In the context of the game...was Rohit’s knock really that bad?

[maniac]

8 hours ago, Cricketics said:

OP asking if 11 runs is bad or not. Indeed its bad just like low scores of others also like that of Kohli, Vijay etc.

 

Top and middle order players are supposed to score runs and not just play out sessions. If you have only 11 runs to show then you haven’t done your job. In the same scenario had Shami or Bumrah had done this with Pandya, then I would say they have done their job for staying on the wicket for that long.

 

Rohit showed effort to stay which was good, but not the runs. 

 

Now unless one is thinking Rohit is a tailender then indeed he has done his job by staying for 50 balls. 

 

 

That's all I am saying...rest is irrelevant......I mean he is being clubbed with Vijay and Dhawan's reckless shot and Virat's failure.....which is not right.

[SK_IH]

11 minutes ago, maniac said:

That's all I am saying...rest is irrelevant......I mean he is being clubbed with Vijay and Dhawan's reckless shot and Virat's failure.....which is not right.

 bhai koi ehsaan nahi kiya 60 balls khel ke,thats what you expect if you are selected as batsman,i mean i could have understood the praise if he had done something like  ab in adelaide/delhi or something like that ,you are getting hillarious

no one has clubbed him with anyone,vijay and kohli are proven performers overseas while rohit has continued his struggles overseas,btw to make you feel good even pujara's innings was another failure in his long list of failures overseas and even his methodology will be questioned if the trend continues

Edited January 7, 2018 by SK_IH

[Gollum]

I actually felt he played well, didn't score many runs but showed a great deal of character in that tough phase. Make no mistake, Pandya got easier conditions to bat, I am not downplaying his excellent knock, just stating my observation. The 1st session yesterday was tough for batsmen, had Che-Rohit-Ashwin not resisted then, Pandya may have had to walk in against a different monster and I doubt he would have survived. In SA it is all about surviving the 1st 30-40 overs with minimum damage and then making merry. There is a reason why top 3-4 visiting batsmen (esp Asians) have such disastrous records here while no 6 and 7 have scored much more...this never happens elsewhere. Since the three batsmen didn't do their job on day 1, it fell upon no 3 and no 5 (to a lesser extent no 6) to do the heavy lifting.

 

I admire the resistance of Rohit in those testing conditions, Che much more. But my grouse is that this was the best version of Rohit in these conditions, he can''t do better. If his best version can only get a 11, we have a serious problem. The best version of Vijay would get 80(260) in such a situation, the best version of Rahane will get a 80 here, Che maybe a 50.....every other batsman in this team will outbat Dhawan and Rohit here when they are in good nick. 

[maniac]

1 minute ago, Gollum said:

I actually felt he played well, didn't score many runs but showed a great deal of character in that tough phase. Make no mistake, Pandya got easier conditions to bat, I am not downplaying his excellent knock, just stating my observation. The 1st session yesterday was tough for batsmen, had Che-Rohit-Ashwin not resisted then, Pandya may have had to walk in against a different monster and I doubt he would have survived. In SA it is all about surviving the 1st 30-40 overs with minimum damage and then making merry. There is a reason why top 3-4 visiting batsmen (esp Asians) have such disastrous records here while no 6 and 7 have scored much more...this never happens elsewhere. Since the three batsmen didn't do their job on day 1, it fell upon no 3 and no 5 (to a lesser extent no 6) to do the heavy lifting.

 

I admire the resistance of Rohit in those testing conditions, Che much more. But my grouse is that this was the best version of Rohit in these conditions, he can''t do better. If his best version can only get a 11, we have a serious problem. The best version of Vijay would get 80(260) in such a situation, the best version of Rahane will get a 80 here, Che maybe a 50.....every other batsman in this team will outbat Dhawan and Rohit here when they are in good nick. 

Thank you!!!  that was a good summary.

 

I mean the moment you say Rohit on the forum the hate just pours in and all subjectivity/objectivity is lost. No one is calling this a great innings,but in the context of the game was not a terrible innings by any means.

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I actually felt he played well, didn't score many runs but showed a great deal of character in that tough phase. Make no mistake, Pandya got easier conditions to bat, I am not downplaying his excellent knock, just stating my observation. The 1st session yesterday was tough for batsmen, had Che-Rohit-Ashwin not resisted then, Pandya may have had to walk in against a different monster and I doubt he would have survived. In SA it is all about surviving the 1st 30-40 overs with minimum damage and then making merry. There is a reason why top 3-4 visiting batsmen (esp Asians) have such disastrous records here while no 6 and 7 have scored much more...this never happens elsewhere. Since the three batsmen didn't do their job on day 1, it fell upon no 3 and no 5 (to a lesser extent no 6) to do the heavy lifting.

 

I admire the resistance of Rohit in those testing conditions, Che much more. But my grouse is that this was the best version of Rohit in these conditions, he can''t do better. If his best version can only get a 11, we have a serious problem. The best version of Vijay would get 80(260) in such a situation, the best version of Rahane will get a 80 here, Che maybe a 50.....every other batsman in this team will outbat Dhawan and Rohit here when they are in good nick. 

In these conditions... cough... kohli...cough.

[Cricketics]

5 minutes ago, Vijy said:

In these conditions... cough... kohli...cough.

You easily forget our last tour. India toured south africa in 2013.

[Gollum]

4 minutes ago, Vijy said:

In these conditions... cough... kohli...cough.

Don't want to start a war here, but yes in these conditions Kohli will be somewhere in between Vijay/Rahane and Hitman. Besides we can't drop the captain cum BCCI/Media/Public darling. in a fair world Kohli wouldn't start test 1 in UK this year, if Ashwin can be dropped based on 'horses for courses policy' ideally Kohli too should cop similar treatment....ah the fanciful thinking !!!! 

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Don't want to start a war here, but yes in these conditions Kohli will be somewhere in between Vijay/Rahane and Hitman. Besides we can't drop the captain cum BCCI/Media/Public darling. in a fair world Kohli wouldn't start test 1 in UK this year, if Ashwin can be dropped based on 'horses for courses policy' ideally Kohli too should cop similar treatment....ah the fanciful thinking !!!! 

it's a wise policy. we'd be buried as a result of "majority rule".

[sarcastic]

21 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I actually felt he played well, didn't score many runs but showed a great deal of character in that tough phase. Make no mistake, Pandya got easier conditions to bat, I am not downplaying his excellent knock, just stating my observation. The 1st session yesterday was tough for batsmen, had Che-Rohit-Ashwin not resisted then, Pandya may have had to walk in against a different monster and I doubt he would have survived. In SA it is all about surviving the 1st 30-40 overs with minimum damage and then making merry. There is a reason why top 3-4 visiting batsmen (esp Asians) have such disastrous records here while no 6 and 7 have scored much more...this never happens elsewhere. Since the three batsmen didn't do their job on day 1, it fell upon no 3 and no 5 (to a lesser extent no 6) to do the heavy lifting.

 

I admire the resistance of Rohit in those testing conditions, Che much more. But my grouse is that this was the best version of Rohit in these conditions, he can''t do better. If his best version can only get a 11, we have a serious problem. The best version of Vijay would get 80(260) in such a situation, the best version of Rahane will get a 80 here, Che maybe a 50.....every other batsman in this team will outbat Dhawan and Rohit here when they are in good nick. 

Very good post! The unfortunate thing is you may be right with the bolded statement here.

On the other hand, given that we have only two days of play left and no Steyn, such an application by all our batsmen  ( I mean from Vijay, Shikar, Kohli and Pujara) may very well save this test match!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Common, it is coming out of a jail. 

IF that happens, then Rohit's 1st innings knock is indeed very contributing towards the eventual match result! What do you say?

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, sarcastic said:

Very good post! The unfortunate thing is you may be right with the bolded statement here.

On the other hand, given that we have only two days of play left and no Steyn, such an application by all our batsmen  ( I mean from Vijay, Shikar, Kohli and Pujara) may very well save this test match!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Common, it is coming out of a jail. 

IF that happens, then Rohit's 1st innings knock is indeed very contributing towards the eventual match result! What do you say?

IF all of these things happen, then it will have played a useful role. But, there are lots of ifs and buts

[sarcastic]

1 minute ago, Vijy said:

IF all of these things happen, then it will have played a useful role. But, there are lots of ifs and buts

I will say, only one IF. Which is IF this match ends in a draw..... simple and straight.  ( We already have only two days left and the 4th innings will not have Steyn bowling at our batsmen.) 

Then I will definitely give my vote for what @maniac was saying.. In the context of the game, Rohit's 1st innings has been vital. A collapse in the morning sessions yesterday means curtain for team India as SA would already have a handy lead of 300 by now and it is almost impossible to save this match. Now there is some chance but it is only an IF until it happens. 

[putrevus]

There is a reason why Sehwag and Warner have succeeded in tests, they played their natural game in test matches also.

 

Rohit cannot be timid, yes he takes his time in ODIs but he still plays lot of aerial shots which he cannot do in tests.He has potentially one more innings if I were him, I would back myself to play my natural cricket without being rash.

[Cricketics]

5 hours ago, maniac said:

That's all I am saying...rest is irrelevant......I mean he is being clubbed with Vijay and Dhawan's reckless shot and Virat's failure.....which is not right.

I will throw a very candid response.

 

You know where actually the problem lies, the problem is sometiems many fans which incude you, me and many here on ICF or on internet in general, we become experts actually on numerous different occasions and feel these players who score at home are basically useless cricketer since they have failed in certain locations. 

 

There is a massive reason why these guys are playing for India and we are behind our keyboards and can only watch since we nudt suck at cricket or sucked in our childhood that we could never become one like them.

 

 We make these century makers at home look like kids if they fail few times overseas which is actually wrong. 

 

In all honesty, as much as one can criticize any top player for their poor record overseas, they are still not as bad as their numbers show. All these pro cricketers have made just a bad shot selection which has cost them their wicket. The margin between a batsman getting out and scoring a four is minimal and if chosen a wrong shot then that wrong shot can get the batsman out. That doesn’t really mean that batsman just sucks. Rohit falls in that category or any top player like Kohli or even Lara during his last tour to England if you remember.

 

I think internet in general is the best platform to start hatred for players. I do believe that Rohit is a top batsman who just lacks mental game when it comes to overseas. Some people take 2 times to get it right some take 8 years to get it right but doesn’t mean they suck as batsmen overseas in general.  They are playing for India, which initself is a big deal. So they are surely capable of countering all the top bowlers in the world. Its just the matter of how long it takes. Every has their own time. Some take leas time and they go down as the greats, the others take longer. Rohit is in the latter category but doesn’t really suck. Same goes for any top cricketer who fails over seas. Scoring overseas is a big deal but after giving some thought, i do feel sometimes we just start under appreciating a player as he has had low scores overseas. 

 

 

[Vijy]

19 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

I will throw a very candid response.

 

You know where actually the problem lies, the problem is sometiems many fans which incude you, me and many here on ICF or on internet in general, we become experts actually on numerous different occasions and feel these players who score at home are basically useless cricketer since they have failed in certain locations. 

 

There is a massive reason why these guys are playing for India and we are behind our keyboards and can only watch since we nudt suck at cricket or sucked in our childhood that we could never become one like them.

 

 We make these century makers at home look like kids if they fail few times overseas which is actually wrong. 

 

In all honesty, as much as one can criticize any top player for their poor record overseas, they are still not as bad as their numbers show. All these pro cricketers have made just a bad shot selection which has cost them their wicket. The margin between a batsman getting out and scoring a four is minimal and if chosen a wrong shot then that wrong shot can get the batsman out. That doesn’t really mean that batsman just sucks. Rohit falls in that category or any top player like Kohli or even Lara during his last tour to England if you remember.

 

I think internet in general is the best platform to start hatred for players. I do believe that Rohit is a top batsman who just lacks mental game when it comes to overseas. Some people take 2 times to get it right some take 8 years to get it right but doesn’t mean they suck as batsmen overseas in general.  They are playing for India, which initself is a big deal. So they are surely capable of countering all the top bowlers in the world. Its just the matter of how long it takes. Every has their own time. Some take leas time and they go down as the greats, the others take longer. Rohit is in the latter category but doesn’t really suck. Same goes for any top cricketer who fails over seas. Scoring overseas is a big deal but after giving some thought, i do feel sometimes we just start under appreciating a player as he has had low scores overseas. 

 

 

what if a player fails repeatedly overseas? are they still good/great players with bad shot selection? shot selection is a major component of being a good/great player.

[Cricketics]

1 minute ago, Vijy said:

what if a player fails repeatedly overseas? are they still good/great players with bad shot selection? shot selection is a major component of being a good/great player.

Yes, they are bad as in bad shot makers and bad mind set but not over all a bad cricketer. This is the reason I rate Kohli highly over other guys as I know eventualky he will figure it out how to olay better in these tracks comoared to other guys.

 

my response was a general response of how people label players like Rohit etc an ftb easily when there shouldn’t be any such terms. 

 

There is nothing called grass court bully or hard court bully in Tennis. People just perform better on certain surfaces for years and kee on under performing poorly ok othet surfaces but eventualy they improve on their worst surface. Cricketers don’t have the same chance since they don’t play all year on these new alien surfaces unlike Tennis players who play every few months on different surface.

 

Our mindset is general is bad when it comes to criticizing cricketers. We need to move on feom that. This was a candid response just explaining how bad we all are in general, that even includes me or anyone on internet behind their keyboard talking about cricket, most of whom who can’t even  come close ever to even scoring 20 odd euns on the flattest cricket wicket.  We are at times harsh. 

 

Regarding Rohit, there are better number 5 we can have, but he is still a good enough cricketer, just not the right person at this time for Indian team who are up against top bowling line up.  

 

 

 

[putrevus]

23 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

I will throw a very candid response.

 

You know where actually the problem lies, the problem is sometiems many fans which incude you, me and many here on ICF or on internet in general, we become experts actually on numerous different occasions and feel these players who score at home are basically useless cricketer since they have failed in certain locations. 

 

There is a massive reason why these guys are playing for India and we are behind our keyboards and can only watch since we nudt suck at cricket or sucked in our childhood that we could never become one like them.

 

 We make these century makers at home look like kids if they fail few times overseas which is actually wrong. 

 

In all honesty, as much as one can criticize any top player for their poor record overseas, they are still not as bad as their numbers show. All these pro cricketers have made just a bad shot selection which has cost them their wicket. The margin between a batsman getting out and scoring a four is minimal and if chosen a wrong shot then that wrong shot can get the batsman out. That doesn’t really mean that batsman just sucks. Rohit falls in that category or any top player like Kohli or even Lara during his last tour to England if you remember.

 

I think internet in general is the best platform to start hatred for players. I do believe that Rohit is a top batsman who just lacks mental game when it comes to overseas. Some people take 2 times to get it right some take 8 years to get it right but doesn’t mean they suck as batsmen overseas in general.  They are playing for India, which initself is a big deal. So they are surely capable of countering all the top bowlers in the world. Its just the matter of how long it takes. Every has their own time. Some take leas time and they go down as the greats, the others take longer. Rohit is in the latter category but doesn’t really suck. Same goes for any top cricketer who fails over seas. Scoring overseas is a big deal but after giving some thought, i do feel sometimes we just start under appreciating a player as he has had low scores overseas. 

 

 

Fans/journalists  comment and critique players not because they can play better but due to the fact they are also passionate about game and deeply care about the team.

 

I don't see anything wrong in it as long as it is not malicious and personal.

[Gollum]

@Cricketics Tennis surfaces have become homogenized the last decade or so. In the 90s there were legitimate clay court and grass court bullies. Sampras reached only 1 RG SF in his career and was frequently mocked at for failing on clay time and again. Similarly even a world number 1 like Kafelnikov (RG 1996 champ) was made to play on the outer courts of SW19 in later editions because he was a clay court bully. These days all good players will perform at a decent level on all courts because the variance is much lower than it was in the 90s, hence you don't hear these disparaging remarks these days. 

 

And I don't understand your point about player criticism on a public forum. We only criticize the players, never drag their family members or post indecent stuff. Besides we live in a free country and have a freedom of expression. None of us can win a ward election, yet we criticize our politicians in much worse language, politicians who have a mass following of millions and who can draw crowds larger than we can imagine. Nobody is beyond reproach, be it film stars, musicians, sports persons, politicians, administrators, police, army.....we can't do 1% of what each of these people can and have done, but why special treatment for cricketers as per you? This isn't DPRK and no criticism will eventually lead to cult of personality.

[Cricketics]

10 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Fans/journalists  comment and critique players not because they can play better but due to the fact they are also passionate about game and deeply care about the team.

 

I don't see anything wrong in it as long as it is not malicious and personal.

Nothing wrong, just sharing how the pattern starts where we start hating on olayers like Roht and Dhawan and start calling them names, you know what I mean. I am not a fan of Rohit but I do feel players when out of form or when they suck some where get thrashed badly. I know that is how it works in today’s world but then I am also trying identify that this is actually if we think about t, is not perfectly right. 

 

 

[Cricketics]

2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

@Cricketics Tennis surfaces have become homogenized the last decade or so. In the 90s there were legitimate clay court and grass court bullies. Sampras reached only 1 RG SF in his career and was frequently mocked at for failing on clay time and again. Similarly even a world number 1 like Kafelnikov (RG 1996 champ) was made to play on the outer courts of SW19 in later editions because he was a clay court bully. These days all good players will perform at a decent level on all courts because the variance is much lower than it was in the 90s, hence you don't hear these disparaging remarks these days. 

I am

And I don't understand your point about player criticism on a public forum. We only criticize the players, never drag their family members or post indecent stuff. Besides we live in a free country and have a freedom of expression. None of us can win a ward election, yet we criticize our politicians in much worse language, politicians who have a mass following of millions and who can draw crowds larger than we can imagine. Nobody is beyond reproach, be it film stars, musicians, sports persons, politicians, administrators, police, army.....we can't do 1% of what each of these people can and have done, but why special treatment for cricketers as per you? This isn't DPRK and no criticism will eventually lead to cult of personality.

Gollum that response is general response and don’t try to make too much out of it. Its a candid response to how even though we all are passionate about the game, we still all fail to see the real picture which is that these players are top players- all players like Rohit, Dhawan, Saha who are playing in the Indian eam because they are some of the best in the billion people country. Now surely there are better options like Rahane or Rahul for this test but I am not discussing about this test, I am talking about how in general we diss these guys calling them ftbs when there is nothing really like that. 

 

I think some of these guys can alll score in toughest of tracks. All I mean Saha, Dhawan, Rohit etc just that they haven’t had runs in the past and hence we diss them often.  Pandya too scored,  even thouhh not many expected him to score and so did Sehwag in his first shot when he made debut in 2001 in South Africa.

 

Sometimes its not just about the batting track that is well suited for a player but the mental approach to handle certain bowlers.

 

I hate to see Rohit play ahead of Rahane, Rahane is my fav current Indian player in tests, but I do feel Rohit is capable of scoring runs too. I don’t have hope from him on this tour, but in general these guys who are labeled ftbs can sometimes outscore the best like Kohli, Pujara etc. That is my point. They are not crap cricketers who will always suck overseas, just that some players learn to play better on certain surfaces quicker than others. 

 

 

[Vijy]

17 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Gollum that response is general response and don’t try to make too much out of it. Its a candid response to how even though we all are passionate about the game, we still all fail to see the real picture which is that these players are top players- all players like Rohit, Dhawan, Saha who are playing in the Indian eam because they are some of the best in the billion people country. Now surely there are better options like Rahane or Rahul for this test but I am not discussing about this test, I am talking about how in general we diss these guys calling them ftbs when there is nothing really like that. 

 

I think some of these guys can alll score in toughest of tracks. All I mean Saha, Dhawan, Rohit etc just that they haven’t had runs in the past and hence we diss them often.  Pandya too scored,  even thouhh not many expected him to score and so did Sehwag in his first shot when he made debut in 2001 in South Africa.

 

Sometimes its not just about the batting track that is well suited for a player but the mental approach to handle certain bowlers.

 

I hate to see Rohit play ahead of Rahane, Rahane is my fav current Indian player in tests, but I do feel Rohit is capable of scoring runs too. I don’t have hope from him on this tour, but in general these guys who are labeled ftbs can sometimes outscore the best like Kohli, Pujara etc. That is my point. They are not crap cricketers who will always suck overseas, just that some players learn to play better on certain surfaces quicker than others. 

 

 

Even if we assume that they are necessarily the best XI players in the country (an assumption that I personally don't agree with), it does not mean that they are all "top" players. The same could be said of SL, Bang, Zim and WI that their players are all "top" but that they haven't performed up to potential. Frankly speaking, I don't understand this word potential - if someone continually performs "below their potential" (as many commentators say), to me it just implies that their potential was overrated and they are cricketers with more limitations than originally anticipated.

 

In the past few years, people's attitudes have actually softened rather than becoming more harsh. If we had got that 8-0 drubbing in the 90s or early-to-mid 2000s, there would have been a lot more protests, effigies burnt, stones thrown at players' houses, etc. The fact that Indian fans have matured slightly is a good thing on the whole. But, on the other hand, giving cricketers an overly long rope (in terms of their selection) will not be helpful for anyone - neither for the player himself, nor for the team as a whole.

Edited January 7, 2018 by Vijy