Jump to content

sandeep

Members L2
  • Content Count

    11,937
  • Runs

    419,860 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28
  • Time Online

    243d 9h 21m 36s

Posts posted by sandeep


  1. 10 hours ago, zen said:

    In 2007, you can say that 1 bad game cost Ind. Here it could be worse as you would have lost a bunch of games to not qualify 

    Based on the level of competition, anything less than a finals appearance would be a bad performance by this Indian team.  8 months ago, I was certain that they would, in the worst case, at least make the semi-finals.  I still believe they can fall ass backwards into the SF, but its not as fool-proof as I thought earlier.  


  2. 17 minutes ago, putrevus said:

    So this notion that England has somehow reinvented the wheel by having attacking openers is false,

    What England have done, is use their batting depth to change the role definition for ODI openers.  Indian team gives their openers the luxury of "getting set", seeing off the new ball, etc in the name of giving the team a "good start", "platform" etc.  England demands that their opener target 80 runs on the team scoreboard in the 1st 10.  They don't give their batsman the excuse of "you go and bat big, and the team score will eventually benefit".  The openers job is to assess conditions, and get the team run-rate and score on optimal trajectory.  And if you get your individual milestone in that process, great.  Not ass-backwards like the Indian "think tank".  

     

    What England does, is accept a much higher risk of wicket loss, even multiple wicket loss in the 1st 15, betting that the middle order will be able to rebuild if necessary.  Or that in all likelihood, the gambit will succeed.   Indian team, by contrast, puts an unnecessary maximum ceiling on their optimal team score, in order to minimize the chances of an early collapse.  And guess what, even with the so-called "safe" approach, we still have our share of collapses anyway.  

     

     

    While India do not possess the same batting depth as England, they don't have to aim for 80.  But even aiming for 65 or 70, would have a massive impact on our batting output.  This is a very simple and obvious point, once you grasp it. 


  3. 7 minutes ago, putrevus said:

    Why stop at 80/2 , India was capable of scoring 149/2 in 15 overs way back in 2004 .So this notion that England has somehow reinvented the wheel by having attacking openers is false, what England has done is create a line up which could bat till no 10. India cannot match England's firepower.

     

    India has weakest middle order and lower middle order of all teams.People are expecting 80/2 from this team and then what get all out for 150.

    This false dichotomy of either settle for 300, or be 150 all out, is phattu bullshit.  Tweaking the lineup by inserting a batsman at #1 or #3, instead of at #4 is neither a major change, nor a major risk.  Only thing at risk is the reduced chances for Brohit (Bunty's jamaai) and Virat (Bunty's primary client) to rack up centuries.  

     

    Top order batting slots are not maibaap ki jaagir that these guys are squatting on it like Kaalia Naag.   


  4. 1 minute ago, putrevus said:

     

    Indian top three cannot take those chances period.You cannot aim for 350 in this team, 300 is the upper limit that too on a good day. This team is built to score 270 plus. They just don't have any batting depth.

     

    ODI innings is 300 deliveries.  You don't have survive 3 sessions. just 300 deliveries.  Yes, Indian team does not have optimal batting depth, but we have enough to make it work.  India need to re-jig their batting order and tactics, so that Rohit and Virat look to anchor the innings - while the other 3 batsmen look to attack.  If one or both of the primary anchors goes cheap, we can move Dhoni up from #7 to #5.  

     

    Dhawan & KL Rahul to open - with clear instructions to aim for 70+ in the 1st 10.  Doesn't mean they slog from ball 1.  But none of this 25 ball 12 business that Rohit indulges in.  

    Rohit/Virat -  If wicket falls early, i.e. before 11th over, Rohit, else Virat.  

    If we have a wobble and lose 3 wickets before the 18th over, send Dhoni in to do his patented front-foot block.  Else in 9 games out of 10, he bats only after Jadhav and Pandya.  Never before.  He's basically playing in the ODI team like we used to play Saha in the test team - quality gloveman, batting is a bonus.  

     

    You can't play a game with a defeatist negative mindset, claiming we can only win if 2 "hero" players play well.  Their "heroic" numbers are being scored from plum positions in the batting order, in heavy scoring games on flattish tracks against weak opposition.  There is no reason to believe that KL Rahul can't replicate Rohit Sharma's success at the top of the order. As it is, 4 games out of 5, Rohit Sharma gets dismissed for a paltry score with a sub-75 strike rate, i.e. a deadweight performance that drags the team's winning percentage way down.  


  5. 1 minute ago, putrevus said:

    How can you be 80/2 and have both Rohit and Kohli still not out. For this team to win either Rohit or Kohli have to bat till 45th over.

     

    This team means the squad selected.What you have said does not apply.

    Because you'd have KL Rahul either opening or at #3.  So you lose one of the openers for "this team", and Rahul.  

     

    What I said is still doable for this team, not that they will do it. 


  6. 9 minutes ago, putrevus said:

    2011 was loaded lineup which could sustain early wickets and still chase 270 plus. Do you think this line up will chase the same score 270 plus from 20/2 in any match.

    2011, India was the strongest batting unit - not just on paper, but in terms of run output.  Can't say that today.  Yes, we have a bit of fragility in our middle order - that is an undeniable fact.  But I would assert that pound for pound, India have a better list of available ODI batsmen to select from, than England.  I refuse to believe that the likes of Alex Hales, Jason Roy etc are better than Dhawan/Rohit/KL Rahul.  But those guys are comfortably out-producing our batsmen.  consuming fewer deliveries.  Not because they are better batsmen, but they are a better unit as a sum of their parts.  

     

    I'm not arguing for India to aim for 400 every game.  I'm arguing for them to stop settling for 320.  Aim at 350, and you'd be surprised how often the team ends up going comfortably past 350.  Because looting 75+ runs in the 1st 10 really sets the rest of the game up.  It forces the bowling team to switch to plan B, use up its best bowlers in an attempt to stem the flow, get defensive in their bowling plans as well as their field placing.   

     

    This really isn't rocket science.  


  7. 1 minute ago, putrevus said:

    How many you need, you tail cannot score and you don't have a middle order. 45/0 is better than 80/2 in India's case.Unless top3 end up with 500 plus runs each, India is going nowhere in this cup.

    No 45/0 is not better than 80/2.  Especially if Virat is walking in at 80/2, and we have one of Dhawan/Rohit still at the crease, with Dhoni, Jhadav, Hardik to follow.  And especially if the track is a road, like 80% of ODI tracks in England have been over the last few years.  

     

    I'd take 80/2 every single ODI with Virat walking in, and Rohit not out having faced 30 balls already.  

     

    Now I'm not saying India need to imitate England's batting tactics all the way, what I'm saying is that they need to aim at 70 in the 1st 10, even if 1 wicket falls in the process.  Can't do that if Virat is at #3, because if we are 80/2 with Virat back in the hut, that's a very different ball game.  This is why a KL Rahul or a Rishabh Pant should have been given a minimum of 10 games as ODI opener over the last 24 months.  To see how the player does, and how the rest of the batting unit adapts.  Work the kinks out of the new strategy.  

     

    But naah.  Let's wait till 5-8 games left for the WC, so that we can say that there's "not enough time" to make 'radical' changes.   There is one team in the modern ODI era that has won more ODI WC than any other - and their selectors - while having their own set of flaws - consistently use bilateral ODIs as a test-bed with a clear view to build the best possible squad and XI for the WC.  England ODI team, coaching staff, board, selectors - everybody, has been planning and thinking about 2019 WC since 2015.  Our captain is more dedicated to doing PR for "athleisure", wedding apparel, etc than to building the best possible ODI XI for the WC.  


  8. 21 hours ago, putrevus said:

    Runs scored in PP have no bearing at all. 45/0 in power play is just fine for this team. They don't have Morgan and Butler waiting in wings.

     

     

    45/0 is just fine?  Again.  Please "ask Alexa" what date it is.  Hint: Its not 2011.  


  9. 6 hours ago, SK_IH said:

    can you be more precise? what are you implying?

    How much more can I spell it out?  Virat, his farmhouse buddy, his agent's jamai, aren't giving up the ODI top order slots because the financial rewards for batting there and putting up gaudy individual scores are huge.  So all 'new' batsmen to the team are relegated to batting in the last 20 overs, asked to drag par or sub-par team scores from the moment they get to the crease.  The question of horses for courses, using players in positions where their skills can be milked to maximum team benefit, does not enter the equation.  


    To all reasonably informed observers of ODI cricket, its been obvious for more than 2 years, that England have created a very successful model of ODI batting.  And that India need to update their batting tactics.  We are not Pakistan or Sri Lanka, i.e. we are not lacking for quality LOI batsmen.  Its an execution issue, not a skill or talent issue.  And its one that is intentionally self-inflicted.  Because we are still winning a good chunk of games with the "safe" method.  Why rock the boat?  Let VadaPao boy score another 200, Virat rack up another dozen ODI centuries that don't really matter.  Why bother using the 2 years of ODI games to try and make the team stronger, adopt a more attacking game plan, especially when batting first?  

     

    Should Hardik Pandya be given more opportunities to bat higer up the order, in the important 30-40 over timeframe, so that he can figure out how he can adapt to play longer innings, which may be needed in a crunch WC game?   Should a Mayank agarwal, or a KL Rahul, or a Rishabh be deployed at the top of the ODI batting lineup, to try and attack the bowlers, and setup a 400 score?    

     

    These things have been obvious to try - for the last 20+ months.  But nope.  Its a nice gig - Kuptaan Wrogn is making millions, Rohit and Dhawan are getting good advertising $$$, Bunty Sajdeh is happy.  Shastri is there to rubber-stamp everything.  


  10. 22 hours ago, SK_IH said:

    Are you watching the IPL? If not just to inform you that Rahul has imbibed the "get set first and then go" culture of this Ind cricket team. Forget about the fearless starts from him as well.

    Don't expect any thing out of the box from this methodical lineup

    Rahul is doing that given his poor form in the run-up, and a slightly different role in the KXIP lineup.  

     

    I do not expect this "methodical" lineup to do much, if anything out of the box.  Its not as if I have unreasonable expectations of winning the WC or anything - win or lose, what bothers me, is that the team is not putting its best foot forward in attempting to win.  For reasons, absent direct first-hand knowledge, appear to be non-cricket (i.e. $$$) based.  Call me a cynic, but I can see the game being played behind the game.  And its disappointing to the passionate fan within me.


  11. 22 hours ago, Zero_Unit said:

    Too much IPL? Ever heard of the term of it ain't broke, don't tweak it? So you're biggest argument seems to be virat batting at #3 and Rahul at 4 will prevent us from getting 300 on a regular basis? 

    IPL and ODIs are completely different games.   Go check what England's average ODI scores have been in games played in England over the last 2 years or so.  Compare that to average Indian ODI totals, especially batting first.  2010 called and left you a voicemail.  "Getting to 300" isn't good enough anymore. 


    I don't care about Virat, Rahul, Pant, or any other name.  I want to see the Indian team - a team blessed with all-world batting talent resources, to produce top-shelf ODI team scores.  Indian batting unit is the undisputed best in the world at maximizing scoring in the middle overs - no small part thanks to Virat's consistent excellence.  But we are among the worst in the 1st 10 and middling in the last 10.  We are over dependent on Hardik Pandya for big hits at the end of an ODI innings.  Less said about Dhoni, the better.  Now, since we know that Indian team can't just pull out a Jos Buttler or Dre Rus out of their rear-end, let's see if its realistic to try and improve run-production in the 1st 10.  We average 45 runs in the 1st 10 overs.  That is as trash as it gets.  And its directly due to the "get your eye in, bat big" strategy, especially by the awesomely talented, but badly spoilt and over-indulged ball-eater Rohit Sharma. 

     

    To me, we have plenty of batting resources who are capable of addressing this low-hanging fruit of a problem.  Instead of asking newbies to come in later in the innings, and "deliver" consistently with high strike rates, its far more realistic to expect someone like a KL Rahul, to come in and attack the bowlers in the 1st powerplay.   Let Kohli keep doing his kohli thing and own the middle overs.  

     

    As a team, we are seriously under-achieving with the bat in ODI cricket.  And that's a shame.  India has 50% of the world's best ODI batsmen in the top 20, according to me.  And under-achieving as a batting unit, while being bailed out by the excellence of KulCha, Jaspreet and Bhuvi, is not acceptable to me.  To me, Indian batsmen are using the "bat big" tactic to pursue individual success, reasoning that its a low risk approach, and are getting consistently out-batted and out-scored by a bunch of sloggers (England) who have identified a tactical arbitrage opportunity, and are making the most of it.  England's ODI batsmen's collective batting tactics bring to mind the sucessful early adoption and execution of reverse swing by Pakistani bowlers in the 1990s.  Whether the reverse was aided by tampering the ball or not, Pak bowlers were at the vanguard of using reverse in ODI cricket.  They won a WC thanks to that first-mover advantage.  England's batting methodology may win them their first WC as well.  After 30 years of white-ball mediocrity, they have been the first to embrace the future of ODI batting.  And India are still playing as if the power-play rules haven't changed way back in 2013.  


  12. 1 hour ago, Zero_Unit said:

    Kohli has been doing perfectly fine at number 3. Why shuffle that around to fit another guy. Let the newbie play at 4. You technically want your best batsmen to bat at 3 anyways. Who better than Virat?

    Spoken like a fan with a 2011 understanding of ODI cricket.

     

    Kohli is "doing fine" at being the ODI anchor.  He can continue to do just that at #4.  There is zero value in forcing Kohli to walk in to bat and face the new ball in the 1st 10 overs, instead of having another #3 who can take the responsibility and risk of scoring quickly in the powerplay.  "Shuffling" from #3 to #4 would require zero changes from Virat in how he approaches his batting, technically or tactically.  

     

    Which dumbarse wise man decided that you want your best batsman at #3?  What you want, is the team to give itself the best chance to score maximum number of runs in 300 deliveries.  For India, that means adapting their batting tactics, to stop averaging 44 runs in the 1st 10 overs.  Virat is too good at being the anchor ODI bat, to risk him at #3 and ask him to bat aggressively upfront.  Let him do his thing at #4.  Insert KLPD at the top, and ask him to bat fearlessly.  Heck I would have wanted to see what Rishabh Pant would do as an opener, but that's a fantasy.  Even Rahul at the top is unlikely, because Mr 200-against-SriLanka isn't going to vacate his spot, and will continue to eat balls at 70 SR.  


  13. 1 hour ago, Gollum said:

    Unfortunately it is a risky gambit. We should have tried this approach before, I agree with your idea but applying it directly in a high-stakes match, dunno conflicted :dontknow:

    Wrote an ICF "article" suggesting this about 20 months ago.   

     

    But Virat batting at #4 on a regular basis means probably 30% fewer chances to rack up meaningless centuries in meaningless ODIs.   Go check endorsement incomes and you will find that white ball top order batsmen - i.e. Kohli, Sharma and Dhawan - are right up there in maximum ad income.  You think these arseholes are going to give up the gravy train just so the team gets 5% better and increases the chances of winning the WC?  


  14. Virat Kohli.

     

    Rohit, Shikhar, KLPD in the top 3, with clear instructions to attack the bowling in the 2 over to 10 over timeframe.  Even if one wicket falls.  Let KLPD come in at #3 if Brohit won't give up his opening slot.  Let Virat bat at #4.  


  15. good decision, but it was such an obvious one, that it should have been taken right away.  

     

    The election commission of India has a lot of goodwill, credibility, and trust gained over the years - localized issues with corruption notwithstanding.  

     

    National Institutions need to be protected from being infected with politics.  Ends don't justify some means, regardless of 'patriotism', or other BS.


  16. 25 minutes ago, mishra said:

    Since Khan came in, Inflation in Pakistan has shot up, like india in MMS era. Value of PKR has gone down, even ADB declared Pakistani economy to decelerat by 4%, which effeively means recession when you factor in population growth and its demand.

     

    So, Country is done, economically, let FATF black list kick in. That will be final nail

    They will need to devalue the currency another 30 to 40% at least, before it will stabilize.  They are in economic hell right now.  

     

    Post-election, I want whatever govt comes into power, to turn the screws further - raising the tensions will definitely hurt "economic sentiment" of potential loan givers.  Maybe finally the PakMil mafia can be convinced to give up the terrorism card.  Wait, who am I kidding.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×