Jump to content
sourab10forever

2nd Test IND v SL | Nagpur

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Didnt see the 1st session, just saw highlight

Ishant looks in good rhythem.........anyone would want to share how was his overall bowling

Rohit?????really????

Both fast bowlers bowled well. Ishant kept wicket to wicket but like Gavaskar mentioned it was poor shot by the batsman which got him the wicket. Batsman had just gotten a boundary and played an ambitious shot right soon after and got caught by Pujara who took a good catch.

 

There were some loose deliveries first up by both which were put away for four but after that they found their line the moment the ball was 5-6 overs old. It was actually good bowling by both fast bowlers

 

Jadeja should have had Karunaratne stumped but it turned out to be a no-ball. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Both fast bowlers bowled well. Ishant kept wicket to wicket but like Gavaskar mentioned it was poor shot by the batsman which got him the wicket. Batsman had just gotten a boundary and played an ambitious shot right soon after and got caught by Pujara who took a good catch.

 

There were some loose deliveries first up by both which were put away for four but after that they found their line the moment the ball was 5-6 overs old. It was actually good bowling by both fast bowlers

 

Jadeja should have had Karunaratne stumped but it turned out to be a no-ball. 

 

There were no loose deliveries. Even those went for 4s cant be called loose deliveries and that ball from Ishant moved away after pitching, getting the edge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

 If you can get run out of a wide ball, then why not stump on a no ball? Stumping happens when player steps out without knowing if the ball is a no ball or not.

The reasoning is, batsmen will say the call of 'no-ball' changed their stroke- they wouldn't have jumped out if it was a legal ball, just like they wouldn't take a wild swing if it wasn't a no-ball. But once the ball is struck, it doesnt matter if its a no ball or not, in terms of affecting the decision of the batsmen, so run-out is still on the cards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sandeep said:

Do you want to take a squad of 25?  

 

Outside of India's starting XI from the Kolkata test - Pandya, Ishant, Vijay are pretty much locks.  That makes it 14.  I'd like to see Bumrah as #15.   Kuldeep as #16.   That's about it.  There's no room for Shankar going to SA, unless Pandya is injured.

Kuldeep wont go, no point taking 3 spinner overseas as mostly one will play in 11. 

Shankar wud be my 16th player......

Actually i wanted parthiv as 3rd opener and backup keeper and now dhawan has spoiled the party

 

Shankar is crucial for overseas specially on tough tracks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

The reasoning is, batsmen will say the call of 'no-ball' changed their stroke- they wouldn't have jumped out if it was a legal ball, just like they wouldn't take a wild swing if it wasn't a no-ball. But once the ball is struck, it doesnt matter if its a no ball or not, in terms of affecting the decision of the batsmen, so run-out is still on the cards.

 

But if you have a rule that no ball allows stumping then whether the call alerted them batsman or not, it would mean they are staying in the crease. Point is so many rules are made to benefit batsman then no harm in having some dor bowlers

 

The pathetic Free hit rule in LOi for example. When you already are penalizing the bowler with an extra run and also making him ball that delivery again, then why is next ball free hit. That is pathetic rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

But if you have a rule that no ball allows stumping then whether the call alerted them batsman or not, it would mean they are staying in the crease. Point is so many rules are made to benefit batsman then no harm in having some dor bowlers

 

The pathetic Free hit rule in LOi for example. When you already are penalizing the bowler with an extra run and also making him ball that delivery again, then why is next ball free hit. That is pathetic rule. 

The logic also is that bowling from less than 22 yards helps the bowler. So a batsman might not have got beaten if the length and trajectory  had not been changed because of the bowler bowling from less than 22 yards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, New guy said:

The logic also is that bowling from less than 22 yards helps the bowler. So a batsman might not have got beaten if the length and trajectory  had not been changed because of the bowler bowling from less than 22 yards. 

they dont anyway bowl or bat from 22 yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

But if you have a rule that no ball allows stumping then whether the call alerted them batsman or not, it would mean they are staying in the crease. Point is so many rules are made to benefit batsman then no harm in having some dor bowlers

 

The pathetic Free hit rule in LOi for example. When you already are penalizing the bowler with an extra run and also making him ball that delivery again, then why is next ball free hit. That is pathetic rule. 

Yes, Free hit should be gone.

But i disagree with the no-ball stumping. Because then a batsman is forced to stay in, which beats the whole purpose of 'cannot be dismissed off the bat or the body or the wicket off of a no-ball'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Kuldeep wont go, no point taking 3 spinner overseas as mostly one will play in 11. 

Shankar wud be my 16th player......

Actually i wanted parthiv as 3rd opener and backup keeper and now dhawan has spoiled the party

 

Shankar is crucial for overseas specially on tough tracks

yes, cant take 3 spinners to SA when just one will play. if they were take Kuldeep, he had to play here. They are betting on old experienced horses. I will play jaddu there as they have several right handers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, New guy said:

The logic also is that bowling from less than 22 yards helps the bowler. So a batsman might not have got beaten if the length and trajectory  had not been changed because of the bowler bowling from less than 22 yards. 

That is true and make sense but batsman shouldn’t be found anytime out of the crease unless the ball is dead. So since ball is in play, it should be considered out. If bowler is gettinf penalised for stepping out, ao should the batsman who was caught short on crease. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Yes, Free hit should be gone.

But i disagree with the no-ball stumping. Because then a batsman is forced to stay in, which beats the whole purpose of 'cannot be dismissed off the bat or the body or the wicket off of a no-ball'.

 

Well it doesn’t, we habe to change the mentality and how we see it. Look it from bowler’s point of view. You bowl a no ball and you get a wicket caught or batsman bowled, the decision goes in favor of batsman because bowler might be at advantage of bowling fast since he was ahead of the crease which makes him pitch faster.

 

However in stumping, batsman is as much guilty as bowler since both stepped “out of the line” and both should be penalised for that. Batsman still has advantage as he can connect the ball or come back in, but if he is found short of crease is penalised, that is given out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Well it doesn’t, we habe to change the mentality and how we see it. Look it from bowler’s point of view. You bowl a no ball and you get a wicket caught or batsman bowled, the decision goes in favor of batsman because bowler might be at advantage of bowling fast since he was ahead of the crease which makes him pitch faster.

 

However in stumping, batsman is as much guilty as bowler since both stepped “out of the line” and both should be penalised for that. Batsman still has advantage as he can connect the ball or come back in, but if he is found short of crease is penalised, that is given out. 

No, because in stumping cases, batsmen are outside the crease AFTER hearing the call, as there is still time to adjust to a spinner. 

As i said, you can't make tell the batsman, that he is free do hit the ball however he wants to and cannot be out and still have him be out stumping- that is quite literally not 'hit it however you want it to'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gossip mode on * selectors are pissed off at Yuvraj not playing Ranji and instead working at NCA ( even though he has no niggle issues that require rehab) to pass yo yo test so that he can come back into Indian team (some reckon it is for better shot at ipl auctions).

The question being asked...is yo yo test passing only criteria for selection if person is not interested in playing ranji which is the real deal .* gossip mode off

 

Source...some hindi news site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

As i said, you can't make tell the batsman, that he is free do hit the ball however he wants to and cannot be out and still have him be out stumping- that is quite literally not 'hit it however you want it to'.

 

What I was saying is that we need to change that "hit it however you want part. " If rulebook will have that a batsman can be dismissed anytime he is out of the crease, then he will be aware of it before that its a gamble to step out to spinner whether its a regular ball or a no-ball.

 

Just like mankading is allowed now that batsman can't be staying out of the crease or else bowler can run him out, similarly it should apply to the batsman on strike, if you are found short of crease, then you are out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, beetle said:

Gossip mode on * selectors are pissed off at Yuvraj not playing Ranji and instead working at NCA ( even though he has no niggle issues that require rehab) to pass yo yo test so that he can come back into Indian team (some reckon it is for better shot at ipl auctions).

The question being asked...is yo yo test passing only criteria for selection if person is not interested in playing ranji which is the real deal .* gossip mode off

 

Source...some hindi news site.

YoYo should be used as stepping stone or something which players should try to achieve, but no way should determine if a player needs to be picked in the Indian team or not. This is in no way to defend Yuvraj, but we must not apply YoYo's logic to Cricket. It just doesn't make sense to go by YO-YO test to select players in the squad.

 

It's a good way to prepare players to stay motived and fit, that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, beetle said:

Gossip mode on * selectors are pissed off at Yuvraj not playing Ranji and instead working at NCA ( even though he has no niggle issues that require rehab) to pass yo yo test so that he can come back into Indian team (some reckon it is for better shot at ipl auctions).

The question being asked...is yo yo test passing only criteria for selection if person is not interested in playing ranji which is the real deal .* gossip mode off

 

Source...some hindi news site.

Surely, it is for IPL and also good for him if its true. He can play IPL as long as he wants.

Cannot imagine Yuvraj coming back to ODI setup, that will be disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

What I was saying is that we need to change that "hit it however you want part. " If rulebook will have that a batsman can be dismissed anytime he is out of the crease, then he will be aware of it before that its a gamble to step out to spinner whether its a regular ball or a no-ball.

 

Just like mankading is allowed now that batsman can't be staying out of the crease or else bowler can run him out, similarly it should apply to the batsman on strike, if you are found short of crease, then you are out.

So that means if a spinner drops it short AND its a no-ball, the batsman would be at risk to step out and hit it. Why ?

The rule is pretty simple- if its no ball, you as a batsman, cannot do anything TO THE BALL or play the ball in any fashion that gets you out. I don't see why that has to change.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shunya said:

Surely, it is for IPL and also good for him if its true. He can play IPL as long as he wants.

Cannot imagine Yuvraj coming back to ODI setup, that will be disaster.

Ipl doesn't require yo yo test. 

Lallu yadav's son had managed to find a place in ipl team.

Apne dum pe ipl khele ...no problem.

Not by blocking a place in national team. Same goes for msd in T 20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, beetle said:

Ipl doesn't require yo yo test. 

Lallu yadav's son had managed to find a place in ipl team.

Apne dum pe ipl khele ...no problem.

Not by blocking a place in national team. Same goes for msd in T 20.

YOYO is not required for IPL true, but training at NCA can help him getting trained and picked for IPL. That might be actually true. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cricketics said:

That is true and make sense but batsman shouldn’t be found anytime out of the crease unless the ball is dead. So since ball is in play, it should be considered out. If bowler is gettinf penalised for stepping out, ao should the batsman who was caught short on crease. 

But again the reason you don't give out of no-ball is because bowler beats batsman unfairly and stumping also is part of beating the batsman unfairly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, beetle said:

I think that Tejeswini guy managed in the begining years...

Or maybe it was some other useless politicians son.

He was selected for Delhi Daredevils during initial years of IPL but couldn't make it though playing XI ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.google.co.in/amp/www.catchnews.com/amp/india-news/7-matches-37-runs-1-wicket-the-short-story-of-tejaswi-yadav-s-cricket-career-1448207619.html

 

 

Speaking on the issue in the House, Lalu Prasad quipped, "My son Tejaswi is part of the Delhi team. But all he has done is to carry water to the field. They don't give him a chance to play."

 

:hysterical::hysterical::((

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rkt.india said:

not many pacers can get a 5-fer on a pitch like this.

Problem is Ishant is same on any pitch, can you say with confidence on green pitch he will pick up a 5fer. Ishant I have to give one thing to him, he has become a work horse and has ability to bowl his 20 overs on any pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Problem is Ishant is same on any pitch, can you say with confidence on green pitch he will pick up a 5fer. Ishant I have to give one thing to him, he has become a work horse and has ability to bowl his 20 overs on any pitch.

he does have 7 fifers, so, not like he does not have them, but yes, I get your point in general and that is true for most Indian fast bowlers current or past. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

he does have 7 fifers, so, not like he does not have them, but yes, I get your point in general and that is true for most Indian fast bowlers current or past. 

unless we start emphasizing 5fers from them they won't raise their bar.Previously fielding never was Indian team's strong point but since bar has been raised every one is asked to raise their bar.

 

Same thing has to be done with fast bowlers.

Edited by putrevus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, putrevus said:

unless we start emphasizing 5fers from them they won't raise their bar.Previously fielding never was Indian team's strong point but since bar has been raised every one is asked to raise their bar.

 

Same thing has to be done with fast bowlers.

he had 1 fifer in his first 31 tests, so, he got 6 fifer in 46 tests after that and 17 of those tests he played in India where he did not get any fifer, 29 of those overseas with 6 fifer and one 10-fer but average is still high at 34 in these 29 tests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

he had 1 fifer in his first 31 tests, so, he got 6 fifer in 46 tests after that and 17 of those tests he played in India where he did not get any fifer, 29 of those overseas with 6 fifer and one 10-fer but average is still high at 34 in these 29 tests.

not good enough if you want your team to travel well overseas, the mindset needs to be changed in them and they have to be told teams are expecting 5fers and not just make numbers. Accountability is important and they have to make sure the bowlers are aware of it.

 

Umesh Yadav is perfect example , he has been given consistent run in the team instead of improving and becoming a consistent bowler, he remains inconsistent and has ability to lose a test in one session with his boundary ball every over.

 

You may or may not get green track but if you are consistent captains can make game plan for you.

Edited by putrevus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, putrevus said:

not good enough if you want your team to travel well overseas, the mindset needs to be changed in them and they have to be told teams are expecting 5fers and not just make numbers. Accountability is important and they have to make sure the bowlers are aware of it.

 

Umesh Yadav is perfect example , he has been given consistent run in the team instead of improving and becoming a consistent bowler, he remains inconsistent and has ability to lose a test in one session with his boundary ball every over.

 

You may or may not get green track but if you are consistent captains can make game plan for you.

I don't think saying things like 5fer is expected of you is good way to handle this. There is a reason why spinners take more wicket than seamers. 5fers are hard to take for any bowler, and if we start putting pressure on them about 5fers, they will start trying too much and bowl worse than what they are bowling already. Best is to rotate them when the time comes and they don't look good enough instead of waiting for them to give you a reason. For example, they could have easily tried a new guy here but they did not. Also when Ishant was being given a lot of chances in the past, he kept being continued. We can always try someone for a  test or two. There is no harm. We have lacked that in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×