India v Australia, Third Test, Chandigarh

First topic message reminder :

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

MFC says he is keen for me to give my opinion.

I've only just got back from what has been a pretty grueling week-end with my own cricket board, so am not sure I am in the best shape to do so.

I would like to start with a couple of remarks:
1) I feel slightly uncomfortable posting anything about a situation of which I know little. Unlike the KP situation where I knew a few people directly or indirectly involved, and so got first or second hand information, what I know in this case I know from the media. I will give my thoughts, but they are just that, and based on the situation as I understand it, which could be wrong.
2) I do wish people would stop pretending such situations are black-and-white, easy to manage, or whatever.

The first thing to say is that to ask players to reflect on why they're losing and what they can do to improve and to stop that trend is not some whimsical nonsense, it is part of every sporting line-up which aspires to play at a decent standard. Those of you with good memories may remember that I took Legenkillar to task on the "current cricket season" thread when he blamed the umpires for his side getting bowled out for 40odd. My point was that even at that level you should be honest about your performance, and try to improve on a few simple areas.

In that respect what Mickey Arthur has asked his team to go away and do seems entirely sensible. Find 3 points on which you or the team can improve. I think it was Olly who said they'd have been better off doing nets sessions, and in this he couldn't be more mistaken. To practice effectively you first need to know what you are practising and why. This is why self-reflection and analysis is so important. This kind of thing is common place at international level in my experience. It is not homework, or like being back at school.

The question is then how to do the self-reflection?
Mickey Arthur decided that the best way would be for each player to think about it individually and get back to him. Other ways include gathering the whole team together and bashing things out, or doing it in small groups (e.g. top order batsmen together, middle-order, spinners and fast bowlers). There are probably other ways as well. They all have their pluses and minuses.

In team gatherings some people are naturally shy, so won't say anything. It can also degenerate into a slanging match if the team unity isn't perfect, and that's no use to anyone (MfC will attest to one occasion in 2005...). It also means you can't spend too long on specifics - if you talk about what the spinners could be doing better for 2 hours than what are the other players doing during that time? On the other hand, it involves the whole team, so drives home the message "we're all in this".

1-1 means that everyone will have his say (in theory!), but it means there is less debate, bouncing of ideas (which is important - if someone says something and someone else disagrees then that's when progress can actually be made, providing the discussion remains civil). It also isolates everybody.

Small groups has the benefit that shy people tend to feel they can speak a lot more freely, and allows for debate. But it can mean that there's no overall strategy - there's a strategy for the spinners and pace bowlers, but no overall fielding strategy, no togetherness. Are the various strategies compatible even? Not always easy to judge.

I have no idea whether 1-1 was the best way forward for this Australian side, and neither does anyone else on here. I have personally used all 3 after heavy defeats, but it is a bit of a different situation. We have one tournament per year where we aim to peak, and that happens over a week, so there is not much time to make drastic changes during the tournament if things are going badly. However
- team gathering after losing to the senior side by 330odd runs (in 50 overs...). The theme was "everyone say one thing which they did better than us". Everyone spoke up, and although we lost the next day it was a much improved performance.
- 1-1 we use more during our preparation. Why aren't you scoring runs? What should you be doing differently? I often ask players to send on their results from their fitness tests, or give me their training schedule. Is this homework? Of course not, it's making sure you're on the same page as the side you're coaching.
- small groups we used after losing to Luxembourg last year.

My criticism of Mickey Arthur here is why give the players so long? I would have given them the rest of the day, and stop. By giving them so long I suspect he made it seem subconsciously more complicated than it was, and also I suspect a few players thought "oh well, don't need to worry about that for now" and eventually maybe just forgot about it. Had he said he wanted answers by the evening, I think they'd have been fewer no-shows.

In any case, having decided on his method, the next question is did Arthur overreact to non-compliance?

This is impossible to answer without being there and knowing what the general atmosphere is like. The messages coming from the coaching staff are mixed. Clarke seems frustrated by the general attitude, but Arthur seems keen to stress that Watson and Johnson's professionalism aren't in question. Does that mean that it is really Khawaja and Pattinson the issue? Khawaja was reported to have an attitude problem, but the sounds had been good recently. Pattinson has been Australia's best performer on this tour so far, but in a sense that's a bit irrelevant if his attitude is deemed to be bringing the team down.

I do sometimes wonder what msp thinks would qualify someone to be dropped on disciplinary grounds. He has said that perhaps a warning would be more appropriate, but I wonder how many warnings you can give before you have to take action (my threshold is 2: one informal, and one formal in front of the team). Speaking from experience, you do have to draw a line somewhere. IN this case I suspect the management felt that the players weren't learning from their mistakes, and that this process was crucial to take responsibility for your failings and start improving, and that therefore those who weren't willing to go through it simply didn't deserve to remain in the team.

None of us are in any position to comment on whether that was right or wrong. I have actually sent a player home from a tour in the past, and also dropped 2 players for their attitude both on the field and in the post-match meeting, so I am fairly confident in saying this decision won't have been taken lightly, and after much head-scratching.

One thing is for certain though, the players dropped have only themselves to blame. Had they completed what was for high performance sportsmen a relatively simple assignment, they would still be considered.

I haven't said that the introspective exercise was not necessary. I won't say that the players could have got away with it altogether either.
What I am saying is that the punishment is not proportionate to the crime if we can call it. If players skip a mandatory practice session and go fishing, its time for the drastic, if players stay up all knight drinking in a party day before a test match, you really have to act tough and make them sit out. If they pick up a fight and injury themselves you have to take serious note. if your vice captain take too much drinks and nearly drown, then you will have to not only sit him out for a couple of games, but also take a serious look at his leadership role.
But if your captain conspire to throw the game for some extracash, you can't let him go with a fine, you have to throw him out of the game.
Otherwise, you have to show some common sense in determining proportionate punishment for an offense. There is no place for ego or agenda there, and coaches and and the rest of the support staff are just that, Support Staff. They do have a significant role in the game, but the power shouldn't go to head.
Or the sense shouldn't take leave. Arthur says Shane Watson and Mitchell Johnson are ultimate professionals who made a mistake. Usman Khawaja apparently is different. James Pattinson was apparently ready with a late submition!. So does it mean the rest have been punished so harshly to put Khawaja in his place? Where is the sense of fairness in all these?

I see this as every bit as serious as missing a mandatory training session TBH.

As to your final point, how would you have felt if they had dropped Khawaja, but picked any/all of the other 3? What kind of consistency message would that have sent? I can see an argument for it, but I don't think it's in anyway more obviously right than dropping all 4.

Dropping all 4 was wrong in my view. People talk about warnings and repeated warnings and then strong action. Now Watson and Johnson are ultimate professionals who made a mistake. The former had other worries in his mind anyways. Michael Clarke says the players disrespected the head coach and that can't happen in the Australian team. Surely the man didn't play with Shane Warne!.
Perhaps they could have had a fine and a public warning. Would have made sense, this just looks like an ego game that reeks of desperation.
Tom Moody was one of the best international coaches, Allan Border was the captain who brought order, discipline and a strong sense of steel to modernday Australian team. Michael Vaughan is credited as one of the best man-managers as a skipper. They all think what happened today is way over the top and I absolutely agree.

He clicks to the left
He clicks to the righttttt
That Mitchell Johnson
His PowerPoint is sh!te

In all seriousness, Australian cricket is at a low ebb at the moment. Ten nil!

What exactly should Khawaja have said? Drop Hughes and pick me? Maybe the players didn't have any suggestions as the selectors had already f**ked things up by picking the wrong squad?

Self introspection is one thing. You don't ask a bunch of grown up, adult cricketers to write 3 point plans when you've already played your role in f**king the team up? What was the reason for not calling up a replacement for Bird? Now they are down to just 2 frontline seamers on the most seam friendly venue in India after playing 3 frontline seamers on a Chennai dustbowl. Will Arthur care to give even a 1 point explanation for this, never mind 3?

If nothing else we have to thank Arthur for livening up the cricket board here! Various people had commented that things were getting a bit quiet (ie uncontroversial?) - that seems to have been sorted at a stroke!

You play your best 11 every game. Regardless of whether they can put together a couple of points.

Arthur is lucky this Australian team isnt very good and he didn't have to drop anyone good.

Shanky, I don't see Mickey Arthur taking up any responsibility for the selection debacles that happened at the selectorial end, or more more importantly at the team management end. All power for the coach, no accountability, that seems to be the new order of ultra-professionalism.

For me, it was a team exercise which, whether or not you agree with it in the first place, should have been completed to maintain professional and respectful towards the management. Ok, maybe a few forgot about it, but it was an easy task that may have indeed helped the management out.

Michael Clarke will have to get used to the fact that he's no longer part of a great side. They are inexperienced, the spin bowling unit is pretty weak, and the batting is not yet on track after Hussey's retirement. Too many essays and assignments aren't going to solve the problems, an authoritarian and unaccountable team management also can't be the answer.
I feel this has been a poor effort from Arthur and Clarke to turn attention away from the losses and wash their hands off any accountability. Australia lost because the 4 players failed to turn in their assignments and caused massive damage to the team culture!.
I can understand Clarke losing it a bit, he has been doing everything possible with the bat but nothing has been going his way. But then, he has been part of the selection fiascos, and by lending his authority and voice to this pathetic drama, I doubt he'll emerge with a lot of credit with his players either.

Pattinson bowled his heart out in the last 2 games. Doesn't he care about the team and isn't he passionate about the game? I hope the young man will have the wisdom to see through the drama and stay on top of his game without getting affected by the nonsense too much.

This is beyond a joke.

If the teams under the pump is down to the management group to get the rest, of a very inexperienced bunch, motivated.

No one likes playing in a side that's getting hammered.

Writing stupid essays PowerPoint presentations etc isn't gonna do much of them morale.

ShankyCricket wrote:Self introspection is one thing. You don't ask a bunch of grown up, adult cricketers to write 3 point plans when you've already played your role in f**king the team up?

Watson played his role how?

The answer is yes you do. At any level, in any sport. If you're serious about improving and learning from your mistakes.

GSC wrote:You play your best 11 every game. Regardless of whether they can put together a couple of points.

Overly simplistic, and betrays a complete lack of knowledge about team sport at any reasonable level. You pick the best TEAM to take you forwards. That is not always the best 11 players.

Duty281 wrote:
In all seriousness, Australian cricket is at a low ebb at the moment. Ten nil!

Until this series they'd outperformed England in all their recent series against all oppositions...

They've had a shocker this series admitedly, but they are a far better side than they were 2 years ago.

Accountability? How about some credit when the coach gets it right, as Hesson did with New Zealand, Flower did with England in India and Arthur has mostly done with this Aus side...

I do think part of the problem is we just don't know the whole story here. People seem to think that these guys only fault was not submitting their report, and in that view the punishment does indeed seem disproportionate. However, Clarke has made it quite clear that this wasn't the first incident or lapse. I suspect that means warnings, fines, etc. may well have been already handed out. What do you do in that case? Keep handing out fines which obviously aren't having an effect? Give a "I know we said the last two warnings were final warning but this time we really really really mean it" final warning? at what point do you need to take the decisive action and say that players just aren't being committed enough? I think Mike made the key point in his first post that maybe we just don't have enough information about how much has gone on to make our own minds up.

a couple of final points before I sign off for bed.

msp you were very very vocal in your criticism of Hesson when NZ weren't doing so well. After they got much the better of England for most of the first Test are you ready to admit that actually he may not be so bad after all? As Mike says accountability is all very well (and indeed I suspect coaches are held far more accountable than you think) but credit is due when they get it right too.

Finally, sinse the media seem to have taken a rather one-eyed stance of the incident (well, cricinfo and the British media at least, both for differing reasons all too pleased to stick the boot into the Aussies), with for instance, the twitter reaction only of the "slam Arthur and Clarke" viewpoint, here's the other side of the coin. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/content/current/story/624584.html
Ultimately, what I think the author gets right is that the players were given a fairly simple task, and something that shoulc/could have helped them, and the team, improve, and forgot about it/couldn't be bothered. You can say the reaction was disproportionate, but if those same players take the attitude that they are the victims here and did nothing wrong themselves, I suspect they're missing something...

PS: traveling tomorrow, so won't contribute much to this thread, but shall try to peek in the evening.

I think both sides have to be accountable for sure.

If there were no fines/warnings given beforehand I think the punishment is way too harsh, but if like Mike suggest fines and warnings had occured then the players have to take responsibilty fully.

It's just a mess the Aussie cricket team could really do without atm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:a couple of final points before I sign off for bed.

msp you were very very vocal in your criticism of Hesson when NZ weren't doing so well. After they got much the better of England for most of the first Test are you ready to admit that actually he may not be so bad after all? As Mike says accountability is all very well (and indeed I suspect coaches are held far more accountable than you think) but credit is due when they get it right too.

Finally, sinse the media seem to have taken a rather one-eyed stance of the incident (well, cricinfo and the British media at least, both for differing reasons all too pleased to stick the boot into the Aussies), with for instance, the twitter reaction only of the "slam Arthur and Clarke" viewpoint, here's the other side of the coin. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/content/current/story/624584.html
Ultimately, what I think the author gets right is that the players were given a fairly simple task, and something that shoulc/could have helped them, and the team, improve, and forgot about it/couldn't be bothered. You can say the reaction was disproportionate, but if those same players take the attitude that they are the victims here and did nothing wrong themselves, I suspect they're missing something...

PS: traveling tomorrow, so won't contribute much to this thread, but shall try to peek in the evening.

MFC, NZ were bowled out for 45 by South Africa in McCullum's first test as captain. Before that, They had won a test in Sri Lanka under Taylor's leadership.
McCullum has been batting quite well since taking up the leadership, and New Zealand did well in the previous test although what they managed in the end was a home draw. They did manage a home draw against South Africa as well, under Taylor's captaincy.
The point of criticism of Hesson was regarding the atrocious handling of the captaincy change and him outrightly lying in the public to save his face after he masterminded the entire debacle and him getting away with such a gaffe. Regardless of whatever happens after that, his lying and him mishandling the entire captaincy change remains a fiasco, and I don't see how can he be credited for all that.

Hearing both sides of the 'argument' now that Watson has returned home. He concedes that he did the wrong thing... same as Pattinson.

There's a fair bit of crossfire between ex-players, sports journalists and the general public.

On an interesting note: there have also been players in other sports being stood down this week for various reasons (ill-discipline, drinking, texting whilst drunk from rooftops, etc). Digby Ioane (rugby), Josh Dugan and Blake Ferguson,... plus another one or two from the A-League. It seems to be the thing to do these days with maybe some more NRL players to follow due to the doping scandal.

Australia are 2-0 down in the test series and appeared to have no clue about playing spin in these condtitions. However, the third test can't start soon enough for them.
The team management did manage to turn attention away from the horrer show on field with an absolutely ludicrous and authoritarian performance (edited my original comment as a mark of respect to plurality, I feel very strongly about the way the human element is taken out of the game of robotic professionalism and I had used a Hitler reference in that context to make my point, no offense intended but it seems people have a problem with that and it seemingly offends people, perhaps its a thing of worldviews, perhaps I was acting just like the Australian management, reacting over the top, but anyways.......), , but now they are down to 12 men, and cricinfo reports that Glenn Maxwell is likely to sit out for the next test and there is a chance that both Lyon and Doherty will be playing on a track that has traditionally offered just that little bit of life for the quicker bowlers. If Wade is fit enough to play as a batsman, there also is a chance that that brilliant essayist Philip Hughes will have to sit out after all.
India have already declared that Shikhar Dhawan, and not Ajinkya Rahane will be opening the innings in place of Virender Sehwag along with Murali Vijay. Cheteshwar Pujara had some concerns with his troubled knee, but he's likely to play. The other question is the usual one, Harbhajan vs Ojha. It is likely Bhaji will get yet another chance to save face not only for himself but also for the selectors although you never know for sure with Mahendra Singh Dhoni.
Habitual non-performer Ishant Sharma will be playing his 50th test!.

Many thanks for the retraction. PM from me also.

you do wonder what Rahane has to do to get his chance in the test side at this point. Maybe there's something we're not getting there, is his attitude not quite right? It does seem a bit bizarre that India have now (rightfully IMHO) dropped both their openers, yet he still hasn't been selected.

For Australia it seems Maxwell will sit out and Wade is probably not fit enough to play, so the XI picks itself, with Smith likely to bat at n°5. As for the pitch according to the latest reports there's a lot less grass on it than usual (read, none at all), so it's unlikely to offer much for the seamers.

I'm with Mike on the "Hitler" comment, totally inappropriate, and very offensive to many people. please remove it.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/content/current/story/624729.html
Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara suffered shades of the same problem in the sense that they expected everyone else to play to the standards they set for themselves resulting from tallent as well as effort. Neither of them had the ruthless and insensitive streak that Clarke has, but the standards were a problem for them and they never really succeeded as captains. I think Clarke's record as man-manager has been rather poor so far, and his well publicised spat with Simon Katich in fact reeks of hypocrisy as well. If he has to build a strong team culture, I think he has to find a more inclusive and democratic way to do it.

As for Rahane, I think the team management agrees with the selection committee's view that Rahane is more suited to a middle order role perhaps at 4 after the great man leaves eventually. He would have got an opportunity in at 6 but Ravindra Jadeja offers a better balance to the side ant that seems to have worked for the side so far. Dhawan was picked as the reserve opener in the side, and now since Sehwag is dropped, he's taking his position. Unlike Rahane, Dhawan has been a regular opener for Delhi in all formats. Even when Sehwag and Gambhir played, Dhawan used to open with one of them. Rahane's opening experience has been limited, he has opened for India in limited over games, and had opened for Mumbai very early in his first class career, but he has scored most of his first class runs at 3.
Had Rahane really taken his chances at the ODI level as an opener, perhaps we would have seen a different choice from the management. Sehwag himself had travelled that path, he opened in ODIs with a serious impact, and after starting his test career at 6, his ODI success, coupled with India's historical struggles at the top prompted Sourav Ganguly to try Sehwag at the top.

Guys like Rohit Sharma and Suresh Raina were reported to have an attitude problem, but Rahane doesn't seem to have really created any serious problem for himself on that front.
Cheteshwar Pujara is one player who found the test root to significant early career success in recent times, most of the others have come through to the test level after impressing at the ODI level. Kohli, Jadeja, Ashwin and even Bhuvneshwar Kumar. Rahane's inconsistencies seems to have done him some early damage in that sense, but to be fair, he really didn't get a long run in the side. The likes of Kohli, managed to take every early chance that came his way, and so when he was brought to the test level, the team management trusted him and gave him a fair run in the side so that he could get going.

I think India view Rahane as a middle-order player clearly. I would like Kohli to move up to 4 in time, but I guess Rahane will slot in there rather. Fair enough really as he doesn't open domestically, but I'm not sure on Vijay yet. Anyway he deserves a shot after his hundred, and there's no doubt that Shewag deserved to be dropped.

I like Jadeja. His bowling has been vital in all the tests he's played so far, and his fielding makes a big difference to this India side. He just needs runs to get people off his back for a while.

Harbajhan is a different matter. What Ohja must be thinking I have no idea.

A number of Indian supporters just love to sit, stand and stamp all over poor Ravindra Jadeja's back. I don't think a double hundred and 10 wickets in the same match would free him entirely, they'll just be looking for the next poor outing before starting all the 'Sir Ravindra Jadeja' nonsense. But yes, I really hope he gets a big score soon enough to further strengthen his case.
Harbhajan happens to be just too lucky, there is no other explanation. The upcoming match is at his home ground, but I'll take every wicket, every good over from Bhaji as a bonus, have no expectations of him, just like the other bagage,. Ishant Potential Sharma.
But at least in Sharma's case, there were not many options. Umesh Yadav, the first choice option is out with an injury and we all know the seen with Zak. Praveen Kumar has had problems with injury and significant indiscipline, and Sreesanth hasn't found his top form after injury rehabilitation. The rest of them are all lotteries.
The selectors tied Dhoni's hands with the Harbhajan call, they selected him for no reason, all that nonsense of his hundreth test and all, comentators like VVS Laxman, (fabulous batsman he was), has been saying idiotic things and were having a go at the skipper on the Harbhajan issue.
Like they did with Sehwag, the selectors should stop burdening the skipper with these non-performers.

Even I am not quite convinced about Vijay, but unlike Sehwag and Gambhir, he scored big runs at least at home and certainly deserve a chance ahead of them, as both Viru and Gauti really did struggle for the last 2 years or so.

Mike Selig wrote:I think India view Rahane as a middle-order player clearly. I would like Kohli to move up to 4 in time, but I guess Rahane will slot in there rather. Fair enough really as he doesn't open domestically, but I'm not sure on Vijay yet. Anyway he deserves a shot after his hundred, and there's no doubt that Shewag deserved to be dropped.

I like Jadeja. His bowling has been vital in all the tests he's played so far, and his fielding makes a big difference to this India side. He just needs runs to get people off his back for a while.

Harbajhan is a different matter. What Ohja must be thinking I have no idea.

Vijay is a much better bet as an opener than Rahane IMO.

msp83 wrote:A number of Indian supporters just love to sit, stand and stamp all over poor Ravindra Jadeja's back. I don't think a double hundred and 10 wickets in the same match would free him entirely, they'll just be looking for the next poor outing before starting all the 'Sir Ravindra Jadeja' nonsense. But yes, I really hope he gets a big score soon enough to further strengthen his case.
Harbhajan happens to be just too lucky, there is no other explanation. The upcoming match is at his home ground, but I'll take every wicket, every good over from Bhaji as a bonus, have no expectations of him, just like the other bagage,. Ishant Potential Sharma.
But at least in Sharma's case, there were not many options. Umesh Yadav, the first choice option is out with an injury and we all know the seen with Zak. Praveen Kumar has had problems with injury and significant indiscipline, and Sreesanth hasn't found his top form after injury rehabilitation. The rest of them are all lotteries.
The selectors tied Dhoni's hands with the Harbhajan call, they selected him for no reason, all that nonsense of his hundreth test and all, comentators like VVS Laxman, (fabulous batsman he was), has been saying idiotic things and were having a go at the skipper on the Harbhajan issue.
Like they did with Sehwag, the selectors should stop burdening the skipper with these non-performers.

From Cricinfo,

"This will be Ishant Sharma's 50th Test. He averages 38.52 with the ball. No specialist bowler who has played 50 Tests has ended with an average that bad. Looking at India's pace resources, Ishant still has time to correct this statistic. Mohali at least should provide him more help than the two earlier pitches".

As far as Jadeja is concerned, I rate his bowling in these conditions but surely he is not a Test match batsman?

Well, Jadeja doesn't look the most pleasing batsman. But his ODI averages after a considerable run is about 30, and his first class average is above 50 with 3 triple hundreds. Those triples may not have come on tough pitches against very high class bowling, but scoring a first class triple does require temprament, and Jadeja has got it. I am very sure he won't be worse than the likes of Raina or Yuvraj in tests.

He surely isn't an option overseas?

msp83 wrote: (edited my original comment as a mark of respect to plurality, I feel very strongly about the way the human element is taken out of the game of robotic professionalism and I had used a Hitler reference in that context to make my point, no offense intended but it seems people have a problem with that and it seemingly offends people, perhaps its a thing of worldviews, perhaps I was acting just like the Australian management, reacting over the top, but anyways.......)

Thanks for retracting that ignorant statement.
To draw any comparison between the two says more about your mindset than Michael Clarke's. Talk about an over-reaction!

http://www.coveringviews.com/index.php/cricket/111-indian-cricket-the-curious-case-of-number-6-batsman

This article sums up my thoughts on Jadeja... (not written by me btw)

Well, I won't rule Jadeja out even in away conditions.
People talk about Ajinkya Rahane as if he's the next best thing in Indian cricket after Sachin Tendulkar. Don't get me wrong, I too have high hopes of the youngster. But any suggestion that he's the finished article who would easily take to test cricket and solve all of India's problems is far fetched. I am not attributing these to you Shanky, but there is the general talk.
People said he can't pick up wickets in test matches as he's just an ODI bowler. He has bowled really well in all the 3 test matches that he played and complemented Ravichandran Ashwin very well, and comfortably outbowled Harbhajan Singh, although that doesn't say much these days.
So now the talk is that he can't pick wickets overseas. I would rather reserve my judgement on Jadeja overseas, as I have a feeling he could be effective in bowling a restrictive line and length on overseas tracks and provide some control for the skipper. If he can find some runs, I would have him in my plans even away from home conditions. Not a surefire bet as of now, but most certainly not a no-hoper as suggested by many Indian supporters and even experts.
When we talk about sides managing with 4 bowlers, they often talk about sides with a decent quality bowling unit, not one that includes the likes of Ishant Sharma.

By the way the match is held up by bad weather. There was lots of persistent rain from early morning, though it stopped after 9, the ground staff would need time to restart. When I last checked cricinfo, there were reports that the Australian side had left for the ground.

The damn drizzle is back. Looks like the makings of a lost day. The Australians wouldn't mind too much.

First day washed out. What a shame.

If Jadeja can get his batting to average around the 35 mark overseas then he'll certainly be worth his place IMO. India are unlikely to want to play 2 specialist spinners abroad, so as a 2nd spinner he is more than useful. He'll tie the runs down, but also pick up the odd wicket particularly with the ball that skids on (watch out for the LBW).

The article Shanky quotes is amazingly biased. It starts with the premise that Jadeja is "bits and pieces" which is unfair. It then talks about Rahane as an "old-fashioned test match batsman" which is interesting for someone who has yet to play a test match!

I agree with the premise that a number 6 who can knock it about against spin and has the technical ability to play the 2nd new ball (which is very different from the first new ball BTW) is worth his weight in gold (Hussey the last couple of years, Gilchrist before him, Root could be a very good bet there). However it seems odd to argue on the one hand that Rahane shouldn't open, but then that he should bat 6 so he can come in against the 2nd new ball...

Nothing against Rahane, but as yet Jadeja hasn't done much wrong.

I like what I've seen of Jadeja. Suppose unless and until he gets a big Test score or two he will be tagged with the "bits and pieces" label but I think he could be a good deal more than that.
Certainly with Dhoni batting as well as he is India can afford him some time to prove himself with the bat - his bowling and fielding justify his inclusion in the present team formation , and he could hardly do much worse overseas than some of the recently tried alternatives...

Australia won the toss and are batting, they are 43 without loss at the moment. Glenn Maxwell's sitting out, and Brad Haddin and Steve Smith are in. Nathan Lyon and Mitchell Starc return as well.
The big news from the India side is that Pragyan Ojha is back, and Harbhajan Singh is dropped for his home test.

Michael Clarke has won all the 3 tosses so far in the series. Seems to be the only thing that he's been winning in India as of now. But now this is almost 3 and a half sessions that went the Australian way so to speak!.

This is been an excellent start from Warner and Cowan. Australia are 62-0. The ball is coming on to the bat , and there isn't mch turn either. Ishant Sharma and Bhuvneshwar Kumar couldn't find much of early life from the track and Australia are looking in control at the moment.

Michael Clarke, when ever he gets the chance, should surely score his 2nd hundred fo the series. After 2 good lively tracks, it seems we are back to the hopeless.
Perhaps the track will take spin later on in the match, perhaps the quicker Australian pacers might find something extra from this pitch, but both Chennai and Hyderabad had something for the bowlers all through the game, and that makes for much better cricket.

Has this strange punishment worked..!!

great opening partnership from the aussies

Well, that man Ravindra Jadeja again!!. He gets 2 in 2, will have to hold on for the next over though, to try and take a hat trick.
He first forced David Warner to play a false stroke with a good ball that caught Warner in 2 minds whether to move forward or stay put and eventually he nicked it on to his pad and Dhoni took the catch running forward.
Next ball, he again got the better of Michael Clarke, 4th time in the series, who promoted himself to 3. He was completely beaten by a ripping ball, dragged out of the crease and Dhoni was very quick with the stumping. Australia 139-2.

Philip Hughes manages to keep out the hat trick ball