mikemike

batting first is not the difference between two sides when one has the home advantage.

India are playing test match cricket, Australia are playing a hybrid test/short term game. The batting line line up even if in first is it good enough. The last test, batting last they did better than their first innings or India second Innings.

This is a talent issue.

As for ground capacity this SCG 'crowd' today if dropped into the MCG would disappear without trace. the two shaded stands either side of the Ladies and Member pavilions look to be the most populated the rest is open arena. Bring back the ''Hill''

Crowd = 33,678 capacity 46,000. How many of the crowd are day stayers as opposed to either a morning or afternoon visit

MCG capacity 100,000

Beoz

No. Australia's bowling is average at best. Has been all series. Very limited pressure building and condition reading. Also doesn't help bowling on first wicket batsmen paradises.

It takes 20 wickets to win a test. Do keep up.

Beoz

The MCG is a shithole. It's now 4th on the preferred grounds behind Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. The Gabba coming last as always. Sadly it got a test over Hobart.

Amazulu

Have it your way then - average bowling, average batting, average leader, average team - overall making India look better than they really are. Spectacularly average

Meanwhile in Cape Town, the real deal team is getting the job done yet again

sun_burn

It's the exact same bowlers who combined to win the Ashes 4-0 this time last year. They aren't spraying extras galore. The scoring rate is 2.5-3 rpo all series. The wicket takers list so far reads, in descending order:
Bumrah 20
Lyon 18
Cummins 14
Shami 14
Hazlewood 13
Starc 13
Sharma 11

On what quantifiable basis is the bowling bad ? This is the entire squad that was very successful within the past year, in the same home conditions.

Beoz

Well where do I start. Let's start here. In international test cricket a bowler averages a wicket every 55 balls. In 2018 only one Australian bowler (Cummins) got above that at a wicket every 43 balls. In terms of bowling averages for 2018 Australia is in 10th place at 32 odd.

Those who know test cricket know that bowling wins test matches especially when teams are relatively close in their abilities. However those who don't know cricket focus on the batting. There would be no different result if say Smith or Warner were in the team. In fact Australia have a better tail than India. Once you get through the first 5 Indians, its game over. With Australia you have to go through to 10 before you see a batting bunny.

Had Australia won more tosses, nullified the bowling attack by batting first on flat decks, then we may have seen different results. Without the bowlers standing up and improving those stats there is no chance batting second.

Your stats on number of wickets are meaningless. There are a set number of wickets to be taken and all they show is who's sharing the spoils.

There is no surprise that Bumrah is out in front. He has been a revelation, thunderbolts off 5 paces, puts it on the money every time and has the ability to change it up, depending on who's batting. India have always had good batting over the years however what they are doing now is providing decent bowlers to back it up and become No. 1.

I hope that quantified it for you.

mikemike

I prefer shane warne quantify measures. He has just stated again that the Aussie attack is failing to find a way and the strike rate of the opening quickies is below par by a long way. Then again what does he know, compared to BB posters who know so much about cricket.

MCG is in your opinion that way, after all, it is in Victoria and as an Aussie import you are more tribal than the Tribes. Cannot beat MCG on a sell out day. The new WACA is looking to get that way and in a state 1/3 of Australia with barely 2m people does shout loud

sun_burn

Strike rates are only one measure of performance. A series where both teams are digging in will result in poor strike rates, even if averages aren't really bad - and they aren't. Cummins and Hazlewood average in the 20s, Lyon 30 and Starc 33. The Indian bowlers have a much wider dispersal of averages. Both teams' bowlers are collecting wickets, as the earlier data shows. As far as strike rates themselves go, the mitigating factor here is that the attack is exactly the same as the one that won the Ashes 4-0 on these same grounds a year ago.
I've already stated the same too - what Australia lacks in Pujara, it makes up for with a strong tail . Australia have had no injury issues all series . India started out crippled, losing its first choice keeper, all rounder, backup opener and after one test, its main spinner. It had to discard both its openers and send in a pair of kids with 2 tests between them, to open at MCG.
Toss is not a quantifiable parameter. It's an explicit act of chance taken by both teams, that neither can train to do better at.
I disagree. It's your strike rate data that's meaningless. Wickets need to be taken to win matches; regardless of whether they're taken at 40 or 60 balls/wicket, it's a wicket.
Sorry, not at all convincing

scrubbedexpat098

That was a compressive lesson in how to bat in test cricket. Poor old Gazza didn't even celebrate that last wicket.

all the analytical nonsense in the world boils down to one thing, India in this instance are the better team, Aussie team to collapse and follow on, completely disheartened.

yesterday some ballbag of a commentator was saying it would be a different story if Warner and Smith were there, and then went on to say that England only won the 81 ashes cos Greg chappel didn't go. What a bellend

Beoz

Well there's no point having a conversation with you if you want to talk about past performances of the Australian bowlers because that is meaningless in this series. The Ashes was a year ago against a very ordinary England team.

This series they are bowling like shit, not helped by toiling away on flat first innings decks. 622/7 declared. Explain that if Australia's bowlers are so good and the pitch for the past 2 days hasn't been a batsmen paradise.

Amazulu

Ye. I much prefer the old 9 commentary - 7 is bellend central

He's a wanker and an amazing bowler, but Glenn McGrath is a terrible commentator. He keeps banging on about how the Australian bowling attack, when clicking, is the best in the world - as we can see, this is patently bollocks. The best bowling attack in the world is playing in Cape Town this week

Tosser should stick to something that he's good at - like collecting for his charity

Beoz

Are you replying to me? Try the quote button.

Warnie is right. So is Glenn McGrath. And together won way too many test matches. Bowling wins Tests. Not sure what the argument is there.

The MCG is too big. Big is never the best. It leaks atmosphere and given Test cricket rarely sells out outside England, the MCG is just a shithole for the fan.

Personally I think they should drop it if they are going to do 4 tests only. Replace it with Hobart. Hobart, Perth, Adelaide, Sydney. Perfect.

mikemike

Why would I respond to you

Beoz

Try the middle button. Bottom right below the post you are responding to.

sun_burn

That's an odd statement. It's the same bowlers who were the best attack in the world mere months ago. Same conditions, same grounds. By multiple measures (wickets, average, economy rate), they're doing as well as the opposition is.

It's fine to claim one person or two is off the boil - Starc does appear to be. But it's rather bizarre to claim the entire lot suddenly went from arguably the best, to useless, within months.

There's no basis for that claim other than the circular argument "we're not winning so we must necessarily be playing badly" . You can be playing extremely well and still coming up short - the binary result of sport doesn't take away credit for legitimate effort.