[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
Australian batting is a level ahead of all other batting teams
[/QUOTE]
Yes and they should have been able to chase 284 against one of the worst bowling line-ups in the world.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Asif_k: *
Yes and they should have been able to chase 284 against one of the worst bowling line-ups in the world.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say that India has one of the worst bowling lineups in the world, they are a little ahead of Bangladesh, and plus their spinners are effective @ home.
I didn't see the match but after reading the match report from Cricinfo, it seems like Laxman and Tendulkar were more concerned about their personal landmarks of reaching centuries rather then the well being of the Indian team, only thanks to Yuvraj Singh and Ajit Agrkar, India got to a good total in the end.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
plus their spinners are effective @ home.
.
[/QUOTE]
sigh ab tu woh bhi yaadein hee reh gayeen :D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by UMAIR316: *
I wouldn't say that India has one of the worst bowling lineups in the world, they are a little ahead of Bangladesh, and plus their spinners are effective @ home.
I didn't see the match but after reading the match report from Cricinfo, it seems like Laxman and Tendulkar were more concerned about their personal landmarks of reaching centuries rather then the well being of the Indian team, only thanks to Yuvraj Singh and Ajit Agrkar, India got to a good total in the end.
[/QUOTE]
Having a slightly better bowling attack than Bangladesh is not being one of the worst? What could be worse than seeing Agarkar share the new ball with Zaheer- that too against the Aussies?? Kumble is a containing bowler, rather than a strike bowler. He frustrates the batsmen into making mistakes, but he's not a threat as such. Shewag definitely has it in him to become a regular spinner along with Bhaji, that should free up one space for an all rounder or batsman.
Yes, Tendlya and Lax were too slow. They gobbled up something like 10 overs to make 30-40 runs. Criminal.
^ Agreed except the last part about SRT & VVS being too slow. I saw the match (except for a 5 to 10% of it when my broadband acted up). Subjectively speaking, they didn't miss too many hittable balls. In th ebeginning of the innings there were a few that I thought they could have stepped up to but having lost an early wicket might have weighed heavy.
All said, responsible innings.
Actually, next to Agarkar's bland bowling, the biggest peeve I have is Indian fielding durimng first 20 overs or so. Missed a few catches, stumping chances. The misfields might have been runouts. Guess the field being soaking wet had something to do with it.
^ I'm not sure if the misfields weren't due to the long layover. It's like getting back to excercise after a month in bed. YOur reflexes are too slow. There was a noticeable improvement in fielding once the match was going India's way - as always a sniff of a win makes our players work harder.
NZ v Aus.
NZ 97 all out!!
and the Aussies are 50/1
Awright, lets do some analysis now -
Australia are without their prime bowlers
Some critics snidely remarked how easy it was for India to make 283 because of the above, and how little the total was considering...
NZ managed to make only 97 today
New Zealand's batting did not crumble against weak Indian bowling
But Aussies did
Cricket is a funny game...
^^ You have to keep in mind the conditions in which the match took place. There was grass on the pitch and seam movement in the air so newzeland crumbled easily. Conditions were NOT batting friendly at all, more like last years new zealand pictches and we all know what happened there.
Dont judge anything on just one match. There is still a number of matches remaining, lets see how tournament unfolds.
Australia v New Zealand, TVS Cup, Game 3, Faridabad
Australia demolish New Zealand on seaming paradise
[scorecard](http://uk.cricinfo.com//db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/OD_TOURNEYS/TVS/SCORECARDS/AUS_NZ_TVS_ODI3_29OCT2003.html)
Australia beat New Zealand with ridiculous ease in their first encounter in the TVS Cup – and it all began with the toss. Stephen Fleming called correctly in the morning and opted to bat, and Australia, using the grass on the pitch and the moisture in the air superbly, skittled New Zealand out for 97. They then finished off the game in 16.4 overs, losing only 2 wickets in the process.
The swing and seam movement was so prodigious in the morning that Nathan Bracken and Brad Williams just had to pitch it in the right places to pick up wickets, as they duly did with the new ball, reducing New Zealand to 21 for 5. Craig McMillan and Chris Harris hung on for a while, adding 52, but once they were dismissed New Zealand gave way.
The collapse began early when Bracken got his second ball to pitch on middle stump and straighten. Chris Nevin, in the side in place of Chris Cairns, was trapped plumb in front (0 for 1). Four overs later, Bracken pitched one just on off, on a good length, to Stephen Fleming, who had to play at it. The resultant edge – Bracken was getting the ball to viciously move away from Fleming – had an air of inevitability about it, and Adam Gilchrist took a regulation catch (11 for 2). Fleming had made 2.
The next blow was self-inflicted. Lou Vincent, yet to open his account, tried to pull a short ball from outside off, the ball hurried on to the bat and scooped up towards mid-off, and Andy Bichel took an easy catch (11 for 3). Williams had his first wicket.
And then his second. Scott Styris, who had begun with a confident off-drive off Bracken for four, attempted an expansive drive off Williams and could only edge through to Ricky Ponting at second slip (20 for 4). So how did it feel to lose the toss, Ricky?
Bracken then picked up Jacob Oram with one that pitched in the corridor, moved away, and took an edge on the way to Gilchrist. New Zealand were 21 for 5.
McMillan and Harris then added a tentative 52 runs in 95 balls, though McMillan was lucky to make 24 runs he did make. A caught-behind appeal off Williams was negated by S Venkataraghavan in the tenth over, even though McMillan had clearly nicked it, and an edge off Bichel some time later fell just short of first slip. Would McMillan cash in? Not by much.
The partnership was broken by Ian Harvey. Harvey pitched on a good length on leg and middle, the ball straightened slightly and rapped Harris on the pads. The ball appeared to be heading towards off stump, and even though Harris was on the front foot, the bounce was subcontinental, and the decision was fair (73 for 6). Harris had made 14.
An over later, McMillan played across the line to Bichel and was plumb in front (77 for 7). His footwork was minimal, and he was trapped on the crease. With all the specialist batsmen gone, New Zealand were scrambling to reach three figures. They failed, as Williams came back into the attack and duly finished things off.
Australia went in to chase as if they needed 398 and not 98 to win. Gilchrist, in particular, was in a belligerent mood. He hit five fours and one six in his 18-ball innings of 29, as Australia coasted along at 10 an over. It was too good to last.
Oram held one back in the third over, and took a one-handed return catch when Gilchrist launched into a full-blooded, if uppish, straight drive (47 for 1). Gilchrist had made 29 off just 18 balls.
Ponting was caught behind off Tuffey just before the end, but Hayden had found his touch by then, and the end was a couple of strokes away. He brought up both the win, and his half-century, with a flick through midwicket. Australia cruised to victory with 33.2 overs to spare, duly emphasizing which side was the World Champion team.
Amit Varma is managing editor of Wisden Cricinfo in India.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by karina: *
NZ managed to make only 97 today
[/QUOTE]
Out of that 32 were Mr. EXTRA (Highest scorer).
Saby - Fleming had won the toss and decided to bat first. And yes there was some grass but Comparing this pitch to the pitches in NZ is ridiculous. Most batsmen were out playing silly shots.
32 extras 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Asif_k: *
Out of that 32 were Mr. EXTRA (Highest scorer).
Saby - Fleming had won the toss and decided to bat first. And yes there was some grass but Comparing this pitch to the pitches in NZ is ridiculous. Most batsmen were out playing silly shots.
[/QUOTE]
^^ yep...the pitch had been seamer friendly awwrite...but why did then fleming elect to bat first.It's a known fact that wickets in India ease up in the afternoon...IMO it was a major judgemental error by Fleming re the pitch.But...the pitch was not as seamer friendly as pitches in NZ were when India toured NZ.Look at the ease Australia chased the target...whereas that was not the case in NZ where both India and NZ struggled to bat...and where NZ held as slight edge over India being the home team...and winning the tests...but their performances were not encouraging at all.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Corporate Spy: *
^^ yep...the pitch had been seamer friendly awwrite...but why did then fleming elect to bat first.It's a known fact that wickets in India ease up in the afternoon...IMO it was a major judgemental error by Fleming re the pitch.But...the pitch was not as seamer friendly as pitches in NZ were when India toured NZ.Look at the ease Australia chased the target...whereas that was not the case in NZ where both India and NZ struggled to bat...and where NZ held as slight edge over India being the home team...and winning the tests...but their performances were not encouraging at all.
[/QUOTE]
Thats why the Aussie batsmen are a class above all other batsmen, their ability to bat well under any conditions.
I just saw the highlights in the news, and the ball was swinging wildly, and shouldn't have made a difference even if Fleming adopted to field first. Refering to the series between Ind-NZL last year, both batting lineups were vulnerable to those conditions, so there was no questions about batting first or second.
NZ would have been in worse position had Venkat given Macmillan out. He had a thick nick and everyone except Venkat knew he was out.
I just wonder why he didn't ask the third umpire for help, he waited for good 30-40 seconds before giving out (as if he was watching replays in his mind or was trying to find the echos of the nick).
Umair - I watched the match live (first 20 overs) and yes ball was swinging but it wasn't that bad. Bracken was bowling at a speed of 130-133 kph as opposed to Williams' 140s. His(bracken's) line was very good and NZ batsmen did bat carelessly and took this attack lightly . Even if I accept that Ball was swinging and it was difficuly to score, Do you really think 97 is a good score (not to mention 32 extras) ?
....
Ok enough of the hoopla regarding the bowl swinging and all that crap. For god sake the match was being played in Faridabad not Hamilton. Most of the pitches in North India behave like this in this for the first hour of the match and as the day progresses all the pitches do ease up, because of the sun staring right down on u..
New Zealand batsmen were done in the first hour or so. Their top order was flushed in no time. And one more thing let's accept this fact that the so called new bowling attack of Australia is not that bad..they bowled consistently and pitched the bowl at the right spot and that was the least they had to do..
Fleming made a wrong decision overall..Agreed that Australia has better batsmen but I would have loved to see Tuffey coming to them with these wild deliveries which move like snake here and there..
laterz
Ponting said in an interview that "I was lucky to lose the toss because i would have batted too had i won the toss"
Oh yes of course, conditions are NEVER batting friendly when foreign teams collapse. Had India collapsed no doubt you would have posted a message about how the inept Indian batsmen collapsed on a pitch that seamed a little ONLY FOR THE FIRST HOUR OR SO.
Do continue to give us your valuable take on the pitches as the tournament unfolds! 
that was truly emphatic! With such a weakened bowling attack you think Australia might decide to try and bat there way out of trouble? Oh hell no! That wouldn't be the Australian way - they really did shag the sheep out of the New Zealand ass! Man that was something else - just imagine if Brett Lee, Glenn McGrath and Jason Gillispie had been playing?
True the conditions were in favor of bowlers in the morning session though it really is a worry for everyone else at the fact that Australia with such a weakened bowling attack can bowl out another side for just 97! Maybe this really is a mind over matter thing - are people now fearing to play the Australian side? And now that they are familiarizing themselves with the conditions - the prospects for India and New Zealand looksomewhat ominous.
^ Ok here's my prediction on who will end up where on the points table-
NZ- 1 and half wins
India - 3 and half wins
Aus - 4 wins
This means India will beat NZ and Aus at least once (or NZ twice). Aus will beat NZ all 3 times and NZ might manage one win against India. So Ind and Aus are in the finals. NZ is going to find it very hard to claw their way up from their latest defeat.
Coming to teams 'fearing' the Aussies, I would say there is some truth in that for the weaker teams but not India. India has beaten Australia emphatically at home in 2001 and after that in ODI tournaments, and even if you look at the WC finals which ended in ignominy, India still managed to reach 225 in 39 against the famous trio of Lee, Mcgrath and Gilly - Mcgrath and Gilly were in fact totally hopeless on many occassions against Indians - so no, I don't think it holds true for our team that they have a fear psychosis. If anything their performance against Australia is usually of a higher level than against Kenya.
If the batsmen keep their cool I'll back India to take this tournament!