Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Crickete » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:03:21


The Indian batting lineup in ODIs is at least good as that for Aus.  If
Indian bowling were just as good they'd beat Aus. more often than not.

Name  Average  Strike Rate

Sehwag  33.00   101.04
Ganguly  43.60    74.36
Mongia       33.26  76.19
Tendulkar  44.31    86.72
Dravid  38.36    68.62
Yuvraj  29.70    90.20
Kaif  56.30    82.43

Gilchrist   33.65    89.62
Hayden  42.48    76.49
Ponting  41.50    76.40
Martyn   39.74    78.80
Lehmann  35.91    81.62
Bevan   55.19    75.38
Watson   39.00    67.24

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Will Sutto » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:43:57

No arguments from me there, I dont think there is much between
the sides. In Australia I would expect Australia to win 6 out of 10
  but elsewhere its a 50/50 call
Quote:

> The Indian batting lineup in ODIs is at least good as that for Aus.  If
> Indian bowling were just as good they'd beat Aus. more often than not.

> Name  Average  Strike Rate

> Sehwag  33.00   101.04
> Ganguly  43.60    74.36
> Mongia       33.26  76.19
> Tendulkar  44.31    86.72
> Dravid  38.36    68.62
> Yuvraj  29.70    90.20
> Kaif  56.30    82.43

> Gilchrist   33.65    89.62
> Hayden  42.48    76.49
> Ponting  41.50    76.40
> Martyn   39.74    78.80
> Lehmann  35.91    81.62
> Bevan   55.19    75.38
> Watson   39.00    67.24


 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by dechuck » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:37:08


Quote:
> No arguments from me there, I dont think there is much between
> the sides. In Australia I would expect Australia to win 6 out of 10
>   but elsewhere its a 50/50 call




Quote:
> > The Indian batting lineup in ODIs is at least good as that for Aus.  If
> > Indian bowling were just as good they'd beat Aus. more often than not.

> > Name  Average  Strike Rate

> > Sehwag  33.00   101.04
> > Ganguly  43.60    74.36
> > Mongia       33.26  76.19
> > Tendulkar  44.31    86.72
> > Dravid  38.36    68.62
> > Yuvraj  29.70    90.20
> > Kaif  56.30    82.43

> > Gilchrist   33.65    89.62
> > Hayden  42.48    76.49
> > Ponting  41.50    76.40
> > Martyn   39.74    78.80
> > Lehmann  35.91    81.62
> > Bevan   55.19    75.38
> > Watson   39.00    67.24

it is called a team because both parts of it ( batsmen and bowlers) must
succeed for the team to win. You can win with any total but the bowlers must
take 20 wickets ( excluding dec. of course). It seems to me that
paraphrasing a golf saying "you bat for glory bowl for the win" is
appropriate

India is a great batting side but the bowling really lets them down
particularly when they are O/S

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Ken Higg » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:06:34

Quote:

> it is called a team because both parts of it ( batsmen and bowlers) must
> succeed for the team to win. You can win with any total but the bowlers must
> take 20 wickets ( excluding dec. of course). It seems to me that
> paraphrasing a golf saying "you bat for glory bowl for the win" is
> appropriate

> India is a great batting side but the bowling really lets them down
> particularly when they are O/S

Try to keep up.
The post quite specifically refers to odos.
I'd agree that the Indian bowling isn't up to the Aus standard, even for odos,
but their batting clearly is.
And in odos, you don't have to bowl even one batsman out to win........

Higgsy

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Kames » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 14:16:43


Quote:

> Try to keep up.
> The post quite specifically refers to odos.
> I'd agree that the Indian bowling isn't up to the Aus standard, even for
odos
> but their batting clearly is.

Wouldnt the batting performance depend  a lot on the quality of bowling too?
I am sure, 270+ by Aus is vastly different than 270+ by Eng. Aus has far
superior bowling both quality wise and options wise to defend that total. I
am sure Gangers and Sehwag would have found McGrath, Gillespie and Lee to
tough to handle.

By the same token, if India manages 300, the Aus batting has to only contend
with the likes of Khan, Nehra, Kumble and Bhajji.

Advantage Australia.

Quote:
> And in odos, you don't have to bowl even one batsman out to win........

That I agree with.

Kamesh

Quote:

> Higgsy

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by dechuck » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:57:56


Quote:


> > it is called a team because both parts of it ( batsmen and bowlers) must
> > succeed for the team to win. You can win with any total but the bowlers
must
> > take 20 wickets ( excluding dec. of course). It seems to me that
> > paraphrasing a golf saying "you bat for glory bowl for the win" is
> > appropriate

> > India is a great batting side but the bowling really lets them down
> > particularly when they are O/S

> Try to keep up.
> The post quite specifically refers to odos.
> I'd agree that the Indian bowling isn't up to the Aus standard, even for
odos,
> but their batting clearly is.
> And in odos, you don't have to bowl even one batsman out to win........

thankyou hIguy for that comment I will try to keep up in future, do feel
good now that you have shown up an aussie.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Higgsy

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Ken Higg » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:22:08

Quote:




> > > it is called a team because both parts of it ( batsmen and bowlers) must
> > > succeed for the team to win. You can win with any total but the bowlers
> must
> > > take 20 wickets ( excluding dec. of course). It seems to me that
> > > paraphrasing a golf saying "you bat for glory bowl for the win" is
> > > appropriate

> > > India is a great batting side but the bowling really lets them down
> > > particularly when they are O/S

> > Try to keep up.
> > The post quite specifically refers to odos.
> > I'd agree that the Indian bowling isn't up to the Aus standard, even for
> odos,
> > but their batting clearly is.
> > And in odos, you don't have to bowl even one batsman out to win........

> thankyou hIguy for that comment I will try to keep up in future, do feel
> good now that you have shown up an aussie.

Why do you have to drag it to a personal level?
You stuffed up.
Admit it and move on.

Higgsy

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by dechuck » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:07:05


Quote:





> > > > it is called a team because both parts of it ( batsmen and bowlers)
must
> > > > succeed for the team to win. You can win with any total but the
bowlers
> > must
> > > > take 20 wickets ( excluding dec. of course). It seems to me that
> > > > paraphrasing a golf saying "you bat for glory bowl for the win" is
> > > > appropriate

> > > > India is a great batting side but the bowling really lets them down
> > > > particularly when they are O/S

> > > Try to keep up.
> > > The post quite specifically refers to odos.
> > > I'd agree that the Indian bowling isn't up to the Aus standard, even
for
> > odos,
> > > but their batting clearly is.
> > > And in odos, you don't have to bowl even one batsman out to
win........

> > thankyou hIguy for that comment I will try to keep up in future, do feel
> > good now that you have shown up an aussie.

> Why do you have to drag it to a personal level?

I didn't I was genuinely interested if it made you feel good or not. I'm
always interested in the NZ psyche

Quote:
> You stuffed up.
> Admit it and move on.

Sorry I made a comment about Test cricket when the thread was about ODI
sorry OK

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> Higgsy

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Ken Higg » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:29:43

Quote:



> > Try to keep up.
> > The post quite specifically refers to odos.
> > I'd agree that the Indian bowling isn't up to the Aus standard, even for
> odos
> > but their batting clearly is.

> Wouldnt the batting performance depend  a lot on the quality of bowling too?
> I am sure, 270+ by Aus is vastly different than 270+ by Eng.

I'm not so sure what you mean.
if 270 is the target set, 270 is the score you have to reach to win the game,
the number of wickets lost is irrelevent.
You might feel that your bowlers should've restricted the opposition to a lesser
total (if, for example it's a low scoring pitch) and the batsmen have a harder
job to reach the total than they might've expected, but given the chancey nature
of odo cricket, there will be times when the batting side scores a lot against
you, and times when you'll catch all the half chances and the nicks just short
of a fielder will carry so you'll get them out cheaply.

Quote:
> Aus has far
> superior bowling both quality wise and options wise to defend that total. I
> am sure Gangers and Sehwag would have found McGrath, Gillespie and Lee to
> tough to handle.

Really?
You'd not give India a chance at making 270 against Aus?

Quote:

> By the same token, if India manages 300, the Aus batting has to only contend
> with the likes of Khan, Nehra, Kumble and Bhajji.

> Advantage Australia.

Umm,depends on the track.
In this trophy, if India makes 300 against Aus (or anyone), I'd say they are in
an extremely strong position to win that match

Quote:

> > And in odos, you don't have to bowl even one batsman out to win........

> That I agree with.

> Kamesh

Thanks

Higgsy

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Ken Higg » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:35:01

Quote:







> > > > > it is called a team because both parts of it ( batsmen and bowlers)
> must
> > > > > succeed for the team to win. You can win with any total but the
> bowlers
> > > must
> > > > > take 20 wickets ( excluding dec. of course). It seems to me that
> > > > > paraphrasing a golf saying "you bat for glory bowl for the win" is
> > > > > appropriate

> > > > > India is a great batting side but the bowling really lets them down
> > > > > particularly when they are O/S

> > > > Try to keep up.
> > > > The post quite specifically refers to odos.
> > > > I'd agree that the Indian bowling isn't up to the Aus standard, even
> for
> > > odos,
> > > > but their batting clearly is.
> > > > And in odos, you don't have to bowl even one batsman out to
> win........

> > > thankyou hIguy for that comment I will try to keep up in future, do feel
> > > good now that you have shown up an aussie.

> > Why do you have to drag it to a personal level?

> I didn't I was genuinely interested if it made you feel good or not. I'm
> always interested in the NZ psyche

It sounded personal to me.
do you say the same thing to everyone who points out a mistake of yours, or only
NZealanders?

Quote:

> > You stuffed up.
> > Admit it and move on.

> Sorry I made a comment about Test cricket when the thread was about ODI
> sorry OK

There's a big difference between the two.
And you claim that it's your favourite sport and you post here asking questions
about scorecards that are available for all to see, yet you don't know the
difference between odo and Tests, World Cups or ICC Trophy, or even rugby and
cricket?

Higgsy

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Kames » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 14:41:00


Quote:

> I'm not so sure what you mean.
> if 270 is the target set, 270 is the score you have to reach to win the
game,
> the number of wickets lost is irrelevent.

In the earlier post
270 : Total to be reached to win..... It's different chasing that against
Australia as opposed to chasing that vs England.

Quote:
> > Aus has far
> > superior bowling both quality wise and options wise to defend that
total. I
> > am sure Gangers and Sehwag would have found McGrath, Gillespie and Lee
to
> > tough to handle.

> Really?
> You'd not give India a chance at making 270 against Aus?

I didnt say I would not give a chance. I said it will be tougher.

Quote:

> > By the same token, if India manages 300, the Aus batting has to only
contend
> > with the likes of Khan, Nehra, Kumble and Bhajji.
> > Advantage Australia.

> Umm,depends on the track.
> In this trophy, if India makes 300 against Aus (or anyone), I'd say they
are in
> an extremely strong position to win that match

Zimbabwe with their batting came within 14 runs chasing 288. Need I say
more.

Kamesh

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by India Fa » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:35:47


Quote:
> No arguments from me there, I dont think there is much between
> the sides. In Australia I would expect Australia to win 6 out of 10
>   but elsewhere its a 50/50 call

Maybe if both sides play against some neutral bowling/fielding team :-)

Quote:




Quote:
> > The Indian batting lineup in ODIs is at least good as that for Aus.  If
> > Indian bowling were just as good they'd beat Aus. more often than not.

> > Name  Average  Strike Rate

> > Sehwag  33.00   101.04
> > Ganguly  43.60    74.36
> > Mongia       33.26  76.19
> > Tendulkar  44.31    86.72
> > Dravid  38.36    68.62
> > Yuvraj  29.70    90.20
> > Kaif  56.30    82.43

> > Gilchrist   33.65    89.62
> > Hayden  42.48    76.49
> > Ponting  41.50    76.40
> > Martyn   39.74    78.80
> > Lehmann  35.91    81.62
> > Bevan   55.19    75.38
> > Watson   39.00    67.24

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by dechuck » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:51:42


Quote:








> > > > > > it is called a team because both parts of it ( batsmen and
bowlers)
> > must
> > > > > > succeed for the team to win. You can win with any total but the
> > bowlers
> > > > must
> > > > > > take 20 wickets ( excluding dec. of course). It seems to me that
> > > > > > paraphrasing a golf saying "you bat for glory bowl for the win"
is
> > > > > > appropriate

> > > > > > India is a great batting side but the bowling really lets them
down
> > > > > > particularly when they are O/S

> > > > > Try to keep up.
> > > > > The post quite specifically refers to odos.
> > > > > I'd agree that the Indian bowling isn't up to the Aus standard,
even
> > for
> > > > odos,
> > > > > but their batting clearly is.
> > > > > And in odos, you don't have to bowl even one batsman out to
> > win........

> > > > thankyou hIguy for that comment I will try to keep up in future, do
feel
> > > > good now that you have shown up an aussie.

> > > Why do you have to drag it to a personal level?

> > I didn't I was genuinely interested if it made you feel good or not. I'm
> > always interested in the NZ psyche

> It sounded personal to me.
> do you say the same thing to everyone who points out a mistake of yours,
or only
> NZealanders?

no I'm genuinely interested in how some people from such a great country
with so much going for it could be so paranoid and have such a large chup on
their collective shoulder about another country so close to them with so
much in common

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > > You stuffed up.
> > > Admit it and move on.

> > Sorry I made a comment about Test cricket when the thread was about ODI
> > sorry OK

> There's a big difference between the two.
> And you claim that it's your favourite sport and you post here asking
questions
> about scorecards that are available for all to see, yet you don't know the
> difference between odo and Tests, World Cups or ICC Trophy, or even rugby
and
> cricket?

> Higgsy

I'm so sorry that I upset you hgy
 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Ken Higg » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:24:53

Quote:



> > I'm not so sure what you mean.
> > if 270 is the target set, 270 is the score you have to reach to win the
> game,
> > the number of wickets lost is irrelevent.

> In the earlier post
> 270 : Total to be reached to win..... It's different chasing that against
> Australia as opposed to chasing that vs England.

For sure, Aus has a better bowling line up than England

Quote:

> > > Aus has far
> > > superior bowling both quality wise and options wise to defend that
> total. I
> > > am sure Gangers and Sehwag would have found McGrath, Gillespie and Lee
> to
> > > tough to handle.

> > Really?
> > You'd not give India a chance at making 270 against Aus?

> I didnt say I would not give a chance. I said it will be tougher.

I misread 'to' as 'too'

Quote:

> > > By the same token, if India manages 300, the Aus batting has to only
> contend
> > > with the likes of Khan, Nehra, Kumble and Bhajji.
> > > Advantage Australia.

> > Umm,depends on the track.
> > In this trophy, if India makes 300 against Aus (or anyone), I'd say they
> are in
> > an extremely strong position to win that match

> Zimbabwe with their batting came within 14 runs chasing 288. Need I say
> more.

> Kamesh

Well, yes.
I'd say that India is usually going to concede a largish total to the batting
side, the stronger the side, the more runs (or perhpas just 'one of those
days'), but their strength lies in having a number of batsmen who can score
large totals at a rapid rate.
In any match involving India, I'd say it's much more likely that you'll see
Tendulkar or someone score a ton at a run a  ball than see India bowl out the
opposition for <150 or effect 4 run outs and hold 4 unbelievable catches

Higgsy

 
 
 

Indian ODI batting line-up as good as that of the Aussies

Post by Ken Higg » Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:37:41

Quote:

> no I'm genuinely interested in how some people from such a great country
> with so much going for it could be so paranoid and have such a large chup on
> their collective shoulder about another country so close to them with so
> much in common

With comments like that (the continual use of 'chup' and 'fush', the continual
references to paranoia and the continual bragging about Australia in the most
inappropriate contexts), hasn't it crossed your mind that some people might get
the idea that you aren't genuinely interested at all and are simply indulging in
attempts at one-upmanship?

But to answer your original question, I corrected you because you were wrong. If
it hadn't have been me, it would have been someone else.
It happens all the time around here, you can't even make a typo without someone
posting something.
Or are you so insecure that you think people only do that sort of thing to you
because you're Australian?

Quote:

> > > > You stuffed up.
> > > > Admit it and move on.

> > > Sorry I made a comment about Test cricket when the thread was about ODI
> > > sorry OK

> > There's a big difference between the two.
> > And you claim that it's your favourite sport and you post here asking
> questions
> > about scorecards that are available for all to see, yet you don't know the
> > difference between odo and Tests, World Cups or ICC Trophy, or even rugby
> and
> > cricket?

> > Higgsy

> I'm so sorry that I upset you hgy

You didn't particularly upset me, all I did was point out a mistake you made.
That you thought it was due to my being  a Kiwi is your problem, not mine.

Higgsy