India v Australia, Third Test, Chandigarh

1st Test
Fri Feb 22 - Tue Feb 26
04:00 GMT | 09:30 local
12:00 WST | 14:30 CST | 15:00 EST
MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, Chennai

2nd Test
Sat Mar 2 - Wed Mar 6
04:00 GMT | 09:30 local
12:00 WST | 14:30 CST | 15:00 EST
Rajiv Gandhi International Stadium, Uppal, Hyderabad

3rd Test
Thu Mar 14 - Mon Mar 18
04:00 GMT | 09:30 local
12:00 WST | 14:30 CST | 15:00 EST
Punjab Cricket Association Stadium, Mohali, Chandigarh

4th Test
Fri Mar 22 - Tue Mar 26
04:00 GMT | 09:30 local
12:00 WST | 14:30 CST | 15:00 EST
Feroz Shah Kotla, Delhi


India:
Shikhar Dhawan, Murli Vijay, Virender Sehwag, Cheteshwar Pujara, Sachin Tendulkar, Virat Kohli, Ajinkya Rahane, M S Dhoni (c),
Rabindra Jadeja, Bhubhneshwar Kumar, Ravi Ashwin, Pragyan Ojha, Harbhajan Singh, Ishant Sharma, Ashoke Dinda

Australia:
Michael Clarke (c), Ed Cowan, David Warner, Phillip Hughes, Shane Watson, Usman Khawaja, Steve Smith, Matthew Wade, Glenn Maxwell,
Moises Henriques, Nathan Lyon, Xavier Doherty, Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle, James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, Jackson Bird

Again, I fundamentally disagree with Australian selection. That said I think they'll win the series, due to India's demoralisation post-England tour and own issues.

I'd have picked Bailey instead of Smith, Hilfenhaus (Harris if fit) instead of Henriques and O'Keefe ahead of Maxwell/ Doherty.

The point is that I think Smith, Maxwell and Henriques are far too bits-and-pieces to be serious Test cricketers (at this stage).

I am not sure Smith and Henriques are up for test selection at the moment. Doherty, despite a horrible test debut, may not be a terrible option as a backup/2nd spinner in my view, he's a decent ODI spinner, and has the international experience, and has pretty decent accuracy.

A squad of 17 , including several unproven "all rounders" , rather suggests the selectors are still not too sure what their best team is ... I know England ended up with 17 to tour India recently , but that was partly due to first the known absence of Bell for part of the trip , and then the late addition of KP. Also did include a back up keeper. This seems at least one too many , some players are going to have plenty of time for sightseeing.
Think Doherty is the logical back up spinner , but was there really any need to take Maxwell Smith and Henriques ? Think I'd have had one of Smith or Maxwell and probably Haddin as spare keeper/batsman. They hardly need another pace bowler as I don't expect India to serve up green tops
Going to be hard to get a balanced XI out of this : I think they have flagged Maxwell will play at six and be the second spinner (not sure he's up to it , myself) so it looks like Warner/Cowan/Hughes/Watson/Clarke/Maxwell/Wade/Johnson/Siddle/Pattinson/Lyon ...suppose if Watson is bowling OK they could pick Doherty for a paceman and use Khawaja instead of Maxwell , but I suspect they will prefer to keep the emphasis on pace , at least until the pitches they are given decree otherwise...

This might be a very interesting series with both teams having their problems but several newish players with a chance to make a name.

Maxwell at 6, and as the 2nd spin option, I am sure India won't mind that at all.
An interesting challenge for the pace unit as well. Have a feeling Starc is just a head of Pattinson at the moment, although they may not go in with both Johnson and Starc in the playing 11 regularly. And despite his recent good showing, I am not sure Mitch could be an automatic selection.

You could well be right , msp. I guess they could have any combination of three pace bowlers and it will probably come down to net form...but who can read the Australian selectors' minds at the moment ?

Perhaps they will pick the XI by the old proven method of throwing darts at the team sheet...

Steven Smith has 5 FC centuries and 14 fifties in 38 FC matches at an average of 42. He has a far better FC record than Bailey. I'm not sure why he's been written off as a Test player so early. Bits and pieces is a rather odd tag for someone with those numbers. Agree about Maxwell though, wouldn't have picked him.

I'm quite shocked that you think Aus will beat India though. India, for all their issues, should still be very disappointed if they don't destroy this Aussie side 4-0.

Smith is a genuinely good batsman at FC level. In ODIs, he is used as a lower order biffer, which obviously doesn't help. Given time to build an innings, he can play. To call him a "bits and pieces" cricketer and then suggest a guy with an inferior FC record is ludicrous. I suppose the fact that he bowls too clouds people's views on his batting.

If this Australian side is so poor Shanky, how come they've done better than or as well as England against all their opponents since the last ashes (India, West Indies, Sri Lanka home and away and South Africa if you're wondering)?

Of course playing in India will be a massive test, and I personally think this Australian side is poorly suited to the subcontinent, but they did win in Sri lanka and in the West Indies (where conditions were fairly subcontinental).

The selection of Maxwell, Smith and Henriques suggests Australia are desperate to play 5 capable bowlers, but aren't sure which one of the 3 is the most able. From what I've seen, Henriques is the better bowler (it is hard to see Maxwell and in particular Smith causing the Indians that much trouble with the ball), Smith the more experienced batsman (I agree with Shanky there, I think his batting is OK actually), but Maxwell seems to have something about him - I'd be interested to see if he could rise to the challenge. Smith and Maxwell are simply the best two fielders I've ever seen - they are amazing (Maxwell probably just edges it, which I didn't think was possible).

Doherty ahead of Beer is an interesting call, and I'm not sure what Beer has done wrong - he did OK in the West Indies I thought. Lyon has to find some form.

The pace contingent looks strong - I think Mitch did ok on his first tour of India (averaged about 40 on the deadest of dead pitches), and his ability to hurry the batsmen could be crucial. Siddle obviously plays. Bird I think would be more of a holding bowler on those pitches, and if you pick 5 bowlers you need him less, but Copeland did an invaluable job in Sri Lanka. In short, I have no idea which 3 seamers will or should start.

Personally I think the batting is where Australia have the biggest issues. Clarke we know is a fantastic player of spin bowling, but Cowan is a bit hopeless, Watson gets stuck too easily, Warner is improved but still learning. Hughes actually has generally pretty good footwork and I think could do ok. Khawaja should be a good player of spin bowling, but was a bit lazy last time I saw him - hopefully he's improved. Wade can hit the spinners out of the attack, but I wouldn't back him to get "tough runs" necessarily.

India of course have quite a few problems themselves. Shewag is so unfit he ought to be playing darts; Gambhir keeps finding wonderful ways of getting out when well set; Tendulkar can hardly buy a good shot; Pujara and Kohli - their 2 most inexperienced players - are probably their most in form at the moment; Ashwin seems intractably lazy. On the other hand I think Sharma may be starting to come of age, Yadav if fit will be a threat, and Ohja is quality, so the bowling should cause plenty of problems, particularly if the unfairly maligned Jadeja plays.

Could be an intriguing series. I expect it to be competitive in large parts, although the final scoreline may not reflect this.

Domestic and international cricket are different. I think Bailey has what it takes to be a solid, if unspectacular, option in a team full of young dashers already (Warner, Hughes, Wade).

Clearly the squad selection suggests they want to play somebody in the Samit Patel role. I'd argue that Maxwell isn't even as good as Samit in either department, and that Smith is as good a bat and a worse bowler. And its not like Samit worked for England. In fact, I've seen nothing from Maxwell to suggest he's a particularly better bowler than Michael Clarke.

Mike Selig wrote:If this Australian side is so poor Shanky, how come they've done better than or as well as England against all their opponents since the last ashes (India, West Indies, Sri Lanka home and away and South Africa if you're wondering)?

Of course playing in India will be a massive test, and I personally think this Australian side is poorly suited to the subcontinent, but they did win in Sri lanka and in the West Indies (where conditions were fairly subcontinental).

The selection of Maxwell, Smith and Henriques suggests Australia are desperate to play 5 capable bowlers, but aren't sure which one of the 3 is the most able. From what I've seen, Henriques is the better bowler (it is hard to see Maxwell and in particular Smith causing the Indians that much trouble with the ball), Smith the more experienced batsman (I agree with Shanky there, I think his batting is OK actually), but Maxwell seems to have something about him - I'd be interested to see if he could rise to the challenge. Smith and Maxwell are simply the best two fielders I've ever seen - they are amazing (Maxwell probably just edges it, which I didn't think was possible).

Doherty ahead of Beer is an interesting call, and I'm not sure what Beer has done wrong - he did OK in the West Indies I thought. Lyon has to find some form.

The pace contingent looks strong - I think Mitch did ok on his first tour of India (averaged about 40 on the deadest of dead pitches), and his ability to hurry the batsmen could be crucial. Siddle obviously plays. Bird I think would be more of a holding bowler on those pitches, and if you pick 5 bowlers you need him less, but Copeland did an invaluable job in Sri Lanka. In short, I have no idea which 3 seamers will or should start.

Personally I think the batting is where Australia have the biggest issues. Clarke we know is a fantastic player of spin bowling, but Cowan is a bit hopeless, Watson gets stuck too easily, Warner is improved but still learning. Hughes actually has generally pretty good footwork and I think could do ok. Khawaja should be a good player of spin bowling, but was a bit lazy last time I saw him - hopefully he's improved. Wade can hit the spinners out of the attack, but I wouldn't back him to get "tough runs" necessarily.

India of course have quite a few problems themselves. Shewag is so unfit he ought to be playing darts; Gambhir keeps finding wonderful ways of getting out when well set; Tendulkar can hardly buy a good shot; Pujara and Kohli - their 2 most inexperienced players - are probably their most in form at the moment; Ashwin seems intractably lazy. On the other hand I think Sharma may be starting to come of age, Yadav if fit will be a threat, and Ohja is quality, so the bowling should cause plenty of problems, particularly if the unfairly maligned Jadeja plays.

Could be an intriguing series. I expect it to be competitive in large parts, although the final scoreline may not reflect this.

The unfairly maligned Jadeja. Don't think I can agree more. I hope Jadeja would get a run in the test side. He is a very good containing bowler, and on turning tracks, his arm ball could be deadly. You can be rest asured that there won't be as many hit me stuff from Jadeja as would be offered by Ashwin. The guy can bat, his batting isn't perfect, but it is coming alone.
Now, on Smith, well, he has the number, and he isn't as bad a batsman as often made out to be. But I don't think he has an internationaly working technique. I know technique could be overrated, but it seems Smith has too many issues with his, so that he could be considered among the top 6 batsmen that Australia have. Now if he doesn't belong to the top 6 as a batsman, his bowling has to be good. I don't think he is good enough to be a regular bowler at the moment in international cricket. The fact that he's bowling less and not more at the domestic level doesn't give much to hope for in that department as well. As Mike said, he's a fantastic fielder, but I don't think the other two areas of his game are test class at the moment.
I haven't seen much of Maxwell, but from whatever little I have seen of him, his bowling is not classy enough to be a regular option for the captain, and his batting seems hit or miss. Again I agree Henriques is the better bowler among the 3 potential all-rounders, but then both Smith and Maxwell in my view are better bats, and Henriques is not very good with the ball, a decent regular bowling option, not much more than that.

On India's chances, I am not at all confident it would be easy. In fact, the decent quality of the Australian bowling unit would give them a decent chance. The Indian batting is struggling a bit. And if there are no changes in the lineup, or if the likes of Sehwag, Gambhir and Tendulkar find their touch, I won't be surprised if Australia even take away the series.
But the relieving bit for India is that Australia also is a team going through changes, they have no Mike Hussey, and Ricky Ponting presence also won't be there, although his record in this part of the world is nothing to write about, yet, the presence would have made a significant difference. I have my doubts about Shane Watson's value exclusively as a batsman, and surely Michael Clarke is due a bit of a rough patch?
I hope young Jiwanjot, or Shikhar Dhawan or Murali Vijay would score big runs in the Irani Trophy or the 2 warm up games and put Gambhir and Sehwag under pressure, and force the selectors' hands.

Shelsey93 wrote:Domestic and international cricket are different. I think Bailey has what it takes to be a solid, if unspectacular, option in a team full of young dashers already (Warner, Hughes, Wade).

Clearly the squad selection suggests they want to play somebody in the Samit Patel role. I'd argue that Maxwell isn't even as good as Samit in either department, and that Smith is as good a bat and a worse bowler. And its not like Samit worked for England. In fact, I've seen nothing from Maxwell to suggest he's a particularly better bowler than Michael Clarke.

Yet he didn't do all that well in the Shield this season. If you're opposed to Morgan in the Test side on the basis of ODI performances, not sure why it should be any different for Bailey.

Shelsey93 wrote:Domestic and international cricket are different. I think Bailey has what it takes to be a solid, if unspectacular, option in a team full of young dashers already (Warner, Hughes, Wade).

Clearly the squad selection suggests they want to play somebody in the Samit Patel role. I'd argue that Maxwell isn't even as good as Samit in either department, and that Smith is as good a bat and a worse bowler. And its not like Samit worked for England. In fact, I've seen nothing from Maxwell to suggest he's a particularly better bowler than Michael Clarke.

Then why play domestic cricket then?

Mike Selig wrote:If this Australian side is so poor Shanky, how come they've done better than or as well as England against all their opponents since the last ashes (India, West Indies, Sri Lanka home and away and South Africa if you're wondering)?

Of course playing in India will be a massive test, and I personally think this Australian side is poorly suited to the subcontinent, but they did win in Sri lanka and in the West Indies (where conditions were fairly subcontinental).

The selection of Maxwell, Smith and Henriques suggests Australia are desperate to play 5 capable bowlers, but aren't sure which one of the 3 is the most able. From what I've seen, Henriques is the better bowler (it is hard to see Maxwell and in particular Smith causing the Indians that much trouble with the ball), Smith the more experienced batsman (I agree with Shanky there, I think his batting is OK actually), but Maxwell seems to have something about him - I'd be interested to see if he could rise to the challenge. Smith and Maxwell are simply the best two fielders I've ever seen - they are amazing (Maxwell probably just edges it, which I didn't think was possible).

Doherty ahead of Beer is an interesting call, and I'm not sure what Beer has done wrong - he did OK in the West Indies I thought. Lyon has to find some form.

The pace contingent looks strong - I think Mitch did ok on his first tour of India (averaged about 40 on the deadest of dead pitches), and his ability to hurry the batsmen could be crucial. Siddle obviously plays. Bird I think would be more of a holding bowler on those pitches, and if you pick 5 bowlers you need him less, but Copeland did an invaluable job in Sri Lanka. In short, I have no idea which 3 seamers will or should start.

Personally I think the batting is where Australia have the biggest issues. Clarke we know is a fantastic player of spin bowling, but Cowan is a bit hopeless, Watson gets stuck too easily, Warner is improved but still learning. Hughes actually has generally pretty good footwork and I think could do ok. Khawaja should be a good player of spin bowling, but was a bit lazy last time I saw him - hopefully he's improved. Wade can hit the spinners out of the attack, but I wouldn't back him to get "tough runs" necessarily.

India of course have quite a few problems themselves. Shewag is so unfit he ought to be playing darts; Gambhir keeps finding wonderful ways of getting out when well set; Tendulkar can hardly buy a good shot; Pujara and Kohli - their 2 most inexperienced players - are probably their most in form at the moment; Ashwin seems intractably lazy. On the other hand I think Sharma may be starting to come of age, Yadav if fit will be a threat, and Ohja is quality, so the bowling should cause plenty of problems, particularly if the unfairly maligned Jadeja plays.

Could be an intriguing series. I expect it to be competitive in large parts, although the final scoreline may not reflect this.

Well, Hussey has been a big factor. Without him, with whom would Clarke form those big partnerships now? And any road up, I was talking more specifically to the subcontinent. Even though their batting is poor, their pacers could always keep them in the hunt at home and in places like SA and Eng. I don't see them winning a Test in India or against Pakistan in the UAE with this team. They should still beat SL in SL, WI in WI and BD in BD.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:If this Australian side is so poor Shanky, how come they've done better than or as well as England against all their opponents since the last ashes (India, West Indies, Sri Lanka home and away and South Africa if you're wondering)?

Of course playing in India will be a massive test, and I personally think this Australian side is poorly suited to the subcontinent, but they did win in Sri lanka and in the West Indies (where conditions were fairly subcontinental).

The selection of Maxwell, Smith and Henriques suggests Australia are desperate to play 5 capable bowlers, but aren't sure which one of the 3 is the most able. From what I've seen, Henriques is the better bowler (it is hard to see Maxwell and in particular Smith causing the Indians that much trouble with the ball), Smith the more experienced batsman (I agree with Shanky there, I think his batting is OK actually), but Maxwell seems to have something about him - I'd be interested to see if he could rise to the challenge. Smith and Maxwell are simply the best two fielders I've ever seen - they are amazing (Maxwell probably just edges it, which I didn't think was possible).

Doherty ahead of Beer is an interesting call, and I'm not sure what Beer has done wrong - he did OK in the West Indies I thought. Lyon has to find some form.

The pace contingent looks strong - I think Mitch did ok on his first tour of India (averaged about 40 on the deadest of dead pitches), and his ability to hurry the batsmen could be crucial. Siddle obviously plays. Bird I think would be more of a holding bowler on those pitches, and if you pick 5 bowlers you need him less, but Copeland did an invaluable job in Sri Lanka. In short, I have no idea which 3 seamers will or should start.

Personally I think the batting is where Australia have the biggest issues. Clarke we know is a fantastic player of spin bowling, but Cowan is a bit hopeless, Watson gets stuck too easily, Warner is improved but still learning. Hughes actually has generally pretty good footwork and I think could do ok. Khawaja should be a good player of spin bowling, but was a bit lazy last time I saw him - hopefully he's improved. Wade can hit the spinners out of the attack, but I wouldn't back him to get "tough runs" necessarily.

India of course have quite a few problems themselves. Shewag is so unfit he ought to be playing darts; Gambhir keeps finding wonderful ways of getting out when well set; Tendulkar can hardly buy a good shot; Pujara and Kohli - their 2 most inexperienced players - are probably their most in form at the moment; Ashwin seems intractably lazy. On the other hand I think Sharma may be starting to come of age, Yadav if fit will be a threat, and Ohja is quality, so the bowling should cause plenty of problems, particularly if the unfairly maligned Jadeja plays.

Could be an intriguing series. I expect it to be competitive in large parts, although the final scoreline may not reflect this.

Well, Hussey has been a big factor. Without him, with whom would Clarke form those big partnerships now? And any road up, I was talking more specifically to the subcontinent. Even though their batting is poor, their pacers could always keep them in the hunt at home and in places like SA and Eng. I don't see them winning a Test in India or against Pakistan in the UAE with this team. They should still beat SL in SL, WI in WI and BD in BD.

But you also said England should beat them 5-0...

Of course Hussey has been a factor, but you've identified the main factor which is their bowling attack, which will keep them in games. Other sides in history have won or performed well on the subcontinent (even in India) on the back of quality pace bowling attacks. It's possible that this Aussie side could do the same. I just think you're being particularly dismissive of their chances.

Mike Selig wrote:

ShankyCricket wrote:

Mike Selig wrote:If this Australian side is so poor Shanky, how come they've done better than or as well as England against all their opponents since the last ashes (India, West Indies, Sri Lanka home and away and South Africa if you're wondering)?

Of course playing in India will be a massive test, and I personally think this Australian side is poorly suited to the subcontinent, but they did win in Sri lanka and in the West Indies (where conditions were fairly subcontinental).

The selection of Maxwell, Smith and Henriques suggests Australia are desperate to play 5 capable bowlers, but aren't sure which one of the 3 is the most able. From what I've seen, Henriques is the better bowler (it is hard to see Maxwell and in particular Smith causing the Indians that much trouble with the ball), Smith the more experienced batsman (I agree with Shanky there, I think his batting is OK actually), but Maxwell seems to have something about him - I'd be interested to see if he could rise to the challenge. Smith and Maxwell are simply the best two fielders I've ever seen - they are amazing (Maxwell probably just edges it, which I didn't think was possible).

Doherty ahead of Beer is an interesting call, and I'm not sure what Beer has done wrong - he did OK in the West Indies I thought. Lyon has to find some form.

The pace contingent looks strong - I think Mitch did ok on his first tour of India (averaged about 40 on the deadest of dead pitches), and his ability to hurry the batsmen could be crucial. Siddle obviously plays. Bird I think would be more of a holding bowler on those pitches, and if you pick 5 bowlers you need him less, but Copeland did an invaluable job in Sri Lanka. In short, I have no idea which 3 seamers will or should start.

Personally I think the batting is where Australia have the biggest issues. Clarke we know is a fantastic player of spin bowling, but Cowan is a bit hopeless, Watson gets stuck too easily, Warner is improved but still learning. Hughes actually has generally pretty good footwork and I think could do ok. Khawaja should be a good player of spin bowling, but was a bit lazy last time I saw him - hopefully he's improved. Wade can hit the spinners out of the attack, but I wouldn't back him to get "tough runs" necessarily.

India of course have quite a few problems themselves. Shewag is so unfit he ought to be playing darts; Gambhir keeps finding wonderful ways of getting out when well set; Tendulkar can hardly buy a good shot; Pujara and Kohli - their 2 most inexperienced players - are probably their most in form at the moment; Ashwin seems intractably lazy. On the other hand I think Sharma may be starting to come of age, Yadav if fit will be a threat, and Ohja is quality, so the bowling should cause plenty of problems, particularly if the unfairly maligned Jadeja plays.

Could be an intriguing series. I expect it to be competitive in large parts, although the final scoreline may not reflect this.

Well, Hussey has been a big factor. Without him, with whom would Clarke form those big partnerships now? And any road up, I was talking more specifically to the subcontinent. Even though their batting is poor, their pacers could always keep them in the hunt at home and in places like SA and Eng. I don't see them winning a Test in India or against Pakistan in the UAE with this team. They should still beat SL in SL, WI in WI and BD in BD.

But you also said England should beat them 5-0...

Of course Hussey has been a factor, but you've identified the main factor which is their bowling attack, which will keep them in games. Other sides in history have won or performed well on the subcontinent (even in India) on the back of quality pace bowling attacks. It's possible that this Aussie side could do the same. I just think you're being particularly dismissive of their chances.

I still maintain that but I do think they have more of a chance over there than in India.

ShankyCricket wrote:

Shelsey93 wrote:Domestic and international cricket are different. I think Bailey has what it takes to be a solid, if unspectacular, option in a team full of young dashers already (Warner, Hughes, Wade).

Clearly the squad selection suggests they want to play somebody in the Samit Patel role. I'd argue that Maxwell isn't even as good as Samit in either department, and that Smith is as good a bat and a worse bowler. And its not like Samit worked for England. In fact, I've seen nothing from Maxwell to suggest he's a particularly better bowler than Michael Clarke.

Then why play domestic cricket then?

With 14 FC 100s, Bailey has a far better FC career than Morgan, and crucially has played FC cricket recently on a fairly regular basis. The key point for me is that I think replacing Hussey (a gritty, determined player with a good technique) with Smith or Maxwell (young dashers with iffy techniques at this stage) is questionable at best, particularly with the schedule Australia have coming up. If we say that D. Hussey has had a woeful Sheffield Shield season so shouldn't get the job, and that Rogers is perhaps a year or two too old (at 35 his reactions might not be up to Test cricket, particularly as he'll still be learning about facing the very best in the world) then I come to Bailey, on the grounds that he's shown strong attributes in ODIs. Callum Ferguson might have been a good candidate too based purely on stats. It must also be noted that no batsman have had a great time in the Shield this year: remarkably nobody has more than 2 100s: Hughes, Rogers and Haddin.

The Shield season is now cut in half Shelsey. They've only just resumed the run home to the Final (in a very shortened season compared to the old days!) after the last game in November.

suprised they havent named a 2nd keeper in case injury strikes to wade...i would always take a 2nd keeper overseas.

The India squad for the first 2 matches is announced.
Struggling opener Gautam Gambhir has at last lost his place. Murali Vijay is retained as one of the openers, and Delhi's Shikhar Dhawan is picked as the 3rd opener in the squad along with Virender Sehwag.
The core of the middle order remains in tact, Cheteshwar Pujara, Sachin Tendulkar, Virat Kohli and Ajinkya Rahane.
The skipper is not backed up by no other wicketkeeper, and Ravindra Jadeja retains his place as the all-rounder.
Ravichandran Ashwin and Pragyan Ojha are the led spinners, and there is a recall for Harbhajan Singh.
Bhuvneshwar Kumar gets his first test call up, and forms the pace unit along with Ishant Sharma and Ashok Dinda.

Fair enough the chance for Bhuvneshwar , he was pretty impressive in the ODIs , and I will be interested to see what he can do over five days. Not sure he'll have much help from the pitches...with Bhaji recalled again it is looking like a three or four spinner attack plan...

Bhaji is the reserve spinner. Speaks loud and clear about the larger crisis in India's spin legacy. There is Ashwin, there is Ojha. Neither of them not much more than decent. Chawla, Mishra and Harbhajan constitute the backup the unit. Bhaji was quality ones upon a time, but that is pretty much in the past. Chawla and Mishra continue to remain in the framework, just because there aren't any real options. The only spinner who did consistently well in this Ranji season is the Jarkhand captain Shahbaz Nadeem. But he hasn't looked ready for test duties. There is Harmeet Sing the U-19 star, but he missed out on the Ranji season due to injury, and Mumbai has prefered Ankeet Chawan and even Vishal Dabholkar over him in recent times, and even Iqbal Abdullah isn't getting much game time with them.

Gautam Gambhir has an immediate opportunity to start the process of working himself back into contention although the domestic first class season is over. He has replaced Dhawan in the India A squad that would be playing a tour game against the Australians and will be leading the side.

I still think India will be up for it and our chances are 40/60.
Do you reckon the re-selection of Bhaji might spur him on, msp?

LB, Bhaji has been making all the right noises and saying the right things about playing in a given moment and not worrying about too much else and how it is important to get back to the team....... But the matter of concern is that he has been unable to back up his words with onfield action. Towards the end of the domestic season he looked a bit better, but in general, the season has been largely disappointing for Harbhajan.
I doubt whether he'll start the series, but if Ashwin and Ojha are unable to get their act together, then who knows? I really hope Harbhajan's up to it, but I really doubt it.

Will be interesting to see which of Rahane, Dhawan and Vijay opens. I'd still like it to be Rahane (just look at the FC record), but I fear his case might be damaged by his moderate ODI returns.

Good decision to drop Gambhir, but Sehwag must be at risk too. I guess its not entirely impossible that two of Rahane, Dhawan and Vijay are opening by the end of the series.

The new selection panel considers Rahane more like a middle order option. Vijay and Dhawan are the openers picked along side Sehwag. The selection clearly has to be a message for Viru also, he really has to perform, otherwise he can join his friend in the sideline pretty soon.
If Rahane gets a chance, it is more likely that he would be playing at 6 in place of Ravindra Jadeja. But I hope Jadeja is given a decent run in the test side. He had a superb ODI series against England, and I feel he could be a better test player than a limited overs one.
I welcome Gambhir's axing, and I am disappointed yet understanding of the Harbhajan situation. But its a couple of non-selections that make me more happy. Suresh Raina and Rohit Sharma.

msp83 wrote:The new selection panel considers Rahane more like a middle order option. Vijay and Dhawan are the openers picked along side Sehwag. The selection clearly has to be a message for Viru also, he really has to perform, otherwise he can join his friend in the sideline pretty soon.
If Rahane gets a chance, it is more likely that he would be playing at 6 in place of Ravindra Jadeja. But I hope Jadeja is given a decent run in the test side. He had a superb ODI series against England, and I feel he could be a better test player than a limited overs one.
I welcome Gambhir's axing, and I am disappointed yet understanding of the Harbhajan situation. But its a couple of non-selections that make me more happy. Suresh Raina and Rohit Sharma.

It doesn't matter who India select as they will all struggle to cope with the searing pace and devastating swing bowling of guys like Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Johnson, Jackson Bird, Peter Siddle.

How is that 19-year-old U Chand coming along? Is he not ready for test cricket?

Leff wrote:How is that 19-year-old U Chand coming along? Is he not ready for test cricket?

No 19 year old no matter how mature they seem will be will be ready to cope with that man the deadly destroyer known as Mitchell Starc.

Leff wrote:How is that 19-year-old U Chand coming along? Is he not ready for test cricket?

Chand doesn't quite look ready for test cricket at the moment. He had an average Ranji season, not bad, but not very good either. Has to learn to convert his starts into big knocks more often. Perhaps a couple more domestic seasons would help him polish his game further, and I think he should be kept away also from the limited over formats at the international level till then.

Thanks, msp.

One more question. Is Z Khan dropped or not available due to injury.

Leff wrote:Thanks, msp.

One more question. Is Z Khan dropped or not available due to injury.

On Zak, I'd say its a bit of both. He was dropped on form for the 4th test against England. He had picked up wickets for Mumbai in the Ranji trophy after that and set up their most significant win in the group stages. Then he picked a calf injury and isn't back to fitness since then and has missed the rest of Mumbai's march to the Ranji title as well as the Irani cup. Zaheer maintains that he's not finished at the highest level and he said he's working hard to make a come back.

With Gambhir being dropped, Indian Team seems to be a mixed one. Here is the squad

Shikhar Dhawan
Murli Vijay
V shehwag
C pujara
Sachin Tendulkar
Virat Kohli
Ajinkya Rahane
M S Dhoni(c)
Rabindra Jadeja
Bhubhneshwar Kumar
R ashwin
Pragyan Ojha
Harbhajan Singh
Ishant Sharma
Ashoke Dinda

Murli Vijay and Shikher Dhawan got the reward of some of the brilliant batting show at top of the order, but only one of them will get a cap of final 11 with Rahane might go deep in the batting order at no. 6 ahead of dhoni. May be jadeja will be preferred above Harbhajan because he can bat a bit,but for a two spinner senario I don't find any space for Bhajji. India could go with two pacer and two spinner to debacle the young Aussies team. But I think B kumar will be a trump card for the Indians because he is totally new to the Australians and he may get the same advantage as Jimmy Anderson got earlier.

Perhaps this thread could be merged in to LB's thread on the other squad debate as the debate has progressed there a bit more, and perhaps under a different title suggestive of a pre-series debate?

O.k. will go back there for the rest discussions.. I Think i just missed ur post derethats why i gave the stats here. We will go there for the discussion.

This was a mixed selection from the selectors. I am happy that finally gambhir was dropped. Of the two I think Murli Vijay has an edge over Dhawan and Rahane will be batting deep at no. 6 perhaps because there is no raina in the team. Pragyan would be a troublesome for the Aussies.

msp I think Shami ahmed would have been better over Dinda. I think he was a must pick ahead of his bengal mate but was a bit unfortunate.

Interesting series from an English perspective. If Australia win and do well, then England's historic 2-1 isn't as good as we all think. If however, India win the Test series, then England's achievement will look far better than it originally did. It's going to be a cracking series for the neutral, hope we get some decent pitches!

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:msp I think Shami ahmed would have been better over Dinda. I think he was a must pick ahead of his bengal mate but was a bit unfortunate.

They can pick who they want, but India will still have no chance V Australia.

Surely India cant lose four straight Test series to crickets home nations? Their recent record vs Aus and England is 1-10, a far cry from the 2007 series win in England followed by the close 2-1 defeat in Aus against team that was in all-time great form. This wa followed by a series draw at home vs SA and a home win vs England, before they beat Aus 2-0 at home. Looking back now, that was a special run of form.

Looking at the current Aus team, not to many have played in the sub-continent (well,not test cricket) but India lacks a proper threat with the ball, so I wouldnt be too afraid for them. I'm not to sure as to whats up with Bhaji, he is an all-time top 5-10 spinner. I dont remember too many class spinners having such break downs. Its like he lost it overnight.

in closing I just cant see India losing, not due to any inherent quality, just because it really is impossible for me to fathom back to back Indian home losses

gboycottnut wrote:

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:msp I think Shami ahmed would have been better over Dinda. I think he was a must pick ahead of his bengal mate but was a bit unfortunate.

They can pick who they want, but India will still have no chance V Australia.

Ya I too think Aussies have advantage over India. They have won the test series against SL recently. I think result will go 2-1 in favor of Aussies.

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:msp I think Shami ahmed would have been better over Dinda. I think he was a must pick ahead of his bengal mate but was a bit unfortunate.

They can pick who they want, but India will still have no chance V Australia.

Ya I too think Aussies have advantage over India. They have won the test series against SL recently. I think result will go 2-1 in favor of Aussies.

More like 3-0 to Australia V India, as the Aussie bowlers are way too strong at the moment even for the likes of SA and England's batsmen.

They can have 11 Sachin Tendulkar's, but they will still not beat Australia.

Are you trying to reverse curse Australia , GBN ? Or are you after some sort of award from Cricket Australia (If Tendulkar can be honoured ...)

Not sure the Australian pace men will be as effective in Indian conditions. If I were an Indian groundsman I think I'd be making them decidedly unhelpful to any but the spin merchants. Although India isn't exactly blessed with a modern version of Bedi/Chandra/Prasanna /Venkat at the moment either.

Think it will be a very interesting series.

alfie wrote:Are you trying to reverse curse Australia , GBN ? Or are you after some sort of award from Cricket Australia (If Tendulkar can be honoured ...)

Not sure the Australian pace men will be as effective in Indian conditions. If I were an Indian groundsman I think I'd be making them decidedly unhelpful to any but the spin merchants. Although India isn't exactly blessed with a modern version of Bedi/Chandra/Prasanna /Venkat at the moment either.

Think it will be a very interesting series.

Why won't the Aussie pacemen be as effective in Indian conditions, as England's pace bowlers managed to be effective in India during the recent England-India test series and Australia's pace bowlers are arguably much faster than England's and in someone like Mitchell Starc, Australia have a guy who can swing/reverse swing the old ball late with deadly accuracy like a Wasim Akram.

gboycottnut wrote:

alfie wrote:Are you trying to reverse curse Australia , GBN ? Or are you after some sort of award from Cricket Australia (If Tendulkar can be honoured ...)

Not sure the Australian pace men will be as effective in Indian conditions. If I were an Indian groundsman I think I'd be making them decidedly unhelpful to any but the spin merchants. Although India isn't exactly blessed with a modern version of Bedi/Chandra/Prasanna /Venkat at the moment either.

Think it will be a very interesting series.

Why won't the Aussie pacemen be as effective in Indian conditions, as England's pace bowlers managed to be effective in India during the recent England-India test series and Australia's pace bowlers are arguably much faster than England's and in someone like Mitchell Starc, Australia have a guy who can swing/reverse swing the old ball late with deadly accuracy like a Wasim Akram.

He may have a swing/reverse like Washim but till now he has not played a single match in India. Indian condition is the toughest for the Fast bowlers. Only Jimmy anderson was a bit successful in India in the last series. Aussies bowlers will for sure are going to face problems here in Indian condition. It is going to be an interesting series.

I think there should be lively spin friendly pitches, and India should play Jadeja, Ashwin and Ojha along with Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Ishant Sharma. Shami should have played in the Irani game over Mithun, but he wasn't picked, and wasn't picked for the test squad either, despite him outbowling Dinda in the ODI series against England. Think he is scheduled to play one of the warm up games, a good showing there could bring him right back into the frame for the latter half of the series.
Now with Harbhajan, its, as I said, a sad reflection of the spin crisis India face at present. But I don't think Bhaji is anywhere near his best, and R Ashwin, the much better batsman should therefore play, as there is not much difference in their bowling at the moment. If anything, Ashwin is a lot more attacking and oriented towards taking wickets unlike the latter day Harbhajan Singh, and I don't think he's just going to rediscover his old touch, just because he's playing against Australia. Besides, Ashwin, had just the one poor series against England at home, even the series downunder, where he wasn't really expected to run through the batting, he had done better than Harbhajan managed there previously.

subhranshu.kumar.5 wrote:

gboycottnut wrote:

alfie wrote:Are you trying to reverse curse Australia , GBN ? Or are you after some sort of award from Cricket Australia (If Tendulkar can be honoured ...)

Not sure the Australian pace men will be as effective in Indian conditions. If I were an Indian groundsman I think I'd be making them decidedly unhelpful to any but the spin merchants. Although India isn't exactly blessed with a modern version of Bedi/Chandra/Prasanna /Venkat at the moment either.

Think it will be a very interesting series.

Why won't the Aussie pacemen be as effective in Indian conditions, as England's pace bowlers managed to be effective in India during the recent England-India test series and Australia's pace bowlers are arguably much faster than England's and in someone like Mitchell Starc, Australia have a guy who can swing/reverse swing the old ball late with deadly accuracy like a Wasim Akram.

He may have a swing/reverse like Washim but till now he has not played a single match in India. Indian condition is the toughest for the Fast bowlers. Only Jimmy anderson was a bit successful in India in the last series. Aussies bowlers will for sure are going to face problems here in Indian condition. It is going to be an interesting series.

Mitchell Starc has 2 advantages over Jimmy Anderson in terms of bowling. One is shearing pace and the other is reverse swinging of the old ball.