Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zen

The dumb math of playing the extra batsman

Recommended Posts

I get your point but sorry hardik is not the answer. Hardik should be competing against bhuvi, jadeja and ashwin for 5th bowler spot. 

 

Openers, Dhawan and rahane were free riders this series along with wicketkeeper batsman sans last innings. But pandya is not the solution. 

 

We will drop rahane and dhawan get shaw and bhuvi/ vijayshankar .  This team will look great. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 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 I like about Pandya is that he can bowl at 140+ and hit test 100s, which is a rare quality among Ind players 

 

If we optimize our batting and bowling slots, we would have accounted for consistency. So what players such as Pandya, esp. in the early phase, can do is work as impact player at times and like a Swiss Army Knife at times to provide that edge and/or balance to the team .... With time, as he improves, consistency and performances will come naturally 

 

Right now, we want to play our struggling specialists and select players to bail these TTF out. This puts unnecessary pressure on youngsters such as Pant and Pandya 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Global.Baba said:

What is this after 11 games comparison? If you do that of young players will be ahead of some ATGs.

So how do u compare someone who has played 11 games with 34.....

Just now, Global.Baba said:

 

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.

And do we have a better option as all rounder then pandya

Just now, Global.Baba said:

 

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

may be but as package none better and we need a package 

Pandya has proven to be a better batsman then dhawan , rohit overseas who are still among top batsman in country ....so dnt exaggerate 100 batsman. 

Apart from kohli all these so called batsman were struggling to make a 50 in Sa and this guy made a 93 

 

Umesh, shami, ishant, Zaheer khan- none got a fifer in their 1st england tour 

 

Baba here is gyaan of the Day- naam pe mat jao kaam pe jaao

Share this post


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

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.

this is top post

 

this is the key for an alrounder.

 

Somehow when Stokes comes to bowl - he looks like he is going to get a wicket and when he bats he looks like he will face a 100 deliveries --> alrounder Pandya - when he comes in its "will he bowl well is this a rhythm day or not, will he bat well will his logs work this time".

 

Vihari when he bats - expect him to bat long - bowls - meh pray he does not get hit for 6's.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

So how do u compare someone who has played 11 games with 34.....

And do we have a better option as all rounder then pandya

may be but as package none better and we need a package 

Pandya has proven to be a better batsman then dhawan , rohit overseas who are still among top batsman in country ....so dnt exaggerate 100 batsman. 

Apart from kohli all these so called batsman were struggling to make a 50 in Sa and this guy made a 93 

 

Umesh, shami, ishant, Zaheer khan- none got a fifer in their 1st england tour 

 

Baba here is gyaan of the Day- naam pe mat jao kaam pe jaao

His 5 wicket was a fine spell of bowling but he blew hot and cold the next test itself. You see such magical spells by a lot of parttimers

as well many times.

 

His batting was average at best.

 

There is no specialist role as an allrounder, if a bowler can bat or a batsman can bowl it is a bonus.

 

Even England struggles many times because they have too many allrounders just for the sake of it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

He doesn't fit the classic allrounder. They have to be held accountable for one role - batting or bowling as a shoe-in into the team. Is he the 6th batsman or a third seamer? Neither. 

 

Don't tell me we need 4 seamers all the time. Oval was exception with no swing , where their main bowlers had given up, during mid-day. Not all pitches are flat. With swing and seam, we need 4 bowlers and not 4 seamers. 

Share this post


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

Even England struggles many times because they have too many allrounders just for the sake of it.

Teams have different strengths and weaknesses ....  there is not much to complain if we optimize our 5 batting and 4 bowling slots :nod:

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, zen said:

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 

I'd rather "optimize" the batting by picking the best 6 batsmen available but that's just me :dontknow:.

Share this post


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

His 5 wicket was a fine spell of bowling but he blew hot and cold the next test itself. You see such magical spells by a lot of parttimers

as well many times.

Who didnt 

pujara did 

rahane has his whole career

vijay has 

 

N how many times we will use these fluke like ref

his 93 was a fluke ( so why dnt other get a fluke)

his 5 wkt is like what part timers do ( he took 3 wkts in a game before to what happened to our bowlers in that , ill gladly take if some one keeps on producing magic like that )

 

About being consistent- no one is apart from kohli , bumrah and now somewhat ishant 

which shows how tough conditions are and how unfair some ppl expectation on young players are

2 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

His batting was average at best.

Atleast had more application then senior batsman        

and also i forgot to add ur 100 batsman thing

 

Please do follow A tours-

Pandya on A tour to Aus made 70+ on green top against moving pink ball where our all next line A batsman failed 

so their is a lot of good signs he shud be invested in .

 

Problem isnt pandya but non perfoming seniors, had they done today we might have had won....If they become consistent pandya + pant will look like huge assets in lower order

 

For god sake they are young kids dnt expect them to be the pillars of the team right now

2 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

There is no specialist role as an allrounder, if a bowler can bat or a batsman can bowl it is a bonus.

A role is what team needs not whats in the books 

Dravid was no specialist keeper but team needed and he did

Shastri n parbhakar were no specialist opener but they did 

 

2 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Even England struggles many times because they have too many allrounders just for the sake of it.

We are not talking about many we are talking about 1

England to shud 1st get specialist right then question those all rounder atleast they contribute 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

I'd rather "optimize" the batting by picking the best 6 batsmen available but that's just me :dontknow:.

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 remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 remove between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 5 remove less than or equal to 5 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 8 of 8   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 100 50 0  
G Gambhir 2004-2009 27 48 3 2553 206 56.73 8 10 1 investigate this query
SR Tendulkar 1992-2009 148 241 25 12108 248* 56.05 41 50 13 investigate this query
V Sehwag 2002-2009 66 112 4 5791 319 53.62 16 16 9 investigate this query
R Dravid 1996-2009 131 223 25 10541 270 53.23 27 53 7 investigate this query
M Azharuddin 1990-2000 53 70 4 3126 192 47.36 11 10 2 investigate this query
NS Sidhu 1990-1999 38 56 0 2517 201 44.94 7 12 6 investigate this query
VVS Laxman 1996-2009 68 106 11 4066 281 42.80 10 21 9 investigate this query
SC Ganguly 1996-2008 87 138 11 5391 239 42.44 12 24 7

investigate this query

 

#6 has supported batsmen w/ the above numbers with:

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 remove between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 from query
Batting position equal to 6 remove equal to 6 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 3 of 3   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 100 50 0  
VVS Laxman 1996-2009 48 63 10 2578 154* 48.64 4 19 3 investigate this query
Yuvraj Singh 2003-2009 23 32 4 1179 169 42.10 3 6 3 investigate this query
SC Ganguly 1997-2008 37 47 5 1725 147 41.07 4 11 6 investigate this query

 

 

Currently, (after the retirement of the big guns)

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 2014 and 1 Jan 2019 remove between 1 Jan 2014 and 1 Jan 2019 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 6 remove less than or equal to 6 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 7 of 7   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 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 investigate this query
CA Pujara 2014-2018 44 77 4 3219 202 44.09 7208 44.65 9 14 5 377 7 investigate this query
M Vijay 2014-2018 39 68 1 2677 155 39.95 5813 46.05 9 11 6 301 24 investigate this query
S Dhawan 2014-2018 29 51 1 1996 190 39.92 3038 65.70 6 5 4 263 10 investigate this query
AM Rahane 2014-2018 47 79 8 2815 188 39.64 5525 50.95 8 12 6 312 20 investigate this query
KL Rahul 2014-2018 29 48 1 1811 199 38.53 3098 58.45 5 11 4 219 12 investigate this query
RG Sharma 2014-2018 21 37 5 1146 102* 35.81 2152 53.25 1 9 3 106 24 investigate this query

 

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 by zen

Share this post


Link to post
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 remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 remove between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 5 remove less than or equal to 5 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 8 of 8   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 100 50 0  
G Gambhir 2004-2009 27 48 3 2553 206 56.73 8 10 1 investigate this query
SR Tendulkar 1992-2009 148 241 25 12108 248* 56.05 41 50 13 investigate this query
V Sehwag 2002-2009 66 112 4 5791 319 53.62 16 16 9 investigate this query
R Dravid 1996-2009 131 223 25 10541 270 53.23 27 53 7 investigate this query
M Azharuddin 1990-2000 53 70 4 3126 192 47.36 11 10 2 investigate this query
NS Sidhu 1990-1999 38 56 0 2517 201 44.94 7 12 6 investigate this query
VVS Laxman 1996-2009 68 106 11 4066 281 42.80 10 21 9 investigate this query
SC Ganguly 1996-2008 87 138 11 5391 239 42.44 12 24 7

investigate this query

 

#6 has supported batsmen w/ the above numbers with:

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 remove between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 from query
Batting position equal to 6 remove equal to 6 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 3 of 3   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 100 50 0  
VVS Laxman 1996-2009 48 63 10 2578 154* 48.64 4 19 3 investigate this query
Yuvraj Singh 2003-2009 23 32 4 1179 169 42.10 3 6 3 investigate this query
SC Ganguly 1997-2008 37 47 5 1725 147 41.07 4 11 6 investigate this query

 

 

Currently, 

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 11 Sep 2013 and 11 Sep 2018 remove between 11 Sep 2013 and 11 Sep 2018 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 6 remove less than or equal to 6 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 7 of 7   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 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 investigate this query
CA Pujara 2013-2018 48 83 4 3629 202 45.93 8011 45.30 11 15 5 427 7 investigate this query
AM Rahane 2013-2018 49 83 9 3024 188 40.86 5967 50.67 8 14 6 341 22 investigate this query
RG Sharma 2013-2018 25 43 6 1479 177 39.97 2682 55.14 3 9 4 144 29 investigate this query
M Vijay 2013-2018 43 74 1 2894 155 39.64 6318 45.80 9 12 6 336 24 investigate this query
KL Rahul 2014-2018 29 48 1 1811 199 38.53 3098 58.45 5 11 4 219 12 investigate this query
S Dhawan 2013-2018 33 57 1 2128 190 38.00 3284 64.79 6 5 4 283 10

investigate this query

 

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 remove India from query
Start of match date greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 remove greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 6 remove less than or equal to 6 from query
Ordered by runs scored (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 6 of 6   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 RunsDescending 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 investigate this query
GH Vihari 1 2 0 56 56 28.00 130 43.07 0 1 1 7 1 investigate this query
V Kohli 1 2 0 49 49 24.50 71 69.01 0 0 1 6 0 investigate this query
CA Pujara 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 104 35.57 0 0 1 5 0 investigate this query
AM Rahane 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 114 32.45 0 0 1 5 0 investigate this query
S Dhawan 1 2 0 4 3 2.00 12 33.33 0 0 0 0 0

 

 
Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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 :winky:

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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 remove India from query
Start of match date greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 remove greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 6 remove less than or equal to 6 from query
Ordered by runs scored (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 6 of 6   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 RunsDescending 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 investigate this query
GH Vihari 1 2 0 56 56 28.00 130 43.07 0 1 1 7 1 investigate this query
V Kohli 1 2 0 49 49 24.50 71 69.01 0 0 1 6 0 investigate this query
CA Pujara 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 104 35.57 0 0 1 5 0 investigate this query
AM Rahane 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 114 32.45 0 0 1 5 0 investigate this query
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!).

 

c17111ca-9527-4697-8c97-dec86df99f8a.png

 

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 by Jimmy Cliff

Share this post


Link to post
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 :lol:

 

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 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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 :lol:

 

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 by Global.Baba

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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!).

 

c17111ca-9527-4697-8c97-dec86df99f8a.png

 

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 by zen

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Mayank/Shaw

Rahul

Pujara

Kohli

Vihari

Gill/Bharat/Batsman who can bowl a bit/Pandya :woot: 

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


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

Simple Rahane gets replaced by another bat and Jadeja by another bowler. They are judged on their primary skill simple.

Agreed

1 minute ago, Global.Baba said:

 

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.

and where are u going to manage those extra overs so ur fast bowlers can rest ???

1 minute ago, Global.Baba said:

Simple you expect a batsman to score a 100 every time he walks in.

WIth this current setup start from top replacing them coz they dnt look like apart from kohli

and then come to 6

1 minute ago, Global.Baba said:

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?

 

 

What concept?? u want him to make 100 n take 5 wkts ...........u want 2 players in one

But his role is to give cushion to both

 

Does that change the fact that he is new and will gain as player over a period of time?? nooo

Are u specialist consistent that ur so harsh on an all rounder or bits n pieces guy>???? No

What matters name or contribution???? for team contribution but for u Name 

Also do u have plave incase their is an injury to ur bowler in between a match like ashwin 3rd test and ishant in this one???? No 

 

Dikhane ke liye batsman khilana hai khilate rho??? Jo naam ke khila rhe ho wo bhi kuch ukhaad nhin rhe ....1 aur khila ke kya kroge ...dikhawa aur kya 

 

All these book crap doesnt work all time team needs are important and thats why experiments have happened n it turned out well 

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

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. 

 

If we are judging by this tough-to-bat England tour then all batsmen from both sides have been hit or miss barring Kohli and Curran and to some extent Butler.

 

Moreover, if we want to play a No.6 batsman, he will be a newbie like Vihari too, who is no better placed in terms of the somewhat valid concerns you have raised.  Vihari snd Nair are in no way different to Pant as No.6 batsmen as far as effectiveness is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Gill/Bharat/Batsman who can bowl a bit/Pandya :woot: 

:hysterical:

We are taking pandya coz he can give u 10-15 over

Bit ka matalb hota hai 3-4 , after that part timers get tired and loose control....maar padwani hai

 

Bharat is a keeper

Gill - does he even bowl????

thodi bht bowling to rohit aur kohli bhi daalte hai......dalwa lo 

Dhawan bhi dalta hai and he chucks to ......krwalo

Even vijay bowls a bit......krwalo 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

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.

n how have u declared that pant is relatively weeker as batsman to lets say newbies like vihari , nair or others

 

Pant might be even better , the guy has a 100 in eng now........no mean achievement....a specialist like pujara took 8-9 test matches in england to get that and even kohli was abysmal in his 1st tour 

 

Playing pant up the order will only give him more responsibility and add more balance

If u have less expectation so stop looking at results for sometime and jst back him 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

n how have u declared that pant is relatively weeker as batsman to lets say newbies like vihari , nair or others

 

Pant might be even better , the guy has a 100 in eng now........no mean achievement....a specialist like pujara took 8-9 test matches in england to get that and even kohli was abysmal in his 1st tour 

 

Playing pant up the order will only give him more responsibility and add more balance

If u have less expectation so stop looking at results for sometime and jst back him 

Even Aag Aag Agarkar has a Test 100 in England, that too in Lord's where even Tendulkar has not scored a 100!

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

and he had the batting talent but he didnt use it his problem how have u assumed pant will go same lane

I only commented on how Eng test 100 is not important as a cred for a test bat. Pant is a better than Aag is a different matter. We need a proper wicketkeeper, playing Pant there itself is a risk enough, we should thrust him at #6 and expect 100s from him. If he scores one at #7 it will be a bonus.  If the criteria for Pandya is a 5th bowler to rest the main bowlers and score 30 runs, then we can invest that in somebody like Vijay Shankar who has more domestic experience than Pandya and can bat a lot better than Pandya. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, zen said:

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 

That is extremely far-fetched. Even in the last 5 years, we have a couple of batsmen who have been able to average 50+ at 6. There's nothing to suggest that if he back the right player at 6, that he won't do much better than these folks.

 

e458527d-fea0-4feb-9031-f626d5fab160.png

 

26 minutes ago, zen said:

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 

But in this away cycle, we have lost each and every game where we have picked an all-rounder and bowled first (at least 5 games). We simply find it impossible to chase anything above 200 in the 4th innings. Just as we find it extremely hard to put up a size-able lead in the first innings. The 2 games that we have won this year were when we batted first.

 

30 minutes ago, zen said:

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

Right now I am just endorsing playing an extra batsman in SENA countries on non-roads. We can continue playing 5 bats in Asia/WI and while playing on roads in SENA (although this TM isn't very good at judging the pitch/conditions either). If we get to a stage where the top 5 start clicking collectively regularly we can always revert to picking an all-rounder.

Share this post


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

, you don’t play an allrounder just for the sake of it hoping he will become a genuine allrounder.

 

That is incorrect.  Bits and pieces players are not being played in test matches in the hope that they will become great allrounders some day.  They are being played to protect bowlers from potential injury due to overwork in test matches.

 

For 90% international cricketers all over the world ... the focal point is T20 leagues and the huge amount of money and glamour they bring.  They don't want to get injured while toiling hard as bowlers in test matches ... even batsmen don't want to bowl nowadays as bowling makes a cricketer far more susceptible to injury.

 

Hence almost every team is playing a cricketer in tests who is neither a top batsman nor a top bowler  ( basically a bits and pieces player  ) who can bat at 6 or 7 and bowl a bit to give rest to main bowlers.

 

Australia ... Mitch Marsh

India ... Pandya,  Binny

England ... Moeen and many other stop gap guys.

SA ... Phehlukwayo, Morris, McLaren

WI ... Holder, Brathwaite

Pakistan ... Faheem Ashraf

 

 

If these guys are not played then the top pacers will not bowl with intensity for 22 overs a day ... in this age of T20 leagues.

 

Any injury picked up due to this stress may become chronic and affect their T20 careers.

 

If we want quality test cricket in the 2010s from 10 other guys ... we must be prepared for 1 bits and pieces player.

Edited by express bowling

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

n how have u declared that pant is relatively weeker as batsman to lets say newbies like vihari , nair or others

 

Pant might be even better , the guy has a 100 in eng now........no mean achievement....a specialist like pujara took 8-9 test matches in england to get that and even kohli was abysmal in his 1st tour 

 

Playing pant up the order will only give him more responsibility and add more balance

If u have less expectation so stop looking at results for sometime and jst back him 

Based on what has happened so far in his career. I believe a guy like him is much better off playing his natural game at 7 rather than being asked to perform the role of a specialist batsman at 6 so early on in his career. If you have any actual evidence that he is a better choice at 6 right now in SENA ahead of specialist batsmen, show it. I will change my mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

That is extremely far-fetched. Even in the last 5 years, we have a couple of batsmen who have been able to average 50+ at 6. There's nothing to suggest that if he back the right player at 6, that he won't do much better than these folks.

 

e458527d-fea0-4feb-9031-f626d5fab160.png

 

But in this away cycle, we have lost each and every game where we have picked an all-rounder and bowled first (at least 5 games). We simply find it impossible to chase anything above 200 in the 4th innings. Just as we find it extremely hard to put up a size-able lead in the first innings. The 2 games that we have won this year were when we batted first.

 

Right now I am just endorsing playing an extra batsman in SENA countries on non-roads. We can continue playing 5 bats in Asia/WI and while playing on roads in SENA (although this TM isn't very good at judging the pitch/conditions either). If we get to a stage where the top 5 start clicking collectively regularly we can always revert to picking an all-rounder.

I have nothing against playing the extra batsman if a) our batting unit is strong (like in the past), b) the #6 provides added value, and c) as a group the batting can compensate for the diluted bowling, which is, for a change, a strength for Ind now .... Bowling probably used to be our strength in the 70s with the 4 spinners 

 

Anyways, will just make a couple of quick notes related to your post above:

1. Avg 50+ at 6 when many in the top 5 don't is not the same as optimizing the 5 batting slots where you would be playing batsmen who can avg the best in the conditions presented 

2. An ordinary 6th batsmen, supporting an ordinary top 5, will not help Ind to gain lead or chase totals as demonstrated in the last test, which is among our worst batting performances by the top 6 esp. if you take Rahul's 100 out 

 

Right now, I see our team more like the 80s team (than 90s or 20s) where we had a few great to good batsmen and bowlers, who were supported by decent batsmen, bowlers and all-rounders. And who competed as a group to give favorable results .... and therefore, at this point, the 5-4-1-1 combination appears relatively favorable to me

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Opposition team England remove England from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 1986 and 1 Jan 1987 remove between 1 Jan 1986 and 1 Jan 1987 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 13 of 13   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  
DB Vengsarkar 3 6 2 360 126* 90.00 742 48.51 2 1 1 38 1 investigate this query
KS More 3 5 2 156 48 52.00 374 41.71 0 0 0 17 0 investigate this query
M Amarnath 2 4 0 172 79 43.00 575 29.91 0 2 0 22 0 investigate this query
M Azharuddin 3 6 1 157 64 31.40 398 39.44 0 1 0 18 0 investigate this query
SM Gavaskar 3 6 0 175 54 29.16 452 38.71 0 1 0 22 0 investigate this query
S Madan Lal 1 2 0 42 22 21.00 110 38.18 0 0 0 6 0 investigate this query
RMH Binny 3 4 0 81 40 20.25 168 48.21 0 0 0 10 1 investigate this query
N Kapil Dev 3 5 1 81 31 20.25 58 139.65 0 0 1 13 2 investigate this query
CS Pandit 1 2 0 40 23 20.00 109 36.69 0 0 0 5 0 investigate this query
K Srikkanth 3 6 0 105 31 17.50 210 50.00 0 0 1 15 0 investigate this query
RJ Shastri 3 6 1 74 32 14.80 191 38.74 0 0 1 7 1 investigate this query
C Sharma 2 2 0 11 9 5.50 22 50.00 0 0 0 2 0 investigate this query
Maninder Singh 3 4 1 10 6 3.33 87 11.49 0 0 0 1 0 investigate this query

 

 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Based on what has happened so far in his career. I believe a guy like him is much better off playing his natural game at 7 rather than being asked to perform the role of a specialist batsman at 6 so early on in his career. If you have any actual evidence that he is a better choice at 6 right now in SENA ahead of specialist batsmen, show it. I will change my mind. 

 

Pant is a specialist batsman.

 

Who is your choice at No.6 in SENA   ?

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

If we are judging by this tough-to-bat England tour then all batsmen from both sides have been hit or miss barring Kohli and Curran and to some extent Butler.

 

Moreover, if we want to play a No.6 batsman, he will be a newbie like Vihari too, who is no better placed in terms of the somewhat valid concerns you have raised.  Vihari snd Nair are in no way different to Pant as No.6 batsmen as far as effectiveness is concerned.

Personally I'd back a specialist top order batsman like Vihari to do better than Pant while batting in the top 6. Pant with his cavalier game is better suited for the counter attacking number 7 role. This could change a couple of years from now on when he has more games under his belt. 

Share this post


Link to post
View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 11 Sep 2016 and 11 Sep 2018 remove between 11 Sep 2016 and 11 Sep 2018 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 5 of 5   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s  
V Kohli 2016-2018 26 46 4 2902 243 69.09 4502 64.46 11 7 3 305 8 investigate this query
CA Pujara 2016-2018 27 47 3 2327 202 52.88 5104 45.59 8 11 3 272 4 investigate this query
KL Rahul 2016-2018 21 35 1 1319 199 38.79 2167 60.86 2 10 4 166 7 investigate this query
M Vijay 2016-2018 20 35 0 1296 155 37.02 2823 45.90 6 3 3 140 12 investigate this query
AM Rahane 2016-2018 24 42 3 1288 188 33.02 2710 47.52 2 6 3 138 8

 

Our top 5 in last 2 years

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, zen said:

who would be your top 5? why can't Vihari bat at 5 considering how the top 5 have done in the last 2 years?

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 11 Sep 2016 and 11 Sep 2018 remove between 11 Sep 2016 and 11 Sep 2018 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 5 of 5   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s  
V Kohli 2016-2018 26 46 4 2902 243 69.09 4502 64.46 11 7 3 305 8 investigate this query
CA Pujara 2016-2018 27 47 3 2327 202 52.88 5104 45.59 8 11 3 272 4 investigate this query
KL Rahul 2016-2018 21 35 1 1319 199 38.79 2167 60.86 2 10 4 166 7 investigate this query
M Vijay 2016-2018 20 35 0 1296 155 37.02 2823 45.90 6 3 3 140 12 investigate this query
AM Rahane 2016-2018 24 42 3 1288 188 33.02 2710 47.52 2 6 3 138 8

 

My Top 5 for next Test in SENA (assuming there are no surprises/injuries in the series against WI)

 

Shaw (Have had enough of VJ/Dhawan)

Rahul 

Pujara

Kohli

Rahane (on notice)

 

with Vihari as no. 6

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Personally I'd back a specialist top order batsman like Vihari to do better than Pant while batting in the top 6. Pant with his cavalier game is better suited for the counter attacking number 7 role. This could change a couple of years from now on when he has more games under his belt. 

 

Vihari seems to have more chinks in his armour than Pant.  Looks weak against the short ball which maybe an issue in Australia.

 

I will still choose Vihari at 5, as he maybe a gritty batsman,  and play Pant at 6.

Edited by express bowling

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.

×