Why the criticism? What's all this pessimism for? What's it based on and what's in aid of?
So what if India failed in an inconsequential practice match?
That is what practice matches are for, aren't they? To fail but yet not lose anything?
I remember India's seminal tour of Australia in 2003-04, Steve Waugh's farewell series, when Ganguly's brave India shook the might of Australia in their home at their peak and almost defeated them at Sydney, in a home series, after their loss in 2001 to India,
It took another 5 years before Aus would lose a home series, and 7 years, in 2010-11 when Aus would lose home and away to the same team- England.
During that tour, India's performance in all the practice games was poor.
_________________________________________________________
In the first match, which was very similar to what has transpired at Somerset, their best batsman of the series- Rahul Dravid made a 21 ball duck and fell to Inness, who never played a Test in his life.
Inness' victims in that match:
Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag and Ganguly
Quite a catch that for Inness one would say right?
Incidentally the unknown Inness who wrecked India's illustrious top order was also a left-arm seamer like the old South African Charl Willoughby who skittled India's top order at Somerset.
_________________________________________________________
Wouldn't one have gotten the impression after such a performance by India that they would find it hard to score runs in the series or take wickets, let alone save or win Tests in the series?
Wouldn't they be mere pushovers? Worse than Bangladesh ever were?
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Throughout the 3 practice matches, (two of them were played before the start of the series and another at the midway stage, after 2 Tests):
1. India never scored a hundred in any of the matches while the opposition in every match scored a hundred
Even a massive double hundred (264) was scored by Brad Hodge in the 1st match.
2. Never bowled out the opposition in even a single innings out of 6.
3. Never took the lead under any circumstance- not even after playing two innings.
4. Struggled to score even 300 in any of those 6 innings- the highest being 266/9d.
5. If those matches had been played for 5 days, there can be no doubt that India would have lost all of them.
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
Yet come the real series, India:
1. Scored a hundred in their first innings of the series and took the first innings lead as well.
2. Won the 2nd Test of the series after Dravid, who had a forgettable time in the practice matches, scored a massive double hundred in the first innings and 305 runs in total in the Test.
3. Their lowest score of the series was 286-in the 3rd Test which they eventually lost. All other innings were 300 or more and in every Test (except the 3rd) they had one innings of 400 or more.
4. Bowled out Aus 5 times, one more than Aus bowled out India.
5.
Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag and Ganguly, who fell to Inness in the 1st practice match would all score big hundreds in the series.
Dravid who scored a 21 ball duck to Inness and endured the worst possible start to the tour, was the man of the series and the best batsman on display, scoring 600+ runs at an Ave of 124.
None of India's batsmen scored a hundred in all the practice matches, yet all of the top batsmen viz., Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly and Sehwag scored a big hundred in the series (140+)
200s & 190s count: India 3- Australia 2
100s & 90s count: India 5- Australia 5
runs/wicket ratio of both teams:
India- 49.22
Aust- 47.42
6.
In the end, Australia just escaped a mighty upset at Sydney after India chose not to enforce the follow-on, but it has to be said that in all aspects, India were the superior team in the series and that the India playing the practice matches was a total impostor compared to the India playing the real Border-Gavaskar series.
So let's stop reading too much into practice matches! Patiently wait for the real series to start before observing trends.
Why the criticism?
posted on 17/7/11
Forgot to post the links for the above mentioned matches:
1st Practice Match- Victoria Vs. India XI
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/132101.html
2nd Practice Match- Queensland Vs. India XI
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/125729.html
3rd Practice Match- Australia A Vs. India XI
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/125946.html
All Results of India's tour of Aus 2003-04
http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/IND_IN_AUS//IND_IN_AUS_NOV2003-FEB2004_RESULTS-SUMMARY.html
posted on 17/7/11
I completely agree, India have looked below par in the first match of the sreies ...at least the recent ones.
If the practice match is considered their first in the series, they will only get better.
I don't think the real fans are taking practice match
seriously, ignore afridi, Topdog and other pak v ums. They need something to cheer about amongst all the gloom surrounding them.
posted on 17/7/11
That is what practice matches are for, aren't they? To fail but yet not lose anything?
_____________________________
No practice matches are not there for a team to "fail".... they are there to get in your "practice" and if you fail to get "practice" then the ulimate objective is not achieved!!!!
posted on 17/7/11
All I can say is if you ask a batsman do you feel more prepared and more likely to suceed if you have had a good knock before the 1st test match they will say yes.
There is a lot of experience amonst the Indian batsman but even those players would feel more comfortable going into the Lords Test with a decent knock, if only by 5%.
posted on 17/7/11
fourthree:
Sehwag's view on practice matches:
"If you ask me, I don't like practice games at all. Because instead of spending time in the practice games, I would like to spend more time on my batting in the nets, or I would prefer resting. Because I know that if I score a hundred in the practice game then maybe my next innings will not be as good. So it's better that the hundred that you score in the practice game, you score in Test cricket. This is what I think, but there are other players for whom practice games are important, and they play those games. You are playing international cricket for so many years, so you are used to it and you know what to do and what not to do."
The above was quoted straight from this interview:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/389105.html
That should adequately answer your question.
If not, I'll add this:
Any batsman might feel good with scoring well in any match but one must remember that scoring heavily in practice matches does not guarantee success in Tests.
So whether they succeed or fail they should feel no different.
And I don't see why fans should criticize their stars for missing out on the 5% confidence you talk about.
Even as half-batsmen Tendulkar, Dravid and Co. would tower above most others.
_____________________________________
Afridi:
"No practice matches are not there for a team to "fail".... they are there to get in your "practice" and if you fail to get "practice" then the ulimate objective is not achieved!!!!"
******** Well did they not get enough practice? All the bowlers had 10-20 overs and the batsmen had about 30 balls each.
But you count in as to what was the result of this practice which I must reiterate again does not matter since it is just practice.
This whole article is about why it does not matter so if you fail to understand the point do not expect me to explain it again. Keep wasting your breath- you shall not get replies from me.
posted on 17/7/11
Forgive me Rex, I did not have time to read it all but was the simple message from all those words that there have been some successful tours following a poor start in practise games?
Because the obvious response to this is, yes absolutely, but there have also been plenty of unsuccessful ones.
posted on 17/7/11
Danny
Would you care to tell us all those tours that were lost because the touring team performed badly in a practice match.
Series are lost because one team performed better during the series and has nothing to do with practice matches.
What I'm trying to say is- whatever happens on practice matches doesn't matter. So you didn't that point.