titan_uranus

Still haven't managed to fix our problematic batting collapses. 10/155 today, 7/67 after Warner went out. It's not all there just yet. Marsh is horrendously out of form. When he went out I didn't think he'd get another chance to prove himself before Adelaide but now there's a pretty strong chance we'll bat again so maybe he can make some runs and hold his spot. He's in prime position to make way for Watson when Watson comes back though. Haddin also is struggling with the bat. When your openers make 214 it never looks like a problem of course but he can't keep making low scores at 7. India's last chance to stand up and be counted with the bat. Those cracks on the pitch are tough, though, and our bowlers do seem to be diligent and hard-working, if anything, so we should be able to exploit those cracks. I'm wary of Sehwag though, I feel he's due for a decent innings.

I managed to miss the entire third session yesterday, such is my luck. It really amazes me to see us bowl a side out in a day for 161 and then make 0/149 in a session. It feel so eerily similar to how England were rolling over us last year. Agreed. Nothing is ever their fault. Look at Kohli's comments from the press conference yesterday. He essentially said that India was unlucky and that things just weren't working out for them. Just glossing over the real problems underpinning Indian cricket (e.g. an ageing batting line up and no real promising young batsmen coming through, a lack of technique to deal with pitches outside the subcontinent, overall crap pace bowling, and no spine to fight back when the chips are down).

Agreed. Pattinson's injury does two things. It settles the debate over who will bowl in Perth (at least you'd think so, I can't imagine them making two changes to a bowling line up that has taken 40 Indian wickets in 8 days. Lyon will actually bowl well in Perth I think, he does well with bounce), and it also re-hashes the debate over how we as a cricketing body deal with our fast bowlers. I have no idea if this is a poor management thing or a lack of fitness thing or just an inherent part of being a pace bowler. But I wish it didn't happen.

Umpires have always been able to ask the third umpire for clarification on bump balls or if a catch was clean. That has stood for years and isn't a part of the DRS. Whether or not this suggests that umpires should have the ability to go to the third umpire for any decision, such as lbw or caught, is another question.

Laxman could easily have been out a couple of times in his innings but he's still there and he and SRT are forming a dangerous partnership. It's always a dangerous partnership on a dead pitch like this. We need to stay positive with our bowling and field settings and keep plugging away. We've done well to prise 3 wickets out already and there are encouraging signs every now and again. As I write SRT has just inside-edged one so things can happen. Diligence and persistence will get wickets on this track, even if SRT gets that 100th 100 before we get him.

It'll be a trivia question in a few years. 'Who else scored a century when Clarke scored 329*?' Fantastic innings from Clarke, and equally good work from Ponting and Hussey. Put us in a position where we can't lose from here (unless we do a Cape Town and get bowled out in the final session on Day 5 for 47...) +2. That catch was simple. On this track, opportunities will be few and far between. Dropping catches is a cardinal sin for a keeper and it's only worse on a pitch like this. You have to feel for Pattinson for persisting all afternoon and working Gambhir over to the point where he flirted at one. It's going to be a long couple of days. Gambhir is good in these situations, Tendulkar is Tendulkar, and Laxman is due for an Australian-frustrating innings.

Pretty sure that's correct, I don't think they've ever won a series here. I remember last year England had a tour game in Perth, which would help adjust to the bounce. It's also easier for them coming from England than India. But India's tour games were at Allan Border Oval, which doesn't help much being a road of a pitch. I don't know who's decision that was. If it was ours, sneaky haha. Point is, their batsman are just too accustomed to subcontinental pitches and their bowlers have never been that good. That's why they struggle to win away from home but they dominate at home. They could have had more warm up games but I don't know how much that would help them.

Read an interesting stat on Cricinfo yesterday. After 150 Tests (Kallis is playing his 150th now), Ponting had the most runs, with Kallis second and Tendulkar third. Moreover, at the 150-Test mark, Kallis has made 41 100s to Ponting and Tendulkar's 39. Add into the mix the fact that Kallis averages more than Tendulkar, and you end up seeing that Kallis really doesn't get the credit he deserves. If he ends up playing as many Tests as SRT (this is of course unlikely, given age), then who knows how well he could go. (And let's not forget Kallis also has 271 Test wickets at a tick over 32). I'm thinking we'll bat till Tea if possible, and declare with a lead on or around 450 (which would require another 140 runs from now). We need to remember that this is India, they do have Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman, and this pitch isn't doing a hell of a lot. Don't want to get ahead of ourselves, especially if there's any showers coming up. Although there is a hell of a lot of time left in the match. That'll do me fine haha.

I don't have any more desire to continue this back-and-forth crap. I've admitted I was OTT. I'll just say this: calling me arrogant for a poorly worded sentence or two is, I think, unfair. And if I were you, based on your comments, I wouldn't be calling anyone arrogant...

I am aware I was hyperbolic, I think that's clear. But regardless of my OTT wording, my point was clear, in that I didn't think Hilfenhaus was a step forward and I didn't think he'd be any good. Doesn't matter now because I've been shown wrong. Essentially, you have had the same problem, minus the hyperbole.

I reckon he probably is our best batsman now. Ponting is also in some semblance of form, with 4 50s from his last 6 innings, and currently 37*. But Clarke's our best batsman, surely. This Ponting-Clarke partnership has helped us immensely. Feels like the second innings of Melbourne, with Ponting and Hussey. Good recovery.

He's definitely different. For one he's faster than before, pushing regularly up to 145. Before, he was rarely above 140. That's one difference. It took him a while in Melbourne but he's also using the width of the crease more than he used to. He's also varying his length. Previously he was a stock, good length, stump to stump kind of bowler. Now he's working in fuller deliveries and bouncers too. He bounced out the Indian tail today. Not something he used to be good at. Haha thanks Rogue.

Yes I did. He was. He's improved now. One swallow doesn't make a summer of course, but he's already done far better than I would ever have expected of him.

You're happy with making fun of my comments about Hilfenhaus, then surely you won't mind me bringing this one up again. Boxing Day Test - 1st innings we were 6/214 but all out for 333. 119 runs for the final four wickets. Then in the 2nd innings we were 6/148 but were bowled out for 240. 92 runs for the final four wickets. Siddle, Pattinson, Hilfenhaus and Lyon (as well as Starc and Cummins) have all shown that, in addition to the fact that they are actually taking wickets, they can bat as well. We don't have a tail problem at all.

Three 100s in the last six Tests isn't good enough for you?

Hilfenhaus bowled well to Gambhir, but he looked his usual, Ashes 2010/11, self, to the right handers. There was talk, either on Cricinfo or in the papers, that he had worked on bowling from wider on the crease, but he hasn't done that today at all. Disappointed in that, but his pace was up which was nice. Pattinson and Siddle are also bowling well. Lyon wasn't bad but Sehwag always takes spinners apart (e.g. Krejza in 2008). Neither of yesterday's umpiring mistakes were howlers, I don't think. The ball did miss Hussey's bat by a bit, but it wasn't clear cut, and there was a clear sound with Cowan. DRS would have overturned both but that doesn't mean they were howlers. Not giving Haddin out was as bad if not worse. Having said that, if Hussey doesn't make runs in the second innings and Watson is fit for Sydney, that could be the end of Mr Cricket. With Warner and Cowan at the top, surely Watson goes to 6 as an all rounder, bowling more. That would balance our side well I think.

No, I previously said he was crap when he was in the side previously, and he was dropped for good reason (he wasn't taking wickets). I said I was surprised he was brought back, but on the basis of the news that he's changed his action or his style of bowling, if he starts taking wickets then good for him. His previous problem was that he wasn't taking wickets. He was economical, which is nice, but he wasn't threatening with the new ball. And I haven't anywhere said I'm happy with his selection, because I'm not, new Hilfenhaus or old Hilfenhaus. I'd give Starc the game to see if he really can do something at Test level, since it seems Harris (touch wood) will be ready to go in Sydney, and I'd rather see what the younger Starc can do. And I disagree with your opening statement in the previous post: 'it shows that he has been a successful bowler for us in the past.' I don't agree with that reading of the statistics, nor of Hilfenhaus in general. If you want a summary of my stance it is this: I don't like Hilfenhaus, I never have, and I don't believe he played any long-term decent cricket in his 17 Tests. I'm surprised and, to an extent, disappointed he's been re-called, but if he truly has re-worked himself then good for him. But I'd prefer to stick with Starc. And in the longer run, I'd much prefer to go with Harris, Cummins, Pattinson and Siddle.

That's without a doubt as flattering and as good a write up on a previously pedestrian bowler I can imagine. It seems as though he has changed his game a bit since he was dropped, which makes perfect sense given he wasn't taking wickets. As a new-ball bowler if you're taking wickets you're not playing well, and he wasn't doing that. He wasn't quick and he had no variation. Almost every ball he bowled was a good-length, gentle away swinger. That's what made him 'rubbish'. If the reports are correct, and he has changed his game, quickening his speed and adding in variation, maybe he has become more of a wicket-taking threat. He certainly has to be taking wickets if he's going to hold his spot (which I can't see happening, with Cummins and Harris due to return soon).

Oh come on HT, my possible hyperbole aside, my point is that Hilfenhaus just hasn't been that competitive or threatening of a bowler when he's bowled for Australia. If the selectors have seen something new from him, then so be it, but I don't think it's a progressive step forward to look to Hilfenhaus. He's had his turn, and he didn't take it. 'Occasionally performed admirably', in all honesty, is spot on. He's never taken a 5-for.

Cowan for Hughes is a big plus. That helps. Marsh or Christian for Khawaja is an improvement too. Marsh gets first dibs but if he isn't fit then Christian bats at 6, which pushes Ponting, Clarke and Hussey up one. Not ideal, but until Marsh is fit again we have no choice. Selecting HIlfenhaus is just ridiculous. We took 40 wickets against NZ without too much trouble. Sure, it was only NZ, and Starc wasn't as good as Pattinson, but there is absolutely no need whatsoever to drop him just so we can play Hilfenhaus. Hilfy is just rubbish. I have no idea what the selectors see in him, he's shown repeatedly that he is limited and just really not that good.

Hilfenhaus. Why. What a backwards step that would be. He's just not that good. I understand that Starc isn't bowling well but until Harris or Cummins is ready to replace him, he should hold his spot over the has-beens like Hilfenhaus. Cowan and Marsh for Hughes and Khawaja is improvement. Khawaja isn't in form and isn't making runs. Cowan and Marsh are. Mind you, same argument goes for Ponting and Hussey, but those will be the spots that Khawaja will be able to take back later.

This is all true, but I feel you're putting too much importance on it. If we continually had a tail that was collapsing each innings, and we were leaving batsmen stranded, that would present an issue. That's not happening. First innings in Brisbane - 6th wicket fell at 345, 10th wicket fell at 427. Pattinson made 12, Starc made 32*. Not a problem. First innings in Hobart - 6th wicket fell at 69, 10th wicket fell at 136. Siddle made 36, Pattinson made 17. Again, I don't see a problem. We do not have four bunnies batting 8-11. None of them may have the ability to score a Test century, but that's not important. Siddle and Pattinson have both shown that they have the ability to bat for a decent length innings (in Siddle's case, he's done that repeatedly). Yes, in the second innings in Hobart Siddle, Pattinson and Starc all fell cheaply and in quick succession. But having a tail that does that once in a while is excusable. For me, the strength of a bowling line up should be measured by their ability to take 20 wickets. The ability for our 8, 9, 10 and 11 to bat is obviously useful, but not as important. Like I said above, I'd rather have a top 7 who can make us the majority of our runs, and a tail who can take 20 wickets.

This is such utter rubbish. Sure, in an ideal world we'd play 11 batsmen. Since we didn't bowl today, shouldn't we have played four batsmen instead of Siddle, Pattinson, Starc and Lyon? Come on now, you're intelligent. It cuts both ways. We would have liked to have someone with batting prowess in the tail, but we need four bowlers who can take 20 wickets, and we shouldn't be picking bowlers coz they can bat. ^This.

15 runs if we were chasing 241. As I said above, his impotent bowling would have seen us chasing more than that. Your point about the tail is correct though. It's long. However, Harris can bat, and strengthens it slightly if he comes in at 8. In the end, we shouldn't be picking bowlers because they can also bat a bit. We should back our top 7 to get the job done. Sure, it'd be nice if we batted to 9 or 10, but I'd rather us play four bowlers who can take 20 wickets and a top 6 who can make a sufficient number of runs.

Surely AoB was joking. If Johnson had played we would have been chasing 341, not 241.