Jaques, Hughes, Katich, Clarke and Haddin batting, and Clark, Bollinger, Lee and Hauritz bowling for you, that you'd do a bit better than that.

NSW in cricket is akin to Collingwood in AFL.

Hardly, Lee and Hauritz have been injured/unavailable and have not played a Shield game. Bollinger has played one game since returning from India. Clark has been ordinary. Bracken is injured as well.

Katich, Clarke have each hit centuries, Jaques and Hughes have had reasonable knocks. However NSW has had 2 and 1/2 innings in 2 matches.

There is a problem with NSW and its called the pitch. Roebuck has been on about it and its a concern.

In the game against WA there wer 22 wickets taken for 950 runs

In the game against Tas there were 23 taken for 1000 runs plus.

Its hard to drive results on lifeless dull tracks.

And the comparison with Collingwood is quite bizarre. While Collingwood have won 1 flag in 50 years, NSW have won 15 shields in the same period more than any other side. And if it wasn't for there heavy international representation and the clash of fixtures they would have won more.

  Rhino Richards said:

Hardly, Lee and Hauritz have been injured/unavailable and have not played a Shield game. Bollinger has played one game since returning from India. Clark has been ordinary. Bracken is injured as well.

Katich, Clarke have each hit centuries, Jaques and Hughes have had reasonable knocks. However NSW has had 2 and 1/2 innings in 2 matches.

There is a problem with NSW and its called the pitch. Roebuck has been on about it and its a concern.

In the game against WA there wer 22 wickets taken for 950 runs

In the game against Tas there were 23 taken for 1000 runs plus.

Its hard to drive results on lifeless dull tracks.

It's not just this season. Last season they came last despite having international quality players regularly in their team.

The SCG pitch is a factor. But they don't play all their matches there.

  Rhino Richards said:

And the comparison with Collingwood is quite bizarre. While Collingwood have won 1 flag in 50 years, NSW have won 15 shields in the same period more than any other side. And if it wasn't for there heavy international representation and the clash of fixtures they would have won more.

The Collingwood reference was that I feel the same way about NSW as a Victoria supporter as I do about Collingwood as a Melbourne supporter. Nothing to do with success.

  titan_uranus said:

It's not just this season. Last season they came last despite having international quality players regularly in their team.

The SCG pitch is a factor. But they don't play all their matches there.

They still have a number of injuries to Bracken, Clark, Lee and Jacques. They did have Katich, Haddin, Hauritz and Hughes missing for alot of the summer. Big gaps to fill

  titan_uranus said:

The Collingwood reference was that I feel the same way about NSW as a Victoria supporter as I do about Collingwood as a Melbourne supporter. Nothing to do with success.

Each to their own. I guess you liked Australia ruling the No 1 Test and One day spots for the last 15 years. *Cough* much of that was on the back of some great players from NSW, Taylor, Waughs, McGrath, Lee, McGill etc. Victoria did have Warne...but not much else.

Here we are friends.

Total matches played:

713. W: 332. L: 186. D: 193

Win percentage: 46.57

Matches Australia have fielded first in:

M: 342. W: 152. L: 97. D: 91 T:1

Win percentage: 44.44

Matches Australia have won the toss and fielded first in:

M: 76. W: 40. L: 20. D: 16.

Win percentage: 52.63

You'll spit chips over this one I reckon.

Matches Australia have won the toss and batted first:

M: 281. W: 137. L: 71. D: 71. T: 1

Win percentage: 48.75

Yes, Australia's winning percentage is lower when winning the toss and electing to bat first than when we have elected to bowl.

Furthermore, since 1990 Australia have elected to field 23 times for 17 wins, 3 losses and 3 draws for a win percentage of 74. Winning the toss and batting has yielded a win percentage of 56 in the same timeframe.

Now I'm not saying that you should always bowl first (along the lines of the drink driving joke posted in another thread) but I think it's pretty clear that if a pitch seems suitable to bowl first it can be exploited to great effect - and possibly that pitches worth batting on first are far more likely to lead to draws.

In the 2000s, winning the toss and batting has yielded us a 68% winning percentage (28 from 41), bowling first has resulted in wins 91% of the time (10 from 11)

Edited November 24, 200915 yr by 45hotgod16

More brilliant Indian cricket on show. 2/417 after 1 day. Yep, 417 runs in one day, and only 2 down.

At least New Zealand pitches are good ones. 6/250 odd after a day. Pretty even that.

  45hotgod16 said:

You'll spit chips over this one I reckon.

Matches Australia have won the toss and batted first:

M: 281. W: 137. L: 71. D: 71. T: 1

Win percentage: 48.75

Yes, Australia's winning percentage is lower when winning the toss and electing to bat first than when we have elected to bowl.

I guess, Edgbaston in 2005 aside, when we win the toss and bowl first there's usually a reason for it.

Batting first is the generic thing to do if there's nothing abnormal or extraordinary about the pitch, so even in matches against high quality teams (like the 6 we played against South Africa, where we won the toss and batted in all 6), there's not always a massive advantage.

Edited November 24, 200915 yr by titan_uranus

  titan_uranus said:

More brilliant Indian cricket on show. 2/417 after 1 day. Yep, 417 runs in one day, and only 2 down.

At least New Zealand pitches are good ones. 6/250 odd after a day. Pretty even that.

Its hard to make it out TU. SL went in with one seamer and three spinners according to Cricinfo. Murali is in the twilight and Mendis is no mystery. The wicket was pretty ordinary the bowling was worse.

  titan_uranus said:

I guess, Edgbaston in 2005 aside, when we win the toss and bowl first there's usually a reason for it.

Batting first is the generic thing to do if there's nothing abnormal or extraordinary about the pitch, so even in matches against high quality teams (like the 6 we played against South Africa, where we won the toss and batted in all 6), there's not always a massive advantage.

Agree with that TU. Normally when you win the toss you want the "best of the pitch". Typically a good pitch should offer the bat and ball reasonable challenge. While the bowlers might get some green on the strip, the batsman have a hard true wicket where the bounce is reliable with little turn day one.

Also the result of the game at the end of day 5 may not necessarily invalidate the toss decision on the morning of day 1.

Interesting figures 45hg16. Well done. Cricinfo the bible???

Statsguru - yum. Lucky I didn't have interned in my preteen years, I'd have been on that site all day every day.

Vettori, what a cricketer - though I think he's been dropped...a few times

Edited November 25, 200915 yr by 45HG16

  Rhino Richards said:

Its hard to make it out TU. SL went in with one seamer and three spinners according to Cricinfo. Murali is in the twilight and Mendis is no mystery. The wicket was pretty ordinary the bowling was worse.

Very odd selection. Murali is fading, Mendis is good but terrribly erratic, and Herath is just OK. Only one strike bowler, who's playing about his 4th Test. Should have played another paceman.

  Rhino Richards said:

Agree with that TU. Normally when you win the toss you want the "best of the pitch". Typically a good pitch should offer the bat and ball reasonable challenge. While the bowlers might get some green on the strip, the batsman have a hard true wicket where the bounce is reliable with little turn day one.

A good example of that could be the Brisbane test last year. NZ won the toss and sent us in, then bowled us out for 214. That showed that to be a good decision. We went on to thrash them with a strong second innings, but that's more to do with their poor batting than their decision to bowl first. The pitch that day was a green top, and it showed on the first morning.

  45HG16 said:

Statsguru - yum. Lucky I didn't have interned in my preteen years, I'd have been on that site all day every day.

Oh boy do I love statsguru. What a gem of a site.

  45HG16 said:

Vettori, what a cricketer - though I think he's been dropped...a few times

Here here. Keeps NZ cricket from being a total disaster. Just passed Warne for the most runs at no. 8.

But yes, he was dropped on his first ball. Had that catch been taken Pakistan would have been batting before the end of play yesterday.

Meanwhile, it's raining in Dunedin. What a surprise.

Edited November 25, 200915 yr by titan_uranus

  45hotgod16 said:

Here we are friends.

Total matches played:

713. W: 332. L: 186. D: 193

Win percentage: 46.57

Matches Australia have fielded first in:

M: 342. W: 152. L: 97. D: 91 T:1

Win percentage: 44.44

Matches Australia have won the toss and fielded first in:

M: 76. W: 40. L: 20. D: 16.

Win percentage: 52.63

You'll spit chips over this one I reckon.

Matches Australia have won the toss and batted first:

M: 281. W: 137. L: 71. D: 71. T: 1

Win percentage: 48.75

Yes, Australia's winning percentage is lower when winning the toss and electing to bat first than when we have elected to bowl.

Furthermore, since 1990 Australia have elected to field 23 times for 17 wins, 3 losses and 3 draws for a win percentage of 74. Winning the toss and batting has yielded a win percentage of 56 in the same timeframe.

Now I'm not saying that you should always bowl first (along the lines of the drink driving joke posted in another thread) but I think it's pretty clear that if a pitch seems suitable to bowl first it can be exploited to great effect - and possibly that pitches worth batting on first are far more likely to lead to draws.

In the 2000s, winning the toss and batting has yielded us a 68% winning percentage (28 from 41), bowling first has resulted in wins 91% of the time (10 from 11)

Ah yes. Well done 45h. Great stuff, great stats. Your last line is interesting (2000's); as it may be more relevant to the modern game and modern day pitches. 68% is a fair %. But then again we have been a dominant force in cricket. Even more amazing is bowling first with a win% of 91% ! Wow.

Therefore my theory, being that the pitch & weather conditions (in relation to the the toss) do play a part I believe in the result. Rather than going by the theory along the lines of "if you bat first you're almost guaranteed to win every time"...

Edited November 25, 200915 yr by High Tower

Poor Vettori. They come out after a 2-3 hour rain delay, he gets himself to 99, then he gets out on what ends up being the second last ball of the day due to bad light.

And Rahul Dravid has overtaken Allan Border in terms of number of runs scored. Run out for 144 when the bowler dropped a return catch and it somehow deflected down onto the stumps!

As if the Windies needed more problems, Sarwan is out. They replace their second best batsman with a debutant, Dowlin.

We're batting first too.

After being 1/0 (Watson out LBW), Australia has recovered well to be 1/114 after 24 overs at lunch. Slow over rate ? Run rate: 4.75

Katich 56 not out

Ponting 51 not out

Game over

Edited November 26, 200915 yr by High Tower

It's time to go: Watson.

5 lbws in his 6 innings as opener. 10 lbws in his career.

Hughes was dropped because of a flaw in his technique. If this isn't a flaw in Watson's technique I don't know what is.

Bring in Hughes, or even Jaques.

  titan_uranus said:

Bring in Hughes, or even Jaques.

Personally, I think Watson is a makeshift opener but neither proposed replacement has scored significant runs or demonstrated they are over their flaws.

Anyone for Rogers?

  Rhino Richards said:

Anyone for Rogers?

oh oh...me...me.

Yes. Although, we shouldn't hold our breath. He is representing Victoria. The wrong shade of blue.

Who are the other contenders....:

Shaun Marsh ?

Phil Hughes ?

Phil Jaques ?

Edited November 27, 200915 yr by High Tower