The victorious draw in Sydney

The victorious draw in Sydney

3 Comments

We discuss the third Test in Sydney, where India held on for a valiant draw.

Talking Points:

  • When a draw was like a win
  • Steve Smith resumes normal service
  • The versatile Mr Jadeja
  • Rohit and Gill – partners in promise
  • India’s decision to pick Pant despite his wicketkeeping problems
  • Is one allowed to get run-out in Test cricket?
  • Pant’s sizzling 97 on day five
  • Ashwin and Vihari and the show of defiance
  • Can India find 11 fit men for Brisbane?

Participants:

Kartikeya Date (@cricketingview)

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan (@sidvee)

Ashoka (@ABVan)

Mahesh Sethuraman (@cornerd)

Related:

A tragicomedy called 36 all out โ€“ 81allout podcast

The Melbourne bounceback – 81allout podcast

The Melbourne Miracle of 1981 โ€“ 81allout podcast

The draw that meant so much more – Siddhartha Vaidyanathan, 81allout.com

Pujara’s triumph: cricket, lovely cricket – Kartikeya Date

Bruised and abused, Indians make their own luck at the SCG – Sidharth Monga, ESPNcricinfo

Rishabh Pant’s keeping – Ben Jones, cricviz.com

*

Lead image from here.


3 thoughts on “The victorious draw in Sydney”

  1. Initially I wondered if there’s anything left to be discussed wrt this Test, but I was wrong :). I am glad you guys reviewed the whole Test and not just the final day.

    Smith (and the other Smith) showed his class and also showed that he was not ‘found out’ in the earlier Tests. Anyway, he’s too good a batsman to be dismissed in traditional ways. Bumrah bowled really well in trying conditions and showed why temperament is so important in international cricket. Any other bowler and we’d have seen some nice pleasantries being exchanged and some family members getting involved, remotely. And yes, Bumra is back this time ๐Ÿ˜‰

    ABVan is back with his Sargasmastra with varying doses; how I wished Mahesh babu and him were in the same room when that Rohit discussion was on. I’ve been following MB since he’s defending Rohit Sharma. And it’s so good to see him backing RS through thick and thin. That’s the thing with touch players that they get out when in full flow as was the case with VVS. He’d do well on pitches where most of them struggled. But after a while, he found it difficult to keep his place in LOIs, probably there were way too many options then who were better movers on the ground that went against him. With Rohit, it’s the other way around. His numbers in LOIs are so good that’s it often becomes a case to try him in Tests one more time – lower middle order, then proper middle order, and now as an opener.

    And India can never try horses for courses for batsmen if I know correctly. Because you need to ‘reward’ the batsmen who’ve done well in overseas conditions even if they don’t do well in home conditions.

    Coming back to the Test, I think India were never in the chase; it’s just that the Pant innings had shifted the momentum a bit, so that Australia could never fully attack while he was there.

    Then about the HV/RA partnership, it is not right to dismiss that as “they just had to bat”. Yes, they were lucky, some chances were missed, some were dropped short. But then you ride your own luck and then there was physical discomfort. There was the fifth day pitch, which surprisingly didn’t play as it should have (but we are not complaining). And it’s the rub of the green you require, which was not there in the 2nd innings in Adelaide.

    I still believe the difference between the two sides is the 4 bowlers Australia have, both bowling and while batting. Their contribution is immense in both disciplines and not to forget the runout of HV. It was a freak dismissal in which he can blame nobody. It was his call and still he was short by some distance. Rest two runouts were less due to miscommunication and more due to the running abilities of the two runners :D.

    For the 4th Test, I see there’s not much wrt team selections that India could do. They have to play whatever is available. But given the inexperience in bowling, I’d love to see them pack the side with batsmen – Seven batsmen, four bowlers. Remember India just have to play a draw to retain the trophy and it’s Australia who’ve to call the shots ๐Ÿ™‚

    Rest later ๐Ÿ™‚

  2. ++

    Perhaps Gilchrist had the license to go for his shots; that’s why we do not remember his innings in which he grinded for a draw. Also there was a time when Australia refrained from sending a night-watchman barring a few Gillespie exceptions. They knew that they need to bat first and score 300+ quickly as they had the bowlers to take care of the rest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *