Fringe candidates flunk audition for T20 World Cup as Australia caned by India: 'Failing to execute at critical moments'

I'm not aware of anyone other than Moeen Ali who both played and complained (and he only came in for the final game). But even if you're right, I don't get your logic. Surely senior players who don't really want to be there but still actually front up to play, is a step up in attitude towards a series compared to senior players not even being in the country? Moeen Ali played in a dead rubber; Glenn Maxwell went home while the series was still live, having been the only player who looked likely to cause India real problems. We haven't pushed India every game. We've been comfortably beaten in 2 of them. That's neither here nor there, though. As I've said above, the results themselves are less consequential to this debate because India's own team selections show they cared almost as little about this series as Australa did. I'm sure if Australia had rested a few more senior players last year the results against England would have been tighter too (although T20s will always be more prone to upsets than ODIs). This was never about opportunities, it was all about availability. Of course McDermott and Dwarshius tried hard, because how often do they actually get to represent their country? But there's no way they were getting those games if guys like Marsh and Hazlewood had actually wanted to take part. They played simply because they were next in line after everyone else pulled out. The selectors don't get credit for that as far as I'm concerned.

No one is denying that the timing of the series is not ideal, much like the ODI series last year. The difference is that Australia has made the most of this series to give opportunities to fringe players who have pushed India in every game. There have been no complaints from players actually over there playing the series. Mitch Marsh wasn't playing the series. England had non-stop loud complaints from players involved in the series and the negative attitude showed in their performance, being embarrassed in each and every match. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand. The difference in attitude has been night and day.

Good grief, this is getting absurd. How do you look at this and see ‘giving opportunities’? The opportunities are purely a byproduct of the fact that a whole bunch of senior players - basically an entire team at this point - either didn't see out the series or just chose not to be there at all. Even the head coach isn’t involved. You don’t get any better evidence of disinterest in a series than that. A comical final ball win when India should have cruised home, followed by one freakish knock by Maxwell against India’s B attack, doesn’t change our overall approach to the series. I haven’t shifted anything. My point was always that we were disinterested in this series, which I stand by. Sure, I could have given a better explanation in my initial comment but I never expected anyone to actually try to argue against the blatantly obvious. Oh, and now Mitch Marsh has come out and said it’s ‘outrageous’ that we’re playing this series. So there’s your complaint from one of our (absent) senior players.

It would never have been a dot ball though? It was hit for 6! You’re making it sound as if it was the no ball that made the difference between a win and a tie, when it was irrelevant. But fine, call it close, it doesn’t change the overall point. You have totally misunderstood my point. I’m saying that prior to that last ball being bowled, the result of the match had not been determined. If the match result is not determined until the final ball has been delivered, that is a close match in my books. The fact that it was a no-ball hit for six doesn’t change that fact. But according to you it isn’t a close game for whatever reason. Do you think the third match was close when Maxwell hit a 4 off the last ball to win? Or was it not close according to you? By citing Australia’s win, you’re overlooking the fact that Australia played a near full strength side in the ODIs. India is playing a second string team here and it still took some heroics by Maxwell to get Australia over the line for one win in 3 games. You don’t think the result might have been a bit different had Rohit, Bumrah, Kohli, Kuldeep, etc been playing? So, having lost the argument regarding your claim that none of the games were close (which was the primary point in your initial comment), you’ve moved the goalposts to claim it was a second string England team vs a full strength Australian team last year and a second string India team vs a full strength Australian team this year. Not true. India and Australia are both playing second string teams in this series, with Australia missing Warner, Marsh, Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood, plus Smith, Head, Maxwell, Zampa all missing games. Kuldeep is not a regular T20I player, guys like SKY, Axar Patel, Arshdeep Singh all are. Last year both England and Australia were not that far apart strength-wise. Roy (still in the first choice XI until just before the World Cup), Malan, Buttler, Moeen, Curran, Willey, Woakes and Adil Rashid all played. Australia were missing Glenn Maxwell for the whole series and rested Marsh, Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood at points during the series. It’s no different to when Australia sent a half strength team missing Warner, Smith, Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood to Pakistan earlier in the year against a full strength Pakistan line-up and managed to compete strongly in a 2-1 series loss. I didn’t see any poor attitude from England at all when they were on the field last year, I saw an under-strength side struggling because they were lacking key players, and they were maybe a bit low-energy on the comedown from the high of winning the world cup. The whinging from guys like Ali (who only played game 3) and Stokes/Root (who didn’t even play at all) is irrelevant when talking about the attitude of the guys who did the heavy lifting on the field. Was Malan not trying? What about Willey? Their captain Buttler also complained about the series, as did Adil Rashid. And those are just the ones I remember. Buttler said “Lots of people are talking about how to keep bilateral cricket relevant and this is a good example of how not to do it” and Rashid said “Those kinds of things are a shame. Having a game in three days' time, it's horrible.” Their attitude was terrible and it showed. My point is that Australia – the setup, not the individual players – is not taking this series seriously, just as England didn’t last year. The absurdly long and growing list of absences clearly illustrates that. There doesn’t need to be public whinging from senior players or a blase attitude on-field to confirm what is already obvious from selections alone. You’ve provided no evidence for your claim that Australia is not taking this series seriously. On the contrary, they’ve used it to give Steve Smith and Travis Head runs as an opener in T20I cricket, they’ve given Maxwell an opportunity to turn around some pretty poor T20I form in recent years, they’ve given Josh Inglis a chance to shine up the order and they’ve used the opportunity to develop their depth and look at different options in the format. The results, response from the players and approach from team management all couldn’t be more different from the “contractual obligation” approach of the whinging Poms last year. There is absolutely no evidence to support your view that the two situations are in any way equivalent.

It would never have been a dot ball though? It was hit for 6! You're making it sound as if it was the no ball that made the difference between a win and a tie, when it was irrelevant. But fine, call it close, it doesn't change the overall point. By citing Australia's win, you're overlooking the fact that Australia played a near full strength side in the ODIs. India is playing a second string team here and it still took some heroics by Maxwell to get Australia over the line for one win in 3 games. You don't think the result might have been a bit different had Rohit, Bumrah, Kohli, Kuldeep, etc been playing? I didn't see any poor attitude from England at all when they were on the field last year, I saw an under-strength side struggling because they were lacking key players, and they were maybe a bit low-energy on the comedown from the high of winning the world cup. The whinging from guys like Ali (who only played game 3) and Stokes/Root (who didn't even play at all) is irrelevant when talking about the attitude of the guys who did the heavy lifting on the field. Was Malan not trying? What about Willey? My point is that Australia - the setup, not the individual players - is not taking this series seriously, just as England didn't last year. The absurdly long and growing list of absences clearly illustrates that. There doesn't need to be public whinging from senior players or a blase attitude on-field to confirm what is already obvious from selections alone.

What did I write that was incorrect? I said “a dot ball instead of a no-ball on the final ball of the match would have seen the game tied”, which is exactly the same as what you wrote. You’ve “corrected” me by writing exactly what I wrote. So the result of the match (tie or loss) was determined on the final ball and you don’t consider that a tight game? I guess very few games are close by your definition then – only those where all three results are possible off the very last ball? I’m not sure why you think the fact that a series of wickets in the last over lead to the result being determined off the last ball means it wasn’t a close game. That’s why I brought up the Maxwell fightback – to point out that it doesn’t matter if one side is ahead at an earlier stage of a game, if the result isn’t determined until the very end it is by any reasonable definition a close game! The Afghanistan game also “wasn’t a close game”, until it was. It's a bit strange to cite the players missing in game 3 to prove that Australia’s attitude to these T20Is has been as poor as England’s towards the ODIs last year, given that Australia won game 3. That result rather proves my point – England were not remotely in the contest in the ODIs last year because of their poor attitude, whereas Australia has won one game and taken another to the last ball. Your case seems to be based on a last ball win not being a close result and ignoring that Australia has done enough to win a game and be generally competitive in this series, all whilst not constantly whinging about having to play the games – just getting on with it and bringing in reinforcements as needed.

Those half track off spinners by Hardie (and Ellis) are just boundary fodder. Hardie never bowls that stuff for WA. Who decides that's how to bowl in India? The Indian quicks never do that.

First of all, that's incorrect. India only needed 1 off the final ball with a set batter on strike and the scores already tied. It actually went for 6 but because it was a no ball, the six didn't count. Had it not been a no ball, India's official score would have been 5 runs higher than it was. They were never losing that game. They needed 2 runs to win with 4 balls to go. All that happened was an absolute comedy of errors that *still* didn't cost them. Australia literally needed 4 wickets in the last 4 balls without India scoring a single run to win that match. Secondly, what's 'ludicrous' is you comparing this to Maxwell's fightback vs Afghanistan. As miraculous as that win was, when Maxwell and Cummins came together we still had 30 overs left with an elite batter at the crease. With 10 overs left in the game and two set batters in, it was, by any definition, close. Thirdly, Australia went into game 3 missing Warner, Smith, Marsh, Zampa, Cummins, Hazlewood and Starc. Now Maxwell, Stoinis, Inglis and Abbott are flying home with the series still alive. That's 11 of our first 13-14 preferred players out. How is that the same as rotating out 3-4 players for the SA series?!? And we weren't really even treating those series as much more than a WC warm up either! Fourthly, express complaints are hardly the only indicator of attitude. If you're serious about a series you don't fly a bunch of key players home in the middle of it. If England hadn't actively complained but the teams and results were the same, would that mean they somehow took it more seriously? Yes, the players try when they are out on the park, because they are professionals. Maxwell, Wade and Behrendorf clearly had a crack last night, just like Malan, Billings and Rashid did at various points last year. None of that changes the fact that the heirarchy is *clearly* only giving lip service to this series, just as England's did. Even India knows these games are just about ticking off TV obligations, which is why 80% of their first choice side aren't playing.

Not dropped, they are just giving the entire squad game time. Hardie has opened the batting and bowled four overs in the third game. How did that go?

To be fair Dorff gets the new ball. He is brilliant with it too

Well Hardie’s performance in the third match suggests not. The Dorff though should be in our top squad for sure

Lift your game DTM..practise required :happy:

It’s a ludicrous argument to state that Australia didn’t run India close when a dot ball instead of a no-ball on the final ball of the match would have seen the game tied. By your logic, Australia didn’t run Afghanistan close in the World Cup because they were 7/90 chasing 290 and had a 0.2% chance to win – “a cakewalk” in ODI terms. Winning the game off the last ball with 2 wickets in hand is a close result by any measure. Australia frequently rest and rotate players in white ball bilateral series to try new players and keep their all-format players fresh. How is this any different to the team sent over to South Africa in the ODI series prior to the World Cup, which was missing Starc, Cummins, Smith and Maxwell, or the T20I series which was also missing Hazlewood and Warner? Even in the England 2022 ODI series there was some rest and rotation, notably experimenting with Josh Hazlewood captaining one of the games. The difference is not in the personnel but in the attitude. England are serial whingers who complain all the time – complained about having to play an ODI series when they should have been preparing for a World Cup and lost 3-0, complained about having to play the Ashes in 2021/22 and lost 4-0, complain about the pitches in India, complain about legitimate stumpings, even complain about having to have a beer with the opposition. Australia just get on with it and that’s why they are serial winners, rather than serial whiners.

I'd have played for nothing too - no runs, no wickets, no catches, no saves.

They didn't really run India close, though. India only needed 7 from the last over with 5 wickets in hand - that's a cakewalk in T20 terms, especially on a flat deck. They managed to throw away a few late wickets with silly decisions but the game was virtually dead with about 3 left. No complaints from within the camp itself, because that's not the Australian style under McDonald. Look beyond that, though - Warner, Marsh, Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins all went home, and Head was given a break to rest his wrist (i.e. recover from his hangover). Behrendorff was left out of the second game despite comfortably being Australia's best bowler in the first match, just so they could have a look at Zampa and Sangha operating together. They're taking the series about as seriously as England did. And at least England got beaten by something near a full strength Australian side, as opposed to India's second string team.

Yes, and clearly I was not talking about that innings. I agreed with your point.

An XI India should've gone with Rohit, Gill, Kohli, Iyer, Rahul, Hooda, Axar, Unadkat, Bumrah, Shami, Kuldeep This allows them to play their ultra aggressive style up front while also having a better tail that wouldn't crumble with the bat. Having two passengers in their top seven + a long tail meant that India were on the back foot once Iyer got out in the 11th over. Australia exposed that flaw brilliantly and got India bowled out for 50-60 runs below par

So now it's two changes, neither of which replace a bowler with a batter. Try again.

2 wickets from each of your 5 bowlers will result in you bowling the opposition team out. That in itself is going to win you the game 9 times out of 10 in a ODI. So even Freo Don must have been happy with his Country's bowlers rising to the occasion when it really mattered the most, like in a Word Cup ODI Final!! 3 wickets from Starc & 2-34 from Captain Cummins, great effort against that previously unbeaten Indian team.

They won a world cup with a team that was not our best. Smith did nothing. Marnus was slow. The quicks (apart from Hazlewood) were poor.