mcgillianaire (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mcgillianaire) wrote2008-10-30 03:00 pm
mcgillianaire) wrote2008-10-30 03:00 pm
Entry tags:
India 7/613d (161ov; Gambhir 206, Laxman 200*) v Australia 0/50 (15ov), Day 2 of 3rd Test @ Delhi
VVS Laxman celebrates another double-century against the Aussies | Close but no cigar, Gambhir edges closer to his 1st double-century
[SCORECARD]
It's the first time India have had two double-centurions in the same innings and the first time Australia have conceded two double-centuries in the same innings. In the course of his second double-century (both have come against the Aussies), Laxman passed a number of milestones, including overtaking Gundappa Vishwanath's 6080 Test runs and becoming only the second Indian (after SRT) to score more than 2000 Test runs against the Aussies. The latter is an incredible achievement, almost Terry Aldermanesque in its proportion of runs against Australia to his total number of runs. If memory serves me right, half of Alderman's 180-odd Test wickets were against England and they came in only two Ashes series, separated by nearly a decade or something funny like that. Laxman's record against Australia is somewhat similar. Nearly a third of all his Test runs have come against the greatest team of his era, an astonishing record. Interestingly, this was only his second century against the Aussies at home and 6th overall. The first one was obviously that unforgettable 281 at Kolkata in 2001. Speaking of which, it will take the Aussies a similar herculean effort to come anywhere close to leveling the series. India are in an impregnable position and should reclaim the Border-Gavaskar trophy by the end of the weekend. Oh and before I forget, a special mention to Gautham Gambhir for becoming the first Delhiite to score a century at home since Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi in Feb 1964. Incidentally, Pataudi also scored a double century then. Gambhir has now scored back-to-back centuries against the Aussies and has cemented his place in the team. It remains to be seen how he will fare on non-Subcontinental pitches but if recent Indian performances abroad are to be taken into account, the confidence gained from this series should serve him well on our next such tour. COME ON YOU INDIANS!! JAI HIND!!
no subject
no subject
Hah! They're on their way out! =:P Mind you, if they're playing India into form then it gives us England supporters one more reason to hate Australia!
no subject
I'm not sure if Kasprowicz is still playing but if I'd imagine even if he isn't, he'd've done better on this tour than all the bowlers, with the possible exception of Mitchell Johnson. Brett Lee will be lethal in England next summer. He's hardly taken a wicket in this series and has been hammered by all the batsmen.
The batsmen who have failed over here will also be playing in more favourable conditions in England so they should also do better next summer.
However if England can put together a decent pace attack and throw in Panesar, I think there's a good chance they'll reclaim the Ashes but I wouldn't take this series into much account to make such predictions. The conditions are just so different.
As for us playing you guys next... meh, the problem with us is that we raise our level according to the team we're playing. No disrespect to England, but we don't rate them enough to put in the same effort as we do the Aussies. Perhaps under a new captain things will change. It really should. If we want to become the best we're going to have to play with the same intensity regardless of the opposition, just as the convicts have done for about a decade.
no subject
Having said that... they have no McGrath, Warne or Gilchrist any more, and nobody who I can see being as good as any of those by 2009. They're still a very good team, but I honestly don't think they deserve to be called great any more. England aren't great either, but our batting lineup is good and the bowling is coming on. If only Panesar would learn the damn arm ball!
No disrespect to England, but we don't rate them enough to put in the same effort as we do the Aussies.
Good. We win surprisingly often because our opponents do that! The real question for me is how much I'm going to care anyway. Of course I want England to win, but England's calendar between now and the Ashes is one I'd not miss too much if it disappeared entirely. This bloody Stanford thing, 879 ODIs (along with two Tests that somehow got left on the schedule) and then Sri Lanka Z, West Indies Casuals or perhaps Afghanistan before the real stuff begins.
no subject
That is the series that evokes the happiest memories in me out of any series. Which is somewhat remarkable, since I was only five years old and wasn't actually following it. Dad bought the BBC video highlights, and it was described in the first ABC Cricket Almanac that I had. Steve Waugh averaged 126.5 that series.
We should have a team that will win the Ashes next year, but if England get everything together like they did in 2005, then we'll lose. Lee should be good, Clark is good, Johnson is good, our next quick is good. Our batting lineup is solid when they're not being stupid. But of course if you've got Jones and Flintoff reversing the ball everywhere, they'll struggle just like any batsmen.
no subject
no subject
Possibly but I'd like to give them till the end of the Ashes to decide that. They're going to make mincemeat of South Africa at home and away this summer (for them) even though the Proteas are probably thinking the complete opposite. India might be the team Australia has found most difficult to dominate in the last ten years, but there's something about South Africa that really gets them going in a way that they bring an intensity to it only seen in the Ashes.
>If only Panesar would learn the damn arm ball!
Hehehe! Is this trip of his to Sri Lanka going to happen or not!? I really hope he does go. It should do him a world of good.
>The real question for me is how much I'm going to care anyway.
This is what I hate the most about English and Aussie cricket fans. Even though our players don't rate England much, our fans treat every series with the same respect (though not necessarily with the same passion). It is disappointing we're only playing two Tests but I sometimes wish the Ashes never happened because to most English and Aussie fans, that's all that matters. :)
no subject
Doesn't look like it. I think it's a big missed opportunity, and I can't understand what the club were playing at. You don't ask for thousands of pounds for the privilege of having a Test cricketer on your team!
our fans treat every series with the same respect
It's the Test/ODI balance that's wearying me, not the opposition; and I dislike the BCCI, but that doesn't extend to the players. I'd love to see a five-Test series against India, but I can't see it ever happening even in England. (I believe we are getting five against SA next time, which is great news.)
Having said that, partly guilty as charged: there's no way I'd swap an Ashes win for one against India, even if the latter series was five Tests long. After all, I doubt many Liverpool supporters really care about beating Portsmouth as much as they care about beating Man Utd!
no subject
no subject
That's actually one reason I'm not a big football fan; the virulence of the language between rival clubs puts me off a good deal. You don't get rugby supporters calling opponents scum. Yes, I know in this particular case it's an established and time-honoured ritual. I just wish it wasn't.
They don't care about becoming the best team in the world.
I think that's rather harsh, though perhaps it might not have been in the fairly recent past. I think the "resting on laurels" thing was certainly true after 2005, and we deserved what we got in Australia. I don't think Pietersen thinks like that; I was rather sceptical about his appointment to the captaincy, but my opinion of him has grown a lot since then.
no subject
Actually, I agree with you on this. One of the good things about not being a true Liverpool fan, in the sense I'm not actually from there and therefore do not share the same sense of hate towards Man U and Everton, is that I don't actually think of them as scum whatsoever. I tend to write such stuff as a way to poke fun at the "established and time-honoured ritual" while also partaking in it, if that makes sense.
>I think that's rather harsh
Yes it is harsh but I don't think it's far off the mark. And to be honest, I agree with you about Pietersen, but I'd contend that's more to do with the fact that he's a recent immigrant and therefore lucky to have escaped the parochial Ashes mentality that afflicts this country's approach to cricket. Perhaps he can prove me wrong in the months and years to come...
Don't get me wrong, I love the Ashes and recognize the history and passion behind it. I'm one of them non-English, non-Aussie cricket fans who would stay up all night or wake up at any time to follow it. I love its place in the game and would like nothing better than an English victory. I'm just annoyed by the fact that in all my years of following the game they remain fixated on a single series, when the game is much bigger than that. It's the single biggest reason they've rubbed the BCCI the wrong way since the 1980s, when they refused to believe any country other than England could host the World Cup and it's simply followed on from that.
no subject
If he's playing, it's in ICL. He's retired from first-class cricket, after what I think were injury troubles last season - he only played 5 games for Queensland.
The most likely reason for Lee's poor performance is his marriage breakup. Though apparently he's got his pace back up in this Test, not that it's helped him any.
Stuart Clark had an elbow problem in the first Test, and has done well in this Test but the runs have leaked from the other end.
Mitchell Johnson scrambles the seam, which is very annoying. He and Lee are the best equipped to match Zaheer and Ishant's reverse swing, but Lee's out of sorts and Johnson can't point the seam towards first slip.
no subject
Interesting about Lee's poor performances. I also think he bowled too short in the first two Tests. Then when he compensated in length he bowled too full on middle and leg and the batsmen were able to flick and milk him around. Ponting's fields were less defensive than they were in 2004 which resulted in Lee leaking a lotta runs while Clark, Watson and Johnson were pegging away at the other end and doing a decent job.
Oh, I've now realised you've said pretty much the same thing in the next line. :)
Why do you find the scrambled seam annoying?