My review: Australia crumbles under pressure

I watched day 3 of the 2nd test match between Aus vs NZ, live coming from Hobart. The conditions for the match were even with a good game for the batsmen, and for the bowlers. If you read the game was between Aus and NZ without knowing the quality of the players, then you'd think Australia will have an upper hand on any day. The purpose of this post is to review the quality of Australian batsmen on a day when they should have won the match easily. Ofcourse, I come with a bias that Australia, being ranked higher always, will win. This review doesn't reflect the bias.

I will start with Khawaja. Khawaja has been brilliant in the aussie domestic circuit but paltry at the International level. My assessment is he is a Graeme Hick type of cricketer which means he will excel in domestic cricket but not cut out for International cricket. May be not yet. Watch this video and you may think he is the next Saeed Anwar.

At International level though, he is slow. His shot selection is pathetic. Will experience give him a boost? Unfortunately, if you are an Australian, you can't be using your International outing for experience because of the rich talent the circuit has. IMO, he should be out.

Next comes Phil Hughes. He was very good in previous years. But, he is very shaky with slight swing on the hint. Watch this poor dismissal in this video at 0:13.

He was dismissed similar way in many ocassions. As an opener, you got to be having sound technique. You don't give catching practice to the slips with a cross batted shot. He should be out of the team.

David Warner has come as a replacement for the injured Shane Watson, he is considered a limited overs specialist. He should be in the team. Not every batsman is perfect with strong technique. I am not admiring him for his technique yesterday, neither keeping the 3 figure score in my mind. It is the grit that he showed out there yesterday mattered. Players like Steve Waugh, Saurav Ganguly, Dean Jones, Javed Miandad,have won matches for their countries not with a strong technique but with strong determination. Their batting may look ugly at times, but if you look at the change they bring into the team with their positive attitude, and their ability to fight it out in the middle, they stand higher than those with stronger technique. I am sure David Warner's team would have drawn inspiration from his batting yesterday.

Michael Clarke has been ok with the bat but I have problems with his team selection. I defeinitely think he is not a good captain material. He is a deceptive person and that doesn't bear fruits in the long run. Keeping Katich out is a sin, not a mistake. Katich has the best defense compared to anyone in the present team.

March, and Watson become automatic choices to the team when they return after injuries. That would still not make this team look a great test team.

Australia should play atleast 2 batsmen with a strong defense in the test matches. Can you name a batsman in the current team with such defensive technique?

Congratulations to the Kiwis, this review doesn't take anything away from them. They made the best of their abilities and won the match. If Australia applied themselves in the middle, they would not have lost the match. period. A team doesn't go from 150/2 to 199/9 without negligence on the same pitch and conditions.

Australia's bowlers are not world class but they are very young. Given their talent, they have done a good job.

The Chappell bias

Ian Chappell is a noted cricket commentator and analyst. His views are well received and appluaded for the balance he maintains. Just like normal beings, these famous personalities also show their true colors sometimes. The underlying bias just cannot hide! Today morning I was reading how Ricky Ponting should continue with the game in his current state and should not think about retirement. How did the same Chappell advocate the best cricketer of our times to retire?

It is funny to read the rationale he used 4 years back. Chappell mocks the double hundred that Sachin scored at SCG saying Sachin labored through the innings. That is 200 runs guys! Any level cricketer would die to score a 100, let alone 200. How Chappell used that performance to say Sachin needs to retire is beyond my understanding? Chappell continued to say that if Sachin is not performing at his peak, he should retire.

Compare that with what he says of Ponting now.

It's doubtful if Ponting can consistently produce big innings like in his glory days, but if he's prepared to play at a slightly lower standard, he can still be a useful contributor to this young team.

So, Ponting can continue if he is valuable enough, but Sachin should retire because he showed less agility in scoring a 200? How are people like Chappell allowed to comment when the inherent bias clearly creeps up? Is that envy on Sachin? I am not going to say Chappell shows discrimination but who knows! This is only an example of Chappell's bias. There are numerous other instances when Chappell showed his true colors. What is the difference between an ordinary Australian fan and a noted columnist then if both behave in the same way? I used Australian fan as an example only, but you can substitute a cricket fan from any country who show obvious jealously on a cricketing great from a different country. I don't even want to talk about Greg Chappell because he is an acknowledged worldwide fool.

The stats are also heavily stacked up against Chappell's commentary. Sachin scored test runs at a 58.88 average in tests (career average is 56), 50.13 in ODIs vs Ponting's average of 39 (career average 52) in tests and 45 in ODIs since 2007.

While Ponting is still scoring runs at a decent enough average to continue in the team, Chappell should stop his bias against cricketing greats from other countries. It is time for Ian Chappell to retire from all forms of commentary effective immediately. Somebody convey this message to him.