If India want to win overseas, they need to not care too much about winning at home

[rkt.india]

Quote

 

India have missed one of their greatest opportunities to win an overseas series. England are not a strong side, even at home. A number of their batsmen average in the 30s at first-class level. On pure current form, their team has two world-class bowlers in James Anderson and Stuart Broad and not much else.

India should have done a lot better.

 

We knew this was going to be an unusual tour in that India's strength was going to be their bowling. There were clear signs that M Vijay, Ajinkya Rahane and Cheteshwar Pujara weren't the players they were four years back.

 

But that they would fail so badly collectively has surprised me. I thought they still had enough ability with the bat to chase targets of 194 at Edgbaston and 245 in Southampton. Two opportunities missed, two Tests lost.

 

So what is ailing India's batting? Obviously it's about adapting. They bat pretty well at home, don't they?

 

On India's previous leg of overseas tours, Vijay showed that he could adapt: he admirably restrained his favourite shot, the cover drive, which he used to play taking a small stride forward. That was a hazardous thing to do in seaming conditions, and so he began to leave alone a lot of balls that he would have driven in India.

 

Three years later he wasn't leaving as much. Also, the line got closer to him, and his inability to get right on top of the ball made him vulnerable as the series went on. He could not make this new adjustment quickly enough. When he was out in his last innings of the tour, he looked like a man who had no fight left. Time to look beyond him now, I guess.

 

KL Rahul was the big surprise. His continued failures while the series was alive baffled me.

 

With a hundred in Australia, you would think he had the game to get runs overseas. He seemed to have the technique to get runs everywhere in the world. He didn't have any obvious technical flaws, like, say, a Shikhar Dhawan has. It's still a mystery to me what went wrong with him.

 

Rahul's defence against both balls coming in and leaving him became paper-thin as the England series wore on - until that fine hundred in the last innings, which like two others among his five hundreds, came in a dead rubber. I wish it had come earlier in the series for India.

 

Dhawan has excellent temperament. He does not let failures affect him as much as they do others, always wears a smile no matter what, and gives his best every time. His enemy is his technique. There are too many flaws in his game that are exposed when the ball does something. India must move on from him too, and find someone else who can possibly do better overseas. Dhawan has been given plenty of opportunities abroad to prove his worth.

 

Pujara got a hundred and a 70 in the series but his overall overseas recordis still not impressive. An average of 29.30 abroad from your No. 3 does not help the team. India could still back him but they must keep looking for more exciting options.

 

Rahane has issues of both temperament and technique to tackle at the moment. His uncertain mind gets him to reach for the ball with just his bat, making him vulnerable at the start of his innings. I thought that after that 81 at Trent Bridge, he might have found his batting mojo, but theinnings that followed showed that the virus in his batting software is still there.

 

 

Rahane should be another player, like Pujara, that India continue with, while closely monitoring his progress and creating a second line of batsmen, just in case.

 

Here's what's really important: if India really care about winning overseas, they must not care about winning at home as much. Because if you are desperate to win at home, you pick players ideal for home conditions, like Dhawan, who will then let you down on the next overseas tour. Instead, pick a batsman who might not be as effective as Dhawan in home conditions but will be better overseas. This goes for all players - batsmen and bowlers.

 

India's selectors must pick batsmen in home series who have the potential to get runs overseas (using the perception that I have mentioned). Such batsmen will get an adequate amount of runs in home series anyway, being home-grown talent, but their better techniques and discipline give you hope that they will do well overseas. As an example, if Prithvi Shaw is getting more runs than, say, a Shubman Gill, but if Gill has the game more likely to work overseas, he should be the man India should select.

 

Essentially, use home games to build a team for overseas. India are still good enough to win at home if they do this, and even if they don't, but end up winning overseas, Indian fans will be more proud of the team, that's for sure.

There is a reason why we have former cricketers as selectors. If it was about picking players based on pure performances, a computer could do the job - pick the highest run-getter and highest wicket-taker in first-class cricket as replacements for those who aren't succeeding at Test level.

 

I remember before the 1996 tour of England, Vikram Rathour was scoring a lot of runs for Punjab as opener, and so he became a contender for a place on the tour.

 

Some of us Mumbai players saw him get those runs on Indian pitches from slips and we thought: "Oh boy, this guy will struggle in England." This was because of his technique outside off. Rathour was a great team man with a sound temperament, but his problem was his defensive technique.

 

It's not that difficult if you have the eye to pick players who can be potential successes overseas. Some players may surprise you with their eventual successes and failures when you do this. For instance, who would have thought that Virender Sehwag would become such a great success as a Test opener, with hundreds all over the world? So this can happen, yes, but it's more an exception to the rule. A trained eye will get it right eight times out of ten.

 

For Indian cricket's sake, let's hope MSK Prasad, the chairman of selectors, has that kind of eye, and is given the freedom to do his job. Then we will see how, more than a coach or a captain, it's the chairman of selectors who really has the power to change the destiny of a nation's cricket.

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/24653489/win-overseas-india-need-not-care-too-much-winning-hom

[jf1gp_1]

9 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

It's not that difficult if you have the eye to pick players who can be potential successes overseas. Some players may surprise you with their eventual successes and failures when you do this.

Go become a selector then Sanjay

[nevada]

Ever seen actors without makeup? They look like crap! Ever seen Indian team playing outside sub continent? They play like crap! Both(actors and Indian team) provide entertainment very well on their own turf. Outside of it, they are mere loser mortals. The 30+ year wait for a > 1 test win in SENA continues. Let's check back in another 30 years.

[prudent_kreeda]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/24653489/win-overseas-india-need-not-care-too-much-winning-hom

     Makes a lot more sense . I too am of the same opinion , your goal should be finding batsmen who have the temperament and technique to succeed in overseas conditions  and such batsmen should be preferred both in SC conditions and overseas tours. No point after all the failures in overseas tours again you pick dhawan , Vijay for SC matches . 

Identify your 2 nd alternative for Pujara & Rahane and include them in 15 man team  . If they fail in another overseas tour , time to replace both Pujara & Rahane. 

Bowling more or less is Ok. Just include Siraj now . Later on look at Saini & rajpoot . 

[Clarke]

Not making complete sense, this article. Agree with looking for options and continuing a few. But it's not necessary to pick the same batsmen home and abroad. If we are able to decide among bowlers (spinners vs seamers) based on conditions, why can't we do the same with batsmen ?

 

The challenge of finding batsmen who can survive and score in such conditions is more apt. But if Rohit Sharma can average 85 at home, I'll stick pick him for tests in India and ignore him in SENA tours.

[prudent_kreeda]

4 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Not making complete sense, this article. Agree with looking for options and continuing a few. But it's not necessary to pick the same batsmen home and abroad. If we are able to decide among bowlers (spinners vs seamers) based on conditions, why can't we do the same with batsmen ?

 

The challenge of finding batsmen who can survive and score in such conditions is more apt. But if Rohit Sharma can average 85 at home, I'll stick pick him for tests in India and ignore him in SENA tours.

     Some one who can score in overseas conditions will invariably score in SC conditions too , unless he is a very very very poor player of decent spin. 

    What is the point in selecting FTB in sc conditions whom you cannot play in tough conditions . 

     SO a  mayank , Gill , Shaw, Vihari  will not play in SC conditions ,  and you also know Rohit , Dhawan , Vijay , Pujara cannot succeed in overseas tour , so cannot pick them in future tours ? 

 How how you resolve this . How you know who should be your future players . 

 Are we going towards  ..  Malai khaane ke liye FTB  to le lo . Jab fatne ki baat aati to Naye ladkon ko Bakra bana do !

 

[beetle]

Play to your strength at home .

Half of the team should be constituted of players who will be able to perform everywhere.Rest with home and away specialists.

 

The home specialists should play domestic matches when national team is playing away matches.

 

The away specialists should play a lot of A games in other countries apart from playing county cricket when National team is playing at home.

 

Identify players and give them practice and keep them ready.

[prasen82]

Incentivise tests separately.  Link IPL monies to overseas test performance. Results will come.  

 

If I can make easy peasy two crores a year on slam bang cricket why slug it out for tests.

[I6MTW]

If India wants to keep their no 1 ranking then they should keep winning and concentrating at home. 

[diga]

2 hours ago, beetle said:

Play to your strength at home .

Half of the team should be constituted of players who will be able to perform everywhere.Rest with home and away specialists.

 

The home specialists should play domestic matches when national team is playing away matches.

 

The away specialists should play a lot of A games in other countries apart from playing county cricket when National team is playing at home.

 

Identify players and give them practice and keep them ready.

Problem are the speacialist away batsmen... They simply aren't identified & groomed

[Clarke]

2 hours ago, prudent_kreeda said:

     Some one who can score in overseas conditions will invariably score in SC conditions too , unless he is a very very very poor player of decent spin. 

    What is the point in selecting FTB in sc conditions whom you cannot play in tough conditions . 

     SO a  mayank , Gill , Shaw, Vihari  will not play in SC conditions ,  and you also know Rohit , Dhawan , Vijay , Pujara cannot succeed in overseas tour , so cannot pick them in future tours ? 

 How how you resolve this . How you know who should be your future players . 

 Are we going towards  ..  Malai khaane ke liye FTB  to le lo . Jab fatne ki baat aati to Naye ladkon ko Bakra bana do !

 

Wow, you made some insane conclusions of a very simple idea. Do you also categorize Ashwin & Jadeja as malai khaane waale and seamers or promising wrist spinners for abroad as bakre ? There's a number of skills required for succeeding in every facet of the game, whether its batting or bowling pace & spin, home or abroad and there's no harm in horses for courses. We already do it to some extent and may need to do it further. 

If one can understand that, then we can talk about the modern game. There is much more divergence in the demands on players with the advent of T20 leagues. All format players are strained endlessly, the impact is visible on ABDV and will be seen on Kohli and Bumrah unless they manage workloads better. There's also the fact that our spin game has deteriorated over the years.

This opens up options for format and/or conditions specialists.

 

All conditions players are great, but if Ishant can hone his skills in county cricket and do a very good job for India in tests, so can some batsmen. Its a shame that Pujara and Rahane couldn't despite being one format players and I don't see how Rahane can perform better than Rohit in India. Now this doesn't mean that Gill or Shaw can't be included in India tests, they might be our future greats. But whoever is a promising talent will have to be handled better. I'm just stating that one or two slots can be conditions specific as is the case for bowlers when we don't have a fab batting lineup.

[express bowling]

Trying to pick test batsmen, who can be good both in Asia and outside Asia, is possible.

 

This will not weaken our test team at home but will improve our chances of doing well abroad.

 

 

[Nikhil_cric]

50 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Trying to pick test batsmen, who can be good both in Asia and outside Asia, is possible.

 

This will not weaken our test team at home but will improve our chances of doing well abroad.

 

 

I would say such batsmen need to be developed. We need to consistently pick very young talents like Shaw and play them on away tours like England and make A tours to such countries a regular fixture. Young batsmen simply can't learn that in Ranji. Australia have split their domestic season such that one half is with kookaburra ball and the other half is with a dukes ball that offers movement throughout. Also introducing a variety of pitches is key. Maybe pitches innsibe areas of high altitude etc. 

[Tibarn]

Manju's being his usual goofy self 

Quote

KL Rahul was the big surprise. His continued failures while the series was alive baffled me.

 

With a hundred in Australia, you would think he had the game to get runs overseas. He seemed to have the technique to get runs everywhere in the world. He didn't have any obvious technical flaws, like, say, a Shikhar Dhawan has. It's still a mystery to me what went wrong with him.

 

Rahul's defence against both balls coming in and leaving him became paper-thin as the England series wore on - until that fine hundred in the last innings, which like two others among his five hundreds, came in a dead rubber. I wish it had come earlier in the series for India.

A) Australia and England aren't the same place. Scoring runs in one doesn't indicate the ability to score in the other. Likewise, failing in one doesn't indicate failure in the other. 

 

Just labeling everything in SA/NZ/ENG/AUS as overseas is misleading. All 4 have different conditions: pitch behavior, ball behavior, weather, etc. Even SL and Windies are "overseas", should one use performances in those two to predict performances in the other 4?

 

A player can realistically do well in just one of the four while failing in the other 3. 

 

B) Dhawan also has a hundred overseas, that too in NZ, which is more of a correlate to England than Australia is. That didn't make him a good bat in England, Australia, etc. 

 

C) I'm convinced people just say players have great technique when they like them. Manju says Rahul has the "technique" to succeed everywhere, and then only a few lines later talks about Rahul's struggle to play the in-coming and out-going deliveries. Newsflash Manju: playing deliveries that come-in and go-out are part of "technique." Technique isn't just how stylish you look when playing shots or how perfectly horizontal/vertical one keeps the bat. Even Pujara was said to have "great technique" and has failed in multiple countries thus far.   

[zen]

We will do well in SENA if we plan for tours accordingly and not hype these tours as be all or end all 

 

teams that come to Ind - play, lose, go back home, beat Ind at home .... there is nothing wrong with it 

 

Borrowing a leaf from business, you have to be dominant in your core markets first before venturing in to new markets or exploring “blue oceans” .... you take risks if your core markets are not attractive anymore .... Do we see SENA teams unnecessarily playing spinners and batsmen who can do well relatively better in subcon more at home, or creating turning pitches, etc? .... Our first goal should be to have a system that produces good to great cricketers, who in turn will create favourable results for Ind everywhere 

 

I don’t want a situation where by trying to win in SENA, we lose our advantage at home too 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by zen

[express bowling]

17 hours ago, zen said:

We will do well in SENA if we plan for tours accordingly and not hype these tours as be all or end all 

 

teams that come to Ind - play, lose, go back home, beat Ind at home .... there is nothing wrong with it 

 

Borrowing a leaf from business, you have to be dominant in your core markets first before venturing in to new markets or exploring “blue oceans” .... you take risks if your core markets are not attractive anymore .... Do we see SENA teams unnecessarily playing spinners and batsmen who can do well relatively better in subcon more at home, or creating turning pitches, etc? .... Our first goal should be to have a system that produces good to great cricketers, who in turn will create favourable results for Ind everywhere 

 

I don’t want a situation where by trying to win in SENA, we lose our advantage at home too 

 

 

 

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any Indian batsmen doing poorly in tests in India in this millenium, apart from Rahane.

 

And if we play Ashwin, Jadeja and a couple of quick reverse swing bowlers ... we will win tests in India as usual.

 

So, nothing is stopping us from playing batsmen who have the game to do well outside Asia, along with the usual ability to bat in India.

[prudent_kreeda]

On 9/15/2018 at 3:11 PM, Clarke said:

Wow, you made some insane conclusions of a very simple idea. Do you also categorize Ashwin & Jadeja as malai khaane waale and seamers or promising wrist spinners for abroad as bakre ? There's a number of skills required for succeeding in every facet of the game, whether its batting or bowling pace & spin, home or abroad and there's no harm in horses for courses. We already do it to some extent and may need to do it further. 

If one can understand that, then we can talk about the modern game. There is much more divergence in the demands on players with the advent of T20 leagues. All format players are strained endlessly, the impact is visible on ABDV and will be seen on Kohli and Bumrah unless they manage workloads better. There's also the fact that our spin game has deteriorated over the years.

This opens up options for format and/or conditions specialists.

 

All conditions players are great, but if Ishant can hone his skills in county cricket and do a very good job for India in tests, so can some batsmen. Its a shame that Pujara and Rahane couldn't despite being one format players and I don't see how Rahane can perform better than Rohit in India. Now this doesn't mean that Gill or Shaw can't be included in India tests, they might be our future greats. But whoever is a promising talent will have to be handled better. I'm just stating that one or two slots can be conditions specific as is the case for bowlers when we don't have a fab batting lineup.

      Dude , whole thing was written about batemen .. batsmen   and batsmen  by me ..

Edited September 16, 2018 by prudent_kreeda

[kirkutfan]

 You want to make it a priority to win in front of your own fans. So winning at home should be at least as important, if not more important than winning away. Manjrekar is just yearning for English speaking people to give him pats on the back.

 

Rather than putting us at risk by giving up home advantage, do things like providing different playing conditions at Ranji trophy games or letting our players try their hand at County cricket. That will prepare our guys for different conditions without risking any advantage we might enjoy.