zen Posted September 11, 2018 Author Share Posted September 11, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said: I'd rather "optimize" the batting by picking the best 6 batsmen available but that's just me . You could do that but could start to see the impact of law of diminishing returns as it is difficult to find 6 batsmen who can avg 45 or more like they used to in the past .... If you are diluting the bowling, which has been a strength relatively, you would need the 6 chosen batsmen to avg a lot higher than what they currently do For reference, below is how those playing in 1 to 5 have averaged in the past View overall figures [change view] Primary team India Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 Batting position less than or equal to 5 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 Ordered by batting average (descending) Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 8 of 8 First Previous Next Last Return to query menu Cleared query menu Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0 G Gambhir 2004-2009 27 48 3 2553 206 56.73 8 10 1 SR Tendulkar 1992-2009 148 241 25 12108 248* 56.05 41 50 13 V Sehwag 2002-2009 66 112 4 5791 319 53.62 16 16 9 R Dravid 1996-2009 131 223 25 10541 270 53.23 27 53 7 M Azharuddin 1990-2000 53 70 4 3126 192 47.36 11 10 2 NS Sidhu 1990-1999 38 56 0 2517 201 44.94 7 12 6 VVS Laxman 1996-2009 68 106 11 4066 281 42.80 10 21 9 SC Ganguly 1996-2008 87 138 11 5391 239 42.44 12 24 7 #6 has supported batsmen w/ the above numbers with: View overall figures [change view] Primary team India Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 Batting position equal to 6 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 Ordered by batting average (descending) Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 3 of 3 First Previous Next Last Return to query menu Cleared query menu Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0 VVS Laxman 1996-2009 48 63 10 2578 154* 48.64 4 19 3 Yuvraj Singh 2003-2009 23 32 4 1179 169 42.10 3 6 3 SC Ganguly 1997-2008 37 47 5 1725 147 41.07 4 11 6 Currently, (after the retirement of the big guns) View overall figures [change view] Primary team India Start of match date between 1 Jan 2014 and 1 Jan 2019 Batting position less than or equal to 6 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 Ordered by batting average (descending) Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 7 of 7 First Previous Next Last Return to query menu Cleared query menu Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s V Kohli 2014-2018 49 85 5 4640 243 58.00 7483 62.00 18 11 5 508 12 CA Pujara 2014-2018 44 77 4 3219 202 44.09 7208 44.65 9 14 5 377 7 M Vijay 2014-2018 39 68 1 2677 155 39.95 5813 46.05 9 11 6 301 24 S Dhawan 2014-2018 29 51 1 1996 190 39.92 3038 65.70 6 5 4 263 10 AM Rahane 2014-2018 47 79 8 2815 188 39.64 5525 50.95 8 12 6 312 20 KL Rahul 2014-2018 29 48 1 1811 199 38.53 3098 58.45 5 11 4 219 12 RG Sharma 2014-2018 21 37 5 1146 102* 35.81 2152 53.25 1 9 3 106 24 So times have changed! .... First we have to find 5 high quality batsmen, who can then be supported by the 6th, ... and as a batting group, also be able to compensate for the diluted bowling, which is turning in to a strength .... Good Luck! Edited September 11, 2018 by zen Link to comment
Jimmy Cliff Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, zen said: You could do that but could start to see the impact of law of diminishing returns as it is difficult to find 6 batsmen who can avg 45 or more like they used to in the past .... If you are diluting the bowling, which has been a strength relatively, you would need the 6 chosen batsmen to avg a higher than what they currently do For reference, below is how those playing in 1 to 5 have averaged in the past View overall figures [change view] Primary team India Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 Batting position less than or equal to 5 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 Ordered by batting average (descending) Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 8 of 8 First Previous Next Last Return to query menu Cleared query menu Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0 G Gambhir 2004-2009 27 48 3 2553 206 56.73 8 10 1 SR Tendulkar 1992-2009 148 241 25 12108 248* 56.05 41 50 13 V Sehwag 2002-2009 66 112 4 5791 319 53.62 16 16 9 R Dravid 1996-2009 131 223 25 10541 270 53.23 27 53 7 M Azharuddin 1990-2000 53 70 4 3126 192 47.36 11 10 2 NS Sidhu 1990-1999 38 56 0 2517 201 44.94 7 12 6 VVS Laxman 1996-2009 68 106 11 4066 281 42.80 10 21 9 SC Ganguly 1996-2008 87 138 11 5391 239 42.44 12 24 7 #6 has supported batsmen w/ the above numbers with: View overall figures [change view] Primary team India Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 Batting position equal to 6 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 Ordered by batting average (descending) Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 3 of 3 First Previous Next Last Return to query menu Cleared query menu Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0 VVS Laxman 1996-2009 48 63 10 2578 154* 48.64 4 19 3 Yuvraj Singh 2003-2009 23 32 4 1179 169 42.10 3 6 3 SC Ganguly 1997-2008 37 47 5 1725 147 41.07 4 11 6 Currently, View overall figures [change view] Primary team India Start of match date between 11 Sep 2013 and 11 Sep 2018 Batting position less than or equal to 6 Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 Ordered by batting average (descending) Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 7 of 7 First Previous Next Last Return to query menu Cleared query menu Overall figures Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s V Kohli 2013-2018 53 91 5 4972 243 57.81 8054 61.73 19 13 5 546 12 CA Pujara 2013-2018 48 83 4 3629 202 45.93 8011 45.30 11 15 5 427 7 AM Rahane 2013-2018 49 83 9 3024 188 40.86 5967 50.67 8 14 6 341 22 RG Sharma 2013-2018 25 43 6 1479 177 39.97 2682 55.14 3 9 4 144 29 M Vijay 2013-2018 43 74 1 2894 155 39.64 6318 45.80 9 12 6 336 24 KL Rahul 2014-2018 29 48 1 1811 199 38.53 3098 58.45 5 11 4 219 12 S Dhawan 2013-2018 33 57 1 2128 190 38.00 3284 64.79 6 5 4 283 10 So times have changed! That's precisely why we should go all out to strengthen our batting by picking our top 6 batsmen. If you have a top 5 of Viru/GG/Dravid/SRT/Laxman you can replace your no. 6 bat (whether it's Ganguly/Yuvraj or whoever) with an all-rounder and still have a good line-up. Right now when you already have a vulnerable top 5 where no one barring Kohli is secure of their place how can you expect to pick just 5 specialists and a hit or miss batsman in Pant/Pandya/Ashwin at 6 and then compete with line-ups like England that bat until 9! For Pandya to be first-choice, it is essential for us to have a top 5 that is firing collectively more often than not and to have a keeper-bat who is competent enough to average 40-odd at 6. Until that happens, Pandya will always be a luxury. Link to comment
zen Posted September 11, 2018 Author Share Posted September 11, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said: That's precisely why we should go all out to strengthen our batting by picking our top 6 batsmen. If you have a top 5 of Viru/GG/Dravid/SRT/Laxman you can replace your no. 6 bat (whether it's Ganguly/Yuvraj or whoever) with an all-rounder and still have a good line-up. Right now when you already have a vulnerable top 5 where no one barring Kohli is secure of their place how can you expect to pick just 5 specialists and a hit or miss batsman in Pant/Pandya/Ashwin at 6 and then compete with line-ups like England that bat until 9! For Pandya to be first-choice, it is essential for us to have a top 5 that is firing collectively more often than not and to have a keeper-bat who is competent enough to average 40-odd at 6. Until that happens, Pandya will always be a luxury. As mentioned in OP, "if your horses are running like donkeys, we cannot hope to win a race by adding more horses who run like donkeys". We would need to have horses who run like horses The case for adding a relatively weak 6th batsman, considering that we have already done our due diligence and picked the best 5 who still make the batting vulnerable, is not strong practically. And when our bowling is strong relatively. We have to safe guard the bowling first .... If you think batting can be a strength, let the batting perform first to show that as a group the top 5 can compensate for the diluted bowling. Let's see if we have a 6th batsman who can avg highly too (we cannot assume that the 6th batsman will be our best batsman as if he is he would not be the 6th batsman) In the current scenario, the 6th does not add much when the best five on form and conditions can be chosen, along w/ being ably supported by others batting positions, as demonstrated below: View overall figures [change view] Primary team India Start of match date greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 Batting position less than or equal to 6 Ordered by runs scored (descending) Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 6 of 6 First Previous Next Last Return to query menu Cleared query menu Overall figures Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s KL Rahul 1 2 0 186 149 93.00 277 67.14 1 0 0 24 1 GH Vihari 1 2 0 56 56 28.00 130 43.07 0 1 1 7 1 V Kohli 1 2 0 49 49 24.50 71 69.01 0 0 1 6 0 CA Pujara 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 104 35.57 0 0 1 5 0 AM Rahane 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 114 32.45 0 0 1 5 0 S Dhawan 1 2 0 4 3 2.00 12 33.33 0 0 0 0 0 Edited September 11, 2018 by zen Link to comment
express bowling Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 11 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said: pick just 5 specialists and a hit or miss batsman in Pant/Pandya/Ashwin at 6 and then compete with line-ups like England that bat until 9! For Pandya to be first-choice, it is essential for us to have a top 5 that is firing collectively more often than not and to have a keeper-bat who is competent enough to average 40-odd at 6. Until that happens, Pandya will always be a luxury. Pant is not a hit or miss batsman. He averaged 54.5 in FC before test debut which shows consistency ... performed really consistently for our A-team too ... looks good against the bouncing ball ... off stump game is not poor either. He just needs to cut down on his slogged 6 attempts. He has such a wide array of shots that those slogged 6s are not necessary. He can be our proper No.6 batsman and solve this problem. The other realistic options available for the No.6 slot, are not in any way better than Pant ... Vihari seems to have an issue against the short ball ... Nair's off stump game has often looked suspect ... and there is no other ready candidate who is performing consistently for our A-team. Even Nair and Vihari haven't. Link to comment
Jimmy Cliff Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 4 minutes ago, express bowling said: Pant is not a hit or miss batsman. He averaged 54.5 in FC before test debut which shows consistency ... performed really consistently for our A-team too ... looks good against the bouncing ball ... off stump game is not poor either. He just needs to cut down on his slogged 6 attempts. He has such a wide array of shots that those slogged 6s are not necessary. He can be our proper No.6 batsman and solve this problem. The other realistic options available for the No.6 slot, are not in any way better than Pant ... Vihari seems to have an issue against the short ball ... Nair's off stump game has often looked suspect ... and there is no other ready candidate who is performing consistently for our A-team. Even Nair and Vihari haven't. With 1 50+ score in 6 innings at an average of less than 30, he is hit or miss so far which is understandable as it's early days in his career. If he is able to upgrade into a proper no. 6 Test bat with an average of around 40, he'd do wonders to the balance of the side and allow us to play an all-rounder at no. 7. Right now, he is not that player so throwing him at the deep end at 6 and expecting him to deliver right away is unfair. Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 Even with Gilly, Aus chose 6 batsman and 4 bowlers. If we have Bhuvi, Bumrah and one of Shami/Yadav/Ishant/ and have a pool of pacers rotating, we can do the same. Link to comment
Ankit_sharma03 Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Even with Gilly, Aus chose 6 batsman and 4 bowlers. If we have Bhuvi, Bumrah and one of Shami/Yadav/Ishant/ and have a pool of pacers rotating, we can do the same. They had ATG like Mcgrath n Warne Do we have a spinner like Warne ?? No Do We have part timers like Waugh bros, Clarke, symonds ???? No Did they have workload of 3 formats + IPL ????? Nooo GautiMaan, diehardpacer and zen 2 1 Link to comment
zen Posted September 11, 2018 Author Share Posted September 11, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Even with Gilly, Aus chose 6 batsman and 4 bowlers. If we have Bhuvi, Bumrah and one of Shami/Yadav/Ishant/ and have a pool of pacers rotating, we can do the same. Despite having two ATG bowlers, Aus relied on bowling from likes of Waugh, Clarke, Symmonds, Lehman, Katich, etc .... that is simply not an option available to Ind now and as explained by various posters as to the canvas having changed due to impact of the newer format - T20 .... Also if you have a batting line up like Aus had and someone like Gilly who could bat at 6 or 7, your options are not as limited as Ind's are Edited September 11, 2018 by zen Link to comment
Global.Baba Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 Just now, Ankit_sharma03 said: They had ATG like Mcgrath n Warne Do we have a spinner like Warne ?? No Do We have part timers like Waugh bros, Clarke, symonds ???? No Did they have workload of 3 formats + IPL ????? Nooo Warne and McGrath don’t come by every day and same applies to ATG allrounders. Just like you don’t play a guy who has similar action to Warne and McGrath hoping he will become like them, you don’t play an allrounder just for the sake of it hoping he will become a genuine allrounder. Rightarmfast, Clarke, coffee_rules and 1 other 4 Link to comment
zen Posted September 11, 2018 Author Share Posted September 11, 2018 3 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said: They had ATG like Mcgrath n Warne Do we have a spinner like Warne ?? No Do We have part timers like Waugh bros, Clarke, symonds ???? No Did they have workload of 3 formats + IPL ????? Nooo I am beginning to wonder if it is mostly the clueless wonders who are supporting playing 6 batsmen because of how teams did in past and in an era where T20 was not a factor or a huge factor Link to comment
Ankit_sharma03 Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 Just now, Global.Baba said: Warne and McGrath don’t come by every day and same applies to ATG allrounders. Doesnt mean u stop selecting bowlers so why stop selecting all rounder JSt becoz u dnt find next dravud shud we stop selecting Pujara and no one become a gr8 overnight to Just now, Global.Baba said: Just like you don’t play a guy who has similar action to Warne and McGrath hoping he will become like them, you don’t play an allrounder just for the sake of it hoping he will become a genuine allrounder. World doesnt stop jst becoz u cnt find special players, u hve to keep selecting and no one becomes special over night ....the name we take took yrs n yrs All rounder becomes all rounder over a period of time only . Check stats of all gr8 all rounder , they all took their sweet time Link to comment
Jimmy Cliff Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 (edited) 37 minutes ago, zen said: As mentioned in OP, "if your horses are running like donkeys, we cannot hope to win a race by adding more horses who run like donkeys". We would need to have horses who run like horses The case for adding a relatively weak 6th batsman, considering that we have already done our due diligence and picked the best 5 who still make the batting vulnerable, is not strong practically. And when our bowling is strong relatively. We have to safe guard the bowling first .... If you think batting can be a strength, let the batting perform first to show that as a group the top 5 can compensate for the diluted bowling. Let's see if we have a 6th batsman who can avg highly too (we cannot assume that the 6th batsman will be our best batsman as if he is he would not be the 6th batsman) In the current scenario, the 6th does not add much when the best five on form and conditions can be chosen, along w/ being ably supported by others batting positions, as demonstrated below: View overall figures [change view] Primary team India Start of match date greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 Batting position less than or equal to 6 Ordered by runs scored (descending) Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 6 of 6 First Previous Next Last Return to query menu Cleared query menu Overall figures Player Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s KL Rahul 1 2 0 186 149 93.00 277 67.14 1 0 0 24 1 GH Vihari 1 2 0 56 56 28.00 130 43.07 0 1 1 7 1 V Kohli 1 2 0 49 49 24.50 71 69.01 0 0 1 6 0 CA Pujara 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 104 35.57 0 0 1 5 0 AM Rahane 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 114 32.45 0 0 1 5 0 S Dhawan 1 2 0 4 3 2.00 12 33.33 0 0 0 0 0 I'd much rather add a relatively weaker 6th batsman, instead of playing Pant at 6 (who is not ready), or Ashwin (who's regressed beyond all measure as a batsman), or Jadeja (who is a no. 7 or 8 rather than a 6) or Pandya (who averages 13 at 6!). Our bowling is relatively strong which is why as long as we pick the right 4 bowlers according to the conditions we should be fine. Our batting is relatively weaker which is why it's essential to pick not only right top 5 but also strengthen it by picking a specialist 6th batsman. Still I am not averse to picking an all-rounder in Asia/WI or on roads in SENA countries. But on most surfaces in SENA, I'd much rather go in with 6 batsmen because as we have seen already, with just 5 specialist batsmen we might as well concede the game at the toss itself if we are fielding first. Edited September 11, 2018 by Jimmy Cliff Link to comment
Ankit_sharma03 Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 1 minute ago, zen said: I am beginning to wonder if it is mostly the clueless wonders who are supporting playing 6 batsmen because of how teams did in past and in an era where T20 was not a factor or a huge factor No its jst lack of watching games They dnt knw no one becomes gr8 night??? they compare a young career to career of reaching their peek They cnt over text book crap???? Thats why lack of flexibility in our mindsets at society only Bravery for them is finding soft targets???? how many here has questioned pujara but every one jumped on pandya, pant and rahul zen 1 Link to comment
Global.Baba Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, zen said: I am beginning to wonder if it is mostly the clueless wonders who are supporting playing 6 batsmen because of how teams did in past and in an era where T20 was not a factor or a huge factor The only teams that have these bits and pieces allrounders in 2018 are Srilanka and WI due to lack of resources. England has struggled due to too many allrounders in some conditions. Nzl plays Grandhomme who I think is the closest in terms of Pandya. Santner is in as a spinner first. Shakib is a genuine allrounder but he too is a bowler first but again it is Bangladesh. Aus has almost given up on Mitch Marsh experiment. Pak too has too many bits and pieces players Edited September 11, 2018 by Global.Baba Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 Most teams have T20 specialists, ODI specialists. Our bowling team barring Ishant/Shami, the bowlers and batsman selected are pretty much same. Nobody is forcing India to do that. Link to comment
Ankit_sharma03 Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said: I'd much rather add a relatively weaker 6th batsman, instead of playing Pant at 6 (who is not ready), or Ashwin (who's regressed beyond all measure as a batsman), or Jadeja (who is a no. 7 or 8 rather than a 6) or Pandya (who averages 13 at 6!). We had that rohit sharma relatively weeker batsman We had those weeker batsman like dhawan- who was a walking wkt .....and everyone wanted 6 batsman not knowing the 1st batsman is a batsman of name Whats being ready , high rate of consistency...........rarely ull find young batsman being so consistent in alien conditions which last over a period of time . Stop having such bizzare expectation Link to comment
zen Posted September 11, 2018 Author Share Posted September 11, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said: I'd much rather add a relatively weaker 6th batsman, instead of playing Pant at 6 (who is not ready), or Ashwin (who's regressed beyond all measure as a batsman), or Jadeja (who is a no. 7 or 8 rather than a 6) or Pandya (who averages 13 at 6!). Our bowling is relatively strong which is why as long as we pick the right 4 bowlers according the conditions we should be fine. Our batting is relatively weaker which is why it's essential to pick not only right top 5 but also strengthen it by picking a specialist 6th batsman. Still I am not averse to picking an all-rounder in Asia/WI or on roads in SENA countries. But on most surfaces in SENA, I'd much rather go in with 6 batsmen because as we have seen already, with just 5 specialist batsmen we might as well concede the game at the toss itself if we are fielding first. But note that the 6th batsman is not likely to do much better than what Pant, Ashwin, Pandya, Jadeja, etc. can offer at 6 and collectively as a group. The average listed above accounts for relatively difficult playing conditions as well we lost by playing 6 batsmen despite not winning the toss and bowling first. Therefore the concept that the team could do well w/ 6 batsmen despite batting 2nd was not proved in this series. In fact, take Rahul's 100 out and this is one of the worst batting performance by the top 6 in relatively batting friendly conditions when our batting is strong, we play extra batsman. and when our bowling is strong, we play extra batsman. So it could be that playing 6 batsmen could be serving the purpose of providing comfort to fans rather than offering meaningful benefits than what an AR/bowler could in that position in the current set up. In that case, teams cannot be chosen to provide imaginary assurances to fans. There have to be tangible benefits as well Thank you! Edited September 11, 2018 by zen express bowling 1 Link to comment
Global.Baba Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 Just now, Ankit_sharma03 said: We had that rohit sharma relatively weeker batsman We had those weeker batsman like dhawan- who was a walking wkt .....and everyone wanted 6 batsman not knowing the 1st batsman is a batsman of name Whats being ready , high rate of consistency...........rarely ull find young batsman being so consistent in alien conditions which last over a period of time . Stop having such bizzare expectation So Jadeja outscored Rahane does it mean Jadeja can play even if he stops taking wickets? Simple Rahane gets replaced by another bat and Jadeja by another bowler. They are judged on their primary skill simple. If Rohit Sharma failed at 6, another batsman gets into his place. Just because Bhuvi or Pandya made 5-10 runs more than him, you don’t bat them at 6. Simple you expect a batsman to score a 100 every time he walks in. you expect a bowler to take 5 wickets every time he bowls. You can’t go in expecting 35 runs and 1 wicket from a player. How is such a simple concept not getting through? Rightarmfast and diehardpacer 1 1 Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 Mayank/Shaw Rahul Pujara Kohli Vihari Gill/Bharat/Batsman who can bowl a bit/Pandya Pant Ashwin/Jadeja Bhuvi Ishant/Shami/Yadav Bumrah Try this out for WI series. I have dropped Rahane for India series now. Let me rest for a series. I'd st Link to comment
Jimmy Cliff Posted September 11, 2018 Share Posted September 11, 2018 1 minute ago, Ankit_sharma03 said: We had that rohit sharma relatively weeker batsman We had those weeker batsman like dhawan- who was a walking wkt .....and everyone wanted 6 batsman not knowing the 1st batsman is a batsman of name Whats being ready , high rate of consistency...........rarely ull find young batsman being so consistent in alien conditions which last over a period of time . Stop having such bizzare expectation Abe what bizarre expectation? I have low expectations which is why I want Pant to continue at 7 and establish himself before he's given the extra responsibility of batting in the top 6. And no one here with half a brain wants Rohit or Dhawan in the Test side. Stop creating faaltu strawmen arguments. Clarke and Global.Baba 1 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now