4th Test: Australia v India at SCG Jan 3-7 2019 - MATCH DRAWN

[Twizzle]

Having a batsmen at 4 who averages 35 isn't going to win you any test matches.

 

[jargan83]

I've heard a few times of a stat that once he gets to double figures he's got an average over 50 or something like that. Someone here may know what it might be. But that's what i'd think the reference is to.

I've heard that as well but he has got to double figures a few times this series without going on with it so you'd imagine that's taken a slight hit.

 

[herbert henry1908]

I've heard a few times of a stat that once he gets to double figures he's got an average over 50 or something like that. Someone here may know what it might be. But that's what i'd think the reference is to.

You could work it out from here.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

I suspect most batsmen’s averages jump a fair bit if you exclude the scores below 10. Just he has more of them I guess.

 

[Front-Rower]

It's not that 2nd innings runs "don't count", but they were were hardly crucial runs as all 5 tests were won and lost in the 1st dig. Good knocks in the 3rd and 5th (dead) test, but a poor series overall.

Finally someone who gets it. In that series the poms rolled us for 60 and 135 in two of our first innings. I’m sure the mood/discussion in the dressing room was don’t worry boys, we will get them in the second innings, when we are 300+ plus behind lol

 

[Eelectrica]

If today's game ends in a washed out draw, by the time Langer and our selectors are done looking at it, they'll decide we really won the series 2-1.
I mean the Adelaide test was a close loss, and a closs loss is a win turned upside down.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

It's not that 2nd innings runs "don't count", but they were were hardly crucial runs as all 5 tests were won and lost in the 1st dig. Good knocks in the 3rd and 5th (dead) test, but a poor series overall.

Respectfully disagree.

I think they are more crucial in this series than the first innings, and shows the character as I've mentioned above.

From an Australian Perspective...

1st Test, 15 runs difference after the 1st Innings and the match evenly poised. 2nd innings - our top end batsman faltered under strong bowling from India win it but the Tail came close to pulling off a stunning result when we were never in the hunt. Our Bowlers stood up.
2nd Test - Aus with 1st Innings lead of only 43 runs, game poised again and Australia a bit shaky at 4/120 in our second innings. A nervous lead but the remaining batsmen ground out a solid 243 on a tough pitch and thus a commanding lead of 286. We won the test.
3rd Test - India bat for the first two days - 3 days to go and many criticised India for a slow run rate, declaring too late and not allowing enough time to win the game. We then botch our first innings to be behind by lightyears. However we have the real opportunity to show some grit, stand up and bat out the test on a relatively tame pitch - deny India the win AND the series lead (now series win). Our top order couldn't do the job and only the Tail via Pat Cummins et al give us a sniff of a draw and saving the series. We ended up getting towelled up.
4th Test - 1st innings lost us the chance to win the game, We are yet to see and may not see a 2nd innings.

Again - first innings sets up the match, 2nd innings produces the result. Even when Australia aren't in a position to win the game - we were/are in a position to deny the opposition a win. You can't lose the match if the opposition can't take all 10 wickets in your 2nd dig.

As for the series - the first 2 matches was some of the best test matches I've seen in Australia for many years - competitive and close. The 2nd two have been fizzers where Australia has not stood up.

 

[simmo1]

Respectfully disagree.

I think they are more crucial in this series than the first innings, and shows the character as I've mentioned above.

From an Australian Perspective...

1st Test, 15 runs difference after the 1st Innings and the match evenly poised. 2nd innings - our top end batsman faltered under strong bowling from India win it but the Tail came close to pulling off a stunning result when we were never in the hunt. Our Bowlers stood up.
2nd Test - Aus with 1st Innings lead of only 43 runs, game poised again and Australia a bit shaky at 4/120 in our second innings. A nervous lead but the remaining batsmen ground out a solid 243 on a tough pitch and thus a commanding lead of 286. We won the test.
3rd Test - India bat for the first two days - 3 days to go and many criticised India for a slow run rate, declaring too late and not allowing enough time to win the game. We then botch our first innings to be behind by lightyears. However we have the real opportunity to show some grit, stand up and bat out the test on a relatively tame pitch - deny India the win AND the series lead (now series win). Our top order couldn't do the job and only the Tail via Pat Cummins et al give us a sniff of a draw and saving the series. We ended up getting towelled up.
4th Test - 1st innings lost us the chance to win the game, We are yet to see and may not see a 2nd innings.

Again - first innings sets up the match, 2nd innings produces the result. Even when Australia aren't in a position to win the game - we were/are in a position to deny the opposition a win. You can't lose the match if the opposition can't take all 10 wickets in your 2nd dig.

As for the series - the first 2 matches was some of the best test matches I've seen in Australia for many years - competitive and close. The 2nd two have been fizzers where Australia has not stood up.

Completely different games. Tell me which of the 2015 Ashes were decided in the 2nd dig?

 

[Front-Rower]

Completely different games. Tell me which of the 2015 Ashes were decided in the 2nd dig?

Don’t worry, these blokes are just trying to justify Warner coming back into the side. Yet they use stats to try and discredit Shaun Marsh.

 

[Bazal]

Respectfully disagree.

I think they are more crucial in this series than the first innings, and shows the character as I've mentioned above.

From an Australian Perspective...

1st Test, 15 runs difference after the 1st Innings and the match evenly poised. 2nd innings - our top end batsman faltered under strong bowling from India win it but the Tail came close to pulling off a stunning result when we were never in the hunt. Our Bowlers stood up.
2nd Test - Aus with 1st Innings lead of only 43 runs, game poised again and Australia a bit shaky at 4/120 in our second innings. A nervous lead but the remaining batsmen ground out a solid 243 on a tough pitch and thus a commanding lead of 286. We won the test.
3rd Test - India bat for the first two days - 3 days to go and many criticised India for a slow run rate, declaring too late and not allowing enough time to win the game. We then botch our first innings to be behind by lightyears. However we have the real opportunity to show some grit, stand up and bat out the test on a relatively tame pitch - deny India the win AND the series lead (now series win). Our top order couldn't do the job and only the Tail via Pat Cummins et al give us a sniff of a draw and saving the series. We ended up getting towelled up.
4th Test - 1st innings lost us the chance to win the game, We are yet to see and may not see a 2nd innings.

Again - first innings sets up the match, 2nd innings produces the result. Even when Australia aren't in a position to win the game - we were/are in a position to deny the opposition a win. You can't lose the match if the opposition can't take all 10 wickets in your 2nd dig.

As for the series - the first 2 matches was some of the best test matches I've seen in Australia for many years - competitive and close. The 2nd two have been fizzers where Australia has not stood up.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you, but he was specifically referring to Warner in the last away Ashes series so this home India series isn't really relevant

 

[Front-Rower]

2nd innings produces the result.

What happens when you score enough first innings runs to enforce the follow on and don’t have to bat again?

 

[Mr Spock!]

He only scored 142 first innings runs at 28.4 in the 2015 ashes series, with 85 of those runs coming in the last test (which was a dead rubber).

Lol let's keep moving those goal posts......Must mean he averaged well over 60 in the second innings then....

 

[Bazal]

What happens when you score enough first innings runs to enforce the follow on and don’t have to bat again?

Well the second innings still produces the result, doesn't it? The opposing teams, but still.

Anyway it's such a subjective point. Some games the second innings is way more crucial than the first. Some games, like this SCG test, are over on day two thanks to the first innings. It needs to be addressed on a test by test basis

 

[Mr Spock!]

Good to see the parra fans sticking up for each other.

He implied it because he had no come back to the first innings failures of David Warner.

In the context of the games played in that series, second innings runs didn’t really count as we were that far behind due to the poor first innings performances.

Good to see Front Rower continue his vendetta against the only decent opening bat in Australian cricket.

Now where's meth to tell us how Bancroft will save us because he doesn't like cheats and we need someone who can score test hundreds......lol

 

[Front-Rower]

Well the second innings still produces the result, doesn't it? The opposing teams, but still.

Anyway it's such a subjective point. Some games the second innings is way more crucial than the first. Some games, like this SCG test, are over on day two thanks to the first innings. It needs to be addressed on a test by test basis

Come on Baz. Out of everyone on this forum I would have thought that you agree that first innings runs are extremely vital. It’s drilled in to you at representative level from u/11’s right though to first grade. First innings runs take all the pressure off.

 

[Front-Rower]

Lol let's keep moving those goal posts......Must mean he averaged well over 60 in the second innings then....

It’s fact. What don’t you understand about that? Why couldn’t he perform when the pressure was on in the first innings?

 

[Bazal]

Come on Baz. Out of everyone on this forum I would have thought that you agree that first innings runs are extremely vital. It’s drilled in to you at representative level from u/11’s right though to first grade. First innings runs take all the pressure off.

Of course they are. I don't disagree at all and I didn't think I had implied that I did. The first innings sets up the rest of the match, I'm 100% behind that argument.

All I'm saying is that the second innings is not automatically less important. In many cases runs in the second innings can even be more important. And that's just a general comment not specific to the Warner/Ashes example.

 

[Front-Rower]

Good to see Front Rower continue his vendetta against the only decent opening bat in Australian cricket.

That’s right. He can only hit them off the square in Australia.

 

[Mr Spock!]

Finally someone who gets it. In that series the poms rolled us for 60 and 135 in two of our first innings. I’m sure the mood/discussion in the dressing room was don’t worry boys, we will get them in the second innings, when we are 300+ plus behind lol

Getting rolled for 60 and 135 would imply the whole team was pretty f**ked not just Warner eg rogers.

And those were his only 2 failures.

Not too smart champ.

But yeah batting last to win/draw/lose apparently is easy.....

 

[Mr Spock!]

That’s right. He can only hit them off the square in Australia.

And in the second innings in England....lol.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Don’t worry, these blokes are just trying to justify Warner coming back into the side. Yet they use stats to try and discredit Shaun Marsh.

How so?

Warner averages almost the same in the second innings as the first. Admittedly there’s more 100’s in the first, but that’s to be expected.

Where Warner’s big difference lies is home & away.