January 19, 2008
Are they missing Warnie?
Just a thought. Australia's been lucky not to have lost one or other of the first two tests against India, so losing the test in Perth was no surprise. I think it has been more a batting failure than a bowling one, so why would it strike me that Warne might have made the difference?
The Indians are almost exclusively playing spinners. So, I'm wondering if the difference is that Australia no longer has a spinner on the team to really test the batsmen in the nets, and as a result, they've lost the edge when they go to the crease against the Indian spinners.
Well out of my area of expertise here, so maybe a reader can set me straight.
Posted by Graham at January 19, 2008 11:53 PM | TrackBackIt doesn't help with the tactics. Johnson's not as good as they think he is, Clark's under-bowled, Hogg's just not good enough (MacGill is, though) and they keep dropping catches which the Indians have been taking.
Actually, if they had taken Dravid when he was on 13 in the first innings, Australia would have won...
Posted by: Chade at January 21, 2008 12:13 PMIts the Indian swing bowlers which are causing the problems, not the spinners. It was also swing bowling which brought the Aussies undone in England in 2005.
It would have been great to have Warnie available for this series, or a fit McGill, but at least there is now some real competition for Australia.
Posted by: rossco at January 21, 2008 10:00 AM