Axis of Bob

Exactly. I just loved Sehwag justifying being pounded by Australia (could have been 3 innings defeats) by saying that India beat Australia 2-0 in India 18 months ago. Wow. Two tight tests (India won by 1 wicket after a huge 9th wicket partnership, and needed to chase over 200 in the other Test) that they won at home 18 months ago, versus 4-0 with three absolute drubbings. "We are driving back the infidels!!"

There is a young Victoria leggie I saw playing a game of two for Adelaide in the T20 who looked very promising - Muirhead. Only a baby at the moment, though. Also, have India been sending the Iraqi information minister to do their press conferences? It is hilariously ridiculous.

But they're only doing it at just over 4 runs an over. Wasting valuable 5th day golf time. C'mon boys, get on with it!! Go the tonk!!

We'd have to make 700. ...... he might have it by tea!

I assume that we all agree that Dhoni isn't the world's best captain, but from what I'm seeing here he's the best that India have. As a club cricketer, I'd be disappointed to get out to Sehwag. So I don't know how he considers himself the most dangerous bowler to start after tea to two top international players approaching their centuries.

Clarke is a prototypical number 5. Excellent player of spin, but can be a little susceptible to the new ball early in his innings. Moving Clarke to number 3 would mean that you'd create two problems instead of one. I think Khawaja could be there in the long term. Former opener who can play long innings and play the new ball.

Conn has been trying to get rid of Ponting since the last Ashes series. In the past he was saying it was because he wasn't making any runs. Now he's saying it's because he IS making runs and should go out on top. It is hard not to view his articles as simply serving an agenda he has.

You don't want to be India and lose 4 for none to finish off the innings. If pitches keep having more grass left on them then lower order runs are only going to get more important. If you fail to plan then you plan to fail.

Imagine if England had a weak tail. They'd have been rolled for 100. As it is they are still in the game ... albeit not going well.

My theory is that Haddin will keep going, regardless, until Paine is fit. Paine is the best keeper in the country and the Australian keeping job is his. It would be very difficult to put Wade in for a series knowing that Paine is going to come straight into the side, regardless of how Wade performs. It's easier for Haddin to keep going rather than face the sticky situation of having to drop a performing player when Wade makes runs against a poor attack on featherbed West Indian pitches.

Cowan batted very well. But they batted really well as a partnership. The Indian bowlers bowled absolute rubbish to them but it was, in part, caused by the batsmen. Warner put away everything, so the bowlers started changing their plans to him and, as a flow on, Cowan. They stopped bowling a good line and length and waiting for a mistake. That's how Australia has dealt with Sehwag, by just hitting good areas and waiting for him to edge or get himself out. It was like watching park bowlers bowling to a slogger. He may smash one or two of the good length balls on off stump, but he's just as likely to nick, miss or sky one. And they kept on with it to Cowan, who just put away the trash when it came. And I think we're seeing the good Starc today and yesterday. When he has rhythm and, hence, consistency he is a really dangerous bowler. He just needs to develop more Jekyll and less Hyde.

You can't win bowling first. I don't know where I read it, but it must be true.

It appears that it was the Twenty20 pitch from earlier in the week that they were on .... for 7 minutes! I see nothing wrong in celebrating a job well done (ie, the preparation of a test pitch) by 'christening' the square with an end of work beer. It's their grand final and they have put in a lot of hard work. It's a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. And if you read Indian newspapers, the quality is very poor. Even worse than the Hun as far as sensationalism goes.

If it is a tradition of many years then I have no problem with it. They will have walked over it countless times in the lead up to the game as they prepared it, and it should currently be hard enough that it would not be damaged in the least by normal shoes. If it is hard and fast then what is going to happen if ground staff stand on it? If Cameron Sutherland was one of those involved, do you think he'd let anything happen to the pitch (ie, his livelihood)? Storm in a teacup, as far as I'm concerned. However, it give India another excuse for poor performance. I have never seen a team that has more excuses for failure than India. They are more interested in saving face than they are in fixing their mess. Interesting the difference between Australia and India after poor performance. After the Ashes we said "We are crap, so how do we fix it?", while India has offered endless excuses why they aren't as crap as they really are. It's an interesting cultural difference.

Angry bowlers don't usually do well at Perth. Disciplined bowlers do.

Inverarity said that Pattinson was going to be rested in Perth anyway. This makes sense when read in conjunction with the previous comments about trying to create a squad of rotating fast bowlers.

Ryan Harris is a very handy replacement. Amazing that, injury aside, he is no longer an automatic inclusion.

That's what they tried to do last year. Unfortunately it then needs to be voted on by the members (ie, countries), and we all know what happens then! ICC voting reflects less what is best for the game and more what is best for the individual cricket boards. On a related note, I am so happy that the VFL clubs had the good sense to hand their power over to an independent body.

You are seeing what you want to see from the comment. It's a non-issue. It's less than a non-issue. It's the issue that non-issues ignore due to a lack of substance. In fact Dravid's grandmother's pet gerbil's strangely coloured turd has laid greater claim to importance than that comment.

I don't see the problem with those comments from Dravid. They are in an impossible position where the overwhelming likelihood is that they will lose the match. They have 8 wickets in hand and 180 overs to bat. They're stuffed. Completely and utterly. So, if the context of the match, he is right. They have nothing to lose. If they lose the match then it will not be a comment on their batting of the next two days, so they are free to bat without the weight of expectation. They can't lose because they can only lose. But if they don't lose ........ India have effectively already lost this match. They are not batting to avoid a loss, they are batting to claim a draw.

Agreed Nasher. It's just a number and he only had one more thing to prove. And he did.

Fabulous innings. To do that after coming in with the team in trouble is massive. He scored so quickly too, which still gives us 2 and a half days to bowl them out. Imagine SRT getting his 100th century in this game. What an anti climax!

Let me summarise: You don't mind being a tool because Pattinson made a few runs in Melbourne. Fair enough. Nasher said it nicely. Note that I didn't have a problem with any of the other posters who didn't want Hilfy because of how they expressed it .... as an opinion. They weren't arrogant enough to believe that they knew best.

Not necessarily. You appear to be wrong at this early stage, but there is still a lot of time for you to be correct on both counts.

Our tail did well in Melbourne. It is still fairly weak if Siddle is batting at number 8 because he is just an honest batsman as a bowler. At least he puts a price on his wicket. That Pattinson appears to be a better batsman than Siddle is great for the balance of the side. He should be someone who averages in the vicinity of 25 over his career, which isn't bad for number 8. For balance you need a number 8 that is capable of making 100 if it all comes together. We had one and now we have one, but I'd be surprised if it was Sidds. I'm happy with that, but I'm also prepared to wait and see how much of an issue it is in the future. I'm happy to make fun of your comments about Hilfenhaus because they were ridiculous. Whether he performed in the Test or not, they were still ridiculous. The idea of saying that the selectors were stupid because of what you remember a year ago versus the selectors watching him play and speaking to batsmen who have faced him etc. etc. is ridiculous. You could have said that you were surprised with his selection based on his previous form, but you had no idea what happened over the last 12 months, so you had no basis to be so vehemently against the selection. If you waited to watch him bowl then you could have had an informed opinion. That was my point.