Jump to content

Its just Painful to see this team not winning series in England


wanted_desi

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lannister said:

I don't think we should have won the first test. Kohli was dropped couple of times and we would've bowled out for below 100 in the first innings, if not for his freak innings. 

They were 86-7 and then Curran was dropped would have been chasing 130-140.The cheerleader coach has to go though sick of him and his stupid statements.

Link to comment

Pak drew a series here, WI won a test chasing 324, SL won a series in 2015, hence the comparison. The others were not 5 test series and hence it happened. But, rueing over not able to chase <250 runs is a mental problem (FOrget Lords, it was a toss/weather gods defeated us), but we could have won 2 tests which we lost in 40 and 60 runs! Gutless batting except Kohli.

 

Link to comment

Math equation of fans: 

 

  • India's performance - Opponent's Selected Performance  (they don't benefit from any positive perceived corrections) +/- Perceived Corrections = Ind win 

 

So if Ind loses by 29 runs where X scored a 100 and Y a 0. Replacing Y with Z who fans would assume would have scored 30 would translate in to 130. Opponent's performance would remain constant. So if A scored from the other team scored 0, he would score a 0 in the new formula as well .... In real world, if Z were playing, who knows, he would have run X out for 0 and got out the next ball .... and who knows if Z drops 2 important catches, A would have scored a 100 .... but we are not supposed to consider those negative scenarios :lol: 

 

If one factor changes, it could influence a variety of factors. If a team loses by 10 runs, those 10 runs reflect all the plays made in the game. Mathematically, removing a play and adding a more favorable one may not necessarily change the end result in the real world. As the change could drive other changes as well .... Mathematically, the opponent, or any team, can create favorable equations as well 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
1 minute ago, zen said:

What if Kohli and Pujara had got ducks too? :hmmmm:

That is not what i meant. I mean he was the sole difference in the series. We were basically his wicket away from winning 2 tests. Being a lower order bat, him batting with another lower order bat mostly it was tactical failure on our part besides toss losses.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

That is not what i meant. I mean he was the sole difference in the series. We were basically his wicket away from winning 2 tests. Being a lower order bat, him batting with another lower order bat mostly it was tactical failure on our part besides toss losses.

But then Eng can argue too that if only it got Kohli out early or neutralized bowler X, it could have whitewashed Ind :dontknow:

Edited by zen
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

I am not saying getting Root wicket or any other top order. A 20 year late order noob killed us not once not twice but thrice. Kohli scoring runs is not a miracle

So many players have done well in their debut series. Azhar scored 3 100s in 3 tests. Sachin helped Ind to draw the series. Kambli hit 200s .... and so on 

 

we cannot cherry pick scenarios to create a rosy picture 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
47 minutes ago, zen said:

So many players have done well in their debut series. Azhar scored 3 100s in 3 tests. Sachin helped Ind to draw the series. Kambli hit 200s .... and so on 

 

we cannot cherry pick scenarios to create a rosy picture 

You can rank them. You can pretty much ask any experts. Curan's contribution was  the biggest influence in the result of the series. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

You can rank them. You can pretty much ask any experts. Curan's contribution was  the biggest influence in the result of the series. 

It was but if we say that if he had scored zero, Eng can argue too that if Kohli or whoever had done badly .... Take Kohli’s 600 runs out :dontknow:

 

which is is why I think of all these as gully cricket talk - a) if I had not got runout, I would have smashed them (could hv got out the next ball), b) if my arm was not injured, I would have bowled faster and got x wkts 

 

Would we accept the argument that if Wasim had played the 1996 QF, Pak would have won (Jadeja would hv smashed Wasim too). If Razzaq had moved quickly to take Sachin’s catch in 2003 game, Pak would hv won (Sehwag could have scored a 100). If Misbah had attacked earlier in 2011 WC, Pak would have won (he could have been out early)

 

Anyways, whatever we find solace in 

Edited by zen
Link to comment

It will be pathetic to blame one thing or one person for the loss. Our batting was just not good enough on regular basis whether you say your favorite wasn’t picked in the line up or not. These guys were expected to perform better than they did. Batting under performed and now deserves to be called overrated line up by anyone until they do well overseas. I still have confidence in Rahane and Pujara down the line but for now, all of them including our pathetic opening stand this series will be considered overrated. Our line up needs to come back up with a strong performance Down Under with a different openinng pair as this one clearly isn’t working. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Pak drew a series here, WI won a test chasing 324, SL won a series in 2015, hence the comparison. The others were not 5 test series and hence it happened. But, rueing over not able to chase <250 runs is a mental problem (FOrget Lords, it was a toss/weather gods defeated us), but we could have won 2 tests which we lost in 40 and 60 runs! Gutless batting except Kohli.

 

SL drew a two test series, not won.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, zen said:

It was but if we say that if he had scored zero, Eng can argue too that if Kohli or whoever had done badly .... Take Kohli’s 600 runs out :dontknow:

 

which is is why I think of all these as gully cricket talk - a) if I had not got runout, I would have smashed them (could hv got out the next ball), b) if my arm was not injured, I would have bowled faster and got x wkts 

 

Would we accept the argument that if Wasim had played the 1996 QF, Pak would have won (Jadeja would hv smashed Wasim too). If Razzaq had moved quickly to take Sachin’s catch in 2003 game, Pak would hv won (Sehwag could have scored a 100). If Misbah had attacked earlier in 2011 WC, Pak would have won (he could have been out early)

 

Anyways, whatever we find solace in 

Sorry you are not understanding my point. You are losing the context and applying it literally. In all the matches when Curan walked out India was in absolute dominant position almost going for the kill. 3 times. That is why he was the game breaker of the series more than anyone else. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

So, it became a clash of two bowling attacks and England just edged ours because our bowlers let England lower order flourish at the crucial moments.

Agree but we were missing bhuvi who could have became our Curran. This series has been decided by 2 close test matches which we lost and the difference was Curran. If we had bhuvi in place of shami this would have been 2-2 atm. 

Also we missed bumrah in the first 2 test ,bumrah playing in the first test and the story might have been different 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...