Whats with all the wrist slitting?

[Khota]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Conceding 300+ on a track like this, with the short boundaries is not a crime.  In fact the bowlers did well to keep it below 350.  Your evaluation is out of date with today's ODI scoring patterns.

Give credit where it is due. Aussies have good bowling and great fielding. Not a easy target to chase but could have happened with the solid foundation that Rahane left.

[sandeep]

3 minutes ago, Khota said:

Give credit where it is due. Aussies have good bowling and great fielding. Not a easy target to chase but could have happened with the solid foundation that Rahane left.

I don't disagree with you per se - definitely the game was still winnable when Rahane got out.  You can argue that Rohit's runout, VK's failure, Pandya's skier - if any of these don't happen when they did, and either of these 3 had batted for 5 overs longer than they did, we win the game.   But an objective dispassionate analysis of what went wrong will lead to the obvious conclusion that Rahane's innings was the biggest contributing factor in our innings.   Its always harder to ask a middle-order bat to score at 9 RPO from his first ball, but an opener can easily score at 7 RPO instead of 5 in the 1st 10.  Especially on a track where there's hardly any lateral movement, and the boundaries are so short.   

 

India already coddles its top order batsmen by treating them as the favored sons.  Why should the top order be applauded for scoring "big" runs at a slower than par run-rate, and shift almost all the burden of big-hitting onto the middle order?   Top order bats are the ones who get maximum opportunities to score those big runs and become "stars".  India is the slowest scoring team among the top 5-6 ODI teams in the 1st 10 overs.   Just because VK is so good at milking the middle overs, doesn't excuse this obvious problem.  And its not just Rahane, btw.   

[Khota]

14 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I don't disagree with you per se - definitely the game was still winnable when Rahane got out.  You can argue that Rohit's runout, VK's failure, Pandya's skier - if any of these don't happen when they did, and either of these 3 had batted for 5 overs longer than they did, we win the game.   But an objective dispassionate analysis of what went wrong will lead to the obvious conclusion that Rahane's innings was the biggest contributing factor in our innings.   Its always harder to ask a middle-order bat to score at 9 RPO from his first ball, but an opener can easily score at 7 RPO instead of 5 in the 1st 10.  Especially on a track where there's hardly any lateral movement, and the boundaries are so short.   

 

India already coddles its top order batsmen by treating them as the favored sons.  Why should the top order be applauded for scoring "big" runs at a slower than par run-rate, and shift almost all the burden of big-hitting onto the middle order?   Top order bats are the ones who get maximum opportunities to score those big runs and become "stars".  India is the slowest scoring team among the top 5-6 ODI teams in the 1st 10 overs.   Just because VK is so good at milking the middle overs, doesn't excuse this obvious problem.  And its not just Rahane, btw.   

The boundary thing you point out is correct. Problem at top order is that ball is much faster and is moving around. They have to play cautiously because a single wkt loss puts you on the backfoot. It is a balancing act at that stage. The stage was good enough for the last seven to do their job but it did not happen. People have personal axe to grind when it comes to rahane and dhoni is getting a free pass.

[sandeep]

7 minutes ago, Khota said:

The boundary thing you point out is correct. Problem at top order is that ball is much faster and is moving around. They have to play cautiously because a single wkt loss puts you on the backfoot. It is a balancing act at that stage. The stage was good enough for the last seven to do their job but it did not happen. People have personal axe to grind when it comes to rahane and dhoni is getting a free pass.

Did you watch the game?  Ball was hardly moving around.  Even Rohit, who is at best around 70 SR on most days, was at 110 SR.   

 

I have no agenda against Rahane - in fact I was rooting for him to succeed as ODI opener, because I thought he could be a upgrade over Dhawan in tougher conditions and better bowling.  To this day, I strongly believe that Rahane has that capacity to hit good balls for 4, that Dhawan doesn't.  But the problem is that Rahane is not able to translate his superior batting ability into run production at a rate that's acceptable in today's high scoring era.   Today's version of the aging Dhoni is also guilty of the same problem in my view, but Rahane isn't a capable wicket-keeper is he?   And we have a minimum of 2 alternatives to Rahane who are immediate upgrades to him.   As a Bombay fan, I would have loved to see Rahane evolve into the ODI opening successor to Sachin  - as opposed to Tailunt.  But the reality is, that some players are just not able to adapt their games to what's required.  And this is a clear problem for Rahane.  

[G_B_]

11 hours ago, diga said:

@OP.. it should be wrist slitting... Isn't it?

it should.

 

 

[Khota]

8 hours ago, sandeep said:

Did you watch the game?  Ball was hardly moving around.  Even Rohit, who is at best around 70 SR on most days, was at 110 SR.   

 

I have no agenda against Rahane - in fact I was rooting for him to succeed as ODI opener, because I thought he could be a upgrade over Dhawan in tougher conditions and better bowling.  To this day, I strongly believe that Rahane has that capacity to hit good balls for 4, that Dhawan doesn't.  But the problem is that Rahane is not able to translate his superior batting ability into run production at a rate that's acceptable in today's high scoring era.   Today's version of the aging Dhoni is also guilty of the same problem in my view, but Rahane isn't a capable wicket-keeper is he?   And we have a minimum of 2 alternatives to Rahane who are immediate upgrades to him.   As a Bombay fan, I would have loved to see Rahane evolve into the ODI opening successor to Sachin  - as opposed to Tailunt.  But the reality is, that some players are just not able to adapt their games to what's required.  And this is a clear problem for Rahane.  

Time to react to a new ball irrespective of the conditions is lot less. The top has to be cautious so the onslaught can start later on.The risk reward at the top is just not there.

Coming back to Rahane I think I am not so sure about the upgrades you are talking about.

In my ming Kohli is ahead of others and Dhawan right behind.

The next six are a wash. They are all about the same.

Dhoni is a step down and I have not made up my mind about Pandya.

Oh by the way I am a Delhi fan. If I had time I have watched their Ranji games with 5 other people in the stands.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Khota

[sandeep]

41 minutes ago, Khota said:

Time to react to a new ball irrespective of the conditions is lot less. The top has to be cautious so the onslaught can start later on.The risk reward at the top is just not there.

Most successful chases of big totals are based on a quick start at the top.  Think back to the famous Natwest chase by Kaif and Yuvi - it was setup by an attacking innings by Captain Gangu.   The probabilities are just that much more in your favor if you are able to get off to a quick start - the top order needs to actually get ahead of the rate a bit, and give the middle order a bit of buffer for the stutter that's almost inevitable.   Again, I'm not letting the likes of Pandey and Jadhav off the hook - it was definitely doable when they got to the crease, and they failed.  But its inaccurate to say that the top order did their part in this game.  They didn't.  

 

44 minutes ago, Khota said:

Coming back to Rahane I think I am not so sure about the upgrades you are talking about.

I disagree.  Dhawan has proved his worth plenty of times.  And KL has flashed enough potential to be worthy of a trial run.  And even if these guys aren't the upgrades, then India has enough depth in its player pool to find batsmen who are.   Rahane has given us an ample demonstration of what he can and cannot do - its not like he hasn't had a proper run as ODI opener - both home and away.  He was opener for that 5 game NZ series, and failed to do anything of note then also.   

 

 

[Khota]

13 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Most successful chases of big totals are based on a quick start at the top.  Think back to the famous Natwest chase by Kaif and Yuvi - it was setup by an attacking innings by Captain Gangu.   The probabilities are just that much more in your favor if you are able to get off to a quick start - the top order needs to actually get ahead of the rate a bit, and give the middle order a bit of buffer for the stutter that's almost inevitable.   Again, I'm not letting the likes of Pandey and Jadhav off the hook - it was definitely doable when they got to the crease, and they failed.  But its inaccurate to say that the top order did their part in this game.  They didn't.  

Once again if you look at the first three games India won top SR was not that high.The target was very manageable for the middle ordered but they messed it up. Sometimes opposition is good too so give them credit.

 

15 minutes ago, sandeep said:

disagree.  Dhawan has proved his worth plenty of times.  And KL has flashed enough potential to be worthy of a trial run.  And even if these guys aren't the upgrades, then India has enough depth in its player pool to find batsmen who are.   Rahane has given us an ample demonstration of what he can and cannot do - its not like he hasn't had a proper run as ODI opener - both home and away.  He was opener for that 5 game NZ series, and failed to do anything of note then also.   

 

If you look at my post I have Kohli followed by Dhawan. Rest are toss ups. Rahul has an upside and he should be part of non existent rotation policy. Wkt Kpr slot should be rotated too.

[The Dark Horse]

I'm glad a situation got created for Pandya and Jadhav. I'm sure they'll be able to better themselves in the future.