Australian Batting vs English Batting

[Maranello]

first thing first seamer. aussys were LUCKY to win that series. 2nd test was india's for the taking but rain had to intervene. dont blame the pitch on the last test mate..... it was the same for both teams....

No they were not lucky, the better team won, as you yourself like to point out, finding puerile excuses in the weather and the pitches after losing the series is in bad taste

Australia won two tests by big margins as they were the better team so they were worthy winners. In the other two Tests, they narrowly lost the dead rubber which they would arguably have won had it {i} not been a dead rubber, or {ii} Warne been playing on a track where even Michael Clarke pulverised the Indian batting line-up!

Some argue that India were unlucky in the 2nd Test (at Madras), others say Australia were unlucky. The statistical and historical precedents definitely favour Australia, as I have shown here. However, even if we, for the sake of discussion assume that India were unlucky in that one Test, that does not make them the winners of the seres, since even their narrow win at Madras would not have been as thumping or decisive as the two thrashings in Banglalore (Aus won by 217 runs and India never looked close to a challenge) and Nagpur (Aus won by 342 runs, an even more comprehensive thumping than the first Test).

India never came remotely close to competing with Australia in two of the four Tests. On the other hand, Australia were very close to, and often better than, India in the other two (including a dead rubber). Hence, the Australians were worthy winners, credit where its due.


PS: India were saved by the rain in the 2nd Test, and here's why:

India had to get to 229 in the 4th innings on a crumbling Madras pitch on the last day, were 19-0. They would have found it difficult to get 210 on a 5th day pitch. Of all the 27 Tests played at that famous ground, none have been won by a team chasing more than 200 in the 4th innings. Before this Test, there had been 10 tests in which the 4th innings target was over 200, and it had not been achieved even once! On nine occasions, the team batting 4th lost, and on 1 of those 10, the result was the famous tied test of 1986. (full stadium stats).

That is the historical reason, the other reason is India's own slipshod batting performance. After their second innings was rained off in the Second Test, they had four more innings in the series, including some in perfect batting conditions at Bangalore (Third Test). However, on all four occasions they failed to reach 210 (what they would have needed in the Second Test), and were all out for scores below that:
Bangalore:
185 all out
200 all out
Bombay:
104 all out
205 all out

If they could not score more than 210 when there was no pressure and batting was much easier, it is absurd to expect them to have chased 229 on a crumbling fifth day pitch against a fully fit Australian attack, in conditions where such a score would have been truly unprecedented.

[Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1]

yes aussy were the better team of the series. yet if you had followed the match, it was closer than the 200or 300 odd run victories as the end scorecard reads. but yeah aussys were better and why bother arguing with the facts.


"No they were not lucky, the better team won, as you yourself like to point out, finding puerile excuses in the weather and the pitches after losing the series is in bad taste "


yes it is and im not fully blaming the loss on the weather and in the end aussys won series because they were better than us. infact the reason we lost the series is due to a hectic schedule causing player burnout lol joking

[Ernest]

Hmm a lot of iss and buts here.

Australia are a good team, but if India had won that rain affected match, would the attitude of the Indian cricketers have been higher, and been able to compete better, rather than being on a downer, just a though.

[Rahul_Dravid_is_No.1]

yes very true and lots have things could have changed and the result could have been far different. we can also blame crap umpiring mostly against india aswell. but what is done is done and it reads 2-1 to australlia.

[Seamer]

Thanks for the backup Maranello! Could,nt of put my point across better if i had spent all night trying

[Shaka]

Originally Posted by Milo

Strauss and Trescothick will do very well to see off the new ball on more than a couple of occasions in the entire series. I cannot believe how anyone thinks England stand a chance next year.

In the current series the Pakistani openers made at least a couple of decent starts, in fact they were well placed to make big scores before the middle order failure. There's no reason why Strauss and Trescothick can't do likewise, although in Trescothick's case I do seem to remember that he looked all at sea last time in the Ashes...feet planted, bat wafting helplessly.

The Aussie middle order gives them the edge for me. Damien Martyn and Gilchrist are fabulous players, I just feel that they have the slightly higher quality batsmen.

[cantplaycantalk]

Starting to feel that things are swinging towards England in the batting, I had put Aus as slightly stronger, I would now go with too close to call. The inclusion of Peitersen and the continued form of Strauss have significantly strengthened England.
Even when Thorpe calls it a day now we have Bell, Butcher, Collingwood fighting for the place. G Jones has shown he is a decent bat, and Prior looks like he could be even better should he be required.
We could be in for a very good series here

[John]

I agree Englands batting is very good and its fairly close to Australia. The difference being Australia are more or less sure of their lineup.
Where England are unsure. Is Thorpe going to be left out is Peterisen going to bat from the beginning of the series? Should G. Jones be playing? Is Vaughan going to find form?

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by John

I agree Englands batting is very good and its fairly close to Australia. The difference being Australia are more or less sure of their lineup.
Where England are unsure

I think that the reason the Australians are more sure of the lineup is the difference in quality.

The two Aussie players struggling with form are Hayden and Clarke, however both are likely to be included. Hayden has been world class over a period of several years and has scraped together starts even though badly out of form. Clarke has just finished his first season and is, possibly as expected for someone early in their career, struggling to maintain form - admittedly the jury is still out on whether its a blip or a bigger issue. All five other batsmen are established, including four of the world's current better batsmen (I'd accept that Katich hasn't established himself at that level yet), and in reasonable to very good touch.

The English batsmen fit and in form include Tresco (who has struggled against the Aussies), Thorpe and Pietersen & Bell (untried or of limited experience at test level). Out of form include Thorpe, Vaughan and Butcher. Flintoff I'd compare with Clarke (I think generously at least as a batsman), who was patchy against SA and injured.

On this basis, the Aussies have four proven world class (ie. good enough to push for inclusion in most teams) batsmen in form (Ponting, Langer, Martyn & Gilchrist), one world class batsman struggling for form and a couple of potentials (one in form, the other out). Contrast this to the English, with two WC batsmen in form (possibly generous wrt Tresco), several potentials in form and two world class batsmen out of form.

On face value - no contest. In practice, we'll see...

[greg]

I think that England have a better batting line-up than in any of the last 8 ashes series and it will be very interesting to see if the new boys can cope against the best side in the world.If Trescothick has a good summer then that could go a long way to closing the gap because he has a dreadful record against Australia.It would appear that Vaughan will be 3 and Bell 4 and that means we have a strong top order and they have to get us off to a good start to give the likes of Flintoff and Jones the chance to play their natural game.