Tactics and Strategy for Semi Final?

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

He did not finish chase against NZ, he  did against England. Dhoni when he was finisher was capable of walking in 4 wickets down and play full 50 overs and score a hundred. Pandya bats no 7 so unless he is bowling his full 10 overs  upsets the balance of the team.

 

I don't have anything against him.I hope he does become very good allrounder. Yuvi was fifth bowler in 2011 but he was capable of winning match on his own with his bat .Pandya upsets the balance the moment he fails to complete his 10 overs as he is sixth bowler playing role of fifth bowler.

Pandya is good enough to bat at #6 for sure.  Maybe even #5 - but that's an optimistic hope talking, not a prediction.  And its not his fault that the team is playing a 6th bowler as a 5th.  IMO you should only count 5-8 overs from Pandya - not a full 10 every game.  And that's actually good enough to be in the team.  There is no team playing a 5th bowler who's better at bowling than Pandya - look at Eng/Oz/SA - Oz sometimes plays Pandya type bowler as the 4th one, leaving the 5th over quota to the likes of Travis Head and Maxwell - I mean these guys are worse than Kedar Jadhav as bowlers.   Why do some posters here want a return to 5 "specialist" bowlers?  That method is ancient history, along with white uniforms in ODI cricket.  

[putrevus]

3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Pandya is good enough to bat at #6 for sure.  Maybe even #5 - but that's an optimistic hope talking, not a prediction.  And its not his fault that the team is playing a 6th bowler as a 5th.  IMO you should only count 5-8 overs from Pandya - not a full 10 every game.  And that's actually good enough to be in the team.  There is no team playing a 5th bowler who's better at bowling than Pandya - look at Eng/Oz/SA - Oz sometimes plays Pandya type bowler as the 4th one, leaving the 5th over quota to the likes of Travis Head and Maxwell - I mean these guys are worse than Kedar Jadhav as bowlers.   Why do some posters here want a return to 5 "specialist" bowlers?  That method is ancient history, along with white uniforms in ODI cricket.  

No IMO he is not good enough to be #6 yet , There is nothing in his record both list A and FC level to suggest he good enough batsmen to bat in top six. So unless he improves his bowling a lot he will continue to upset the balance as India does not have any batsmen whom they can count for 5 to 6 over regularly.

 

He has all the tools so hopefully by 2019 he will become a force.

[Forever Indian]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Pandya is good enough to bat at #6 for sure.  Maybe even #5 - but that's an optimistic hope talking, not a prediction.  And its not his fault that the team is playing a 6th bowler as a 5th.  IMO you should only count 5-8 overs from Pandya - not a full 10 every game.  And that's actually good enough to be in the team.  There is no team playing a 5th bowler who's better at bowling than Pandya - look at Eng/Oz/SA - Oz sometimes plays Pandya type bowler as the 4th one, leaving the 5th over quota to the likes of Travis Head and Maxwell - I mean these guys are worse than Kedar Jadhav as bowlers.   Why do some posters here want a return to 5 "specialist" bowlers?  That method is ancient history, along with white uniforms in ODI cricket.  

There is a difference though. One of the main reasons why England came back after 35/3 against Aussies was because they only had 3 frontline bowlers. England who is the strongest team and winning all games has 4 frontline bowlers in Wood, Ball, Plunkett and Rashid. Their 5th bowlers in Moeen Ali and Stokes are also very good with ball and can even bowl full 10 overs on their own most days. Infact one can argue that Moeen Ali is actually a bowling allrounder. So they have 4 + 2 (proper bowlers as allrounders). This means that when a frontline bowler has a bad day they still have proper bowlers to fill the gap.

 

Whereas as we saw with India when Jaddu had an off day vs. Srilanka we did not have anyone to fall back on and hence had to bowl Kohli and Jadhav which let the new batsmen settle in. It is not possible for all 4 frontline bowlers to be bowling well in all matches, that's the reality.

[sandeep]

Just now, putrevus said:

No IMO he is not good enough to be #6 yet , There is nothing in his record both list A and FC level to suggest he good enough batsmen to bat in top six. So unless he improves his bowling a lot he will continue to upset the balance as India does not have any batsmen whom they can count for 5 to 6 over regularly.

 

He has all the tools so hopefully by 2019 he will become a force.

 

Are you aware that Pandya made it to the Indian team by utterly dominating the Syed Mushtaq Ali tournament with his bat?  He was far and away the best batsman by number of runs and strike rate in that tournament.   They guy has a massive back-lift that makes him look like a slogger, but he is capable of hitting pretty cover-drives and straight drives with a straight elbow as classy as most Indian top order bats.   You are seriously under-rating him as a batsman if you think he's not good enough for #6.   He may be good enough for #5.  Don't judge a book by its cover.  Or a gujju Lukdya by his cheap hairstyle and questionable fashion choices.  Boy can bat.  and has proven temperament.  And is still developing.   

 

 

 

 

 

[sandeep]

13 minutes ago, Forever Indian said:

There is a difference though. One of the main reasons why England came back after 35/3 against Aussies was because they only had 3 frontline bowlers. England who is the strongest team and winning all games has 4 frontline bowlers in Wood, Ball, Plunkett and Rashid. Their 5th bowlers in Moeen Ali and Stokes are also very good with ball and can even bowl full 10 overs on their own most days. Infact one can argue that Moeen Ali is actually a bowling allrounder. So they have 4 + 2 (proper bowlers as allrounders). This means that when a frontline bowler has a bad day they still have proper bowlers to fill the gap.

 

Whereas as we saw with India when Jaddu had an off day vs. Srilanka we did not have anyone to fall back on and hence had to bowl Kohli and Jadhav which let the new batsmen settle in. It is not possible for all 4 frontline bowlers to be bowling well in all matches, that's the reality.

Sorry, Moeen Ali is a part-time bowler who England have been hoping and wishing to turn into a front-line spinner.  He's just not.  He's a Suresh Raina type who gets bowled a lot because England prefer to use him as a bowling allrounder.  

 

And go check the numbers - Stokes never bowls a full spell in ODIs, and has worse numbers in ODIs and T20s than Pandya in terms of Economy and wickets.   I know it sounds a bit far-fetched, but I've been saying this for a while now.  Pandya is actually a better bowler in white ball cricket than Stokes.  Stokes' batting heroics give a false halo to his pedestrian bowling.  And he does have that lucky knack of picking up wickets with horrible deliveries.  Inspite of that, Pandya's numbers are solidly comparable to his.  And I'm willing to bet, that they will continue to outshine Stokes's provided Pandya stays injury free.  

 

On Rashid, he's a decent bowler, but one that lacks confidence in himself - and his own team doesn't trust him either.  

Btw, England came back against Aussies by hitting their main 3 bowlers all over the park.   By the time Smith turned to his 4th and 5th bowling option, Morgan and Stokes had already collared their primary bowlers.  So don't be revisionist about that.  

 

 

The one thing I agree with you on - England have the luxury of two quality all-rounders - guys who can be relied on give you 5 overs and be legit options with the bat - Ali and Stokes.  We only have one - Pandya.  Jadeja is more of a bowler and great fielder, who can bat a bit.  He's nowhere near in the league of Ali or Stokes with the bat.  This is the one difference between our 2 teams right now on the defense side of the ball.  On the batting side, they have the luxury of a wicket-keeper batsman who is in the prime of his batting career, while we have one who is about 70% of what he used to be.  And they have openers who are ready to sacrifice their wickets in pursuit of scoring 135 in the 1st 20 overs.   

 

I also agree with you that given the 5th bowler weakness we have, a successful assault on one or more of main 4 bowlers leaves us exposed.   That's why we have incentivised Kedar Jadhav into starting to bowl frequently so late in his career as a cricketer.  

Edited June 12, 2017 by sandeep

[putrevus]

13 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

Are you aware that Pandya made it to the Indian team by utterly dominating the Syed Mushtaq Ali tournament with his bat?  He was far and away the best batsman by number of runs and strike rate in that tournament.   They guy has a massive back-lift that makes him look like a slogger, but he is capable of hitting pretty cover-drives and straight drives with a straight elbow as classy as most Indian top order bats.   You are seriously under-rating him as a batsman if you think he's not good enough for #6.   He may be good enough for #5.  Don't judge a book by its cover.  Or a gujju Lukdya by his cheap hairstyle and questionable fashion choices.  Boy can bat.  and has proven temperament.  And is still developing.   

 

 

 

 

 

Jadeja scored 3 triple hundreds in FC and everyone know how great batsman he is, Pandya is capable of adding quick runs but he is not a top six batsmen. That is why his bowling is more important than his batting so when he fails there he totally disrupts that balance.last match we saw our front line bowlers are not guaranteed to bowl great, India needed either Shami or Ashwin more than Pandya's bat.

 

India is not going to win by outslugging other teams , they are going to win by restricting other teams for that you need all five bowlers to be very good.

 

You may disagree that is fine.

[sandeep]

39 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Sorry, Moeen Ali is a part-time bowler who England have been hoping and wishing to turn into a front-line spinner.  He's just not.  He's a Suresh Raina type who gets bowled a lot because England prefer to use him as a bowling allrounder.  

 

And go check the numbers - Stokes never bowls a full spell in ODIs, and has worse numbers in ODIs and T20s than Pandya in terms of Economy and wickets.   I know it sounds a bit far-fetched, but I've been saying this for a while now.  Pandya is actually a better bowler in white ball cricket than Stokes.  Stokes' batting heroics give a false halo to his pedestrian bowling.  And he does have that lucky knack of picking up wickets with horrible deliveries.  Inspite of that, Pandya's numbers are solidly comparable to his.  And I'm willing to bet, that they will continue to outshine Stokes's provided Pandya stays injury free.  

 

On Rashid, he's a decent bowler, but one that lacks confidence in himself - and his own team doesn't trust him either.  

Btw, England came back against Aussies by hitting their main 3 bowlers all over the park.   By the time Smith turned to his 4th and 5th bowling option, Morgan and Stokes had already collared their primary bowlers.  So don't be revisionist about that.  

 

 

The one thing I agree with you on - England have the luxury of two quality all-rounders - guys who can be relied on give you 5 overs and be legit options with the bat - Ali and Stokes.  We only have one - Pandya.  Jadeja is more of a bowler and great fielder, who can bat a bit.  He's nowhere near in the league of Ali or Stokes with the bat.  This is the one difference between our 2 teams right now on the defense side of the ball.  On the batting side, they have the luxury of a wicket-keeper batsman who is in the prime of his batting career, while we have one who is about 70% of what he used to be.  And they have openers who are ready to sacrifice their wickets in pursuit of scoring 135 in the 1st 20 overs.   

 

I also agree with you that given the 5th bowler weakness we have, a successful assault on one or more of main 4 bowlers leaves us exposed.   That's why we have incentivised Kedar Jadhav into starting to bowl frequently so late in his career as a cricketer.  

@Forever Indian  Wanted to add.  Which 2 bowlers would you rather have bowling for you in whiteball cricket, putting aside their batting abilities.   Ali and Stokes? or Jadeja and Pandya?  I would take the latter, without hesitation, any day, in any condition.   

[vishalvirsingh]

We shud replace kedar with umesh yadav against Bangladesh.

There are 3 all rounders ashwin pandya jaddu and 3 pacers. 

 

[WC2011INDIA]

14 hours ago, Khota said:

pandya Out - yadav in

 

field tight .

 

It is India's game to lose. BD cannot win it. They dont have the horses. But if India takes them lightly there is always AI flight at Heathrow.

I agree with this. Umesh troubles the bangladeshis with his pace. Jadhav can be promoted after 4th wicket. Pandya is not needed. But both former and current captain love him so he won't be missing out.

[Forever Indian]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

@Forever Indian  Wanted to add.  Which 2 bowlers would you rather have bowling for you in whiteball cricket, putting aside their batting abilities.   Ali and Stokes? or Jadeja and Pandya?  I would take the latter, without hesitation, any day, in any condition.   

Ali and Stokes are used as 5th bowlers whereas Jadeja is one of our 4 frontline bowlers and Pandya is 5th bowler. So can't compare Jadeja with those two as he is a pure bowler. If you compare Pandya with them, I consider Pandya to be still undercooked and unless there is some help from the pitch I will have Stokes ahead of him as he takes wickets in most matches. 

[vishalvirsingh]

In England.. India needs 3 good pacers out of our 4 main pacers and pandya.

And 1 spinner out of 2..if both spinners play still v need 3 good pacers...pandya can't be trusted as a good third pacer but he has to be played as he is 2 player in 1.

[ThePhenomenal1]

In response to the dropping of Pandya, i would say play him. Adds valuable runs, lines and lengths are better despite the odd expensive over. Scored 80 odd vs them in the warmup too

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, ThePhenomenal1 said:

In response to the dropping of Pandya, i would say play him. Adds valuable runs, lines and lengths are better despite the odd expensive over. Scored 80 odd vs them in the warmup too

He's a long-term project.   Best thing to see was the variety he showcased against SA.  First time I saw genuine use of a slower ball from him - with a variety of lengths as well.   Not easy to deliver a slower yorker, bang in the blockhole, right after being smacked to the boundary.  Good signs.  

 

Sure Amla hit him for a few boundaries, but Dabur bhai has done that to many so-called "better" bowlers on his day.    

 

Btw, We can play absolutely any combination from the squad - Bench Kohli and Dhawan - and still roast the toygers.    

[Khota]

1 hour ago, WC2011INDIA said:

I agree with this. Umesh troubles the bangladeshis with his pace. Jadhav can be promoted after 4th wicket. Pandya is not needed. But both former and current captain love him so he won't be missing out.

That is a shame.

[ThePhenomenal1]

9 minutes ago, sandeep said:

He's a long-term project.   Best thing to see was the variety he showcased against SA.  First time I saw genuine use of a slower ball from him - with a variety of lengths as well.   Not easy to deliver a slower yorker, bang in the blockhole, right after being smacked to the boundary.  Good signs.  

 

Sure Amla hit him for a few boundaries, but Dabur bhai has done that to many so-called "better" bowlers on his day.    

 

Btw, We can play absolutely any combination from the squad - Bench Kohli and Dhawan - and still roast the toygers.    

Yeah i saw that too. A looping slower yorker, and a slower ball that got a batsman out. Really good bouncer but needs to make sure they aren't wides! Hope he can better his control and consistency because we need him to do well. 

[speedheat]

if the track is flat then get umesh in place of jadhav, we can trust ashwins batting on flat track jadhav can sit out, we need umesh against Bangladesh.

[zen]

Only open slot is Jadhav or Yuvi 

[zen]

7 hours ago, putrevus said:

He was leaking runs yesterday too but due to those runs outs he was able to complete his overs.

India has lost very few wickets in all three matches so their batting is not their problem and I certainly do not see it being a problem against Bangladesh.Fifth bowler plays a very vital role especially in team like India who do not have any great strike bowler.

Pandya is the 5th bowler duh

[zen]

7 hours ago, SRT100 said:

I think you are struggling to understand the game of cricket.

 

India would be better served playing 5 world class bowlers. Ashwin and Jaddu are also more than capable of putting a combined effort of a batsmen if required.

And who is stopping Ind from playing 5 "world class" bowlers as long as a impact player like Pandya is batting at 6 

[bowl_out]

Chase...

 

Bowl them out for 200, and chase it down in 35 overs