Why has Team India failed to find a permanent #4 for so long?

[Sooda]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

@express bowling makes some cogent points about the quality of our top 3.  Agree with him quite a bit.  

 

One thing I wanted to add is perhaps its time that we started thinking about batting units in limited overs cricket differently, giving less importance to their numerical sequence position, and more to the type of role a batsman is expected to play and his skills and effectiveness at doing that.   

 

ODI innings can be thought of as 3 sub-innings - the initial power play, the "middle phase" and the last 10-12 overs in the end, referred to as the "slog overs".  A good batting unit should be constructed in a manner that maximizes its run scoring productivity, as well as its efficiency in terms of being able to put up consistent results - across those 3 phases.  A fourth aspect of LOI batting is factoring in the slight variant in terms of approach that's required when chasing.  Where you need to be able to dynamically adapt your batting method in context to the conditions, game situation in terms of overs spent, wickets lost and required run-rate.   

 

We can contrast the Indian template with the England team's for example.  England have embraced a batting method that aims at maximizing run scoring and puts a premium on attacking batting, especially in the 1st phase.  Their openers and top order will regularly bat with a lot of intent, even if 1 or 2 wickets or lost.  And they will continue the aggressive approach right through the 50 overs, banking on a combination of their significant depth in batting, and the quality of their strikers.   England continue to play attacking cricket with the bat, treating ODI cricket as an elongated T20.  The calculated risk is that either the approach will succeed and the batsmen will continue scoring, or the batting unit is good enough and deep enough to keep playing in the same manner for 50 overs.   

 

This is in stark contrast to the Indian ODI approach.  Our openers quite openly sacrifice those potential extra 20 runs in the 1st 10 overs, unless the bowlers serve them up with clear boundary opportunities or the track is a total road, and they are able to attack without taking too much risk.  i.e. Its a significantly more risk averse approach than England's.  It is a calculated approach that aims at attempts to prevent the possibility of an early collapse leading to a significantly sub-par total - an outcome that is not uncommon for the new-fangled England ODI team.  

 

The price paid by India, for such a risk-averse approach in the 1st phase, is more often than not, made up by the sheer quality of the top order.  Especially if Rohit goes big - he has a singular ability to really hit boundaries at will against all opposition, once he's "in".   Add to that, we have, arguably the world's best and most effective batsman for the middle phase of an ODI batting for us at #3.   The guy is just freakishly consistent and a middle phase batting machine.  And if given a good cushion of wickets in hand, our lower middle-order, bolstered with the addition of Pandya and the gap-hitting proficiencies of Jadhav, is able to be quite productive in the 3rd stage as well.  

 

The problem for Team India, is when our plan A doesn't work.  If we do lose early wickets, our plan B is a big downgrade - and totally dependent on performances that deviate from the standard probabilities.  

 

If Dhawan gets out early, we often end up an additional 10 runs short in the 1st stage.  And if Kohli gets out early, the next guy in the team to play that middle innings quarterback role for us, is the aging Dhoni, who is nowhere near as fluent as Virat.  Some fans have hoped for KL Rahul to play this role, but Manish Pandey, to me, appears to be the best bet at the moment for playing that role for us - anchoring the innings through the middle phase.   I just feel that his temperament and skillset make him a viable candidate - he may not be as effective as VK, but should be good enough.     In any event, my belief is that given the quality of the batsmen in our squad overall, an optimal Indian ODI batting unit does not need more than 2 batsmen best suited for this role.  Especially because our 2 openers can also do the job.  

 

And instead of thinking of #3 and #4 as our "consolidator" batsmen.  We can put numbers aside and think of Virat and Dhoni as the guys designated for these roles, and surround them with free-scoring batsmen above and below.   My earlier post in this thread argues the case for just that.   

 

I strongly believe that unless the Indian team finds a way to get more runs out of the 1st phase of an ODI innings, especially in games where we lose an early wicket, we will not succeed in putting up match-winning totals.  This is the primary reason we lost the ODI series in Australia 4-0.  We lost the toss, had to bat first, and consistently came up 20-odd runs short of what would have been a winning score.  The same thing happened in that CT game against Sri Lanka.  And the home ODI series against South Africa.  

 

Rahul can be a solution for the opening phase, he can be an aggressor at the top to partner Shikar. But Rohit is not suitable no 3 or lower, because if he comes in after a strong start the length of time he takes to settle will just take momentum away and he isnt great at rotating strike.

 

An alternative to the current line up is playing Rahul at 3 and Virat at 4... Rahul can come in and if anything score at a quicker clip than the opening duo if an early wicket falls....with Manish in , he and MSD have to be at 4 and 5 between them. 

 

I would love to see Manish and Rahul both play, right now Kedars bowling gives him and edge though he isnt an ideal no 6 Rahul is better and potentially a better lower middle order bat- going by his T20 ton in WI alone :)

 

 

[Gollum]

Pertinent question. Another worry is we don't have enough quality lefties in our batting units across all 3 formats. I think the selectors and team management aren't looking hard enough. 

[Laaloo]

5 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Pertinent question. Another worry is we don't have enough quality lefties in our batting units across all 3 formats. I think the selectors and team management aren't looking hard enough. 

Gee I know one player who would be an instant upgrade in our LOI side. But I heard he's too young. Still need 50 more years in the domestic and only then maybe.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Laaloo

[Gollum]

1 minute ago, Laaloo said:

Gee I know one player who would be an instant upgrade in our LOI side. But he's too young. Still need 50 more years in the domestic and only then maybe.

May be that person isn't good at consolidating and isn't slow enough for modern day ODIs. 

[sandeep]

15 minutes ago, Sooda said:

 

Rahul can be a solution for the opening phase, he can be an aggressor at the top to partner Shikar. But Rohit is not suitable no 3 or lower, because if he comes in after a strong start the length of time he takes to settle will just take momentum away and he isnt great at rotating strike.

 

An alternative to the current line up is playing Rahul at 3 and Virat at 4... Rahul can come in and if anything score at a quicker clip than the opening duo if an early wicket falls....with Manish in , he and MSD have to be at 4 and 5 between them. 

 

I would love to see Manish and Rahul both play, right now Kedars bowling gives him and edge though he isnt an ideal no 6 Rahul is better and potentially a better lower middle order bat- going by his T20 ton in WI alone :)

 

 

Yeah, I would love to see Rahul @ #3 - that's what we did with Gambhir during the 2011 WC - he was our 3rd opener, but too good an ODI bat to sit out.  And played brilliantly for us in that tournament.  

 

On Pandey vs Kedar - I'm on record as being pro-Pandey.  But I have to admit that Kedar may not "look the part" but has put some seriously good performances with the bat.   And he does have an excellent gap-hitting method, that could potentially be very potent in the middle phase as well.   Keep in mind, only 4 out-fielders in the middle overs, as opposed to 5 in the last 10.  And this guy comes in and manages to hit gap boundaries in the slog overs.   The problem with Jadhav is that for me, he doesn't pass the eye test.  Somehow I keep thinking that his batting technique is going to come up short away from home, against better teams.  Would have absolutely no problems eating crow if proven wrong though.  

[sandeep]

11 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Pertinent question. Another worry is we don't have enough quality lefties in our batting units across all 3 formats. I think the selectors and team management aren't looking hard enough. 

Krunal Pandya almost seems magically conjured up from a yagna, for the Indian team.  Lefty? check.  Effective Power hitter? check. Can provide few overs of spin? check.   I just hope he lives up to the billing.

[Laaloo]

Just now, sandeep said:

Krunal Pandya almost seems magically conjured up from a yagna, for the Indian team.  Lefty? check.  Effective Power hitter? check. Can provide few overs of spin? check.   I just hope he lives up to the billing.

He did great in the IPL and I just dont use IPL as a measuring ability apart from fielding. Are his numbers good in the domestics?

[Muloghonto]

Reason we don't have good #4s is because we promote the #4s to opening or #3. Virat ? go bat at #3. Sachin ? go open. Rohit- open!

if you keep fitting #4s as openers, you will have a shortage of quality at #4....

 

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

He did great in the IPL and I just dont use IPL as a measuring ability apart from fielding. Are his numbers good in the domestics?

So based on the bolded part, what is the basis for asking Sifarishi-Pant to be in the LoI team ? He was ordinary in B-grade cricket, scoring a Dhoni-esque 80 strike rate against B-grade South Africa and a 50 against Afghanistan....

[cowboysfan]

I dont know about that OP but i know Rahul is not the answer at 4,he is opener and he cannot adjust at all.I would ditch Rahane and try Rahul as a opener for the next 2 games.

[Laaloo]

6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

So based on the bolded part, what is the basis for asking Sifarishi-Pant to be in the LoI team ? He was ordinary in B-grade cricket, scoring a Dhoni-esque 80 strike rate against B-grade South Africa and a 50 against Afghanistan....

Domestics.

 

His FC record is excellent. His T20 Domestics is awesome too. He needs some tinkering with List A but if he is in the team to get quickfire runs at the top of the order or at number 5, then he fits in perfectly. 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Laaloo said:

Domestics.

 

His FC record is excellent. His T20 Domestics is awesome too. He needs some tinkering with List A but if he is in the team to get quickfire runs at the top of the order or at number 5, then he fits in perfectly. 

So why is that relevant for LoIs again ?

You just said a post before t20 domestics is not a measure of ability. So why bring it up at your convinience ? 

i ask again- what has this sifarishi kid done to deserve a spot tin LoIs ?

 

[Laaloo]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

So why is that relevant for LoIs again ?

You just said a post before t20 domestics is not a measure of ability. So why bring it up at your convinience ? 

i ask again- what has this sifarishi kid done to deserve a spot tin LoIs ?

 

Can you stop with this sifarishi nonsense already? The guy lost his father last year. He worked hard to get where he is. 

 

And why are you bolding that part only? Read the next two sentences. When did I say T20 domestics were not a measure of ability?

[Muloghonto]

39 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

Can you stop with this sifarishi nonsense already? The guy lost his father last year. He worked hard to get where he is. 

 

And why are you bolding that part only? Read the next two sentences. When did I say T20 domestics were not a measure of ability?

Guy lost his father ? 
Oh no! welcome to the real professional world kiddo, where you have to get up and go to your job even when your father passes away a week before.

He is sifarishi. Because sifarishi means getting something/getting a job without being the best man for the job. Since this kid is a worse keeper than Dhoni and can't even score half the runs in a rung lower (A-tours) than international LoIs, he is sifarishi for being considered a replacement of a superior performing player. Simple.

 

[Laaloo]

22 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Guy lost his father ? 
Oh no! welcome to the real professional world kiddo, where you have to get up and go to your job even when your father passes away a week before.

He is sifarishi. Because sifarishi means getting something/getting a job without being the best man for the job. Since this kid is a worse keeper than Dhoni and can't even score half the runs in a rung lower (A-tours) than international LoIs, he is sifarishi for being considered a replacement of a superior performing player. Simple.

 

When did I use Pant losing his father as an excuse? Sifarish is someone who has no business of being selected but is selected becase of bribery or nepotism. i.e Dhoni selecing Negi, etc. 

 

He should have already been in the T20 team over Dhoni a year ago. Dhoni should have been out of T20s for years now. He has no business being there. 

As I said before, his T20 record and FC record is excellent so far. And I'm not asking him to be in the Test team yet. But T20s, absolutely. ODis? I dont see why not against the likes of Windies and Lanka. 

[Rasgulla]

is this discussion with clown still going on...damn my post disappeared as expected. Negi played 1 t20 for India that too against UAE and 0 Tests and Odis. What an idiot using death as an excuse in first place.. Might as well open a quota for them. Can't even score in a A team but somehow this guy is deserving to play in Indian colours.. What about samson I believe he is a keeper and has 2 100s in IPL.. Ohh wait he is from south india.. My badddd

 

Badrinath has an average of 60 in Fc and I m sure Wasim has great fc record as well. Might as well bring them back one one leg. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Rasgulla

[Vilander]

5 hours ago, Laaloo said:

My bad. Will move the convo to the other thread. Carry on with your conversation. 

Oh will you. Many serious posters are loosing interest because of you fd up stupid vitriol on Dhoni in every thread. Go make some thread and write all ur Dhoni comments there.

[Laaloo]

3 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Oh will you. Many serious posters are loosing interest because of you fd up stupid vitriol on Dhoni in every thread. Go make some thread and write all ur Dhoni comments there.

I will continue to do as I please. If you want to leave, be my guest

[Texan]

We have tried many options, but we haven't really tried the right ones. Yuvraj Singh should have never made a comeback. Karthik we know is limited in international cricket. Ideally, Dhoni is best suited to play at 4. His game is a bit slow for 5 or lower.

[Vilander]

29 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

I will continue to do as I please. If you want to leave, be my guest

Lol why would I leave I enjoy seeing you make a clown of yourself.