Rishabh Pant blasts second fastest century in T20 history

[Muloghonto]

44 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Beginners luck??? 

Have you played cricket? 

No, but i do coach on a lower level (ice hockey in winter, tennis in summer). 

Sophomore slump. Read about it. Pant's performance this year = textbook sophomore slump.

[abc]

57 minutes ago, lamellavig said:

A wicketkeeper cannot give you dominance by just wicketkeeping. Wicketkeeping is reactive, the best you can do is not dropping any chances. So no, Saha is just too rubbish with the bat. 

That is quite a blinkered view, to be honest. A simple example: a really good wicketkeeper can stand closer to the stumps, especially on skiddy or up-and-down wickets, even at high pace.

First, more edges are converted this way, nicely exemplified by a catch he took off Shami (notedly skiddy-type bowler) in the series against Sri Lanka this winter. Seemingly innocuous catch around waist high (if he were standing completely upright), but -- as sharply noted by Cricinfo ball-by-ball commentary -- it was possible because he was standing ridiculously close to the stumps. (The slips, being not quite suicidal yet -- in spite of their drop rate ;) -- were standing much farther back). 

Secondly, he can thereby also cut down on the angle (something Jonty Rhodes at point used to do). Either this way (or also simply by being more mobile and covering more ground sideways) he can allow the slip cordon to go wider and cover a larger angle, giving it an appearance of being larger than it is (for example that catch off O'Keefe, where he basically just made up for a non-existent first slip -- Kohli was almost at a genuine 2nd slip, with pronounced stagger). The extra fielder can be made to create pressure elsewhere, like forward short-leg (and thus an additional bluff as to the imminence of a bouncer) or a leg slip or straight and close to the pitch (especially if the pitch is uneven). The added flexibility afforded by an excellent (as opposed to merely adequate) keeper and the more aggressive bowling ploys made possible that way are perhaps not directly evidently (especially in bare scorebook entries), but, as you have surely seen by now from the above, quite apparent upon appropriate reflection.

[Tattieboy]

25 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No, but i do coach on a lower level (ice hockey in winter, tennis in summer). 

Sophomore slump. Read about it. Pant's performance this year = textbook sophomore slump.

In the NHL what might be the average of rookies?  Might draft picks go straight into NHL games? 

Would you consider ice hockey just a little bit more physical than cricket? 

Funny thing about NHL I have never heard about beginners luck 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

In the NHL what might be the average of rookies?  Might draft picks go straight into NHL games? 

Would you consider ice hockey just a little bit more physical than cricket? 

Funny thing about NHL I have never heard about beginners luck 

If you havn't heard of beginners luck in NHL, then you clearly do not follow NHL. 

Sophomore slump is by far greater observed in Ice Hockey than any other North American sport and while the term isn't 'beginners luck', the concept of beginner's luck is implied when people talk about the Sophomore slump. Because when performance declines in the 2nd full year of competition, its due to the fact that opposition now knows your tendencies and you can't just hide your flaws with flashes of brilliance (like almost all top tier rookies do). Resulting in the sophomore slump. Which puts the first year, down to beginner's luck.

As for to what is the 'average' of rookies- there is no average. First overall draft picks have busted. 7th round (meaning picked after 200 people) picks have turned into Hall-of-Famers. 

Sometimes some kids show up and hit the ground running. Like Crosby or Ovechkin or McDavid. Sometimes they take 1-2 seasons to get a good feel and then explode- like Pastrnak.  Some go to college, play a smaller workload there (college has 35-40 games in their entire season) for a couple of years, drop out after 2nd year and turn pro (eg: Vancouver Canuck player-prospect Brock Boeser). 

[Tattieboy]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

If you havn't heard of beginners luck in NHL, then you clearly do not follow NHL. 

Sophomore slump is by far greater observed in Ice Hockey than any other North American sport and while the term isn't 'beginners luck', the concept of beginner's luck is implied when people talk about the Sophomore slump. Because when performance declines in the 2nd full year of competition, its due to the fact that opposition now knows your tendencies and you can't just hide your flaws with flashes of brilliance (like almost all top tier rookies do). Resulting in the sophomore slump. Which puts the first year, down to beginner's luck.

As for to what is the 'average' of rookies- there is no average. First overall draft picks have busted. 7th round (meaning picked after 200 people) picks have turned into Hall-of-Famers. 

Sometimes some kids show up and hit the ground running. Like Crosby or Ovechkin or McDavid. Sometimes they take 1-2 seasons to get a good feel and then explode- like Pastrnak.  Some go to college, play a smaller workload there (college has 35-40 games in their entire season) for a couple of years, drop out after 2nd year and turn pro (eg: Vancouver Canuck player-prospect Brock Boeser). 

Luck doesn't last 80 regular games, talent is the reason for it. Second season blues comes about in every sport because of attention to detail , counter plans by opposition not because of having or losing luck 

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Luck doesn't last 80 regular games, talent is the reason for it. Second season blues comes about in every sport because of attention to detail , counter plans by opposition not because of having or losing luck 

Sure does. Luck is not getting lucky breaks and bounces. Luck is in terms of being an unknown quantity, which lets you hide your flaws and magnify your qualities. Its about the opposition having a 'read' on you. This is what beginner's luck means as a corollary to the 'sophomore slump'. 

That you were lucky enough not to be 'found out' by the opposition in your first season. Pant is going through the same thing right now.

[Tattieboy]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sure does. Luck is not getting lucky breaks and bounces. Luck is in terms of being an unknown quantity, which lets you hide your flaws and magnify your qualities. Its about the opposition having a 'read' on you. This is what beginner's luck means as a corollary to the 'sophomore slump'. 

That you were lucky enough not to be 'found out' by the opposition in your first season. Pant is going through the same thing right now.

He well might be but the burning question is he the best of the bunch . If he is the best he is picked if not then he is not . 

My position from the start , not if his glutes are perfect, whether any Indian was as young before ( which you are spectacularly wrong about) only if he the best.  

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, Tattieboy said:

He well might be but the burning question is he the best of the bunch . If he is the best he is picked if not then he is not . 

My position from the start , not if his glutes are perfect, whether any Indian was as young before ( which you are spectacularly wrong about) only if he the best.  

 

Which bunch ? the future generation bunch ? Sure. 
He may indeed be. But he isnt a finished product. And he isn't showing he is better than Saha in the longer format (as his FC average for this season is way lower than Saha's FC average for the past several years). He definitely isnt a better gloveman than Saha or Dhoni. 

Dhoni is also showing that his batting is impeccable in the shorter format. 

 

There is no basis to saying he is the best, especially at keeping wickets, when he is clearly far, far behind the two regulars we have for keeping. 

As i said, if his batting is explosive and is ready (which it also is not), let him play as a specialist bat. Gillchrist played a few matches at the start of his career as a specialist batsman too. 

[Tattieboy]

23 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Which bunch ? the future generation bunch ? Sure. 
He may indeed be. But he isnt a finished product. And he isn't showing he is better than Saha in the longer format (as his FC average for this season is way lower than Saha's FC average for the past several years). He definitely isnt a better gloveman than Saha or Dhoni. 

Dhoni is also showing that his batting is impeccable in the shorter format. 

 

There is no basis to saying he is the best, especially at keeping wickets, when he is clearly far, far behind the two regulars we have for keeping. 

As i said, if his batting is explosive and is ready (which it also is not), let him play as a specialist bat. Gillchrist played a few matches at the start of his career as a specialist batsman too. 

Havn't seen him in a year to have an opinion if he worth picking. As am  ex spinner and captain I always advocated  the best wicketkeeper every day of the week and twice on Sundays 

[Muloghonto]

57 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

Havn't seen him in a year to have an opinion if he worth picking. As am  ex spinner and captain I always advocated  the best wicketkeeper every day of the week and twice on Sundays 

That would then be a tossup between Saha and Dhoni ( keeping for spinners) but Saha wins easily for keeping to pacers.

[Khota]

Pant is not ready for primetime. I will take karthick over him.

[Laaloo]

1 hour ago, Khota said:

Pant is not ready for primetime. I will take karthick over him.

Karthik debuted 13 years ago and is still not ready for primetime.

[Khota]

5 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

Karthik debuted 13 years ago and is still not ready for primetime.

karthic of today will do great. Dont judge him based on past performance.

[rkt.india]

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

great glutes and lower back strength is what keeps your feet moving after 80 overs of crouching. 

Rishabh has to develop more. Its just that simple.

Cricketers these days are far more aware about their fitness and strength. Pant has slimmed down a lot in last six months and is consistently working on his strength and fitness.

[Muloghonto]

7 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

Cricketers these days are far more aware about their fitness and strength. Pant has slimmed down a lot in last six months and is consistently working on his strength and fitness.

Don't care how aware you are. Physiology of species homo sapiens has not changed in the last 200K years. a 19 year old, is still a 19 year old and not ready. Which is why we've hardly ever- if ever- seen a keeper pan out after debuting as a teen.

 

[Laaloo]

13 minutes ago, Khota said:

karthic of today will do great. Dont judge him based on past performance.

I am judging on after his comeback. He's same old recycled crap. No difference. Time to move on from hasbeens. 

[maniac]

30 minutes ago, Khota said:

karthic of today will do great. Dont judge him based on past performance.

What has changed?

[rkt.india]

31 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Don't care how aware you are. Physiology of species homo sapiens has not changed in the last 200K years. a 19 year old, is still a 19 year old and not ready. Which is why we've hardly ever- if ever- seen a keeper pan out after debuting as a teen.

 

But he is not 19 anymore. He isn't Afridi to stay 19 forever.

[rkt.india]

42 minutes ago, Khota said:

karthic of today will do great. Dont judge him based on past performance.

Karthik is a poor keeper. He lost interest in keeping long time back when he started playing as a specialist bat.

[Khota]

15 minutes ago, maniac said:

What has changed?

Scoring more freely. timing the ball better.