Rishabh Pant blasts second fastest century in T20 history

[Muloghonto]

Just now, lamellavig said:

Clearly you are content with a cricket team that merely wins. You don't care whether it is attacking or defensive cricket. Just winning cricket. You don't worry about beautiful cricket: after all, that is why you want young players to become 23 before they debut, right? Because you don't want a single team which can grow together to peak at the same time? 

 

I want a cricket team that plays beautiful cricket and dominates. Not a team that can just win. 

Yeah. given that the objective of professional sports is to make money while winning, thats all i care for. 

Beautiful cricket ?play it in the lower levels. Winning gets you money. Professionals play not to entertain you and me, they play to make money. its a job, not a hobby. 

 

You want to cycle through kids till u find the one in a million superstar, who will take 10 wickets at 19, end up with 650 wickets @ 21 average by the time they are 35 and retire, so you can go around arguing who is the greatest bowler ever.

I don't care one bit about that. I don't care if India never has one more batsman cross 10K runs in any format or take 300 wicket in any format. As long as we win and keep winnng, i am ok with players even if they are good for only 4-5 year careers.

Welcome to professionalism, which Indians like you have very little concept on. 

[lamellavig]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Yeah. given that the objective of professional sports is to make money while winning, thats all i care for. 

Beautiful cricket ?play it in the lower levels. Winning gets you money. Professionals play not to entertain you and me, they play to make money. its a job, not a hobby. 

 

You want to cycle through kids till u find the one in a million superstar, who will take 10 wickets at 19, end up with 650 wickets @ 21 average by the time they are 35 and retire, so you can go around arguing who is the greatest bowler ever.

I don't care one bit about that. I don't care if India never has one more batsman cross 10K runs in any format or take 300 wicket in any format. As long as we win and keep winnng, i am ok with players even if they are good for only 4-5 year careers.

Welcome to professionalism, which Indians like you have very little concept on. 

Actually, merely the opposite. I don't care about individualism, so your assertion about 'greatest bowlers ever' is merely inaccurate,

all I care about is arguing that there was an Indian cricket team that could be considered the greatest of all time. To be a great cricket team you can't just win, you have to maximise your professionalism and play dominating cricket.

 

Hence, the basis of my argument around the team, and not individualism. What I suggest is actually professionalism of the highest order. If you can perform professionally, you keep your place. Simple as that. 

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, lamellavig said:

Actually, merely the opposite. I don't care about individualism, so your assertion about 'greatest bowlers ever' is merely inaccurate,

all I care about is arguing that there was an Indian cricket team that could be considered the greatest of all time. To be a great cricket team you can't just win, you have to maximise your professionalism and play dominating cricket.

 

Hence, the basis of my argument around the team, and not individualism. What I suggest is actually professionalism of the highest order. If you can perform professionally, you keep your place. Simple as that. 

Pretty sure when everyone talks about the best team in any sport, its about their winning record. Reason WI is considered the best team ever, is not because of their style, but because they went unbeaten in a series for 15-16 years. 

Same with the Brazilian golden generation - won 2 world cups. 

Greatest is all about winning. 

IF your argument is about the team, then it shouldn't be about how best to push through kids who are not ready, but it would be Aussie-esque efficiency of developing players till they are 23-24 and rarely giving international debuts before that and almost never before 20.

 

[lamellavig]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Pretty sure when everyone talks about the best team in any sport, its about their winning record. Reason WI is considered the best team ever, is not because of their style, but because they went unbeaten in a series for 15-16 years. 

Same with the Brazilian golden generation - won 2 world cups. 

Greatest is all about winning. 

IF your argument is about the team, then it shouldn't be about how best to push through kids who are not ready, but it would be Aussie-esque efficiency of developing players till they are 23-24 and rarely giving international debuts before that and almost never before 20.

 

Greatest team is all about winning, agreed. But to give yourself the maximum probability of winning consistently, aspiring for more and demanding cricket of the highest order (i.e. dominant cricket, where you rely on your own skill and are never forced on the back foot) gives you the spine for winning. To win consistently, you need to win easily. Playing defensive cricket, where you rely on mistakes from the opposition exerts a greater emotional toll and is therefore unsuitable to a plan for consistent cricket

 

You accurately suggest that West Indies were remembered for remaining unbeaten. Well this is not completely true, but let's overlook this for the moment. Ask yourself why they were able to play such easy, professional, hardworking cricket for such a long period. What was it about their style of play and selection ethos that enabled this?

Edited January 16, 2018 by lamellavig

[Tattieboy]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Pretty sure when everyone talks about the best team in any sport, its about their winning record. Reason WI is considered the best team ever, is not because of their style, but because they went unbeaten in a series for 15-16 years. 

Same with the Brazilian golden generation - won 2 world cups. 

Greatest is all about winning. 

IF your argument is about the team, then it shouldn't be about how best to push through kids who are not ready, but it would be Aussie-esque efficiency of developing players till they are 23-24 and rarely giving international debuts before that and almost never before 20.

 

You have gone a long way from he couldn't get picked because his glutes not developed .

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, lamellavig said:

Greatest team is all about winning, agreed. But to give yourself the maximum probability of winning consistently, aspiring for more and demanding cricket of the highest order (i.e. dominant cricket, where you rely on your own skill and are never forced on the back foot) gives you the spine for winning. To win consistently, you need to win easily. Playing defensive cricket, where you rely on mistakes from the opposition exerts a greater emotional toll and is therefore unsuitable to a plan for consistent cricket

Greatest teams win by applying both offence and defence when required. WI tour of Pakistan in the late 80s was WI using all it could to hang on to a narrow victory by playing defensive cricket to preserve their win. Greatest teams do what it takes to win. Period. 

2 minutes ago, lamellavig said:

 

You accurately suggest that West Indies were remembered for remaining unbeaten. Well this is not completely true, but let's overlook this for the moment. Ask yourself why they were able to play such easy, professional, hardworking cricket for such a long period. What was it about their style of play and selection ethos that enabled this?

They didn't rely on giving debuts to teenagers willy-nilly, thats for sure. They actually required bowlers to blow away opposition in their domestic cricket for a year or two before giving them chances.

 

[lamellavig]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Greatest teams win by applying both offence and defence when required. WI tour of Pakistan in the late 80s was WI using all it could to hang on to a narrow victory by playing defensive cricket to preserve their win. Greatest teams do what it takes to win. Period. 

They didn't rely on giving debuts to teenagers willy-nilly, thats for sure. They actually required bowlers to blow away opposition in their domestic cricket for a year or two before giving them chances.

 

You are relying on opportunism. You cannot pick one single incident. Also, this incident was a West Indies team in huge decline.

I am not arguing for absolute attacking cricket, but relative attacking cricket. Sure you may need to be defensive some times. But you aspire to keep those times to a minimum. But yes, once or twice defensive cricket may be demanded. But the skill is in ensuring that defensive cricket is infrequent. That is what I suggest. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by lamellavig

[Muloghonto]

Just now, lamellavig said:

You are relying on opportunism. You cannot pick one single incident. I am not arguing for absolute attacking cricket, but relative attacking cricket. Sure you may need to be defensive some times. But you aspire to keep those times to a minimum. But yes, once or twice defensive cricket may be demanded. But the skill is in ensuring that defensive cricket is infrequent. That is what I suggest. 

this is getting very far afield on why we shouldn't throw kids into the deep end.

[lamellavig]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

this is getting very far afield on why we shouldn't throw kids into the deep end.

Yes, Pant gives the opportunity for dominating cricket. Saha doesn't, as simple as that. 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, lamellavig said:

Yes, Pant gives the opportunity for dominating cricket. Saha doesn't, as simple as that. 

When he is ready. If he is that dominating as a batsman, let him play as a batsman.

Saha gives us the opportunity to play dominating cricket from behind the stumps. Pant does not. and the job is of a wicketkeeper. Hence Saha > Pant. Simple.

 

[lamellavig]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

When he is ready. If he is that dominating as a batsman, let him play as a batsman.

Saha gives us the opportunity to play dominating cricket from behind the stumps. Pant does not. and the job is of a wicketkeeper. Hence Saha > Pant. Simple.

 

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. 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, 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. 

A wicketkeeper who is impeccable while keeping to a mediocre attack, is most certainly giving the team dominance by simply being a wicketkeeper.

As i said, Parthiv is proving in this match why its stupid to pick a keeper based on their batting. If we had Saha, India would be chasing 80-90 in the 2nd innings and it wouldn't matter how much runs he scored/didn't score.

 

[lamellavig]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

A wicketkeeper who is impeccable while keeping to a mediocre attack, is most certainly giving the team dominance by simply being a wicketkeeper.

As i said, Parthiv is proving in this match why its stupid to pick a keeper based on their batting. If we had Saha, India would be chasing 80-90 in the 2nd innings and it wouldn't matter how much runs he scored/didn't score.

 

Parthiv is part of the problem. He is similar to Saha. He is incapable with the bat, just like Saha.

 

Rishabh Pant is more skilled than both. Parthiv and Saha are the reasons why India remain incapable of playing dominant cricket. 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, lamellavig said:

Parthiv is part of the problem. He is similar to Saha. He is incapable with the bat, just like Saha.

 

Rishabh Pant is more skilled than both. Parthiv and Saha are the reasons why India remain incapable of playing dominant cricket. 

Rishab is yet to prove he is capable with the bat in the longer format.  

And if Rishabh is an inferior keeper, it wouldn't do us any good in terms of dominating or winning, if he keeps dropping guys at 10,they go on to score 150 and he himself scores 50-60 runs.

 

Wicketkeeper's primary job is to keep wickets. Not bat. As long as he isn't batting like a specialist bowler, the best keeper ALWAYS should play when keeping to a mediocre attack.

 

[lamellavig]

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Rishab is yet to prove he is capable with the bat in the longer format.  

And if Rishabh is an inferior keeper, it wouldn't do us any good in terms of dominating or winning, if he keeps dropping guys at 10,they go on to score 150 and he himself scores 50-60 runs.

 

Wicketkeeper's primary job is to keep wickets. Not bat. As long as he isn't batting like a specialist bowler, the best keeper ALWAYS should play when keeping to a mediocre attack.

 

But at the age of 20 or 21 or whatever, Rishabh already averages 53 in the longest form of cricket. What more should he do to get a chance?

[Muloghonto]

Just now, lamellavig said:

But at the age of 20 or 21 or whatever, Rishabh already averages 53 in the longest form of cricket. What more should he do to get a chance?

He has that average, largely due to beginner's luck. He averages 35.00 in FC cricket in this year, which is the expected 'dreaded sophomore slump'. 

he needs to show he is a keeper equal to or better than Saha, who has 10+ years of FC cricket averaging 40+, to even have a sniff.

 

 

[lamellavig]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

He has that average, largely due to beginner's luck. He averages 35.00 in FC cricket in this year, which is the expected 'dreaded sophomore slump'. 

he needs to show he is a keeper equal to or better than Saha, who has 10+ years of FC cricket averaging 40+, to even have a sniff.

 

 

So why not give that opportunity to him in international cricket? If he shows to be inferior with wicketkeeping, drop him.

 

Also beginner's luck does not exist in cricket over a period of 2 or 3 years, which is the length of time for the postulated average of 53. 

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, lamellavig said:

So why not give that opportunity to him in international cricket? If he shows to be inferior with wicketkeeping, drop him.

Because he isn't ready. Any two-bit player can have a hot-start because of being an unknown. The real challenge is to be good after people know you. This is why the sophomore slump exists as a big thing in pro-sports. 
Rishab averaging 35 this year shows he isn't ready with the bat either. 

 

1 minute ago, lamellavig said:

Also beginner's luck does not exist in cricket over a period of 2 or 3 years, which is the length of time for the postulated average of 53. 

He has played two full seasons. In his first full season he averaged close to 70. In the second full season, the current one, he averaged 35. Its beginner's luck and Rishab is back to square1. He has to overcome his sophomore slump or become a nobody. Simple and consistent in pro-sports methodology.

 

[Laaloo]

21 minutes ago, Tattieboy said:

You have gone a long way from he couldn't get picked because his glutes not developed .

 

Just be glad he hasn't called pant sifarish yet or apparently made Saha the backup wk to Dhoni in LOIs.

[Tattieboy]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Because he isn't ready. Any two-bit player can have a hot-start because of being an unknown. The real challenge is to be good after people know you. This is why the sophomore slump exists as a big thing in pro-sports. 
Rishab averaging 35 this year shows he isn't ready with the bat either. 

 

He has played two full seasons. In his first full season he averaged close to 70. In the second full season, the current one, he averaged 35. Its beginner's luck and Rishab is back to square1. He has to overcome his sophomore slump or become a nobody. Simple and consistent in pro-sports methodology.

 

Beginners luck??? 

Have you played cricket?