why its futile to overload a side

[youngindia]

This is a highly relevant post from richard barnes, one of the more brilliant SA posters. "In the 2007 CWC semi against Aus, Justin Kemp batted at 7, Andrew Hall at 8, Shaun Pollock at 9. How did we do? In the 2011 loss to NZ, Johan Botha (yes, the greatest ODI cricketer ever to have walked the Earth, THAT Johan Botha) batted at 7, Robin P at 8. They made 2 runs between them. In the 1999 loss (well, tie actually but it got us eliminated) to Aus, Pollock batted 7, Klusener at 8, Boucher at 9. Same result. In the 2013 Champs Trophy against Eng, Miller batted at 7, McLaren at 8, Morris at 9, Kleinveldt at 10. All of those guys can wield the willow, Rory scored 43 batting at 10. How did we do?" Despite the unparalleled depth in SA allrounder capacity, SA has repeatedly come cropper in KO's because their stars didn't come to the party with big enough scores or wickets. The moral of the story is if kallis or abv or amla are not coming to the party, SA is not winning these matches anytime soon even with the help of klusener or pollock. if kohli and co are not making 70's or 100's , we are not winning KO's either with the help of ashwin or binny. its not uncomon to see puerile posts suggesting ashwin at no 7 or harbhajan at no 6 in this forum :cantstop: cometh the hour, the super stars and stars in the top 6 have to turn up on the big day as performers. Its not that one should not focus on the no 7-8 position. but should the indian selectors have allotted THREE places for so called allrounders, two of them to unheralded players(and one complete hack I may add)? when the increasingly senile gavaskar talks about including bhuvi and binny for batting ability , does he foresee that these batting capabilities are of limited value and not match winning quality? On England tour, the stupid captain ignited a most useless issue in the 5th bowler. 13 overs from binny was supposed to herald a miracle..it was never going to work in the real world. why are these deluded souls behaving as if the 5th bowler or 8th batsman is going to make or break the indian team? The no 7 batsman can do a job provided the top 6 brings the target within range of 40-120 runs.so he is important as a strong batsman. that's where you need a player who averages 30 and can withstand strong bowlers. lower order can help in a few cases. The odds of kapil's 175 are several years. there are times when a bhuvi can support a specialist to around 70 runs.aus may have a strong finisher in Faulkner but these scenarios are in the minor percentages. for the vast majority of the cases, the top 6 batsmen and the top 3 bowlers make or break the team. The sooner the selectors understand that their focus on balance is way too excessive and descending to the point of lowering the level of the side, the better it is for indian cricket. Their focus should be on making the specialist matchwinning group as strong as possible.

[youngindia]

Also the key to beating Australia fielding three allrounders is also here. if Maxwell, marsh,Watson and Faulkner are bowling, they have to be targeted mercilessly. All of them are very hittable bowlers to top batsmen. that's how you make them pay for not playing specialists. otherwise it won't cost them on flat pitches . they will get away with a gamble.

[flamy]

Also the key to beating Australia fielding three allrounders is also here. if Maxwell, marsh,Watson and Faulkner are bowling, they have to be targeted mercilessly. All of them are very hittable bowlers to top batsmen. that's how you make them pay for not playing specialists. otherwise it won't cost them on flat pitches . they will get away with a gamble.

Agree except Watson. He looks deceptively hittable but somehow keeps bagging wickets. But yes, they should not be bogged down with these bowlers.

[veer]

Also the key to beating Australia fielding three allrounders is also here. if Maxwell, marsh,Watson and Faulkner are bowling, they have to be targeted mercilessly. All of them are very hittable bowlers to top batsmen. that's how you make them pay for not playing specialists. otherwise it won't cost them on flat pitches . they will get away with a gamble.

^Watson hardly bowls... maxwell is hittable but Marsh and Faulkner are not that easy to hit. Faulkner's change ups are hard to detect... Marsh is a genuine bowler and a good hitter. It depends on quality of all rounders... Farhan B is not a quality all-rounder, nor are Phillander and Duminy.. If you compare above three with Maxwell, Marsh and Faulkner, then you're in for surprises.

[G_B_]

I have read many Richard Barnes posts. He is a quality poster. Somebody get him on ICF. Makes more sense than the SA journos. (though they maybe have to jazz up their articles) Re loading. Its about being first among equals when it goes down to the wire. Klusner and Boucher in 1999 pulled SA out of so many tight situations in group games with crucial knocks down the order when their top order did not come to the party. Their failing as been choking which affects all aspects of their game. In the group games the SA lower order has bailed them out so many times. I do believe when they won the champions trophy in 2000? (cant remember) their lower order was a major factor in them winning. Now Bhuvi is obviously not a proper batsman in the ODIs. He has a solid defence. But there is merit in having good batters till 8.

[veer]

I have read many Richard Barnes posts. He is a quality poster. Somebody get him on ICF. Makes more sense than the SA journos. (though they maybe have to jazz up their articles) Re loading. Its about being first among equals when it goes down to the wire. Klusner and Boucher in 1999 pulled SA out of so many tight situations in group games with crucial knocks down the order when their top order did not come to the party. Their failing as been choking which affects all aspects of their game. In the group games the SA lower order has bailed them out so many times. I do believe when they won the champions trophy in 2000? (cant remember) their lower order was a major factor in them winning. Now Bhuvi is obviously not a proper batsman in the ODIs. He has a solid defence. But there is merit in having good batters till 8.

Ofcourse.. your whole top order mind-set changes when you can rely on 8 proper batters..

[goose]

If you're relying on No.7, 8, 9 then by default you're in a pickle and you need good batsman to get you out of trouble ergo uselessness of loading a side. This is why pinch hitters were employed in the 1980/90s. Ashwin has proven batting ability but unable to go full throttle from ball one. In fact he is dire in that role. Why is nobody pushing for his promotion to No.3?

[MCGGG]

Also the key to beating Australia fielding three allrounders is also here. if Maxwell, marsh,Watson and Faulkner are bowling, they have to be targeted mercilessly. All of them are very hittable bowlers to top batsmen. that's how you make them pay for not playing specialists. otherwise it won't cost them on flat pitches . they will get away with a gamble.

Our allrounders are genuine batsmen, that's the difference.

[nevada]

I think the key is to have an allrounder who is solid in one discipline and also competent in another. They should be worth their place in the side for their primary skill alone, with the secondary skill as a bonus. Kapil Dev, Shaun Pollock, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Daniel Vettori, Shane Wane etc fit the bill of excellent bowlers with batting ability. Aravinda De Silva, Sehwag, Jayasuriya, etc were great batsmen with good bowling skills. Gilchrist, Boucher, Dhoni, Sanga, etc fulfil the roll of wicket keeping allrounder. When someone is picked just because he is an "all-rounder" with neither a strong batting skill nor bowling skill is when team balance goes for a toss.

[putrevus]

Nobody in their right mind expects no 7 to 11 to carry the batting, if top order fails unless miracles happen no side is going to win. But what a strong lower order can do is make good score into match winning score,there is lot of difference in chasing 300 and chasing 325 plus.That is where lower order batting comes into picture. Last two matches Indian top order performed very well in Pakistan match they were 273/3 in 45th over and ended up with just 300.Even in recent test matches same thing happened over and over again.To say lower order batting does not matter is utterly foolish. What you do not need is playing bits and pieces players playing as all rounders, the selected all rounders should be able to get into the team based on both skills.

[sensible-indian]

If top order batsmen know that No 6,7 and 8 are awesome in striking power, their mindset completely changes. Right now, Dhoni, Jaddu and Ash have been pure garbage in batting. Those 3 are never going to win us games on their own but their performance may decide the winner in case of close games.

[veer]

If you're relying on No.7' date=' 8, 9 then by default you're in a pickle and you need good batsman to get you out of trouble ergo uselessness of loading a side. This is why pinch hitters were employed in the 1980/90s. Ashwin has proven batting ability but unable to go full throttle from ball one. In fact he is dire in that role. Why is nobody pushing for his promotion to No.3?[/quote'] I was actually recommending him to open innings when Dhawan was out of form.. and demoting Dhawan in middle order. Ashwin is someone who can play his natural shots in first 10 overs and find boundaries. He used to open at state level from what i have heard.

[goose]

I was actually recommending him to open innings when Dhawan was out of form.. and demoting Dhawan in middle order. Ashwin is someone who can play his natural shots in first 10 overs and find boundaries. He used to open at state level from what i have heard.

Exactly, he is quite capable of a run-a-ball 30, and often looked our best batsman in tests gone by. India are not going to score bonus points for being 200/1.

[veer]

Exactly' date=' he is quite capable of a run-a-ball 30, and often looked our best batsman in tests gone by. India are not going to score bonus points for being 200/1.[/quote'] But that boat has sailed.. Dhoni wouldnt try this move now in middle of the WC. We should make this move in Semi final against Aus when we'll need to chase 325 to 350 or even when we are setting up the target. It can surprise Ozzies to core. Ashwin is familiar with their bowlers as well. Imagine if this move fails.. the amount of criticism Dhoni can get. :cantstop: All hell will break lose at ICF..

[cowboysfan]

there is a difference on relying on these guys and ability to score some runs at the death,everybody starting from Jaddu are sitting ducks and cant score **** on aussie pitches and that hampers us because other team have bowlers who can make some contributions when needed.

[vvvslaxman]

In the first two matches our top order exceeded well beyond our expectations. They did their job. But when it comes to last 5 overs we put up a shambolic display in both matches. That problem was masked because our top order scored quickly in the middle overs. I like that to continue till the end of the tournament. A top order collapse (which can happen to best of teams. Remember Australia collapsed against England and New zealand in 2003 world cup) mean we will be in deep trouble.Their lower order bailed them out in 2003. No team has won world cup without the help of lower order at some point. In 1987 world cup against windies, Australia was 15/4 .But clinical 5th wicket partnership helped them win the match. South Africa's depth should not be used as an example as their problem is not lack of talent or form. Even the most inform SA player catches cold feet in crunch situations. This has been the trend for years. Be it is world T20 or world cup. India's lack of depth will be shown up in the second round.

[maniac]

So by that logic likes of Sammy,Russell etc and prior to that Pollard and Bravo have been keeping WI even mildly competeive....their top order including Gayle and Smith average in the 20's recently.

[moniker]

@OP, I'm not sure how there has been too much focus on the no 7 bat or the 5th bowler. Most teams already have their 6 batsmen and 3 bowlers set. Do you see any chinks in ours or SA's top 6? Your point is valid if the top 6 is under-performing but still the team management is hell bent on packing up batsmen at 7 and 8.

[rkt.india]

If you're relying on No.7' date= 8, 9 then by default you're in a pickle and you need good batsman to get you out of trouble ergo uselessness of loading a side. This is why pinch hitters were employed in the 1980/90s. Ashwin has proven batting ability but unable to go full throttle from ball one. In fact he is dire in that role. Why is nobody pushing for his promotion to No.3?

This

[flamy]

Andy Bichel