Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zen

The dumb math of playing the extra batsman

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

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

 

Not bad if most of them are in form. I would drop Rahane, have Vihari at #5, and strengthen/support the bowling, our strength in SENA

 

For Aus

 

Shaw

Rahul

Pujara 

Kohli

Vihari (still a question mark for me but have chosen the youngster over the inconsistent Rahane)

Pant (should do well in Aus) 

Pandya (ability to bowl at 140+ and hit 100s. should do well in Aus)

4 bowlers 

 

Now if an inconsistent specialist Rahane is going to make all the difference, our team is in even more trouble than we imagine :lol:  

 

 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post

This series was lost coz of England's lower order batting. Instead of focusing on no 6 or AR, I would rather try to develop strategies on how to get rid of the tail quickly. Play a mystery spinner or a wrist spinner with googlies? Have a fast bowler who specialises in getting the tail out quickly ?

Share this post


Link to post
This series was lost coz of England's lower order batting. Instead of focusing on no 6 or AR, I would rather try to develop strategies on how to get rid of the tail quickly. Play a mystery spinner or a wrist spinner with googlies? Have a fast bowler who specialises in getting the tail out quickly ?
England don't have a tail.Their Tactic is to play as many all-rounders as possible.By dropping catches it did not help.Also their was lack of planning Somebody like curran is good at offside but we kept bowling Outside offstump.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Atleast had more application then senior batsman

i think he and Ashwin lost favor in the last test when hardick absolutely threw his wicket and ashwin failed to pick wickets, when they both were supposed to respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Vk1 said:

This series was lost coz of England's lower order batting. Instead of focusing on no 6 or AR, I would rather try to develop strategies on how to get rid of the tail quickly. Play a mystery spinner or a wrist spinner with googlies? Have a fast bowler who specialises in getting the tail out quickly ?

curran in all tests he played + broad in last inning. 

 

England had Woakes,curran,stokes,moin and rashid -> plus their keeper was butler. 

Share this post


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

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

No. I don't think anyone even expected a 50.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, zen said:

Not bad if most of them are in form. I would drop Rahane, have Vihari at #5, and strengthen/support the bowling, our strength in SENA

 

For Aus

 

Shaw

Rahul

Pujara 

Kohli

Vihari (still a question mark for me but have chosen the youngster over the inconsistent Rahane)

Pant (should do well in Aus) 

Pandya (ability to bowl at 140+ and hit 100s. should do well in Aus)

4 bowlers 

 

Now if an inconsistent specialist Rahane is going to make all the difference, our team is in even more trouble than we imagine :lol:  

 

 

Australia is pretty much last chance saloon for Rahane. If he flops there, it's pretty much gonna be curtains for his Test career. He should enjoy the pace and bounce in Australia. It's the job of the rest of the line-up to protect him from Lyon :p:.

Share this post


Link to post

With Pandya all bowlers bowled with intensity,there was always hope of someone picking a wicket

Without him the bowlers were over bowled,Chef cooked a century and Ishant broke down basically a repeat of horrors of 2011 and 2014

Some guys are mentioning we lost by 30-40 runs because we didnt have a specialist 6th batsman,do you guys think we would have got to such a position if all bowlers didnt bowl with intensity.I agree with the OP,if the 5 specialist batsmen had done their job this series would have been ours.

Vihari's wickets came when England were accelerating,it can in no way be compared to Pandya's performances

Edited by GautiMaan

Share this post


Link to post

A good 5th bowling option is essential and that 5th bowler should be able to bat as well.  Find me some better than Pandya, I will gladly take him even if he is a spinner.  Till Then End of Thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CG said:
4 hours ago, Vk1 said:
This series was lost coz of England's lower order batting. Instead of focusing on no 6 or AR, I would rather try to develop strategies on how to get rid of the tail quickly. Play a mystery spinner or a wrist spinner with googlies? Have a fast bowler who specialises in getting the tail out quickly ?

England don't have a tail.Their Tactic is to play as many all-rounders as possible.By dropping catches it did not help.Also their was lack of planning Somebody like curran is good at offside but we kept bowling Outside offstump.

True but the likes of Jos butler, Curran are not proven performers before the start of the series. By the end of it, they have cemented their places. The same lower order was helpless in ashes and usually poor in subcontinent. We struggled against Keshav maharaj as well.  Even our lower order is too strong when we play at home.  So we must plan for bowlers in SENA who are capable of knocking the lower order down. Mystery spin, hostile pace could be two options worth trying. Even going to the extent of resting the super fast bowler till the lower order comes to bat.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

A good 5th bowling option is essential and that 5th bowler should be able to bat as well.  Find me some better than Pandya, I will gladly take him even if he is a spinner.  Till Then End of Thread.  

 

We should try Vijay Shankar against the WI.

 

But he is not playing the Unofficial tests even.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

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. 

yes shankar also shud be an option

Shankar is a better batsman

Pandya is a better bowler

 

Lets see who goes where, but both needs to travel with team overseas and used acc 

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

yes shankar also shud be an option

Shankar is a better batsman

Pandya is a better bowler

 

Lets see who goes where, but both needs to travel with team overseas and used acc 

If our main requirement is to provide rest to fast bowlers Shankar should be seriously considered since he seems to be a far better batsman than Pandya 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Vk1 said:

If our main requirement is to provide rest to fast bowlers Shankar should be seriously considered since he seems to be a far better batsman than Pandya 

but he also has to prove in international arena , that why keep both . What if is fails 

If u play on patta pandya bowling wud make more sense

 

and its not that pandya is an awful batsman, he score a tough 93 and made 50 in england to. Most importantly he showed application ..so their is talent and it will only get better with time 

Edited by Ankit_sharma03

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

based on what I have seen and his performance for A team.

i know there is a trundler bias - where in people feel trundlers are automatically more accurate. But is the guy not more accurate even with reduced speed. Is that factual  that he is not accurate or is ineffective as a bowler ?

 

Definitely as a batsman he has close to 50 average - so you expect some batting from him. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

We should look to develop Washington Sundar as the batsman to bat at 6 and bowl spin,.  That way, we can play 4 specialist pacers in SENA and Sundar as the lone spinner.

he could be a fitter taller Ashwin -> but he could have the same frailties of not being able to extract spin - need a wrist spinner lower order batsman -> if that combo even exits. 

Share this post


Link to post

Our batting personnel was weak even when you consider the reserves available in the squad. So it wouldn't have made difference even if one extra batsman was selected. But we could've easily strengthen our bowling unit by selecting 5 proper bowlers. In the name of all-rounder, we played Pandya in too many games even though his bowling was not upto the mark bar one Test match and in the last Test match only 4 bowlers were selected. It's irritating to see such simple mistakes made by our team management. They lost this series because of their own stupidity. 

Edited by Lannister

Share this post


Link to post

Jeez this thread is still going on.. Your batting is weak so strengthen it. As simple as that . 

 

5 batsmen cant so anything what will  no 6 do is such a stupid argument. Especially when we had the great VVS saving us numerous  times at no 6. 

 

What is frustrating with the allrounder Brigade is it is not like we have a kallis or a Curran or a Stokes in the waiting. 

Even if you want to copy SA and ENG and want a seam bowling allrounder then Pandya is not ur guy. A trundler like him will be crucified in Australian flat tracks. And people who saw him bat know he showed absolutely no improvement looked like getting out every ball.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

Jeez this thread is still going on.. Your batting is weak so strengthen it. As simple as that . 

 

5 batsmen cant so anything what will  no 6 do is such a stupid argument. Especially when we had the great VVS saving us numerous  times at no 6. 

 

What is frustrating with the allrounder Brigade is it is not like we have a kallis or a Curran or a Stokes in the waiting. 

Even if you want to copy SA and ENG and want a seam bowling allrounder then Pandya is not ur guy. A trundler like him will be crucified in Australian flat tracks. And people who saw him bat know he showed absolutely no improvement looked like getting out every ball.

The above post has oxymorons / contradictions :p: .... to illustrate: 

 

  • Batting is weak so strengthen it: Batting is weak because the top 5 are struggling. The 6th batsman is, in terms of potential, likely to be on par or weaker than those in top 5 (or he would be among the top 5 choices) so we strengthen the batting by bringing in another on par or weak batsman, who is likely to struggle too (if not play pick him among the 5) .... that is strengthening the batting but weakening the 11 :winky:
  • ARs are not like Kallis or whatever but the 6th batsman is like VVS (from the great VVS saved us many times comment) .... we have to consider the team dynamics of 2018 and 2000s

 

Keep it up! 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, zen said:

The above post has oxymorons / contradictions :p: .... to illustrate: 

 

  • Batting is weak so strengthen it: Batting is weak because the top 5 are struggling. The 6th batsman is, in terms of potential, likely to be on par or weaker than those in top 5 (or he would be among the top 5 choices) so we strengthen the batting by bringing in another on par or weak batsman, who is likely to struggle too (if not play pick him among the 5) .... that is strengthening the batting but weakening the 11 :winky:
  • ARs are not like Kallis or whatever but the 6th batsman is like VVS (from the great VVS saved us many times comment) 

 

Keep it up! 

Not necessarily. No 6 batsman has his own qualities and strength. Like how openers and no 3 should play out the new ball and middle order should score runs , no 6 should have strengths like playing with the tail , playing out a draw, patience, seeing out second new ball etc. No 6 does not mean that he is less than other 5. VVS was no less than Dravid or Sehwag in terms of skill.

 

Yes it would be good to have someone who can bowl some overs . A batting allrounder. I understand. But why should it be a medium pacer. we simply don't have any ..  Probability of finding another VVS is more in India than finding a Curran or Stokes. Let's stick to our strength

Edited by R.D forever

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Vilander said:

he could be a fitter taller Ashwin -> but he could have the same frailties of not being able to extract spin - need a wrist spinner lower order batsman -> if that combo even exits. 

Kuldeep scored  a 50 against Aus A !

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

Let's stick to our strength

or lets stick to reality which is 

 

Pandya is not same as stokes or a curran in England consistently with bat and ball -> how good would he be in Aus. 

 

He does have pace when he wants he does not trundle at 120 - which could be the case with Vijay Shankar.

 

If you go with a batsman there --> you give up the ability to have 4 fresh frontline bowlers who are always at top intensity throughout the 90 odd overs. 

 

There are several sides to this argument -> hygine factor( must haves - be like stokes contribute critically wither with bat or ball every inning) and then good to haves ( have more 'it' days where you take a 5 for or hot a century with tail) and then aspirational ones ( be kallis be two players in 1 most of the time). I think Hardik fails in hygine factors but has some measure of good to haves.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

Not necessarily. No 6 batsman has his own qualities and strength. Like how openers and no 3 should play out the new ball and middle order should score runs , no 6 should have strengths like playing with the tail , playing out a draw, patience, seeing out second new ball etc. No 6 does not mean that he is less than other 5. VVS was no less than Dravid or Sehwag in terms of skill.

 

Yes it would be good to have someone who can bowl some overs . A batting allrounder. I understand. But why should it be a medium pacer. we simply don't have any ..  Probability of finding another VVS is more in India than finding a Curran or Stokes. Let's stick to our strength

VVS, if playing today, would be the 2nd best batsmen in the squad and not playing at 6. That should tell you something 

 

to avoid repetition, read the discussions with Jimmy Cliff on this thread 

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, this is still active. But I do notice the trends and agendas here. 

 

When I stated the 6-1-4 combo, i was merely stating it is not dumb and its relevance across test cricket in past and present. It looks like this is more of yet another include/drop Pandya discussion or a Indias-3-seamers-need-additional-backup-abroad suggestion rather than simply team combination for tests in general, which is what I thought this was about. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Clarke said:

Wow, this is still active. But I do notice the trends and agendas here. 

 

When I stated the 6-1-4 combo, i was merely stating it is not dumb and its relevance across test cricket in past and present. It looks like this is more of yet another include/drop Pandya discussion or a Indias-3-seamers-need-additional-backup-abroad suggestion rather than simply team combination for tests in general, which is what I thought this was about. 

 

I hope that you read the OP and not just the title as the opening paragraph is enlightening:

 

"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.

 

That 6-4-1 combo worked in past for Ind is acknowledged based on its strengths and weaknesses at that time. Since the team dynamics have changed, we need the 5-4-1-1 combination .... that is what the thread is about i.e. don't dwell on the past (what worked), consider current S&Ws, team dynamics, etc., to decide the combo  :winky:

Share this post


Link to post

Ok let's accept ur 5-1-1-4 strategy? Who is that 1? Batting allrounder or bowling allrounder? 

 

Do you expect him to score 70-80s and keep it tight for 5-10 overs ( Batting allrounder).  Or someone who can give you wickets irrespective of conditions but cannot be expected to score more than 30-40 every match ( Bowling allrounder).

 

Shankar with a FC batting average of 47 can be clearly called a batting allrounder.

Ashwin with a career batting average of 30 is clearly a bowling allrounder

 

Which category does Pandya fall into?

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

Ok let's accept ur 5-1-1-4 strategy? Who is that 1? Batting allrounder or bowling allrounder? 

 

Do you expect him to score 70-80s and keep it tight for 5-10 overs ( Batting allrounder).  Or someone who can give you wickets irrespective of conditions but cannot be expected to score more than 30-40 every match ( Bowling allrounder).

 

Shankar with a FC batting average of 47 can be clearly called a batting allrounder.

Ashwin with a career batting average of 30 is clearly a bowling allrounder

 

Which category does Pandya fall into?

 

From a couple of my posts on this thread:

 

"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" 

 

*****

 

"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" 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, zen said:

From one of my posts on this thread:

 

"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" 

There is no such thing as an impact player in tests. Take Afridi for example. like him or not,he had impact performances in LOI's be it ODI or T20. In tests that experiment failed because you need specialists in tests. Every ATG allrounder who has played test cricket was a specialist first.

Share this post


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

There is no such thing as an impact player in tests. Take Afridi for example. like him or not,he had impact performances in LOI's be it ODI or T20. In tests that experiment failed because you need specialists in tests. Every ATG allrounder who has played test cricket was a specialist first.

New norm based on current dynamics and initiatives to develop youngsters .... you keep talking about the past 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post

"

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

"

 

For now I have only your word for this. :phehe:

 

If you are a allrounder give me something. If u can't take wickets everymatch then at least guarantee a score of 50-60 everymatch. If u can't score then I need at least 5 wickets in a match. If u can't do anyone of this consistently then what is ur use??

 

I have not seen him perform consistently till now. No consecutive 50s. No consecutive 3fers atleast. One 50 in the 3rd test. Don't think he crossed 40 again. One 5fer. And wayward bowling on other tests. There is simply no upward trend we can see. 

 

In 7 test matches if we can remember only two knocks ( 90 in SA and 50 in Eng - both T20 innings  ) and one spell ( 5 wk haul in overcast conditions) then he is not doing even one job consistent

 

There is no swiss army knife concept and all in test matches. This is not ODI/T20.Every

 player in the 11 should be a specialist in either batting or bowling. contribute at least in one. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, R.D forever said:

There is no swiss army knife concept and all in test matches. This is not ODI/T20.Every

 player in the 11 should be a specialist in either batting or bowling. contribute at least in one.

 

Hardik has played 11 tests so far. Of the 11 tests, 10 tests have been away. Out of these 10 tests, India has won 5. And in these 5 tests, Hardik, who has played in different conditions, has an avg difference  (batting avg less  bowling avg) of 26! :shock:

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Home or away away (home of opposition) remove away (home of opposition) from query
Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Jul 2017 remove greater than or equal to 1 Jul 2017 from query
Match result won match remove won match from query
Qualifications matches played greater than or equal to 3 remove matches played greater than or equal to 3 from query
Ordered by batting - bowling average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 10 of 10   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100 Wkts BBI Bowl Av 5 Ct St Ave DiffDescending  
HH Pandya 5 252 108 42.00 1 10 5/28 16.30 1 6 0 25.70 investigate this query
R Ashwin 4 147 54 36.75 0 18 5/69 27.05 1 0 0 9.69 investigate this query
Mohammed Shami 5 98 30 14.00 0 18 5/28 21.38 1 1 0 -7.38 investigate this query
UT Yadav 3 22 11* - 0 6 2/21 35.83 0 0 0 - investigate this query
S Dhawan 4 437 190 72.83 2 - - - - 4 0 - investigate this query
V Kohli 5 456 103* 65.14 2 - - - - 4 0 - investigate this query
CA Pujara 5 446 153 55.75 2 - - - - 4 0 - investigate this query
AM Rahane 5 396 132 56.57 1 - - - - 11 0 - investigate this query
KL Rahul

 

 

A good contribution by someone who is in his first season. Thank you! 

Share this post


Link to post

This stat does not answer my question about consistency. Don't simply put stats without any meaning. Since u like stats too much See the below graph and see what I mean. After the 93 in SA he didn't score a single 30 till the 3rd test in Eng. Bowling is also not consistent. Where do u see a consistent performer in this

 

 

 

Screenshot_20180913-002656__01.jpg

Screenshot_20180913-002551__01.jpg

Edited by R.D forever

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, R.D forever said:

This stat does not answer my question about consistency. Don't simply put stats without any meaning. Since u like stats too much See the below graph and see what I mean. 

Pointless discussion for youngsters who are judged more on potential in their early phase be it Pandya or Pant .... You are mixing things up with specialists and veterans players  

 

And when I have clearly identified - "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"

Share this post


Link to post

Oh god. So basically ur argument is we can't expect Pandya to be consistent because he is young and has potential.  Sorry I didn't know ICC is also counting player potential to decide test match results. 

 

FFS man am not even asking for 50. He has not scored even 30s consistently . What balance is he providing that a Bhuvi/Thakur wouldn't have provided? Atleast they could have picked more wickets:facepalm:

 

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

Oh god. So basically ur argument is we can't expect Pandya to be consistent because he is young and has potential.  Sorry I didn't know ICC is also counting player potential to decide test match results. 

 

FFS man am not even asking for 50. He has not scored even 30s consistently . What balance is he providing that a Bhuvi/Thakur wouldn't have provided? Atleast they could have picked more wickets:facepalm:

 

ICC is irrelevant to the discussion. Team building is an initiative taken by respective teams considering various factors including debuting players  :lol: 

 

As has been discussed, Pandya is not the problem. Averaged more than some of the specialist batsmen and picked up wkts at a SR of 55, which is good for a 5th bowler, who bowls when the ball is not hard enough .... and that too in his first season! 

 

Bowling in Eng, where he changed the game for Ind,  for e.g.

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Opposition team England remove England from query
Start of match date between 12 Sep 2017 and 12 Sep 2018 remove between 12 Sep 2017 and 12 Sep 2018 from query
Type of bowler (by style) pace bowler remove pace bowler from query
Ordered by bowling strike rate (ascending)
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 Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SRAscending 5 10  
HH Pandya 4 6 64.1 7 247 10 5/28 6/50 24.70 3.84 38.5 1 0 investigate this query
UT Yadav 1 2 24.0 3 76 3 2/20 3/76 25.33 3.16 48.0 0 0 investigate this query
I Sharma 5 9 151.0 36 437 18 5/51 6/97 24.27 2.89 50.3 1 0 investigate this query
JJ Bumrah 3 6 133.2 31 363 14 5/85 7/122 25.92 2.72 57.1 1 0 investigate this query
Mohammed Shami 5 9 172.4 25 622 16 4/57 6/108 38.87 3.60 64.7 0 0 investigate this query

 

I hope you will learn to appreciate good performances and potential shown by youngsters 

 

Thank you once again! 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post

This argument doesn't even make sense. I am asking why Pandya is not scoring runs. You are saying even others are not scoring. I know that. You cannot show others failure to justify your own failure. 

 

Yes our top 5 needs work. But u can't say first fix that then come to Pandya instead of talking about his problems with batting.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

This argument doesn't even make sense. I am asking why Pandya is not scoring runs. You are saying even others are not scoring. I know that. You cannot show others failure to justify your own failure. 

 

Yes our top 5 needs work. But u can't say first fix that then come to Pandya instead of talking about his problems with batting.

What was he supposed to score?

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

16 hours ago, rkt.india said:

A good 5th bowling option is essential and that 5th bowler should be able to bat as well.  Find me some better than Pandya, I will gladly take him even if he is a spinner.  Till Then End of Thread.  

WIth Pant batting like he did, we could afford to have somebody like Vihari who would score more than an AR and give breaks to main bowler. I don't know why we have to compromise if the 5th bowler is only used to give breaks. In Lords' if we could count Pandya's 3 wickets as his contribution for not making enough runs, then Pandya will be consistently as useless as a one-legged man at an arse-kicking contest. 

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is none of the batsmen can bowl.None of the upcoming batsmen like Shaw,Gill,Mayank,Manish can bowl.Players like Kedar,Vihari,Nair,Vijay Shankar at best can get a few lucky wickets.Right now our best all rounders are Jadeja,Ashwin,Bhuvi. Pandya is good for LOIs but is still a work in progress in tests.It's better if he focuses on ODIs & T20s till the next WC.In the free time,he should play in counties & if possible in Aus Big Bash/their First Class.May be after a year,he will be much better suited for tests. Kuldeep Yadav & Umesh Yadav can both bat .I still feel Umesh should have been given the entire series either in place of Shami or Kuldeep or in Lords or even Ashwin.

Eng were playing with 6 bowlers & Root as 7th option.That's like 9-10 batsmen & 6-7 bowlers & 2 WK in their playing XI .Even if Indian batsmen negotiate Broad & Anderson,they used to lose their wickets to Woakes,Curran,Stokes,Ali or Rashid. Their bowlers were never tired.Eng underperformed this series with the bat but they have an excellent future with so many all rounders,especially in the next WC.

Edited by diehardpacer

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

 

WIth Pant batting like he did, we could afford to have somebody like Vihari who would score more than an AR and give breaks to main bowler. I don't know why we have to compromise if the 5th bowler is only used to give breaks. In Lords' if we could count Pandya's 3 wickets as his contribution for not making enough runs, then Pandya will be consistently as useless as a one-legged man at an arse-kicking contest. 

You do realize that in 5th test Ind played 6 batsmen. And it was one of the worst performances by the top 6 in relatively batting friendly conditions .... esp hearwreaking if you take Rahul’s 100 out :facepalm: 

 

Before deciding to play an extra batsman or a bowler, first we have to optimize 5 and 4 slots respectively 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

 

WIth Pant batting like he did, we could afford to have somebody like Vihari who would score more than an AR and give breaks to main bowler. I don't know why we have to compromise if the 5th bowler is only used to give breaks. In Lords' if we could count Pandya's 3 wickets as his contribution for not making enough runs, then Pandya will be consistently as useless as a one-legged man at an arse-kicking contest. 

but Vihari cannot replace a specialist spinner.  This arrangement is, so that we can play 4 specialists seamers in SENA if we dont want Pandya as the third seamer, to have a spinning alrounder.

Edited by rkt.india

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.

×