Australia v India
-
@NTA you don't think better teams or players get the benefit of calls? I reckon it happens at all levels in all sports.
@Crazy-Horse said in Australia v India:
@NTA you don't think better teams or players get the benefit of calls? I reckon it happens at all levels in all sports.
In cricket, it is probably because better bowlers know when to appeal more often than not, and put the opposition in harder places to resist that appeal.
Let's face it: not like Bangladesh have four blokes thundering in at 135+ rapping blokes on the pads.
-
-
70 is looking a wee way off...
@Crazy-Horse said in Australia v India:
70 is looking a wee way off...
Rahane will show some patience. The two guys out already are in poor touch right now, and the new guy is pretty talented.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Australia v India:
70 is looking a wee way off...
Rahane will show some patience. The two guys out already are in poor touch right now, and the new guy is pretty talented.
-
@NTA it's good watching. India just wanting to score, not interested in wearing the ball down at all.
Rahane first ball 4... Short and played well
-
@nzzp getting enough bad balls to move fast.
Might as well load the slip cordon and bowl top of off for totals like these.
-
@nzzp on the surface, yes.
But hard to tell definitively, given we created 6 chances that were put down in the first innings. You could say our bowlers put us right in the contest otherwise.
Rahane is the only standout innings in the match. Or series, really.
-
@nzzp on the surface, yes.
But hard to tell definitively, given we created 6 chances that were put down in the first innings. You could say our bowlers put us right in the contest otherwise.
Rahane is the only standout innings in the match. Or series, really.
@NTA said in Australia v India:
@nzzp on the surface, yes.
But hard to tell definitively, given we created 6 chances that were put down in the first innings. You could say our bowlers put us right in the contest otherwise.
Rahane is the only standout innings in the match. Or series, really.
Fair play, but india did the same in test one and then collapsed with the bat.
Three innings at home not exceeding 200 is a real concern
-
@NTA said in Australia v India:
@nzzp on the surface, yes.
But hard to tell definitively, given we created 6 chances that were put down in the first innings. You could say our bowlers put us right in the contest otherwise.
Rahane is the only standout innings in the match. Or series, really.
Fair play, but india did the same in test one and then collapsed with the bat.
Three innings at home not exceeding 200 is a real concern
@nzzp said in Australia v India:
Three innings at home not exceeding 200 is a real concern
Agreed, but not entirely unexpected.
Ricky Ponting in commentary points out that the batsmen aren't putting enough pressure back on the bowlers. And that is hard when the top order is failing.
Why are they failing? The selectors couldn't pick the opening pair they wanted - and inexplicably went for a guy with zero domestic form in Burns. To try and stem that bleeding they picked Wade, and to a degree that worked.
Smith and Labuschagne both dropping form at the same time was as big an issue for me. Yes there was good bowling there, but they were coming out to a fresh bowling attack and with a lot of shine on the ball. Maybe if they're allowed to come out around over 25-30 against a less fresh attack, with 70 runs on the board, things change slightly.
So, what to do?
