Importance of all rounders

[vvvslaxman]

Just like in 1983 once again it is proven having all rounders in the side is very very valuable. Both sides that got to the final had decent lower order all rounders or atleast semi all rounders.  CDG, Neesham, STokes, Woakes, Santner, Rashid.  Even for India it was the semi-all rounder that clicked. If not a full fledged all rounder it is very useful if they are decent in multiple departments. Windies should have reached semis but for their T20 style brainless cricket.  We have 10 one-dimensional cricketer if we don't play Jadeja. Basically it is a disaster waiting to happen especially when we have a zero-dimension keeper in the side.

[ViruDilSeKhelo]

Over analysis. We lost because we had a bad 45 minutes and were 20-3 (mental midgets) in key game. Woakes and Rashid had little to do with the bat anyway and Stokes bowling rarely needed his 10 overs. The importance of AR was raised before the world cup - I wanted a pair of spinning ARs like Jadeja and another so all our batsmen can be more aggressive - but having 4 class bowlers who take wickets  is also equally good enough even if they can't bat. This was correctly mentioned on ICF. 

 

We lost the cup due to following factors mainly:

1- mental midgetness in key matches

2- no solid number 4

3 - selection of Shankar and Kartick took up space which we could have given to players with pedigree for runs.

4 - Kuldeep faded away and BK preference over Shami

Edited July 17, 2019 by ViruDilSeKhelo

[vvvslaxman]

When you have one-dimensional cricketers they are under pressure to be infallible all the time. They simply cannot afford to fail in their department. Batsmen cannot fail. Bowlers cannot fail.  Batsmen failed. We got exposed. Bowlers failed against England. We got exposed. Not overanalysis. This was something we expected, predicted.

[zen]

6 minutes ago, ViruDilSeKhelo said:

Over analysis. We lost because we had a bad 45 minutes and were 20-3 (mental midgets) in key game. Woakes and Rashid had little to do with the bat anyway and Stokes bowling rarely needed his 10 overs. The importance of AR was raised before the world cup - I wanted a pair of spinning ARs like Jadeja and another so all our batsmen can be more aggressive - but having 4 class bowlers who take wickets  is also equally good enough even if they can't bat. This was correctly mentioned on ICF. 

 

We lost the cup due to following factors mainly:

1- mental midgetness in key matches

2- no solid number 4

3 - selection of Shankar and Kartick took up space which we could have given to players with pedigree for runs.

4 - Kuldeep faded away and BK preference over Shami

Good post. Jadeja should have been played at #7 over Shankar and Jadhav (I had threads on that before the WC) .... DK was a useless pick. Added no value .... With Shankar, Jadhav, and DK, Ind was going in with 9-10 players 

 

In hindsight, after Dhawan’s injury, which impacted Ind the most, KL should have been kept at #4 and someone like Pant could have opened. Alternately, if KL opened, Dhoni should have played at 4 (also have posts on this)

 

 

 

[ViruDilSeKhelo]

31 minutes ago, zen said:

Good post. Jadeja should have been played at #7 over Shankar and Jadhav (I had threads on that before the WC) .... DK was a useless pick. Added no value .... With Shankar, Jadhav, and DK, Ind was going in with 9-10 players 

 

In hindsight, after Dhawan’s injury, which impacted Ind the most, KL should have been kept at #4 and someone like Pant could have opened. Alternately, if KL opened, Dhoni should have played at 4 (also have posts on this)

 

 

 

I've always liked your posts and agreed with your thinking process no matter what happened in the end. My fears were confirmed in the SL game when Agarwal or Pant were not given a chance to open and Rahul scored in the opening role...I knew that meant that Pant was no 4 versus NZ and mentally weak Rahul would open. I had wrote he is suited to no.4. I had wanted Pant to open until Agarwal was drafted in. Then I thought this guy is the won who attacked Australia on debut with courage, lets give a chance. Pant was still a good pick to open but this India under Kohli/Shastri is too predictable and must be dismantled.

 

Shastri later said we needed an extra game to try Agarwal, excuses, he could have played versus Sri Lanka. I also hoped from the team for the NZ game we would still allow Jadhav and Dhoni the nurdlers to be at 4 or 5 to allow hitting from Pant and Pandya later on. This is the same Shastri who said we didn't need a number 4, flexibility is fine, now he is eating his words...we need a coach who is honest in his assessment and tries to correct problems. Shastri just has a big ego and over confidence, brainless guy. Likes of Ganguly, Laxman and Gambhir said you CANNOT go to a world cup without a proper technique guy at number 4. 

 

Our other bad luck was our spinners chahal and kuldeep had been taking a bucket of wickets before and we had to play them together. This was a curse because we would have otherwise selected spinning ARs which would have allowed our batting to flow much better and all our seamers could have been first choice strike bowlers. The cloud cover and swing also had us in trouble.

 

The process is wrong which is the problem, we need to be mentally tough and more attacking/free in our game. NZ had likes of Nichols, Latham, Santner and CDG and almost won the cup. Honestly, even my English friends told me, India let themselves down big time considering our talent. We miss likes of GG, Sehwag, SRT, Raina, old Dhoni, Yuvi who knew how to absorb pressure and take charge later. This world cup loss will haunt me much more than 2015.

 

Edited July 17, 2019 by ViruDilSeKhelo

[zen]

14 minutes ago, ViruDilSeKhelo said:

I've always liked your posts and agreed with your thinking process no matter what happened in the end. My fears were confirmed in the SL game when Agarwal and Pant were not given a chance to open and Rahul scored in the opening role...I knew that meant that Pant was no 4 versus NZ and mentally weak Rahul would open. I had wanted Pant to open until Agarwal was drafted in. Then I thought this guy is the won who attacked Australia on debut with courage, lets give a chance. Pant was still a good pick to open but this India under Kohli/Shastri is too predictable and must be dismantled.

 

Shastri later said we needed an extra game to try Agarwal, excuses, he could have played versus Sri Lanka. I also hoped from the team we had that Jadhav and Dhoni the nurdlers would be at 4 or 5 v NZ allowing hitting from Pant and Pandya later on. This is the same Shastri who said we didn't need a number 4, flexibility is fine, now he is eating his words...we need a coach who is honest in his assessment and tries to correct problems. Shastri just has a big ego and over confidence, brainless guy. Likes of Ganguly, Laxman and Gambhir said you CANNOT go to a world cup without a proper technique guy at number 4. 

 

Our other bad luck was our spinners chahal and kuldeep had been taking a bucket of wickets before and we had to play them together. This was a curse because we would have otherwise selected spinning ARs which would have allowed our batting to flow much better and all our seamers could have been first choice strike bowlers. The cloud cover and swing also had us in trouble.

 

The process is wrong which is the problem, we need to be mentally tough and more attacking/free in our game. NZ had likes of Nichols, Latham, Santner and CDG and almost won the cup. Honestly, even my English friends told me, India let themselves down big time. We miss likes of GG, Sehwag, SRT, Raina, old Dhoni, Yuvi who knew how to absorb pressure and take charge later. 

 

TM could have used the SL game to bat some of the MO guys higher to prepare themselves for the KOs. Ind had confirmed a spot by then. MO batsmen were left relatively undercooked as on good batting tracks, they hardly got the opportunity to get their confidence in by playing a long inning.

 

Top order scoring most of the runs mainly on good batting pitches also did not help Ind much  (as others were deprived of batting opportunities. Usually only came in situations where you had to go for your shots from ball 1) esp. when it failed when it mattered the most. Which is why Ind could have proactively experimented in the game vs SL

Edited July 17, 2019 by zen

[Zero_Unit]

Here we are talking about the importance of an allrounder. Then there are some who thinks it's a myth. Allrounders does not exist. You know who you are. Don't be shy, raise your hands up 

[jf1gp_1]

29 minutes ago, zen said:

TM could have used the SL game to bat some of the MO guys higher to prepare themselves for the KOs. Ind had confirmed a spot by then.

I was screaming when I saw Kohli come out to bat. 

[rtmohanlal]

genuine all rounders like the FAB 4  are not that easy and precisely they are don't needed in ODIs . We had Pandya, Jadeja in the final and they performed  better than a specialist 'Chahal'  in the same.  That shows these  'at the least  bits and pieces' are enough to complement specialists  if right choices are made as per the conditions. What proved vital  was the ultimate incompetency  of the  moron drunkard coach who went with Kartik & Bhuvi   when there were more conducive players .Another thing has been the very rigid nature of the batting unit  that  almost every one is well aware of.  No experienced left handed batsman(if  3 of the top 6 are left handers then that much better)  even to replace  the already singular out going  'Dhawan' . No grafter  with compact technique( likes of Dravid) who can  arrest a collapse and  rebuild the inns.Above all  lack of a  highly competent  coach who knew all these things and 'made a top order of say 10 batsmen based on that'  by the time the  event was about to start.

 

The end result has been that TOP3 has been  padding up stats after stats by playing even in literally  every inconsequential match  which benefited them only.This is ODI where a lot of flexibility  in batting order should be adopted  as per the conditions and match situations . Unfortunately the captain and coach  developed a top 6 which was exactly the opposite.

[R!TTER]

Just now, rtmohanlal said:

We had Pandya, Jadeja in the final and they performed  better than a specialist 'Chahal'  in the same. 

Bits & pieces cricketers are always handy in LO, that's how we won the first WC anyway. However these players must be good at doing 1 thing properly, Chahal - the less said about the mental midget the better

[Ajju]

Had any one give support to Dhoni we could have won the cup

 

all rounders etc not needed

[rtmohanlal]

22 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

Bits & pieces cricketers are always handy in LO, that's how we won the first WC anyway. However these players must be good at doing 1 thing properly, Chahal - the less said about the mental midget the better

yes...  Other than that, that moron Shastri has been associated with the game for decades. Yet  when the final came he couldn't judge as to whether the pitch was a  better seam/spin pitch. He played 2 spinners on the pitch and what not  the 2 bowlers who troubled NZL thru out the previous NZL series Shami & Kuldeep were discarded.

[chewy]

India had enough all rounders 

But retards captaincy and this current generation of Indian batsmen unable to negotiate slight amount swing was their downfall

[Khota]

Let me make a counter argument:

 

India lost the WC because of lack of specialist not all rounders.

45 mnts had nothing to do with Indian loss. Problem was deeper.

I am fan of Karthik and Pant but one of them should ahve been wkt kpr.

That would freed up two spots for specialist batsman and that would have won the game for India.

India just need 30 more runs which could have been had with two specialist bats.

[nevada]

15 hours ago, jf1gp_1 said:

I was screaming when I saw Kohli come out to bat. 

Same here. It was a great opportunity to give a chance to Pant or even Hardik. Even if they got out for a small score, the match could have still been won. 

[cricketfan28]

krunal pandya ?