India tour of Australia, Nov 21 - Jan 18

[bigfluffylemon]

Mitch3 dropped, Marcus Harris set to debut in the opener's spot with Handscomb in the middle order
http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/1869 ... us-2018-19

[alfie]

Ta.

Arguably Australia are more in transition, but the big difference to me is the bowling. Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins and Lyon are a world class attack in home conditions capable of bowling any side out twice. Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Watson and Doherty were, er, not.

I think you have a fair point there , bfl ; but I feel compelled to point out you are cheating - just a little bit - in your rebuttal ......They had a Johnson and a Harris too in that series

Actually I still give India a good chance as I think they have the capacity to skittle the hosts once or twice. I think they'll bat well enough on the flat pitches ...but I wouldn't like to try and call the results and certainly wouldn't be betting on them. Could be 2-1 either way ?

[bigfluffylemon]

Harris was injured for most of the series. He didn't play in the first test, was rushed back for the second and was undercooked, bowled well in the third (which Australia won), then got injured again in the fourth. So he was well below his best or injured for most of the series.

And Johnson was a world apart from the bowler who terrorised us in 2013.

I agree with your assessment about the prospects, though. 2-1 seems a likely series result. Probably 2-1 Australia, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it went the other way.

[sussexpob]

I see KP's 'defection' purely as a choice of convenience and ego - and yes, once he became British, loyalty developed, but it always seemed manufactured to my jaundiced eye. He was within the rules, but that doesn't mean I have to like it

KP was a migrant. The fact he chose to "defect" from his country of birth to pursue better opportunities is essentially the crux of what makes the vast majority of people move to other lands, to seek better lives and opportunities. To view that as fundamentally selfish or negative, or motivated by "convenience or ego", is quite an extreme point of view. Its an acknowledged and open fact that he lost his opportunity at Kwa-Zulu Natal because of the colour of his skin. A choice was made where an inferior player (FC average 20 runs less- Gulam Bodi) was given his spot on a racial quota. His home country put barriers in the way of his skills, limited his opportunity not based on merit, but on what he looked like.

In many ways therefore, KP comes to signify what I believe being British is; a man who's merits were taken for what they were, irrespective of his skin colour, and how through skill and hard work was able to carve himself a successful career without the barriers of prejudice. The fact he talked different, acted a bit different, these things dont matter at all. Is there a blueprint for Britishness? Do all British people have the same accent, act the same, have the same personality? Are there no brash arseholes in Britain like KP (the place must have changed a lot)?

Some people take personal freedoms inside normal culture for granted, but Id hedge a guess that Kevin Pietersen lived and breathed that everyday for the opportunity he was given. He paid back the trust and opportunity in spades, he remains the best player in my view that represented England in my lifetime. He has every right to consider himself as much a Brit as me, or anyone. He earned that.

I question what motivation people have to beat him down with his South African upbringing. Not that I am saying you do, as I think its understandable that some people see this as an issue isolated to cricket. But I dont think personally it is. And I think there is a lot of danger in doing so, as on the very fundamental level, its like saying British citizens that arent born in the UK are in some way inferior. I think that is at the heart of a lot of the British press getting after him. And they after him over others because he was the least conventional British. Because of the accent, and what not.

[sussexpob]

Australian pitches have been very flat in recent years. Australian batsmen are bloody good at racking up huge scores on lifeless wickets (not so much when the ball moves) - just see the warmup game. Asian batsmen tend to be good at that too, but Australian fast bowlers are also uniquely good at restricting teams on those sorts of wickets, whereas visiting quicks don't tend to have the pace. Indian batsmen may be good at scoring big at home, but (Kohli excepted), they don't travel well.

I think to a large extent, all bets are off with this series. We cant make a huge deal of certain predictions, because these teams are to a large extent such unknown quantities.

Australia have indeed out lasted opponents on these flat wickets in recent times. But India have an attack that is emerging into a quality unit with the seam, and they bowled without a lot of luck in England. Their batters struggled, but the ball moved all over the place in England. It wont in Australia, and even if it does, do Australia have a batting line up that could withstand this battery of seam bowlers India possess?

Its by some way the weakest Aussie batting line up in my lifetime watching the game, and its by someway the best Indian seam attack. You should never ignore the history, the lack of teams doing well in Australia away is an obvious trend that cant be ignored. But this doesnt feel like a classic case. Australia usually have a very good team. Asian teams dont often have great pace attacks. Flatter pitches might end up suiting India. There is little in this batting line up to suggest they can replicate those scores they made with Smith and Warner in the team. Khawaja might not be at the top of his game. The others dont jump out.

[Arthur Crabtree]

In many ways therefore, KP comes to signify what I believe being British is; a man who's merits were taken for what they were, irrespective of his skin colour, and how through skill and hard work was able to carve himself a successful career without the barriers of prejudice.

Doesn't sound much like the UK to me at all.

[Arthur Crabtree]

KP was born a UK citizen through his British mother.

[sussexpob]

KP was born a UK citizen through his British mother.

Its the often touted explanation, but I always thought people born before 1983 could only have nationality rights passed down from their fathers, and that was only if the country was part of the UK colonies still (as in Hong Kong, South Africa must have gained independence a lot before this). I am probably wrong, I admit.

Doesn't sound much like the UK to me at all.

Obviously its not perfect, but in relativity, even in these less enlightened times we find ourselves in, I think its a push to suggest there are significant barriers to foreign nationals in sport in the UK. Most Premier League players are foreign.

[mikesiva]

I don't quite buy Pietersen's assertion that he was badly treated at KwaZulu Natal.

In 1999 -2000 he played four matches as a spinner who could bat a bit and averaged 10 with the bat and was expensive with the ball with 10 wickets at an average of 37.50. Bodi only played one match that season.

It's not surprising he found it hard to get into the team next season with those returns.

Next season Bodi was second in the KwaZulu batting averages with 33 and third in the bowling averages with 27 wickets at 25.81 making him their leading wicket taker that season.

By all means migrate to England to improve your circumstances. I did the same. But I found it disingenuous of him to blame KwaZulu Natal for his migration.

[alfie]

Harris was injured for most of the series. He didn't play in the first test, was rushed back for the second and was undercooked, bowled well in the third (which Australia won), then got injured again in the fourth. So he was well below his best or injured for most of the series.

And Johnson was a world apart from the bowler who terrorised us in 2013.

I agree with your assessment about the prospects, though. 2-1 seems a likely series result. Probably 2-1 Australia, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it went the other way.

Ah I was just teasing , BFL. I know you were just trying to save a lengthy explanation...which of course I ended up forcing you to deliver anyway. There is no doubt the current bowling group is a lot stronger. Batting , not so much. Ponting , Clarke...even Watson would be welcome right now.

The batting weakness is why I'm calling this 50/50 ...

[sussexpob]

The batting weakness is why I'm calling this 50/50 ...

I have a similar view. Big questions on both line ups to score runs, both attacks capable of taking wickets. I weirdly fancy India to really compete. Although the England tour makes me think that is a bit insane.

[sussexpob]

I don't quite buy Pietersen's assertion that he was badly treated at KwaZulu Natal. In 1999 -2000 he played four matches as a spinner who could bat a bit and averaged 10 with the bat and was expensive with the ball with 10 wickets at an average of 37.50. Bodi only played one match that season.

It's not surprising he found it hard to get into the team next season with those returns. Next season Bodi was second in the KwaZulu batting averages with 33 and third in the bowling averages with 27 wickets at 25.81 making him their leading wicket taker that season. By all means migrate to England to improve your circumstances. I did the same. But I found it disingenuous of him to blame KwaZulu Natal for his migration.

(does a mod want to move these posts elsewhere so we stop polluting this thread)

Kevin was 18/19 at the time. Its hardly like 4 matches in FC cricket at that age sum up a career. He did score 61* and take 4 wickets in the OD game vs England in a tour match, then got dropped straight after. His performance made a lasting impression on Nasser Hussain, who slipped him a telephone number and told him he'd help him get a county contract. And if he was considered a no hoper in Natal, then why did Shaun Pollock (captain of the national team) plead with the South African selectors to try to convince him not to leave? Why did Ali Bacher and the chief selector spent time pleading with him not to leave? (probably worth noting, Clive Rice and others have indicated that despite his FC record, when he was dropped in 1999-2000, he worked heavily on his batting to get back into the team. He played in English club cricket and turned heads with the bat in 2000. He returned to South Africa again in 2000-01 hoping to get into the Natal setup. He didnt leave till 2001. By the time he left, he was by then considered a very good batter).

Its laughable, because of lot of people negate two things in concern with this part of KPs life; the first often quoted one is that KP never had a meeting with Ali Bacher, or that if he did, the quota system argument never was part of the conversation and an invention of KP. Interestingly enough, the two sat down very recently on South Africa tv and talked about that meeting, and that fully endorses KPs version of events. Bacher makes no argument against KPs point.

The second is that quotas themselves didnt exist, and that KP wasnt dropped because of them. This again doesnt stand up to any scrutiny. The first test South Africa played after KPs debut at Notts, Percy Sonn forcibly (and publically) made the selectors drop Jacques Rudolph, who they had picked on merit, for Justin Ontong. Percy made no attempt to hide the fact this was because of racial quotas, in fact in loudly and voluntarily stated that. But you are going to tell me it is outrageous that, in the same cricketing season, these quotas should be said to exist in South African cricket?

There isnt anything to "buy into". Its simple fact, the original version of events have been pretty much soundly verified beyond any doubt by those involved. Ignoring these facts and creating your own version of events based on your ideological belief in racial quotas wont changed that.

[meninblue]

9 hours 40 minutes left for this to start.

5:30 a.m. I.S.T is a bad time for Indian viewers. The tests our teams play in Aus and NZ.
The best test for Indian viewers is tests played in WI. Next best when India plays tests in England. Those are two test series one gets to watch the most.

[sussexpob]

Would English test not be in your evening after work? I'd imagine tests.in the Carribbean are middle of the night in india

[meninblue]

Would English test not be in your evening after work? I'd imagine tests.in the Carribbean are middle of the night in india

Sessions as per IST:

WI test session 1 : 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. - Excellent prime time viewership
WI test session 2 : 10:15 p.m. to 12:15 a.m. - Most part of this session is watchable
WI test session 3: 12:30 a.m. to 2:30 a.m. - Very Bad timing apart from those who are singles.


England test session 1 : 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. - Missed sessions
England test session 2: 6:15 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. Some part of this session is lost as most Indian viewers are travelling back home. Usually majority of day shifts end at 6 or 6:30 p.m. from work. Very few have 5:30 p.m. as end of the day.
England test session 3: 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. - Excellent prime time viewership


These two are thus the best test series to view imo.

With HotStar getting broadcast rights for all Indian matches, Ranji, IPL the viewership will increase during breaks or if they are commuting by local transport. Subscription cost is just 299 Rs. per year as this is the first year of broadcast deal. It's unbelievable pricing for an years cricket across so many matches. I think three Ranji matches of major teams were covered in 4th round of this Ranji season which happened last week. They also have wonderful highlights of domestic and international cricket of Indian matches. It's an amazing value product for Indian consumers. Like it a lot.