Two New Ball Were Used To Each Ends @Chennai.WOW !!

[Wapas]

Details coming up.

Smith says,'' its difficult to chase 164 in 21 overs, if you need to chase with two new ball one each from each end'

Its more easy with one ball, rains ruin Australia.

 

Never going to be easy chasing 160 with two new balls: Smith

Chennai, September 17 2017

Smith rued his side's inability to capitalise on a good start to the game as they succumbed to defeat in the first ODI

Australia captain Steven Smith opined that the rain interruption between innings played a critical role in his side's defeat in the opening One-Day International against India at the MA Chidambaram Stadium in Chennai. The visitors were set a revised target of 164 runs in 21 overs after a brief spell of showers delayed the game by over two hours after India notched up 281 for 7.

 

The truncation left Australia with little time for consolidation in the chase. While the simple mathematical implication of the target revision was that Smith's side had to tune into a T20 mindset, the presence of a second new ball skewed the situation significantly in India's favour.

 

"It was never going to be easy chasing 160 with two new balls. I think 160 with one new ball would have made things a lot easier," Smith said on Sunday (September 17). "When you have two new balls from both ends, as you saw the whole game, we took three wickets with the new ball and they found it quite hard. It was the same for us. When you are playing 20 overs, you don't have a great deal of time to make things up. You need eight an over basically from ball one. It was difficult in that aspect. Perhaps we could have been a little bit more defensive at the start, keep wickets in hand and went harder later."

 

Incidentally, the impediments built between Australia and a series lead were all their own doing. After a bright start to the game courtesy of Nathan Coulter-Nile and Pat Cummins's opening burst, the visitors let the initiative slip away with the backup bowling of Marcus Stoinis and James Faulkner struggling to provide the same level of control and incision. To make matters worse, Smith endured a rare off day in the field, reprieving Rohit Sharma early on and then, more importantly, dropping Hardik when he had only 13 on the board. The all-rounder would go on to club a match-clinching 83 off 66.

 

"You always want to take your catches," Smith said. "I obviously dropped one early and one that sort of yorked me as well - the Hardik Pandya's one, I couldn't get my hands underneath it. Unfortunately, we weren't able to capitalise on what was a very good start. 5 for 87 and then I think it was 6 for 206 (205). That partnership [between Dhoni and Pandya] turned out to be a match-winning one. I thought MS and Hardik played very well.

 

"I think we probably we went away from our plans a little bit. We were hitting such a good length and certainly persisted with that for a while with the good bouncers we were bowling. We were trying too many things, too many slower balls, just not hitting that good hard length we were hitting early on. That partnership changed the game. They put 120 odd (118) and took them from 87 to 206 (205). In the end that proved to be a match-winning partnership."

 

Smith also admitted that he may have erred in his plans to keep overs of an under-cooked James Faulkner at the end given Dhoni's propensity to tee off at the fag end. But his plan was predicated on the idea that Australia stood a chance to skittle India out for a sub-par total even after the Pandya-Dhoni stand. Instead, the ploy to bring back Coulter-Nile failed to reap further breakthroughs and Bhuvneshwar Kumar turned into an able ally of the former Indian captain and his mission for a 270-plus total. The pair added 72 runs in 53 balls with Faulkner's final two overs going for 31 runs.

 

"I had in my plan to begin with that Coulter-Nile and finish with Cummins. But when we got the wicket of Hardik, I thought it was an opportunity to bring Coulter-Nile back on and go for the throat. Another wicket or two there, we could have bowled India out. So that was my decision at that point in time. Obviously MS hit Jimmy (James Faulkner) pretty well in the end. It wasn't ideal but that's cricket."

 

Resources
Crickettotal.com

Edited September 17, 2017 by Wapas

[Straight_talk]

As a long term I guest, i created this id because I couldn't take this anymore. Are you a moron with IQ LEVEL similar to Courtney walsh's battin average? Moderators or admin of this site, please delete thia stupid thread and user or soon no one will be coming here. 2 new balls are being used aince 2011. Smith never said anything like this, so basically this thread is a pile of crrap like the OP himself. Oh btw, Wapas or don't fool anyone saying you are from the States, i am sure you have never gone out of your state. 

[rkt.india]

2 hours ago, Straight_talk said:

As a long term I guest, i created this id because I couldn't take this anymore. Are you a moron with IQ LEVEL similar to Courtney walsh's battin average? Moderators or admin of this site, please delete thia stupid thread and user or soon no one will be coming here. 2 new balls are being used aince 2011. Smith never said anything like this, so basically this thread is a pile of crrap like the OP himself. Oh btw, Wapas or don't fool anyone saying you are from the States, i am sure you have never gone out of your state. 

Smith did say it in press conference that two new balls made it difficult under lights.

Edited September 18, 2017 by rkt.india

[sandeep]

14 hours ago, Straight_talk said:

As a long term I guest, i created this id because I couldn't take this anymore. Are you a moron with IQ LEVEL similar to Courtney walsh's battin average? Moderators or admin of this site, please delete thia stupid thread and user or soon no one will be coming here. 2 new balls are being used aince 2011. Smith never said anything like this, so basically this thread is a pile of crrap like the OP himself. Oh btw, Wapas or don't fool anyone saying you are from the States, i am sure you have never gone out of your state. 

Wow, something's sure got your panties twisted.  

 

OK, you can argue that Smith didn't directly blame the 2 new balls and claiming that he did is a bit of an exaggeration.  But he definitely did bring it up in that context.   So he did in fact, make the excuse, just not as outright and shamelessly as reported.     

 

And this sort of mild exaggeration is absolutely nothing compared to the deranged twisting that Australian media routinely resorts to, when it goes into its usual "us vs them" mentality regarding opponents that are actually competitive vs Australia.  

 

Newsflash - Media and sports journalism often indulge in a bit of exaggeration and word-play in an effort to pursue more readers and clicks.  Is this really breaking news to you?

[Straight_talk]

On 9/18/2017 at 9:26 PM, sandeep said:

Wow, something's sure got your panties twisted.  

 

OK, you can argue that Smith didn't directly blame the 2 new balls and claiming that he did is a bit of an exaggeration.  But he definitely did bring it up in that context.   So he did in fact, make the excuse, just not as outright and shamelessly as reported.     

 

And this sort of mild exaggeration is absolutely nothing compared to the deranged twisting that Australian media routinely resorts to, when it goes into its usual "us vs them" mentality regarding opponents that are actually competitive vs Australia.  

 

Newsflash - Media and sports journalism often indulge in a bit of exaggeration and word-play in an effort to pursue more readers and clicks.  Is this really breaking news to you?

Dude trust me - no love lost for oz media. I am more pissed off at this poster for the low quality posts he makes. So i over reacted a bit. My bad.