Personal milestones 'out of our system' - Kohli

[rkt.india]

45 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

230 wasn't enough? What was Kohli thinking? England will score 330 and bowl out India later?

Wasn't enough to force a win.

[velu]

yeah because last 2 years is what defines a batsmans career, not when he gets kut multiple times in tge 90s attacking

Mostly Got out playing nervously and definitely not by playing attacking shots

[Trichromatic]

42 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

You are forgetting to add the 85-100 runs they would have piled today had we declared right after second session. That adding to the over night score would have taken them to a safe score, where even if they had been bowled out, we would have been needing 100ish in a very less time which their bowlers would have full control on. 

We were not leading by 230 runs after second session. Why couldn't we declare 1 hour after the second session or even 1 hour before close of play to give England at least 13-15 overs to bat? Only because we wanted him to score 300. There is no other reason for that.

[Trichromatic]

7 minutes ago, velu said:

Mostly Got out playing nervously and definitely not by playing attacking shots

Most 100s scored by hitting 6

[mishra]

TBH this pitch is dead dodo. Only takeaway off this game is that one "Personnel Milestone". I think Kohli got that message. Why fool ourselves, discussing prospect of a win which would have been no better than fluke.

 

 

I hope Kohli grows up and understand that "Personnel Milestones" are what defines individuals of team and Team is as good as Individuals.

[CG]

Alteast we got 5 overs .Karun Nair basically got it quickly so losing 5 overs is not a big deal

[gattaca]

2 hours ago, New guy said:

yeah because last 2 years is what defines a batsmans career, not when he gets kut multiple times in tge 90s attacking

I watched tendulkar through 90s he was the only saving grace on away tours. But whenever sachin near 80 he used to play slow and defensive. I remember champions trophy in 2001 vs nz he took lot of balls to complete a century.  We lost against nz because of slow batting as we lost the momementum. The Mumbai mafia says since you played for that long you deserve a century. No you don't, you play for the team. Sehwag was good in this aspect he would go for six if it is bad ball but sachin would defend it.

 

[New guy]

1 hour ago, WeStMiDz said:

No issues giving a youngster a chance to go for a triple against a top opposition when you are 3-0 up in a series. 

no.issues but then no need to make big statements about personal milestones

[Trichromatic]

15 minutes ago, gattaca said:

I watched tendulkar through 90s he was the only saving grace on away tours. But whenever sachin near 80 he used to play slow and defensive. I remember champions trophy in 2001 vs nz he took lot of balls to complete a century.  We lost against nz because of slow batting as we lost the momementum. The Mumbai mafia says since you played for that long you deserve a century. No you don't, you play for the team. Sehwag was good in this aspect he would go for six if it is bad ball but sachin would defend it.

 

1. He used to bat quicker than most of other batsman in 80s.

2. Century against NZ in 2001 - That's just some random match which didn't happen. We never lost to NZ when SRT scored 100.

 

[kosingh]

18 minutes ago, gattaca said:

I watched tendulkar through 90s he was the only saving grace on away tours. But whenever sachin near 80 he used to play slow and defensive. I remember champions trophy in 2001 vs nz he took lot of balls to complete a century.  We lost against nz because of slow batting as we lost the momementum. The Mumbai mafia says since you played for that long you deserve a century. No you don't, you play for the team. Sehwag was good in this aspect he would go for six if it is bad ball but sachin would defend it.

 

Although I do think Tendulkar was a little too concerned about records, I don't like using the example or him slowing down in the 90s as an example of selfishness. *Nervous* nineties for many don't suggest selfishness, but simply nervousness. There is a subtle difference, and selfishness and nervousness need not be correlated.

[gattaca]

6 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

1. He used to bat quicker than most of other batsman in 80s.

2. Century against NZ in 2001 - That's just some random match which didn't happen. We never lost to NZ when SRT scored 100.

 

It's not century 70 odd something. He and ganguly both slowed down in 40 th over.

 

http://m.espncricinfo.com/iccct2000/engine/current/match/66179.html

[gattaca]

1 minute ago, kosingh said:

Although I do think Tendulkar was a little too concerned about records, I don't like using the example or him slowing down in the 90s as an example of selfishness. *Nervous* nineties for many don't suggest selfishness, but simply nervousness. There is a subtle difference, and selfishness and nervousness need not be correlated.

100 100s is an epitome of someone concerned about records. He could have just retired after 2011 couldn't have chosen best time to hang up the boots. It was his home ground won the worldcup don't think their is anything for him to achieve. Young and fitter players waiting for their chance. 

[mishra]

19 minutes ago, gattaca said:

I watched tendulkar through 90s he was the only saving grace on away tours. But whenever sachin near 80 he used to play slow and defensive. I remember champions trophy in 2001 vs nz he took lot of balls to complete a century.  We lost against nz because of slow batting as we lost the momementum. The Mumbai mafia says since you played for that long you deserve a century. No you don't, you play for the team. Sehwag was good in this aspect he would go for six if it is bad ball but sachin would defend it.

 

Agree, A Player would be lieing if he siad he didnt wantedto reach a 100. But reaching milestone wa not only thing why Tendulkar batted slow.

Teams used to bring their best bowlers and used to become overtly alert as they sensed that there is a Tendla Ton coming up. And if he reaches hundred, then he will take the game away from them cos he used to play a T20 knock after that.

 

Thats why you were never sure when Sehwag will get out.

 

 

[kosingh]

1 minute ago, gattaca said:

100 100s is an epitome of someone concerned about records. He could have just retired after 2011 couldn't have chosen best time to hang up the boots. It was his home ground won the worldcup don't think their is anything for him to achieve. Young and fitter players waiting for their chance. 

Yes, which is why I said Tendulkar was a little too concerned about records. The pursuit of 100 100s was very awkward. But slowing down in the 90s so he can get his century, need not be selfish.

[mishra]

4 minutes ago, gattaca said:

100 100s is an epitome of someone concerned about records. He could have just retired after 2011 couldn't have chosen best time to hang up the boots. It was his home ground won the worldcup don't think their is anything for him to achieve. Young and fitter players waiting for their chance. 

But did he knew in 2001 or 90s that one day he will score hundred hundred or was he just so destructive that no other team wanted to reach him 100. Even now, You can see that there are spells of game when a Captain completely dries up runs. Infact one of the tactics employed regularly against Tendulkar used to be not let Tendulkar get on strike.

So if you will see, when Tendulkar used to be slow towards 100, Other batsman used to become even slower.

[Trichromatic]

49 minutes ago, gattaca said:

It's not century 70 odd something. He and ganguly both slowed down in 40 th over.

 

http://m.espncricinfo.com/iccct2000/engine/current/match/66179.html

But Sachin was out in 27th over.

[sourab10forever]

Easy to say but it's almost impossible to get it out of our systems. And there is nothing wrong in it.

 

[vvvslaxman]

37 minutes ago, sourab10forever said:

Easy to say but it's almost impossible to get it out of our systems. And there is nothing wrong in it.

 

Yea declaring right after 300 contradicts his statement.  

[coffee_rules]

So, Kohli waited for 300, which is a rarity in Test cricket. Just to prove you all wrong, should he have waited for Karun to carry on to make what 320, highest score by an Indian and not declare right after 300? He got 5 overs, people were complaining of not bowling 15 overs..a mere 10 overs to wait to get to 300 ..is not a BFD!

 

In all probability 10 wkts can't be taken in 110 overs in this test. Till now 17 wkts have fallen in 4 days. Rat only made the control to be in India's hand, rather in Eng to dictate how India will win. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by coffee_rules

[vvvslaxman]

Not a complaint. Just an observation. Typically we give ourselves atleast 12 to 15 overs to have a crack at the tired opposition in this situation.  Would that have made any difference? May be not.