Hardik Pandya as bowler

[Trichromatic]

He really looks like weak link in the team.

 

Edited December 17, 2017 by beetle

[surajmal]

Never seen him bow. 

[Forever Indian]

Should be used only as a sixth bowler, the ODI team requires 5 proper bowlers. We did the same mistake in CT ending up losing the CT, and still not learning from it!

[King Tendulkar]

Picks up another wicket 

[Jimmy Cliff]

31 minutes ago, Forever Indian said:

Should be used only as a sixth bowler, the ODI team requires 5 proper bowlers. We did the same mistake in CT ending up losing the CT, and still not learning from it!

5 Proper bowlers + 1 WK + Pandya as 6th bowler/all rounder leaves you with just 4 specialist batsmen.

[adi B]

His figures 9-29-2 minus That 20 run over 

[Forever Indian]

9 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

5 Proper bowlers + 1 WK + Pandya as 6th bowler/all rounder leaves you with just 4 specialist batsmen.

Pandya should be in team primarily as a finisher batsman, so should be in team only if he is able to fulfill that role. 

[Forever Indian]

8 minutes ago, adi B said:

His figures 9-29-2 minus That 20 run over 

Has bowled okay today, but that's because the spinners broke the back of SL middle order. He went for runs against set batsmen.

 

He is not a death bowler not an opening bowler, so has to bowl a lot of overs in middle. If one of your other two bowlers who have the open the bowling and in the death have an off day, you have no where to go. That was exposed badly in CT where Bumrah had an off series and we could not defend 300 even against SL.

[jf1gp_1]

50 minutes ago, Forever Indian said:

Should be used only as a sixth bowler, the ODI team requires 5 proper bowlers. We did the same mistake in CT ending up losing the CT, and still not learning from it!

Revisit scorecard

[jf1gp_1]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

5 Proper bowlers + 1 WK + Pandya as 6th bowler/all rounder leaves you with just 4 specialist batsmen.

Right we lose 2 early wickets and your team won’t have runs to defend

[SK_IH]

he has improved a lot but expecting him to be a 10 over bowler will prove costly ,most times the captain is in a hurry to get his 10 overs out of the way

[Pollack]

56 minutes ago, Forever Indian said:

Should be used only as a sixth bowler, the ODI team requires 5 proper bowlers. We did the same mistake in CT ending up losing the CT, and still not learning from it!

And he was the 2nd best bowler after bhuvi in final.

[Forever Indian]

Just now, Pollack said:

And he was the 2nd best bowler after bhuvi in final.

Bumrah clearly had an off series in CT, so all onus was on Bhuvi to bowl at death as well as opening overs and get wickets. Pacers can have some off days, that's why you need three frontline pacers to cover for someone who is not bowling well at the death or with new ball.

[Pollack]

24 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

5 Proper bowlers + 1 WK + Pandya as 6th bowler/all rounder leaves you with just 4 specialist batsmen.

3 proper seam bowlers is an overkill in Indian conditions especially since our middle order is not so great plus we don't have part timers like yuvi, Raina, Sehwag, Sachin, Ganguly used to be for us before. If we select 3 proper seamers, 2 spinners and a wicketkeeper, our batting becomes weak with a long tail since most specialist Indian seamers are did with the bat.one of tge spinner Chahal is also almost tailender.

[Forever Indian]

10 minutes ago, jf1gp_1 said:

Revisit scorecard

 

11 minutes ago, Forever Indian said:

Has bowled okay today, but that's because the spinners broke the back of SL middle order. He went for runs against set batsmen.

 

He is not a death bowler not an opening bowler, so has to bowl a lot of overs in middle. If one of your other two bowlers who have the open the bowling and in the death have an off day, you have no where to go. That was exposed badly in CT where Bumrah had an off series and we could not defend 300 even against SL.

Revisit my post above.

[Pollack]

Just now, Forever Indian said:

Bumrah clearly had an off series in CT, so all onus was on Bhuvi to bowl at death as well as opening overs and get wickets. Pacers can have some off days, that's why you need three frontline pacers to cover for someone who is not bowling well at the death or with new ball.

 Bumrah vs Pandya is not the argument. He did end up bowling well and was not the reason for our loss. Spinners were the reason.

[Forever Indian]

Just now, Pollack said:

3 proper seam bowlers is an overkill in Indian conditions especially since our middle order is not so great plus we don't have part timers like yuvi, Raina, Sehwag, Sachin, Ganguly used to be for us before. If we select 3 proper seamers, 2 spinners and a wicketkeeper, our batting becomes weak with a long tail since most specialist Indian seamers are did with the bat.one of tge spinner Chahal is also almost tailender.

How many matches have we required the sixth batsman in ODIs in India? Most runs scoring is done by top 4 anyways. Rather have an extra bowler than a batsman if you are looking to win matches.

[Forever Indian]

1 minute ago, Pollack said:

 Bumrah vs Pandya is not the argument. He did end up bowling well and was not the reason for our loss. Spinners were the reason.

Two spinners are never needed in England. Should have had Shami in place of one of the spinners.

[speedheat]

He bowled OK today, 10-49-2 is OK in which he went for 20 in one over with one edge flying towards third slip for 4, although I still think we should use him as sixth bowler who could give us good 5 to 6 overs in the middle, we need krunal to complete pandya who can  bowl a complete 10 overs quota.

[chewy]

in the current match (vs SL) he finished with 2/49 of 10 overs, he has had decent year in International cricket

 

and currently by numbers exceeding Ben Stokes in all departments, though early days, but nevertheless has better numbers than Ben Stokes, who in ODIs concedes more than 6 rpo after over 50 innings

 

the one weak link(s) India had in ODI, have been removed, Ashwin and Jadeja, current bowling unit is a huge improvement compared to having these two