Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zen

The dumb math of playing the extra batsman

Recommended Posts

There is an old saying (don't know who said it) - "If your batting is strong and when you have a good batsman in the reserve, play the extra batsman to strengthen your batting." and vice versa. In the past, it worked for India as batting was its (only) strength. The players fighting for the "extra" spot were likes of VVS and Doda Ganesh for e.g. The choice to go with an extra batsman was easy, esp. considering Sehwag, Tendulkar and Ganguly could bowl decently too. 

 

Have you heard the story of "neem hakim khatre jaan"? Let me go through it again - One day, on his way to home, a hakim heard a distress call market. A camel had a watermelon stuck in its neck. Another hakim attended the camel by taking a stone and gently crashing the melon. The camel was back on its feet. The neem hakim observed the phenomena with interest. Next day, he was called upon to examine an old lady who had a tumor on her neck. He saw the bump and remembered what had happened in the market y'day. Craftly, he took out a stone and crushed the old lady's neck .... This can also be explained by -> If you have a stable full of horses that run like donkeys. You don't improve your chances of winning a race by bringing in more horses who run like donkeys. 

 

Unless we optimize the 5 batting slots first, an extra batsman will not help usually. By optimizing, I mean picking up the best in-form options for the 5 batting slots as per the conditions. A similar exercise needs to be done for the 4 bowling slots. 

 

Drawing more parallels - Ind is currently like a man with a short blanket. Cover the feet, the head gets exposed. Cover the head, the feet get exposed. By not optimizing the specialist batting slots (played Dhawan and Rahane for e.g.), the extra batsman did not add much value. Ind gave the lead and is struggling in its 2nd innings. In the first inning, we only saw 2 scores in the 50 runs range from the top 6, and ofc no "big" score. In the 2nd inning, only 1. Our bowling suffered big time. In the 5th test of this long series, the pace bowlers lost their steam, giving more than 750 runs in the game. 

 

Traditionally, Ind has been weak strategically and tactically. Decisions are is usually based on hope, dumb math, delusions, and to cover for struggling players (rather than replacing them). We take one step forward and two backwards. I hope that we get in a coach, preferably foreign, who can bring in clear thinking to team Ind. 

 

Over and Out. 

Share this post


Link to post

So far, the bowling has been good and the batting underperforming, the batting needed strenghtening. I get that Vihari could have replaced some body- but who? He can not open and Rahane is coming off a half century. 

Share this post


Link to post

By dropping the 4th pacer,  India lost the only strength it had in this series ... it's bowling.

 

We took 20 wickets cheaply in 3 tests we played 4 pacers. We won 1 of those tests and barely lost the other two.

 

England scored big in the 2 tests we played 3 pacers.   And we had no chance of winning.

 

Umesh should have played in place of Kuldeep in the 2nd test.

 

4 pacers + 1 spinner a must in SENA countries.

 

 

Edited by express bowling

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, express bowling said:

4 pacers + 1 spinner a must in SENA countries.

The combination should ideally depend up on playing conditions as well. It can be 3+2, 4+1, 5-0, .... we should not shy away from playing 5 pae bowlers, including an AR, if required  

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

6th batsman is not your extra. 5 is 1 less than normal. 

 

Extra would be playing 7 batsman.

whats the point of extra coz dhawan as batsman was non exsistent and dhawan n rahane has been no show 

actually to hide them by that logic we shud play batsman till 10 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, zen said:

There is an old saying (don't know who said it) - "If your batting is strong and when you have a good batsman in the reserve, play the extra batsman to strengthen your batting." and vice versa. In the past, it worked for India as batting was its (only) strength. The players fighting for the "extra" spot were likes of VVS and Doda Ganesh for e.g. The choice to go with an extra batsman was easy, esp. considering Sehwag, Tendulkar and Ganguly could bowl decently too. 

 

Have you heard the story of "neem hakim khatre jaan"? Let me go through it again - One day, on his way to home, a hakim heard a distress call market. A camel had a watermelon stuck in its neck. Another hakim attended the camel by taking a stone and gently crashing the melon. The camel was back on its feet. The neem hakim observed the phenomena with interest. Next day, he was called upon to examine an old lady who had a tumor on her neck. He saw the bump and remembered what had happened in the market y'day. Craftly, he took out a stone and crushed the old lady's neck .... This can also be explained by -> If you have a stable full of horses that run like donkeys. You don't improve your chances of winning a race by bringing in more horses who run like donkeys. 

 

Unless we optimize the 5 batting slots first, an extra batsman will not help usually. By optimizing, I mean picking up the best in-form options for the 5 batting slots as per the conditions. A similar exercise needs to be done for the 4 bowling slots. 

 

Drawing more parallels - Ind is currently like a man with a short blanket. Cover the feet, the head gets exposed. Cover the head, the feet get exposed. By not optimizing the specialist batting slots (played Dhawan and Rahane for e.g.), the extra batsman did not add much value. Ind gave the lead and is struggling in its 2nd innings. In the first inning, we only saw 2 scores in the 50 runs range from the top 6, and ofc no "big" score. In the 2nd inning, only 1. Our bowling suffered big time. In the 5th test of this long series, the pace bowlers lost their steam, giving more than 750 runs in the game. 

 

Traditionally, Ind has been weak strategically and tactically. Decisions are is usually based on hope, dumb math, delusions, and to cover for struggling players (rather than replacing them). We take one step forward and two backwards. I hope that we get in a coach, preferably foreign, who can bring in clear thinking to team Ind. 

 

Over and Out. 

Damn u i so wanted to write a Post on this with a headline

 

" 6 batsman theory .....A defensive theory ,nothing but just a solace for restless minds "

Share this post


Link to post

QUALITY OPENERS..... no escaping from this....That is THE basic problem. Not once in a blue moon Rahuls(when nothing to lose and in easy conditions inflates  stats )  and utter flop Dhawans.We need those openers who are capable of playing out first 20 overs with out losing a wkt  more often than not .

Share this post


Link to post

New norm is 5 (Batsmen) + 4 (Bowlers) +1 (WK) + 1 (Open Slot) .... w/ the open slot decided based on S&W and options available after optimizing the specialist slots but would usually go to an AR to provide balance and the "Swiss Army Knife" option to the team 

 

Here, Ind played a batsman in the open slot w/o first optimizing its batting and when pace bowling was a strength relatively. Therefore, it paid the price 

 

Various anecdotes are provided in the OP 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

in those 6 we had 3 very good part timers (sachin, sehwag, ganguly) now we dnt.....we cnt live with tht norm anymore 

But the alternative further weakens the batting since we don't have anyone of Sehwag/Ganguly's caliber currently, Virat having taken over Sachin's role as top gun. Furthermore, part timers weren't winning us tests that often.

 

The greatest teams had 4 awesome bowlers and that's what I'd want as well in absence of an awesome all rounder.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Clarke said:

But the alternative further weakens the batting since we don't have anyone of Sehwag/Ganguly's caliber currently, Virat having taken over Sachin's role as top gun. Furthermore, part timers weren't winning us tests that often.

 

The greatest teams had 4 awesome bowlers and that's what I'd want as well in absence of an awesome all rounder.

coz ur batsman are not taking the responsibility , find better batsman as simple as that dnt break ur bowlers ......

U wnt find awesome all rounder like that, they have to made over a period of time

I hve already posted stats of most gr8 all rounder and most of them had poor stats then pandya .....its takes time to build players specially in such tough conditions their wud be inconsistencies. Apart from kohli which batsman has been consistent so why are u expecting that from all rounder atleast he lends balance and contributes in someway....question shud be asked from the players who arent contributing much 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Clarke said:

But the alternative further weakens the batting since we don't have anyone of Sehwag/Ganguly's caliber currently, Virat having taken over Sachin's role as top gun. Furthermore, part timers weren't winning us tests that often.

 

The greatest teams had 4 awesome bowlers and that's what I'd want as well in absence of an awesome all rounder.

Which is why adding inadequate batting w/o subtracting struggling batmen (not optimizing the slots) only weakened the team w/ batting not making an impact and bowling, a relative strength, becoming diluted as well

 

"IF" we have Sehwag and Ganguly, play them. Since they bowl relatively well, they can offer support to bowling too 

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Opposition team England remove England from query
Home or away away (home of opposition) remove away (home of opposition) from query
Start of match date between 11 Sep 2017 and 11 Sep 2018 remove between 11 Sep 2017 and 11 Sep 2018 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 17 of 17   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s  
RA Jadeja 1 2 1 99 86* 99.00 202 49.00 0 1 0 13 1 investigate this query
V Kohli 5 10 0 593 149 59.30 1025 57.85 2 3 1 67 1 investigate this query
CA Pujara 4 8 1 278 132* 39.71 726 38.29 1 1 1 33 0 investigate this query
KL Rahul 5 10 0 299 149 29.90 450 66.44 1 0 1 44 1 investigate this query
GH Vihari 1 2 0 56 56 28.00 130 43.07 0 1 1 7 1 investigate this query
RR Pant 3 6 0 162 114 27.00 252 64.28 1 0 1 20 6 investigate this query
AM Rahane 5 10 0 257 81 25.70 639 40.21 0 2 1 27 0 investigate this query
HH Pandya 4 8 1 164 52* 23.42 288 56.94 0 1 1 26 1 investigate this query
R Ashwin 4 8 2 126 33* 21.00 177 71.18 0 0 0 19 1 investigate this query
S Dhawan 4 8 0 162 44 20.25 292 55.47 0 0 0 23 0 investigate this query
M Vijay 2 4 0 26 20 6.50 75 34.66 0 0 2 4 0 investigate this query
KD Karthik 2 4 0 21 20 5.25 58 36.20 0 0 2 2 0

 

PS please read the OP, if you haven't, not just the title 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

coz ur batsman are not taking the responsibility , find better batsman as simple as that dnt break ur bowlers ......

U wnt find awesome all rounder like that, they have to made over a period of time

I hve already posted stats of most gr8 all rounder and most of them had poor stats then pandya .....its takes time to build players specially in such tough conditions their wud be inconsistencies. Apart from kohli which batsman has been consistent so why are u expecting that from all rounder atleast he lends balance and contributes in someway....question shud be asked from the players who arent contributing much 

 

I'm not against the Pandya experiment and neither want to break down the bowlers. My point is a pool of 5 quality quicks and 2-3 spinners should be able to handle a long series as this one. It looks like we are close to having that set of bowlers. 

 

My emphasis on 6+1+4 has historical backing. There's also the fact that a strengthened batting increases the chance of saving a game if bowling doesn't go well but a weaker batting reduces that possibility, its mostly losses and maybe a few wins.

 

I'm not rigit on this 6-1-4 combination but it looks like a preferable one. Batting or Bowling all rounders who are good enough to excel in their primary dept are of course preferable and so is a solid all rounder.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Clarke said:

I'm not against the Pandya experiment and neither want to break down the bowlers. My point is a pool of 5 quality quicks and 2-3 spinners should be able to handle a long series as this one. It looks like we are close to having that set of bowlers. 

My problem in that bumrah is permanent n he plays all format

WC one yr left, i dnt want him to break down and neither bhuvi

 

Its also not about pandya, i hve been a suppourter of shankar to. Ill travel with both overseas

Quote

My emphasis on 6+1+4 has historical backing. There's also the fact that a strengthened batting increases the chance of saving a game if bowling doesn't go well but a weaker batting reduces that possibility, its mostly losses and maybe a few wins.

I dnt remember the last time we won with 6 batsman overseas

Lords- binny 

3rd test against eng - pandya

3rd test against Sa- Pandya

WI- ashwin was batting at 6

2007 perth test- irfan was their 

 

Quote

 

I'm not rigit on this 6-1-4 combination but it looks like a preferable one. Batting or Bowling all rounders who are good enough to excel in their primary dept are of course preferable and so is a solid all rounder.

 

 

Rather the concentration shud be to find consistent batsman, instead they are given a free ride. 5 batsman or 6 batsman doesnt matter if they dnt perform 

Everyone has a job in team and its batsman job to make runs not lower order to be consistent as they have other jobs to 

 

or else find 2-3 batsman who can be good part timers then play 6 batsman

Edited by Ankit_sharma03

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Clarke said:

6+1+4 has been the norm for a long time unless one's got a special all rounder. 

 

It was the norm before the T20 leagues started and even international pacers played lots of domestic FC games including County cricket.  Those pacers practiced bowling lots of overs a day and could do that in tests too.

 

T20 league era international pacers hardly play County cricket and other domestic FC games ... Asian pacers don't get a chance to bowl 15+ overs a day in home tests either.  They may lose intensity if they have to bowl 22 overs a day as they are not used to it.  Extra bowler is needed more these days.

 

Another thing is ... there were a couple of batsmen who could bowl too in those days.   Nowadays, no batsman wants to bowl.

Edited by express bowling

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

it is norm only when one or two of the 6 batsmen can bowl like jayasurya or stokes...

Neither fits into the 6+1+4 scheme of pure batsmen & bowlers that i'm referring to in that post. Both pass the primary filter of AR: batting avg>bowling avg. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Neither fits into the 6+1+4 scheme of pure batsmen & bowlers that i'm referring to in that post. Both pass the primary filter of AR: batting avg>bowling avg. 

What were their stats when they started out?

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

My problem in that bumrah is permanent n he plays all format

WC one yr left, i dnt want him to break down and neither bhuvi

 

Its also not about pandya, i hve been a suppourter of shankar to. Ill travel with both overseas

I dnt remember the last time we won with 6 batsman overseas

Lords- binny 

3rd test against eng - pandya

3rd test against Sa- Pandya

WI- ashwin was batting at 6

2007 perth test- irfan was their 

 

Rather the concentration shud be to find consistent batsman, instead they are given a free ride. 5 batsman or 6 batsman doesnt matter if they dnt perform 

Everyone has a job in team and its batsman job to make runs not lower order to be consistent as they have other jobs to 

 

or else find 2-3 batsman who can be good part timers then play 6 batsman

 

WRT Bumrah, like I said, the purist strategy would require a pool of bowlers to share the workload across a long series. Anderson & Broad managed 5 games because they only play tests AND our fragile batting didn't make them work hard enough, no way our all format bowlers should be treated that way.

 

We may have had the Bangars & Binnys in our one off victories but my primary point is that the legendary teams had top notch purists and that's not a bad formula. We had great batsmen earlier and have really good bowlers now, both of these factors need to come together, whatever the team combination. 

 

I agree that consistent batsmen are needed irrespective of playing 5 or 6 of them, there's no alternative to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

I dnt remember the last time we won with 6 batsman overseas

Lords- binny 

3rd test against eng - pandya

3rd test against Sa- Pandya

WI- ashwin was batting at 6

2007 perth test- irfan was their 

Hamilton 2009 and Durban 2010. 

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

It was the norm before the T20 leagues started and even international pacers played lots of domestic FC games including County cricket.  Those pacers practiced bowling lots of overs a day and could do that in tests too.

 

T20 league era international pacers hardly play County cricket and other domestic FC games ... Asian pacers don't get a chance to bowl 15+ overs a day in home tests either.  They may lose intensity if they have to bowl 22 overs a day as they are not used to it.  Extra bowler needed more these days.

 

Another thing is ... there were a couple of batsmen who could bowl too in those days.   Nowadays, no batsman wants to bowl.

Chalo someone agrees with me on history (you & Tricho), with the rest it seems we've been watching & reading about cricket in diff dimensions. 

 

I don't fully disagree with the reality you present about bowlers. Having said that, they should be able to bowl ~20 overs a day for 2-3 tests, not 5 and that's where the pool of bowlers comes in. That is the very essence of a test fast/seam bowler, that stamina for running in with the second new ball after the team's managed 3-4 wickets only in 80 overs. 

 

No one though seems to be wary of batting going up **** creek in a bad session. There have been cases when even Yuvraj of all test batsmen rescued the side after a tough first session on a green top blew away the top and middle order. It seems no one remembers VVS' performances at #6. 

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 

I dnt remember the last time we won with 6 batsman overseas

Lords- binny 

3rd test against eng - pandya

3rd test against Sa- Pandya

WI- ashwin was batting at 6

2007 perth test- irfan was their 

 

We won 2009 Hamilton test,2010 durban test,2011 kingston test,as well as perth 2007 test with 7 batsman and 4 bowler.

Perth 2007 test we played 7 batsman and 3 pacer( including pathan) and 1 spinner.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Clarke said:

 

WRT Bumrah, like I said, the purist strategy would require a pool of bowlers to share the workload across a long series.

 

The problem with that approach is that the pacers can become insecure and reluctant to sit out.  What happens if the replacer performs much better than the replacee, because of a more helpful pitch,  and becomes the main pacer in the next shorter test series or home series, where there is no need for rotation policy  ?

 

Moreover, are there equally good backup pacers  ?   Would it be possible for us to rest Bumrah in a critical match  ?   Can SA rrest Rabada  ?

 

6 minutes ago, Clarke said:

We may have had the Bangars & Binnys in our one off victories but my primary point is that the legendary teams had top notch purists and that's not a bad formula. We had great batsmen earlier and have really good bowlers now, both of these factors need to come together, whatever the team combination. 

 

I agree that consistent batsmen are needed irrespective of playing 5 or 6 of them, there's no alternative to that. 

 

Yes ... we should look for 5 quality batters and 4 quality pacers.

Share this post


Link to post

Let us look at this game, Vihari got us 3 bonus wickets and even though I am still 50-50 on him as a batsman but when he came to bat the expectation on him was to score a 100. Not because he is bradman but that’s a way it should be when any frontline batsman comes to play. With Pandya we hail 30-40 as a bonus.

 

Similarly a frontline bowler expectation should be that he takes 5 wicket haul every time he bowls.

 

adding a 6th batsman in absence of a genuine 5th bowler who can bat is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

those teams had 2-3 part timers.....the problem is we dnt have that anymore 

M ok if u find 2-3 batsman who are good part timers

Vihari & nair can be our part timer.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

The problem with that approach is that the pacers can become insecure and reluctant to sit out.  What happens if the replacer performs much better than the replacee, because of a more helpful pitch,  and becomes the main pacer in the next shorter test series or home series, where there is no need for rotation policy  ?

 

Moreover, are there equally good backup pacers  ?   Would it be possible for us to rest Bumrah in a critical match  ?   Can SA rrest Rabada  ?

 

 

Yes ... we should look for 5 quality batters and 4 quality pacers.

Maybe the players need to be conditioned towards workload management and horses for courses. The english were ready for that at the start of the series, we should grow up as well. Decisions are always dependent on the circumstances, we did see Anderson complete the 5 tests at the age of 36 and from the look of it he could go for another two. 

 

Good thing you mentioned Rabada; when Steyn went missing in the first innings of that iconic test, 3 primary bowlers including Rabada more than covered up for him. Rabada bowled 20/70 & 31/119 overs in that game. 

Share this post


Link to post

Reading some of the posts gives me the impression that many have not come to the terms with the reality that we are in 2018 :lol:

 

After guys like Ganguly retired, India even tried out Yuvraj Singh in tests as he could bowl too, along w/ Sehwag and to some extent Tendulkar 

 

It would be similar to WI selecting players now based on how WI did and played its cricket in 1980s :p:

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

those teams had 2-3 part timers.....the problem is we dnt have that anymore 

M ok if u find 2-3 batsman who are good part timers

 

6 minutes ago, zen said:

It was a different time when we had batsmen who could bowl effectively too :nod:

But with the current batting line up if you're going in with only 5 specialist batsmen you're pretty much losing the game at the toss itself if you field first. We have seen it time and time again. More often than not 3 pacers and 1 spinner would suffice overseas. Pandya can come in when we are playing on roads. Otherwise I'd much rather play 6 batsmen or at least wait until Pant develops into a capable no. 6 who averages ~ 40. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, zen said:

Reading some of the posts gives me the impression that many have not come to the terms with the reality that we are in 2018 :lol:

 

After guys like Ganguly retired, India even tried out Yuvraj Singh in tests as he could bowl too, along w/ Sehwag and to some extent Tendulkar 

 

It would be similar to WI selecting players now based on how WI did and played its cricket in 1980s :p:

Actually WI play 2  “allrounders” in their X1 like Jason Holder and Brathwaite.

 

Infact Holder has achieved a lot more than Pandya in tests :)

 

we we know how their team is doing 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

But with the current batting line up if you're going in with only 5 specialist batsmen you're pretty much losing the game at the toss itself if you field first. We have seen it time and time again. More often than not 3 pacers and 1 spinner would suffice overseas. Pandya can come in when we are playing on roads. Otherwise I'd much rather play 6 batsmen or at least wait until Pant develops into a capable no. 6 who averages ~ 40. 

The argument is that 6th batsman is needed since our batting is weak. But if the 6th batsman is that good, he should replace one of the struggling batsman and provide Ind with an improved batting line up .... which is why I said "optimize" the 5 batting slots and the 4 bowling slots first to determine what can work. Without optimizing, and adding w/o subtracting is not benefiting Ind considering its current strengths and weaknesses 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

But with the current batting line up if you're going in with only 5 specialist batsmen you're pretty much losing the game at the toss itself if you field first. We have seen it time and time again. More often than not 3 pacers and 1 spinner would suffice overseas. Pandya can come in when we are playing on roads. Otherwise I'd much rather play 6 batsmen or at least wait until Pant develops into a capable no. 6 who averages ~ 40. 

But we have won with them 

We won With pandya in SA n ENg, binny in eng

 

point is - pujara, rahane , opners has to take charge....if they are not dnt add batsman replace them

to much workload on ur bowler will break them , and incases of injuries in matches it ll be worse

 

Look at the numbers of overs bumrah n shami had to bowl in last test of a long series, after ages u found bowlers who can clock 140+ let them bowl at full steam

 

Pant is good enough as 6th batsman + pandya+ ashiwn/jadeja+ bhuvi is enough batting but provided batsman make runs 

If they are not making drop them not ur plans

why is pandya being dropped for pujara, rahane n dhawan issue

Pujara made 100+ 70 and thats its 

Pandya took a fifer + 50 

Dhawan did nothing

Rahane 1,2 innings

 

So not much to choose....atleast pandya gave balance and even showed more application with bat in 1st 2 test to . If these guys are not makung runs drop them. Also pandya is not the only option keep shankar also in their

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Infact Holder has achieved a lot more than Pandya in tests :)

Pandya is in his first season though .... and won us tests in SL and Eng 

 

 

Quote

 

Actually WI play 2  “allrounders” in their X1 like Jason Holder and Brathwaite.

 

we we know how their team is doing 

 

So they have had to make adjustments considering the strengths and weaknesses of its players and options available 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Clarke said:

 

I don't fully disagree with the reality you present about bowlers. Having said that, they should be able to bowl ~20 overs a day for 2-3 tests, not 5 and that's where the pool of bowlers comes in. That is the very essence of a test fast/seam bowler, that stamina for running in with the second new ball after the team's managed 3-4 wickets only in 80 overs. 

 

I have expressed my viewpoint on rotating pacers in an earlier post.

 

7 minutes ago, Clarke said:

No one though seems to be wary of batting going up **** creek in a bad session. There have been cases when even Yuvraj of all test batsmen rescued the side after a tough first session on a green top blew away the top and middle order. It seems no one remembers VVS' performances at #6. 

 

We need to choose only those batsmen for tests, who have a good off stump game and short ball game and are known to be gritty.   And not the A-team or Ranji top performers only.   

 

Then, 5 specialist batsmen would suffice, especially if Pant settles in at 6. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

But we have won with them 

We won With pandya in SA n ENg, binny in eng

 

point is - pujara, rahane , opners has to take charge....if they are not dnt add batsman replace them

to much workload on ur bowler will break them , and incases of injuries in matches it ll be worse

 

Look at the numbers of overs bumrah n shami had to bowl in last test of a long series, after ages u found bowlers who can clock 140+ let them bowl at full steam

 

Pant is good enough as 6th batsman + pandya+ ashiwn/jadeja+ bhuvi is enough batting but provided batsman make runs 

If they are not making drop them not ur plans

why is pandya being dropped for pujara, rahane n dhawan issue

Pujara made 100+ 70 and thats its 

Pandya took a fifer + 50 

Dhawan did nothing

Rahane 1,2 innings

 

So not much to choose....atleast pandya gave balance and even showed more application with bat in 1st 2 test to . If these guys are not makung runs drop them. Also pandya is not the only option keep shankar also in their

What is Pandya’s accountability? Is he expected to perform with the bat or ball?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Actually WI play 2  “allrounders” in their X1 like Jason Holder and Brathwaite.

 

Infact Holder has achieved a lot more than Pandya in tests :)

 

we we know how their team is doing 

Pandya has played 11 test 

 

batting avg- 31.29 

bowling- 31.06

 

Holder after 11 test 

batting - 28.05

bowling - 37.29

 

Sorry pandya is ahead , lets see where pandya stands after 34 games as holder has played that much

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Global.Baba said:

What is Pandya’s accountability? Is he expected to perform with the bat or ball?

 

 

in 1st season i have low expectation from youngsters

he has shown enough good signs and thats ok for me as of now and same with pant , Rahul ( they havent been consitent)

 

93 in SA

5-fer in england, 3 wkts in 2nd test + 2 wkts in Sa when needed in 1st 

100 in SL

Runs when we collapsed agaisnt afghan

 

 

My prob is with Pujara

3 tours of Sa, 2 tours of eng, 1- aus,nz, wi- whats his perfomance that i shud go after these young kids who are still in their 1st cycle 

 

My prob with kohli who plays dhawan n rohit overseas on god knws what criteria 

 

My prob is with rahane - 

coz now runs have dried at home n he is still inconsitent overseas

 

ppl struggling in their 2nd cycle and i shud go after youngs players in 1st cycle........thats not how u shud make players. They are jst finding feet and playing in toughest of the toughest condition .....i have a lot of patience for these young player

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Pandya has played 11 test 

 

batting avg- 31.29 

bowling- 31.06

 

Holder after 11 test 

batting - 28.05

bowling - 37.29

 

Sorry pandya is ahead , lets see where pandya stands after 34 games as holder has played that much

What is this after 11 games comparison? If you keep doing that then a lot of young players will be ahead of some ATGs.

 

Anyways despite being captain,Holder has a spot in his side  due to the lack of resources in WI.  He is a better quality bat and bowler  than a lot of other reserve players in WI.

 

With Pandya there are 100s of better batsmen and bowlers than him in domestics who can contribute in 1 area so much that we may not even need the 2nd skill.

Edited by Global.Baba

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

 

But with the current batting line up if you're going in with only 5 specialist batsmen you're pretty much losing the game at the toss itself if you field first. We have seen it time and time again. More often than not 3 pacers and 1 spinner would suffice overseas. Pandya can come in when we are playing on roads. Otherwise I'd much rather play 6 batsmen or at least wait until Pant develops into a capable no. 6 who averages ~ 40. 

Not just field first, bat first and a fiery spell or poor batting could have us play catch up for the next 5 days as well. I shudder to think if Kohli had an ordinary tour this time, he was probably the only batsmen they have had to analyze across the series. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

But we have won with them 

We won With pandya in SA n ENg, binny in eng

 

point is - pujara, rahane , opners has to take charge....if they are not dnt add batsman replace them

to much workload on ur bowler will break them , and incases of injuries in matches it ll be worse

 

Look at the numbers of overs bumrah n shami had to bowl in last test of a long series, after ages u found bowlers who can clock 140+ let them bowl at full steam

 

Pant is good enough as 6th batsman + pandya+ ashiwn/jadeja+ bhuvi is enough batting but provided batsman make runs 

If they are not making drop them not ur plans

why is pandya being dropped for pujara, rahane n dhawan issue

Pujara made 100+ 70 and thats its 

Pandya took a fifer + 50 

Dhawan did nothing

Rahane 1,2 innings

 

So not much to choose....atleast pandya gave balance and even showed more application with bat in 1st 2 test to . If these guys are not makung runs drop them. Also pandya is not the only option keep shankar also in their

When did we win with these guys while fielding first? That's what I said, if you're going in with just 5 batsmen, you better bat first because with this top 5, you're not gonna win anything while chasing against decent sides. Even if the entire batting line-up is replaced barring Kohli, the noobs will still need time to settle in to their roles and you'd still struggle with just 5 specialist batsmen. Pandya right now is a luxury player that we can't afford more often that not.

Share this post


Link to post

We lost 2 tests 31 runs and 60 runs because of the limitation in the combination. Pacers (3) and Spinner did fine , our lower MO batting was the key difference in the first and fourth test. After Rahane, it was Pandya/Pant/DK walking didn't give any confidence to go over the small score. The same happened even in SA, 2 tests where we could have crossed with a specialist batsman. Pandya's bowling is hit ot miss, while batting is miss in tough conditions, he might score a few 50s here and there in the 3rd innings when it js mostly useless.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Maybe the players need to be conditioned towards workload management and horses for courses. The english were ready for that at the start of the series, we should grow up as well. Decisions are always dependent on the circumstances, we did see Anderson complete the 5 tests at the age of 36 and from the look of it he could go for another two. 

 

The English said it only.   Have they actually done it  with any regularity in the past   ?

 

I don't think any player anywhere agrees to sit out voluntarily unless he is a reigning superstar assured of a spot.  Players hide injuries even and play on so that a new guy does not come in.  That is the reality. Look at the Ashwin case ... played 4th test despite injury ... forced to sit out in the 5th.  Jaddu comes in and scores a 80 odd and takes 7 wickets.  Now, Jaddu is the No.1 spinner overseas for the time being.

 

12 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Good thing you mentioned Rabada; when Steyn went missing in the first innings of that iconic test, 3 primary bowlers including Rabada more than covered up for him. Rabada bowled 20/70 & 31/119 overs in that game. 

 

Can happen in 1 match and not regularly.  Even our pacers did it here ... but cant do it for full series.

Share this post


Link to post

Vihari scored a 50 and took 3 wickets and  went wicketless and scored a duck in the 2nd innings. We all think of  it as an average performance because the expectation was him to score a lot more even though the wickets were a bonus.

 

If it was Pandya then some fans here would be creating histograms and pie charts of how useful Pandya is lol

Share this post


Link to post

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
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×