The dumb math of playing the extra batsman

[Ankit_sharma03]

13 minutes ago, Vk1 said:

If our main requirement is to provide rest to fast bowlers Shankar should be seriously considered since he seems to be a far better batsman than Pandya 

but he also has to prove in international arena , that why keep both . What if is fails 

If u play on patta pandya bowling wud make more sense

 

and its not that pandya is an awful batsman, he score a tough 93 and made 50 in england to. Most importantly he showed application ..so their is talent and it will only get better with time 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Ankit_sharma03

[Vilander]

6 hours ago, rkt.india said:

even his batting has not convinced me.

based on what ?

[rkt.india]

42 minutes ago, Vilander said:

based on what ?

based on what I have seen and his performance for A team.

[Vilander]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

based on what I have seen and his performance for A team.

i know there is a trundler bias - where in people feel trundlers are automatically more accurate. But is the guy not more accurate even with reduced speed. Is that factual  that he is not accurate or is ineffective as a bowler ?

 

Definitely as a batsman he has close to 50 average - so you expect some batting from him. 

[Vilander]

9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

We should look to develop Washington Sundar as the batsman to bat at 6 and bowl spin,.  That way, we can play 4 specialist pacers in SENA and Sundar as the lone spinner.

he could be a fitter taller Ashwin -> but he could have the same frailties of not being able to extract spin - need a wrist spinner lower order batsman -> if that combo even exits. 

[Lannister]

Our batting personnel was weak even when you consider the reserves available in the squad. So it wouldn't have made difference even if one extra batsman was selected. But we could've easily strengthen our bowling unit by selecting 5 proper bowlers. In the name of all-rounder, we played Pandya in too many games even though his bowling was not upto the mark bar one Test match and in the last Test match only 4 bowlers were selected. It's irritating to see such simple mistakes made by our team management. They lost this series because of their own stupidity. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by Lannister

[R.D forever]

Jeez this thread is still going on.. Your batting is weak so strengthen it. As simple as that . 

 

5 batsmen cant so anything what will  no 6 do is such a stupid argument. Especially when we had the great VVS saving us numerous  times at no 6. 

 

What is frustrating with the allrounder Brigade is it is not like we have a kallis or a Curran or a Stokes in the waiting. 

Even if you want to copy SA and ENG and want a seam bowling allrounder then Pandya is not ur guy. A trundler like him will be crucified in Australian flat tracks. And people who saw him bat know he showed absolutely no improvement looked like getting out every ball.

[zen]

29 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

Jeez this thread is still going on.. Your batting is weak so strengthen it. As simple as that . 

 

5 batsmen cant so anything what will  no 6 do is such a stupid argument. Especially when we had the great VVS saving us numerous  times at no 6. 

 

What is frustrating with the allrounder Brigade is it is not like we have a kallis or a Curran or a Stokes in the waiting. 

Even if you want to copy SA and ENG and want a seam bowling allrounder then Pandya is not ur guy. A trundler like him will be crucified in Australian flat tracks. And people who saw him bat know he showed absolutely no improvement looked like getting out every ball.

The above post has oxymorons / contradictions  .... to illustrate: 

 

• Batting is weak so strengthen it: Batting is weak because the top 5 are struggling. The 6th batsman is, in terms of potential, likely to be on par or weaker than those in top 5 (or he would be among the top 5 choices) so we strengthen the batting by bringing in another on par or weak batsman, who is likely to struggle too (if not play pick him among the 5) .... that is strengthening the batting but weakening the 11 
• ARs are not like Kallis or whatever but the 6th batsman is like VVS (from the great VVS saved us many times comment) .... we have to consider the team dynamics of 2018 and 2000s

 

Keep it up! 

Edited September 12, 2018 by zen

[R.D forever]

24 minutes ago, zen said:

The above post has oxymorons / contradictions  .... to illustrate: 

 

• Batting is weak so strengthen it: Batting is weak because the top 5 are struggling. The 6th batsman is, in terms of potential, likely to be on par or weaker than those in top 5 (or he would be among the top 5 choices) so we strengthen the batting by bringing in another on par or weak batsman, who is likely to struggle too (if not play pick him among the 5) .... that is strengthening the batting but weakening the 11 
• ARs are not like Kallis or whatever but the 6th batsman is like VVS (from the great VVS saved us many times comment) 

 

Keep it up! 

Not necessarily. No 6 batsman has his own qualities and strength. Like how openers and no 3 should play out the new ball and middle order should score runs , no 6 should have strengths like playing with the tail , playing out a draw, patience, seeing out second new ball etc. No 6 does not mean that he is less than other 5. VVS was no less than Dravid or Sehwag in terms of skill.

 

Yes it would be good to have someone who can bowl some overs . A batting allrounder. I understand. But why should it be a medium pacer. we simply don't have any ..  Probability of finding another VVS is more in India than finding a Curran or Stokes. Let's stick to our strength

Edited September 12, 2018 by R.D forever

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, Vilander said:

he could be a fitter taller Ashwin -> but he could have the same frailties of not being able to extract spin - need a wrist spinner lower order batsman -> if that combo even exits. 

Kuldeep scored  a 50 against Aus A !

[Vilander]

21 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

Let's stick to our strength

or lets stick to reality which is 

 

Pandya is not same as stokes or a curran in England consistently with bat and ball -> how good would he be in Aus. 

 

He does have pace when he wants he does not trundle at 120 - which could be the case with Vijay Shankar.

 

If you go with a batsman there --> you give up the ability to have 4 fresh frontline bowlers who are always at top intensity throughout the 90 odd overs. 

 

There are several sides to this argument -> hygine factor( must haves - be like stokes contribute critically wither with bat or ball every inning) and then good to haves ( have more 'it' days where you take a 5 for or hot a century with tail) and then aspirational ones ( be kallis be two players in 1 most of the time). I think Hardik fails in hygine factors but has some measure of good to haves.

[zen]

29 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

Not necessarily. No 6 batsman has his own qualities and strength. Like how openers and no 3 should play out the new ball and middle order should score runs , no 6 should have strengths like playing with the tail , playing out a draw, patience, seeing out second new ball etc. No 6 does not mean that he is less than other 5. VVS was no less than Dravid or Sehwag in terms of skill.

 

Yes it would be good to have someone who can bowl some overs . A batting allrounder. I understand. But why should it be a medium pacer. we simply don't have any ..  Probability of finding another VVS is more in India than finding a Curran or Stokes. Let's stick to our strength

VVS, if playing today, would be the 2nd best batsmen in the squad and not playing at 6. That should tell you something 

 

to avoid repetition, read the discussions with Jimmy Cliff on this thread 

[Clarke]

Wow, this is still active. But I do notice the trends and agendas here. 

 

When I stated the 6-1-4 combo, i was merely stating it is not dumb and its relevance across test cricket in past and present. It looks like this is more of yet another include/drop Pandya discussion or a Indias-3-seamers-need-additional-backup-abroad suggestion rather than simply team combination for tests in general, which is what I thought this was about. 

 

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Clarke said:

Wow, this is still active. But I do notice the trends and agendas here. 

 

When I stated the 6-1-4 combo, i was merely stating it is not dumb and its relevance across test cricket in past and present. It looks like this is more of yet another include/drop Pandya discussion or a Indias-3-seamers-need-additional-backup-abroad suggestion rather than simply team combination for tests in general, which is what I thought this was about. 

 

I hope that you read the OP and not just the title as the opening paragraph is enlightening:

 

"There is an old saying (don't know who said it) - "If your batting is strong and when you have a good batsman in the reserve, play the extra batsman to strengthen your batting." and vice versa. In the past, it worked for India as batting was its (only) strength. The players fighting for the "extra" spot were likes of VVS and Doda Ganesh for e.g. The choice to go with an extra batsman was easy, esp. considering Sehwag, Tendulkar and Ganguly could bowl decently too." 

 

That 6-4-1 combo worked in past for Ind is acknowledged based on its strengths and weaknesses at that time. Since the team dynamics have changed, we need the 5-4-1-1 combination .... that is what the thread is about i.e. don't dwell on the past (what worked), consider current S&Ws, team dynamics, etc., to decide the combo  

[R.D forever]

Ok let's accept ur 5-1-1-4 strategy? Who is that 1? Batting allrounder or bowling allrounder? 

 

Do you expect him to score 70-80s and keep it tight for 5-10 overs ( Batting allrounder).  Or someone who can give you wickets irrespective of conditions but cannot be expected to score more than 30-40 every match ( Bowling allrounder).

 

Shankar with a FC batting average of 47 can be clearly called a batting allrounder.

Ashwin with a career batting average of 30 is clearly a bowling allrounder

 

Which category does Pandya fall into?

 

[zen]

11 minutes ago, R.D forever said:

Ok let's accept ur 5-1-1-4 strategy? Who is that 1? Batting allrounder or bowling allrounder? 

 

Do you expect him to score 70-80s and keep it tight for 5-10 overs ( Batting allrounder).  Or someone who can give you wickets irrespective of conditions but cannot be expected to score more than 30-40 every match ( Bowling allrounder).

 

Shankar with a FC batting average of 47 can be clearly called a batting allrounder.

Ashwin with a career batting average of 30 is clearly a bowling allrounder

 

Which category does Pandya fall into?

 

From a couple of my posts on this thread:

 

"New norm is 5 (Batsmen) + 4 (Bowlers) +1 (WK) + 1 (Open Slot) .... w/ the open slot decided based on S&W and options available after optimizing the specialist slots but would usually go to an AR to provide balance and the "Swiss Army Knife" option to the team 

 

Here, Ind played a batsman in the open slot w/o first optimizing its batting and when pace bowling was a strength relatively. Therefore, it paid the price" 

 

*****

 

"What I like about Pandya is that he can bowl at 140+ and hit test 100s, which is a rare quality among Ind players 

 

If we optimize our batting and bowling slots, we would have accounted for consistency. So what players such as Pandya, esp. in the early phase, can do is work as impact player at times and like a Swiss Army Knife at times to provide that edge and/or balance to the team .... With time, as he improves, consistency and performances will come naturally 

 

Right now, we want to play our struggling specialists and select players to bail these TTF out. This puts unnecessary pressure on youngsters such as Pant and Pandya" 

Edited September 12, 2018 by zen

[Global.Baba]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

From one of my posts on this thread:

 

"What I like about Pandya is that he can bowl at 140+ and hit test 100s, which is a rare quality among Ind players 

 

If we optimize our batting and bowling slots, we would have accounted for consistency. So what players such as Pandya, esp. in the early phase, can do is work as impact player at times and like a Swiss Army Knife at times to provide that edge and/or balance to the team .... With time, as he improves, consistency and performances will come naturally 

 

Right now, we want to play our struggling specialists and select players to bail these TTF out. This puts unnecessary pressure on youngsters such as Pant and Pandya" 

There is no such thing as an impact player in tests. Take Afridi for example. like him or not,he had impact performances in LOI's be it ODI or T20. In tests that experiment failed because you need specialists in tests. Every ATG allrounder who has played test cricket was a specialist first.

[zen]

9 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

There is no such thing as an impact player in tests. Take Afridi for example. like him or not,he had impact performances in LOI's be it ODI or T20. In tests that experiment failed because you need specialists in tests. Every ATG allrounder who has played test cricket was a specialist first.

New norm based on current dynamics and initiatives to develop youngsters .... you keep talking about the past 

Edited September 12, 2018 by zen

[R.D forever]

"

What I like about Pandya is that he can bowl at 140+ and hit test 100s, which is a rare quality among Ind players 

"

 

For now I have only your word for this. 

 

If you are a allrounder give me something. If u can't take wickets everymatch then at least guarantee a score of 50-60 everymatch. If u can't score then I need at least 5 wickets in a match. If u can't do anyone of this consistently then what is ur use??

 

I have not seen him perform consistently till now. No consecutive 50s. No consecutive 3fers atleast. One 50 in the 3rd test. Don't think he crossed 40 again. One 5fer. And wayward bowling on other tests. There is simply no upward trend we can see. 

 

In 7 test matches if we can remember only two knocks ( 90 in SA and 50 in Eng - both T20 innings  ) and one spell ( 5 wk haul in overcast conditions) then he is not doing even one job consistent

 

There is no swiss army knife concept and all in test matches. This is not ODI/T20.Every

 player in the 11 should be a specialist in either batting or bowling. contribute at least in one. 

 

[zen]

1 minute ago, R.D forever said:

There is no swiss army knife concept and all in test matches. This is not ODI/T20.Every

 player in the 11 should be a specialist in either batting or bowling. contribute at least in one.

 

Hardik has played 11 tests so far. Of the 11 tests, 10 tests have been away. Out of these 10 tests, India has won 5. And in these 5 tests, Hardik, who has played in different conditions, has an avg difference  (batting avg less  bowling avg) of 26! 

 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India

Home or away away (home of opposition)

Start of match date greater than or equal to 1 Jul 2017

Match result won match

Qualifications matches played greater than or equal to 3

Ordered by batting - bowling average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 10 of 10

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Mat	Runs	HS	Bat Av	100	Wkts	BBI	Bowl Av	5	Ct	St	Ave Diff
HH Pandya	5	252	108	42.00	1	10	5/28	16.30	1	6	0	25.70
R Ashwin	4	147	54	36.75	0	18	5/69	27.05	1	0	0	9.69
Mohammed Shami	5	98	30	14.00	0	18	5/28	21.38	1	1	0	-7.38
UT Yadav	3	22	11*	-	0	6	2/21	35.83	0	0	0	-
S Dhawan	4	437	190	72.83	2	-	-	-	-	4	0	-
V Kohli	5	456	103*	65.14	2	-	-	-	-	4	0	-
CA Pujara	5	446	153	55.75	2	-	-	-	-	4	0	-
AM Rahane	5	396	132	56.57	1	-	-	-	-	11	0	-
KL Rahul

 

 

A good contribution by someone who is in his first season. Thank you!