India went in with three no. 11 batsmen , any change suggested for second T20?

[jusarrived]

2 hours ago, velu said:

in a close game we need tailenders to hold the bat a bit ..

also having a strong tailender give batsmen more freedom to play

 

good example is

gayle , kohli , abdv and watto .. awesome top order , but end up choking while chasing in close game because of their long tail

Top order heavy , thats Virats speciality . Thats exactly the reason we lost CT as well .

 

[jusarrived]

On 02/11/2017 at 8:50 AM, rkt.india said:

4-5 batsmen are enough in T20s.

Wont give Top order the confidence to play freely . 

[vvvslaxman]

3 hours ago, velu said:

in a close game we need tailenders to hold the bat a bit ..

also having a strong tailender give batsmen more freedom to play

 

good example is

gayle , kohli , abdv and watto .. awesome top order , but end up choking while chasing in close game because of their long tail

True.  But India has no choice other than bringing back Jaddu or giving chance to Hooda. But Chahal gives important breakthroughs. Entire burden will fall on Bhuvi.

[rkt.india]

19 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

True.  But India has no choice other than bringing back Jaddu or giving chance to Hooda. But Chahal gives important breakthroughs. Entire burden will fall on Bhuvi.

but Jaddu is a rabbit with the bat in T20s with an SR of 93.

[fineleg]

2 hours ago, jusarrived said:

Wont give Top order the confidence to play freely . 

Yes, this is the concern. We need one additional batsman to let the top order score freely. Not every match will go according to plan and we could lose 3 wickets in a quick bunch, and may need that extra batsman. If three or four of the bowlers are total #11 type batsmen then we have no cover for situations when quick wickets are lost. I know this ain't an easy decision, hence I asked for input on this topic from ICF-ers.

 

We dont expect lower order to be a M. Santner or D. Vettori, but it is a bit odd that our best bowlers are total bunnies with the bat. Hopefully with time, they can improve a bit, not sure if they undergo any coaching for batting in current set-up. Even in 2000s, 2010s we had slightly better tail than now? We are forced to select the best bowlers but that comes with a steep price in this modern era in 2017.

Edited November 3, 2017 by fineleg

[rkt.india]

57 minutes ago, fineleg said:

Yes, this is the concern. We need one additional batsman to let the top order score freely. Not every match will go according to plan and we could lose 3 wickets in a quick bunch, and may need that extra batsman. If three or four of the bowlers are total #11 type batsmen then we have no cover for situations when quick wickets are lost. I know this ain't an easy decision, hence I asked for input on this topic from ICF-ers.

 

We dont expect lower order to be a M. Santner or D. Vettori, but it is a bit odd that our best bowlers are total bunnies with the bat. Hopefully with time, they can improve a bit, not sure if they undergo any coaching for batting in current set-up. Even in 2000s, 2010s we had slightly better tail than now? We are forced to select the best bowlers but that comes with a steep price in this modern era in 2017.

to be honest, T20s are all about top order. if you lose 3 wickets, most often than you will end up with a below par score. There are just 120 balls and to defend that below par score, you will need bowlers. A #7 batsman is almost always a waste in T20s. We had Dhawan, Rohit, Kohli, Iyer, Dhoni and Pandya. these are good names on paper but problem is Iyer is a debutant, Dhoni has never been a force in T20 and Pandya too is unproven in international T20s, so adding another batsman like Manish Pandey who himself is an average T20 bat wont serve much purpose. We had Axar at 7 and Bk at 8 who can play a few shosts if needed. Cant expect miracles from a #7 batsman. 

[jusarrived]

3 hours ago, fineleg said:

Yes, this is the concern. We need one additional batsman to let the top order score freely. Not every match will go according to plan and we could lose 3 wickets in a quick bunch, and may need that extra batsman. If three or four of the bowlers are total #11 type batsmen then we have no cover for situations when quick wickets are lost. I know this ain't an easy decision, hence I asked for input on this topic from ICF-ers.

 

We dont expect lower order to be a M. Santner or D. Vettori, but it is a bit odd that our best bowlers are total bunnies with the bat. Hopefully with time, they can improve a bit, not sure if they undergo any coaching for batting in current set-up. Even in 2000s, 2010s we had slightly better tail than now? We are forced to select the best bowlers but that comes with a steep price in this modern era in 2017.

This is one of the most underrated aspects of batting , yes if we lose not 3 but just 1 wicket early we lose 4-5 overs trying to stabilise and if we have to chase anything above 170 , just forget about it . Need a miracle . 

[jusarrived]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

to be honest, T20s are all about top order. if you lose 3 wickets, most often than you will end up with a below par score. There are just 120 balls and to defend that below par score, you will need bowlers. A #7 batsman is almost always a waste in T20s. We had Dhawan, Rohit, Kohli, Iyer, Dhoni and Pandya. these are good names on paper but problem is Iyer is a debutant, Dhoni has never been a force in T20 and Pandya too is unproven in international T20s, so adding another batsman like Manish Pandey who himself is an average T20 bat wont serve much purpose. We had Axar at 7 and Bk at 8 who can play a few shosts if needed. Cant expect miracles from a #7 batsman. 

so why do we need 5 batsmen when we know we only need 4 ?  

[rkt.india]

9 hours ago, jusarrived said:

so why do we need 5 batsmen when we know we only need 4 ?  

so that they can carry on if top 3 have built a good foundation. If top falls early, they will anyway go into consolidation mode irrespective of the number of batsmen you have. It is about quality, not just quantity.

[SK_IH]

lulz at t20 is a top 3 game,well lower the number of overs thats obvious top 3 will maximum chances of score more but that doesnt mean top 3 play with the fear of not getting out, 4,5 and 6 are most important spots in a t20 lineup,they should have ability of 20 of 6 balls or 30 of 10 balls innings (atleast 2 of them),wi most capable of doing that with russell,bravo and remembr the name

and t20 is not about consolidation,even if you are 10 for 3 ,you cant dab around for more than 2 overs 

and yes even in top 3 ,one of the player should be a maverick who plays in a buccaneering way,if top 3 play the same way then its redundant

[SK_IH]

eng have the best batting for t20s ,shame they dont have a world class bowling lineup

[rkt.india]

49 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

eng have the best batting for t20s ,shame they dont have a world class bowling lineup

if you have so many batsmen, you wont have bowlers. They play bowlers who can bat likes of Rashid, Woakes, Moeen who are no strong T20 bowlers.

Edited November 4, 2017 by rkt.india

[SK_IH]

2 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

if you have so many batsmen, you wont bowlers. They play bowlers who can bat likes of Rashid, Woakes, Moeen who are no strong T20 bowlers.

i think they play 5 bowlers,one of them being ali and excluding stokes,thats more than enough. problem for them there is no outstanding bowler or spinner in their lineup,all run of the mill stuff,mills looked quite overrated as well

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, SK_IH said:

i think they play 5 bowlers,one of them being ali and excluding stokes,thats more than enough. problem for them there is no outstanding bowler or spinner in their lineup,all run of the mill stuff,mills looked quite overrated as well

Stokes, ALi they are weak bowlers. Their strong suit is their batting. T20 is a game of specialists like test.