Australian Cricket Tour of India 2017

[Williamos]

What a game. What a series. A long, long time since Australia ground out a draw like this. Super impressed by the effort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnS]

I thought that Australia had a chance on a wicket that's yielded so many runs up to Day 4, however, I admit my doubts after Smith got out and the score was 4-63, still about 90 runs away and over 2 sessions to bat. Handscomb and Marsh were just magnificent to do what they did on the last day of a test match, both batting around 200 balls to ensure the draw. And now we are off to Dharamsala, in the foot of the Himalayan Mountains in the north of India, to play the final test on Saturday. This will be an unconventional test match in India, as the location means the snow-capped mountains are easily viewed in the background and the forecast is for 22°-24°C throughout the game. Dharamsala has never hosted a Test match either, only One-Day Internationals and Twenty20 matches.

From a cricketing point of view, it's been a pleasure to watch such a determined Australian performance, being 1-1 after 3 tests is so admirable, especially after they were written off before the series began and were not expected to win or draw a game!

[Ken Gargett]

10 hours ago, JohnS said:

I thought that Australia had a chance on a wicket that's yielded so many runs up to Day 4, however, I admit my doubts after Smith got out and the score was 4-63, still about 90 runs away and over 2 sessions to bat. Handscomb and Marsh were just magnificent to do what they did on the last day of a test match, both batting around 200 balls to ensure the draw. And now we are off to Dharamsala, in the foot of the Himalayan Mountains in the north of India, to play the final test on Friday. This will be an unconventional test match in India, as the location means the snow-capped mountains are easily viewed in the background and the forecast is for 22°-24°C throughout the game. Dharamsala has never hosted a Test match either, only One-Day Internationals and Twenty20 matches.

From a cricketing point of view, it's been a pleasure to watch such a determined Australian performance, being 1-1 after 3 tests is so admirable, especially after they were written off before the series began and were not expected to win or draw a game!

what a fantastic series, though shame it is not being played in a better spirit - and both sides can take some of the responsibility for that.

still think the selectors are muppets but in the end, terrific effort from maxwell in the first and marsh in the second (still doesn't explain why mitch marsh is even on tour). and from handscomb. for an inexperienced test player, brilliant effort. i'd have got more of a thrill from playing an innings like that than a ton in a game easily won. even though he did not get a lot of runs, how well is renshaw playing!

still no excuse to have wade in the team. has let us down so often. all very well for people to see him as the best batting keeper, though that has been arguable with hartley and nevill, but he is clearly a very inferior glovesman. he should not be there. his drops allowed india to get to the position they did and very nearly cost us the test. useless to have a keeper who scores five or ten more runs than another but gives up 150 through errors.

the next test will hopefully be a cracker. could turn on the toss.

[JohnS]

There's absolutely no argument that you include a wicketkeeper who lacks efficiency over a keeper who does. Let's not forget the greats of the past, Bert Oldfield, Don Tallon and Wally Grout. None of these great Australian wicketkeepers averaged over 25 in test cricket, but their keeping skills were beyond reproach, so much so that when Rod Marsh made the team in 1970, was he not nicknamed 'Iron Gloves' for his keeping errors? No one remembers, firstly, Marsh's century in the 1977 Centenary test against England (the first by an Australian wicketkeeper), rather they remember his record as a keeper, pre-dominantly.

Yes, that dropped chance off Saha when he was 51 cost Australia a chance to win the game. It wasn't that long ago that Adam Gilchrist retired from test cricket after some rudimentary and embarrassing drops against India. He still had batting skills at the time he retired.

[Ken Gargett]

15 minutes ago, JohnS said:

There's absolutely no argument that you include a wicketkeeper who lacks efficiency over a keeper who does. Let's not forget the greats of the past, Bert Oldfield, Don Tallon and Wally Grout. None of these great Australian wicketkeepers averaged over 25 in test cricket, but their keeping skills were beyond reproach, so much so that when Rod Marsh made the team in 1970, was he not nicknamed 'Iron Gloves' for his keeping errors? No one remembers, firstly, Marsh's century in the 1977 Centenary test against England (the first by an Australian wicketkeeper), rather they remember his record as a keeper, pre-dominantly.

Yes, that dropped chance off Saha when he was 51 cost Australia a chance to win the game. It wasn't that long ago that Adam Gilchrist retired from test cricket after some rudimentary and embarrassing drops against India. He still had batting skills at the time he retired.

john, do you need to edit that first sentence or am i missing something?

marsh actually made the west aussie shield side as a batsman originally. took over the keeping later. there was endless debate over whether he or john maclean should have been picked and i think there is little doubt marsh got the nod because he was a better batsman. maclean was a superb keeper and could have played a great many tests in other circumstances. marsh's keeping certainly improved, though (as a qlder, i was of course outraged that maclean missed out) i think he was a far better keeper when started than the iron gloves dubbing suggested. had some bad luck. can happen.

i have a theory that if you are in the aussie team, you should get a lot better as you play so much cricket and i found the more i kept, the better i got. that does not seem to apply with wade.

[JohnS]

I'm meaning to say that Peter Nevill is more accomplished and efficient in his wicketkeeping skills than Matthew Wade.

[Ken Gargett]

3 minutes ago, JohnS said:

I'm meaning to say that Peter Nevill is more accomplished and efficient in his wicketkeeping skills than Matthew Wade.

completely agree.

[Ken Gargett]

On 17/03/2017 at 8:39 AM, El Presidente said:

Maxwell was looking nervous when he came out to bat. 

From the dressing room balcony Coach Boof yelled out " Gargett has just posted that you are a USELESS NONG!"

Maxwell takes guard, looks up at the bowler and is heard mumbling "**** that wine swilling ignoramus"

89 not out. Brilliant innings. 

4-299 end of day one. 

 

You nailed it Ken 

 

you've gone quiet!

maxwell a fail first innings. backs to the wall and we desperately need a massive innings from him in the 2nd.

meanwhile, yet again, marsh fails when needed. same every series. one, sometimes two, good innings and everyone gets all wet and talks about how he has nailed down his position in the team and blah, blah, blah. and then it is fail, fail, fail. the crucial 4th test. we desperately need a big game from him. 4 and 1. one good innings per series does not, a test player, make. you cannot be a number 4 batsman in a serious test team if you have an average of 35.

maxwell has been the same, although he has only had one good innings in his career. we really need another from him. though depending on a bloke who has a test average of 21 is fraught.

but why would we not stick with those guys given the options include that useless joke khawaja and his average of 65. our selectors remain the greatest bunch of dribblers who occasionally stumble into a correct decision, by error.

sadly, it looks like a case of so close. but what a great series. and all hail king smith.

[JohnS]

Yes, so close yet so far.