Australia v India

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

I wanted to look this up, however the Crapinfo website formatting seems to have died over the last 24 hours (they also totally changed the app, don't know if the two are connected).

Can anyone else successfully get onto a properly formatted Cricinfo?

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...g;view=innings

Opened and kept wicket in 7 tests 12 innings 351 runs at 31.9.

It should be remembered that without the gloves, Stewart was a bona fide world class batsman, averaging over 46. With the gloves he was a competent but diminished batsman, averaging 34.9 as he did the job to supposedly balance the team. So he wasn't a disastrous batting keeper, but he was far from amazing.

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

I wanted to look this up, however the Crapinfo website formatting seems to have died over the last 24 hours (they also totally changed the app, don't know if the two are connected).

Can anyone else successfully get onto a properly formatted Cricinfo?

Yes I also had problems with them over the last couple of days. Seems ok so far.

[ConfusedMale]

Originally Posted by MRNC4.0

I think they'll be pretty happy ever which way it goes until Warner returns.

Our bowlers have enough to worry about with Smith and Labuschagne. I didn't read about Smith's dodgy back; I wish he is much better and is able to play (but we get him out soon).

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...g;view=innings

Opened and kept wicket in 7 tests 12 innings 351 runs at 31.9.

It should be remembered that without the gloves, Stewart was a bona fide world class batsman, averaging over 46. With the gloves he was a competent but diminished batsman, averaging 34.9 as he did the job to supposedly balance the team. So he wasn't a disastrous batting keeper, but he was far from amazing.

Although, like Atherton and many others of his time, basically had to cope with the finest decade of seam bowling around the world.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Although, like Atherton and many others of his time, basically had to cope with the finest decade of seam bowling around the world.

I don't disagree with that, which makes his non keeping average so special. I certainly agree that if Athers and Thorpe, for two others, had been say 10 years younger, they might have ended up with brilliant records that would have stood the test of time.

I wonder how Ricky Ponting might have done if he had started his career in say 2010 or so?

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

I don't disagree with that, which makes his non keeping average so special. I certainly agree that if Athers and Thorpe, for two others, had been say 10 years younger, they might have ended up with brilliant records that would have stood the test of time.

I wonder how Ricky Ponting might have done if he had started his career in say 2010 or so?

Ponting didn't have to face McGrath and Warne.

As an aside, it's interesting that this era of great bowling also seemed to help produce some of the great batsmen too (Indians and Sri Lankans in particular).

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Ponting didn't have to face McGrath and Warne.

As an aside, it's interesting that this era of great bowling also seemed to help produce some of the great batsmen too (Indians and Sri Lankans in particular).

True, but he did face Ambrose & Walsh, Wasim & Waqar, Donald & Pollock.

There aren't really the calibre of bowlers around now and I wouldn't claim Anderson & Broad have been in the class of those, good though they are.

[ConfusedMale]

I think the main difference was that the support cast among bowlers was so good. Ambrose-Walsh had Bishop; Wasim-Waqar had Mushtaq; Donald-Pollock had Schultz/Fanie.

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

True, but he did face Ambrose & Walsh, Wasim & Waqar, Donald & Pollock.

There aren't really the calibre of bowlers around now and I wouldn't claim Anderson & Broad have been in the class of those, good though they are.

Tough to play down 2 seamers who will surely be the top 2 wicket taking fast bowlers of all time. Although Rabada may well end up challenging those figures.

[Chin Music]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Tough to play down 2 seamers who will surely be the top 2 wicket taking fast bowlers of all time. Although Rabada may well end up challenging those figures.

Not sure I was quite doing that. Just that the 3 bowling duos I mentioned were true all time international greats. You could make a case that Broad and Anderson are contemporary greats, but probably aren't quite on that level in terms of not really being masters of all conditions. Nearly all the other bowlers averages low 20s and have a real claim to being all time international greats. Much as I admire B&A as an England fan, the objective side of me can't quite put them up with the others.

[MRNC4.0]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...g;view=innings

Opened and kept wicket in 7 tests 12 innings 351 runs at 31.9.

It should be remembered that without the gloves, Stewart was a bona fide world class batsman, averaging over 46. With the gloves he was a competent but diminished batsman, averaging 34.9 as he did the job to supposedly balance the team. So he wasn't a disastrous batting keeper, but he was far from amazing.

All the more bizarre when England had Jack Russell, arguably the finest technical gloveman in the world, sitting on the sidelines for the majority of that time.

[MRNC4.0]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Ponting didn't have to face McGrath and Warne.

As an aside, it's interesting that this era of great bowling also seemed to help produce some of the great batsmen too (Indians and Sri Lankans in particular).

I always found this argument lazy and kind of pointless. Is Viv Richards diminished as a player because he never faced the greatest pace attack of all time? Are Warne & McGrath slightly less impressive because they never had to bowl at the Australian top six? These arguments are nonsensical.

[MRNC4.0]

Originally Posted by Chin Music

What's going on with Smith? A dodgy back apparently. I'd be surprised if he missed out. Any more up to date news MRNC?

It seems to be rather minor, and he'll certainly play. Far from an ideal lead in. India are a legitimate 50/50 chance here.

[Steveh]

Should be most interesting to see how this series goes. Last time India played a test series in Australia, I was fortunate to get to the Boxing Day test, when Agarwal made an impressive debut on a benign track.

[ConfusedMale]

Originally Posted by Steveh

Should be most interesting to see how this series goes. Last time India played a test series in Australia, I was fortunate to get to the Boxing Day test, when Agarwal made an impressive debut on a benign track.

Last time, only India had batsmen who could bat for long. That isn't the case this time, plus we'll be without Kohli for 3 tests. I'd put Australia slightly ahead, at about 60-40.

[Sir Coolerking]

I'd still have the Aussies well ahead, more like 70/30. In Smith and Labuschagne they have the 2 batsmen most likely to go big. The bowlers have proved they're different class at home.

[sanskritsimon]

Originally Posted by MRNC4.0

All the more bizarre when England had Jack Russell, arguably the finest technical gloveman in the world, sitting on the sidelines for the majority of that time.

Bizarre when you think of it using your brain. But remember that this island is a funny place. It is a matter of religio-national principle for England selectors to exclude the best available wicketkeeper. If that had been Stewart they'd've dropped him regardless of his batting, and they'd still've been better than Australia (and everyone else).

[ConfusedMale]

India have announced the XI a day in advance - Shaw, Mayank, Rahane, Kohli, Pujara, Vihari, Saha, Ashwin, Umesh, Shami, Bumrah.

I would have had Gill instead of Shaw, as I feel Shaw is our own version of Burns. It is good to see Saha instead of Pant behind the stumps. The bowling too seems decent.

[square leg umpire]

Originally Posted by MRNC4.0

All the more bizarre when England had Jack Russell, arguably the finest technical gloveman in the world, sitting on the sidelines for the majority of that time.

It was due to England's management trying to squeeze 12 players in to 11, that's why some improbable all rounders got selected. Giving Stewart the gloves made as much sense as giving them to Boycott or Gooch but that's the way it was with England at the time.

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by ConfusedMale

India have announced the XI a day in advance - Shaw, Mayank, Rahane, Kohli, Pujara, Vihari, Saha, Ashwin, Umesh, Shami, Bumrah.

I would have had Gill instead of Shaw, as I feel Shaw is our own version of Burns. It is good to see Saha instead of Pant behind the stumps. The bowling too seems decent.

Can't see Gill as an opener but he is miles better than Shaw. Agree with you about Saha.