Indian test cricket from depths of despair to Bright sunshine from Dhoni to Virat the journey , compare

[rkt.india]

5 hours ago, youngindia said:

This is a fundamental flaw in the posts i see here again and again.   

 

you are not addressing the root cause and the failings  but want a solution (thats instrinsically shallow) 

 

where is the root cause addressed?  

 

1. Our bowlers are neither effective enough enough and strategically competent enough against experienced batsmen of australia ...

 

is this going to be addressed by hiring binny or mishra? only if developing quality bowlers is half as simple as this.

 

As long  as our bowlers are not of better quality, we are not going to take 20 wickets against top tier sides often,.

 

To take 20 wickets, our bowlers have to be effective and conversant in the conditions. thats why we take 20 wkts at home.

 

THIS is the prime criteria for 20 wkts.

 

This is a fact. not going to be addressed by 4 , 5 or 6 bowlers. 

 

Only better talent and better development of bowlers can address this.

 

2. Assuming a 5 man attack is more stronger than a 4 attack is a logical flaw without any basis. Just irrational.

 

The fifth bowler has to bring in something extra to make even a few percentage of difference. 

 

who is going to find a weighty fifth bowler in average talent pool??

 

When you see Countries with bowlers like bichel and kasper, their first four bowlers are/were very strong..for countries like india, our first three are ineffective outside asia. you are not going to find a good fifth bowler for those conditions

 

jadeja and mishra are not weighty enough in those conditions. jadeja is the most decent bet along with pandya.

 

 

3. Without the top 4 taking 15 wickets, its pointless to talk about the ffith bowler in any case.

 

even the likes of marsh are ineffective if the top 3 is not penetrative enough.

 

Good thinking requires you focus on the bowlers who  can take 14+ wickets.

 

Not on a fifth bowler who can take 1 -3 wickets if he is a genuine allrounder and 4-6 on a good match.leave alone hacks like binny 

who are useless

 

Even If we had the best fifth bowler style allrounder in the world, he is ineffective without the top 4's effectiveness

 

 

4. I am not confident the problem is going to be fully solved in the next 6-8 years unless aaron surprises me.

 

for now i just hope that bumrah ,aaron and shami would do better than srinath,venky and zaheer. that would be realistic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

absolutely. 4 or 5 bowlers dont make much difference in my opinion but quality of bowlers does. If you dont have good bowlers, you can play 10 bowlers and results wont be different. Invincible Australian team always played 4 bowlers. They didn't have a proper alrounder.

[rkt.india]

5 hours ago, MCcricket said:

Poster above is missing a fundamental issue that is number of overs each bowler has to bowl , so even a wkt taking bowlers used like a stock bowler, with 4 bowlers how many captains will enforce a follow on, also you will see the difference in speeds n efforts all day round with 5 bowlers , so it's to me a short sighted debate, 5 bowlers or a decent allrounder with 4 main bowlers

if your 4 bowlers good enough to take wickets, they wont have to bowl a lot of overs. If they have to bowl a lot of overs so often, it means they are not good enough.

[express bowling]

38 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

absolutely. 4 or 5 bowlers dont make much difference in my opinion but quality of bowlers does. If you dont have good bowlers, you can play 10 bowlers and results wont be different. Invincible Australian team always played 4 bowlers. They didn't have a proper alrounder.

 

if your 4 bowlers good enough to take wickets, they wont have to bowl a lot of overs. If they have to bowl a lot of overs so often, it means they are not good enough.

I am not in favour of being dogmatic about fixing the number of bowlers, either 4 or 5,  in the team and it should be decided based on the situation.

 

As we do not have high quality bowlers and are generally expected to bowl a lot of overs, there are certain situations where 5  bowlers are helpful.  Like when the pitch is expected to help seamers early on and spinners later...like this match. If we had played with just 2 seamers then we would have had a lot of difficulty taking 10 wickets in the first innings.  On somewhat flatter decks of Australia, even 4 seamers may be required as our bowlers are not that penetrative and  lots of overs are expected to be bowled. And 1 spinner is always needed.   Having one more pacer helps them maintain pace in many situations like we saw in this match.

 

It is best to be flexible on this issue and not be biased towards either 4 or 5 bowlers.  There is no point comparing great bowling attacks with mediocre ones.

Edited July 26, 2016 by express bowling

[philcric]

45 minutes ago, express bowling said:

I am not in favour of being dogmatic about fixing the number of bowlers, either 4 or 5,  in the team and it should be decided based on the situation.

 

As we do not have high quality bowlers and are generally expected to bowl a lot of overs, there are certain situations where 5  bowlers are helpful.  Like when the pitch is expected to help seamers early on and spinners later...like this match. If we had played with just 2 seamers then we would have had a lot of difficulty taking 10 wickets in the first innings.  On somewhat flatter decks of Australia, even 4 seamers may be required as our bowlers are not that penetrative and  lots of overs are expected to be bowled. And 1 spinner is always needed.   Having one more pacer helps them maintain pace in many situations like we saw in this match.

 

It is best to be flexible on this issue and not be biased towards either 4 or 5 bowlers.  There is no point comparing great bowling attacks with mediocre ones.

This is a good post which explains it in a very simple way. The theory is so basic and obvious that it needn't be explained in the first place, but this forum seems to struggle to grasp even the simplest of concepts.

 

 

[philcric]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

absolutely. 4 or 5 bowlers dont make much difference in my opinion but quality of bowlers does. If you dont have good bowlers, you can play 10 bowlers and results wont be different. Invincible Australian team always played 4 bowlers. They didn't have a proper alrounder.

Totally disagree.

 

"Invincible Australian team always played 4 bowlers." ... They did, because the 4 bowlers were really good (some ATGs) and didn't really need another bowler. Also, that Aussie team played in an era where test cricket was a little more spaced out, no T20s. 

 

5th bowler helps a great deal to an average/decent bowling attack, which is what India is. In fact 5th bowler has great use for all the test teams at present.

 

The only merit in not having a 5th bowler is to strengthen your batting, but that's another discussion.

 

 

 

[Texan]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

absolutely. 4 or 5 bowlers dont make much difference in my opinion but quality of bowlers does. If you dont have good bowlers, you can play 10 bowlers and results wont be different. Invincible Australian team always played 4 bowlers. They didn't have a proper alrounder.

If 4 or 5 bowlers doesn't make much difference, please explain to me how much difference 5 or 6 batsmen make. We were losing left, right and center playing 6 batsmen. So, if we played 5 batsmen, would we have lost more/ lost less? Assuming that batsmen save matches, should we then play 7-8 batsmen so we don't lose?

 

Quality of bowlers obviously makes a difference, but when you are being drubbed repeatedly playing 6 batsmen, it is worthwhile investing in an additional bowling option (i.e. being more aggressive) and having a mix of spin/pace to juggle around. The 6 batsmen were not even saving matches, let alone setting high targets. Obviously genuine allrounders are worth their weight in gold, but when you don't have them, you should try playing a mix of some bowlers that can bat along with those who can't.

[MCcricket]

Dhoni was a businessman first then cricketer the way he operated, he made his money being Patsy to Srinivasan n CSK groupies, he did not try hard,e explore or do anything extra to make our side stronger or find ways to win but just wanted to play to be captain n wins did not matters much and shamelessly did not care about test losses as he wanted to cheat people into thinking is a process lol

[MCcricket]

The prime goal of any sport or player n the reason u play is to win but not our captain he did not care enough n disguised his weaknesses by telling us it's a process lol, as if we were an associate nation just promoted to ICC test side, he did a lot of disservice to Indian cricket et also thru his testimony on Meiyappan it's proven he lied a few times 

[velu]

2 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

Dhoni was a businessman first then cricketer the way he operated, he made his money being Patsy to Srinivasan n CSK groupies, he did not try hard,e explore or do anything extra to make our side stronger or find ways to win but just wanted to play to be captain n wins did not matters much and shamelessly did not care about test losses as he wanted to cheat people into thinking is a process lol

hope you are trying to be sarcastic

 

[MCcricket]

Dhoni latched onto captaincy for 4 years after pathetic defeats n had no shame or accountability, he was a useless test captain n player, also was not passion ate or cards much about test cricket or how team fared in this format

[velu]

26 minutes ago, MCcricket said:

Dhoni latched onto captaincy for 4 years after pathetic defeats n had no shame or accountability, he was a useless test captain n player, also was not passion ate or cards much about test cricket or how team fared in this format

 

 

 

[Bigg Brother]

Why this fight??When we won under Dhoni,Dhoni got the credit..Same applies to Kohli..Let him give some credit..He will also be bashed when he starts losing!!!

[Bigg Brother]

All 5 bowlers strategy,giving preference to pace aside,Kohli is getting some credit here because he has batted brilliantly,be it at adelaide,sydeny or double century here.Your best batsman should captain your test side and this is it!!!

[Bigg Brother]

We didnt lose the every other test series because of captaincy of Dhoni.Dhoni's captaincy is a subjective thing and no one can guarantee that had we changed the captain results would have been different.

Its our batting that sucked big time which also included Dhoni for the reason of so many test loses.Indian bowling was always mediocre..I found it amusing when everyone starts bashing Dhoni-the captain which has no parameter to calculate but no one questioned his batting as a captain.

[Bigg Brother]

Did they win the ADELAIDE MATCH at the end of Day ?

 

What is this looking for wins or Draw crap:facepalm:

 

Everyone plays the bloody game to win at the end of day better team takes over

Coming from a fan of a player for whom "Process" mattered more than results!!!

[philcric]

55 minutes ago, Bigg Brother said:

Coming from a fan of a player for whom "Process" mattered more than results!!!

Ouch.

 

[moniker]

absolutely. 4 or 5 bowlers dont make much difference in my opinion but quality of bowlers does. If you dont have good bowlers, you can play 10 bowlers and results wont be different. Invincible Australian team always played 4 bowlers. They didn't have a proper alrounder.

Gilchrist was their all rounder. They didn't need a bowling all rounder when they had their keeper coming in at 7, striking at 82 with an average of 47.

[Bigg Brother]

 So you are telling me both are same so ? 

 

Didn't B lobby here want him gone cause of his PROCESS ? Why maintain such double standards i wonder 

What do you mean by "process" then??

[Bigg Brother]

 So you are telling me both are same so ? 

 

Didn't B lobby here want him gone cause of his PROCESS ? Why maintain such double standards i wonder 

Firstly stop posting such words-"B lobby"...You always complained of others of degrading forum.But these kind of words degrade the forum.You must be the only one earth who are questioning his approach in the adelaide test..What could he have achieved by the so called "process"??It was there to Win and we didnt cross the line..AI didnt oppose the "Dhoni process" but I failed to understand what was his process??

Firstly stop posting such words-"B lobby"...You always complained of others of degrading forum.But these kind of words degrade the forum.You must be the only one earth who are questioning his approach in the adelaide test..What could he have achieved by the so called "process"??It was there to Win and we didnt cross the line..And I didnt oppose the "Dhoni process" but I failed to understand what was his process??

[Bigg Brother]

48 minutes ago, Viper said:

Well you Brought it Up.. So you explain me about that PROCESS why are you asking me 

 

The main point was Under MS we didn't win in AUS.. Did we win under Kohli so ??  He was captain for 2 Tests right.  Not sure why you are beating around the bush when my answer was straight forward..  B lobby  = Banglore lobby , What does that has anything to do with forum quality.. :facepalm:No point giving excuses like we are ALMOST going to win at the end of the day we didn't 

 

Simple as that 

I didnt brought it up..I just notified you about your double standard when you posted,,"Everyone plays the bloody game to win at the end of the day" which is result..But the one you worship disagree with this..How hard is it to understand??

And yes,your words affects the quality of forum..We arent discussing on Facebook..

Edited July 26, 2016 by Bigg Brother