Jump to content
zen

The dumb math of playing the extra batsman

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

I'd rather "optimize" the batting by picking the best 6 batsmen available but that's just me :dontknow:.

You could do that but could start to see the impact of law of diminishing returns as it is difficult to find 6 batsmen who can avg 45 or more like they used to in the past  .... If you are diluting the bowling, which has been a strength relatively, you would need the 6 chosen batsmen to avg a lot higher than what they currently do 

 

For reference, below is how those playing in 1 to 5 have averaged in the past

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 remove between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 5 remove less than or equal to 5 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 8 of 8   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 100 50 0  
G Gambhir 2004-2009 27 48 3 2553 206 56.73 8 10 1 investigate this query
SR Tendulkar 1992-2009 148 241 25 12108 248* 56.05 41 50 13 investigate this query
V Sehwag 2002-2009 66 112 4 5791 319 53.62 16 16 9 investigate this query
R Dravid 1996-2009 131 223 25 10541 270 53.23 27 53 7 investigate this query
M Azharuddin 1990-2000 53 70 4 3126 192 47.36 11 10 2 investigate this query
NS Sidhu 1990-1999 38 56 0 2517 201 44.94 7 12 6 investigate this query
VVS Laxman 1996-2009 68 106 11 4066 281 42.80 10 21 9 investigate this query
SC Ganguly 1996-2008 87 138 11 5391 239 42.44 12 24 7

investigate this query

 

#6 has supported batsmen w/ the above numbers with:

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 remove between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 from query
Batting position equal to 6 remove equal to 6 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 3 of 3   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 100 50 0  
VVS Laxman 1996-2009 48 63 10 2578 154* 48.64 4 19 3 investigate this query
Yuvraj Singh 2003-2009 23 32 4 1179 169 42.10 3 6 3 investigate this query
SC Ganguly 1997-2008 37 47 5 1725 147 41.07 4 11 6 investigate this query

 

 

Currently, (after the retirement of the big guns)

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 2014 and 1 Jan 2019 remove between 1 Jan 2014 and 1 Jan 2019 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 6 remove less than or equal to 6 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 7 of 7   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s  
V Kohli 2014-2018 49 85 5 4640 243 58.00 7483 62.00 18 11 5 508 12 investigate this query
CA Pujara 2014-2018 44 77 4 3219 202 44.09 7208 44.65 9 14 5 377 7 investigate this query
M Vijay 2014-2018 39 68 1 2677 155 39.95 5813 46.05 9 11 6 301 24 investigate this query
S Dhawan 2014-2018 29 51 1 1996 190 39.92 3038 65.70 6 5 4 263 10 investigate this query
AM Rahane 2014-2018 47 79 8 2815 188 39.64 5525 50.95 8 12 6 312 20 investigate this query
KL Rahul 2014-2018 29 48 1 1811 199 38.53 3098 58.45 5 11 4 219 12 investigate this query
RG Sharma 2014-2018 21 37 5 1146 102* 35.81 2152 53.25 1 9 3 106 24 investigate this query

 

So times have changed! .... First we have to find 5 high quality batsmen, who can then be supported by the 6th, ... and as a batting group, also be able to compensate for the diluted bowling, which is turning in to a strength .... Good Luck!

Edited by zen
Link to post
4 minutes ago, zen said:

You could do that but could start to see the impact of law of diminishing returns as it is difficult to find 6 batsmen who can avg 45 or more like they used to in the past  .... If you are diluting the bowling, which has been a strength relatively, you would need the 6 chosen batsmen to avg a higher than what they currently do 

 

For reference, below is how those playing in 1 to 5 have averaged in the past

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 remove between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 5 remove less than or equal to 5 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 2000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 8 of 8   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 100 50 0  
G Gambhir 2004-2009 27 48 3 2553 206 56.73 8 10 1 investigate this query
SR Tendulkar 1992-2009 148 241 25 12108 248* 56.05 41 50 13 investigate this query
V Sehwag 2002-2009 66 112 4 5791 319 53.62 16 16 9 investigate this query
R Dravid 1996-2009 131 223 25 10541 270 53.23 27 53 7 investigate this query
M Azharuddin 1990-2000 53 70 4 3126 192 47.36 11 10 2 investigate this query
NS Sidhu 1990-1999 38 56 0 2517 201 44.94 7 12 6 investigate this query
VVS Laxman 1996-2009 68 106 11 4066 281 42.80 10 21 9 investigate this query
SC Ganguly 1996-2008 87 138 11 5391 239 42.44 12 24 7

investigate this query

 

#6 has supported batsmen w/ the above numbers with:

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 remove between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 2009 from query
Batting position equal to 6 remove equal to 6 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 3 of 3   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending 100 50 0  
VVS Laxman 1996-2009 48 63 10 2578 154* 48.64 4 19 3 investigate this query
Yuvraj Singh 2003-2009 23 32 4 1179 169 42.10 3 6 3 investigate this query
SC Ganguly 1997-2008 37 47 5 1725 147 41.07 4 11 6 investigate this query

 

 

Currently, 

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date between 11 Sep 2013 and 11 Sep 2018 remove between 11 Sep 2013 and 11 Sep 2018 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 6 remove less than or equal to 6 from query
Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 remove runs scored greater than or equal to 1000 from query
Ordered by batting average (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 7 of 7   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Span Mat Inns NO Runs HS AveDescending BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s  
V Kohli 2013-2018 53 91 5 4972 243 57.81 8054 61.73 19 13 5 546 12 investigate this query
CA Pujara 2013-2018 48 83 4 3629 202 45.93 8011 45.30 11 15 5 427 7 investigate this query
AM Rahane 2013-2018 49 83 9 3024 188 40.86 5967 50.67 8 14 6 341 22 investigate this query
RG Sharma 2013-2018 25 43 6 1479 177 39.97 2682 55.14 3 9 4 144 29 investigate this query
M Vijay 2013-2018 43 74 1 2894 155 39.64 6318 45.80 9 12 6 336 24 investigate this query
KL Rahul 2014-2018 29 48 1 1811 199 38.53 3098 58.45 5 11 4 219 12 investigate this query
S Dhawan 2013-2018 33 57 1 2128 190 38.00 3284 64.79 6 5 4 283 10

investigate this query

 

 

 

So times have changed! 

That's precisely why we should go all out to strengthen our batting by picking our top 6 batsmen. If you have a top 5 of Viru/GG/Dravid/SRT/Laxman you can replace your no. 6 bat (whether it's Ganguly/Yuvraj or whoever) with an all-rounder and still have a good line-up. Right now when you already have a vulnerable top 5 where no one barring Kohli is secure of their place how can you expect to pick just 5 specialists and a hit or miss batsman in Pant/Pandya/Ashwin at 6 and then compete with line-ups like England that bat until 9! For Pandya to be first-choice, it is essential for us to have a top 5 that is firing collectively more often than not and to have a keeper-bat who is competent enough to average 40-odd at 6. Until that happens, Pandya will always be a luxury.

Link to post
25 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

That's precisely why we should go all out to strengthen our batting by picking our top 6 batsmen. If you have a top 5 of Viru/GG/Dravid/SRT/Laxman you can replace your no. 6 bat (whether it's Ganguly/Yuvraj or whoever) with an all-rounder and still have a good line-up. Right now when you already have a vulnerable top 5 where no one barring Kohli is secure of their place how can you expect to pick just 5 specialists and a hit or miss batsman in Pant/Pandya/Ashwin at 6 and then compete with line-ups like England that bat until 9! For Pandya to be first-choice, it is essential for us to have a top 5 that is firing collectively more often than not and to have a keeper-bat who is competent enough to average 40-odd at 6. Until that happens, Pandya will always be a luxury.

As mentioned in OP, "if your horses are running like donkeys, we cannot hope to win a race by adding more horses who run like donkeys". We would need to have horses who run like horses  

 

The case for adding a relatively weak 6th batsman, considering that we have already done our due diligence and picked the best 5 who still make the batting vulnerable, is not strong practically. And when our bowling is strong relatively. We have to safe guard the bowling first .... If you think batting can be a strength, let the batting perform first to show that as a group the top 5 can compensate for the diluted bowling. Let's see if we have a 6th batsman who can avg highly too (we cannot assume that the 6th batsman will be our best batsman as if he is he would not be the 6th batsman) 

 

In the current scenario, the 6th does not add much when the best five on form and conditions can be chosen, along w/ being ably supported by others batting positions, as demonstrated below:

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 remove greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 6 remove less than or equal to 6 from query
Ordered by runs scored (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 6 of 6   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Mat Inns NO RunsDescending HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s  
KL Rahul 1 2 0 186 149 93.00 277 67.14 1 0 0 24 1 investigate this query
GH Vihari 1 2 0 56 56 28.00 130 43.07 0 1 1 7 1 investigate this query
V Kohli 1 2 0 49 49 24.50 71 69.01 0 0 1 6 0 investigate this query
CA Pujara 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 104 35.57 0 0 1 5 0 investigate this query
AM Rahane 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 114 32.45 0 0 1 5 0 investigate this query
S Dhawan 1 2 0 4 3 2.00 12 33.33 0 0 0 0 0

 

 
Edited by zen
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

pick just 5 specialists and a hit or miss batsman in Pant/Pandya/Ashwin at 6 and then compete with line-ups like England that bat until 9! For Pandya to be first-choice, it is essential for us to have a top 5 that is firing collectively more often than not and to have a keeper-bat who is competent enough to average 40-odd at 6. Until that happens, Pandya will always be a luxury.

 

Pant is not a hit or miss batsman.  He averaged 54.5 in FC before test debut which shows consistency ... performed really consistently for our A-team too ... looks good against the bouncing ball ... off stump game is not poor either.   He just needs to cut down on his slogged 6 attempts. He has such a wide array of shots that those slogged 6s are not necessary.  

 

He can be our proper No.6 batsman and solve this problem.

 

The other realistic options available for the No.6 slot, are not in any way better than Pant ...  Vihari seems to have an issue against the short ball ...  Nair's off stump game has often looked suspect ... and there is no other ready candidate who is performing consistently for our A-team.  Even Nair and Vihari haven't.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Pant is not a hit or miss batsman.  He averaged 54.5 in FC before test debut which shows consistency ... performed really consistently for our A-team too ... looks good against the bouncing ball ... off stump game is not poor either.   He just needs to cut down on his slogged 6 attempts. He has such a wide array of shots that those slogged 6s are not necessary.  

 

He can be our proper No.6 batsman and solve this problem.

 

The other realistic options available for the No.6 slot, are not in any way better than Pant ...  Vihari seems to have an issue against the short ball ...  Nair's off stump game has often looked suspect ... and there is no other ready candidate who is performing consistently for our A-team.  Even Nair and Vihari haven't.

With 1 50+ score in 6 innings at an average of less than 30, he is hit or miss so far which is understandable as it's early days in his career. If he is able to upgrade into a proper no. 6 Test bat with an average of around 40, he'd do wonders to the balance of the side and allow us to play an all-rounder at no. 7. Right now, he is not that player so throwing him at the deep end at 6 and expecting him to deliver right away is unfair. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Even with Gilly, Aus chose 6 batsman and 4 bowlers. If we have Bhuvi, Bumrah and one of Shami/Yadav/Ishant/ and have a pool of pacers rotating, we can do the same. 

They had ATG like Mcgrath n Warne

 

Do we have a spinner like Warne ?? No 

Do We have part timers like Waugh bros, Clarke, symonds ???? No 

Did they have workload of 3 formats + IPL ????? Nooo 

Link to post
11 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Even with Gilly, Aus chose 6 batsman and 4 bowlers. If we have Bhuvi, Bumrah and one of Shami/Yadav/Ishant/ and have a pool of pacers rotating, we can do the same. 

Despite having two ATG bowlers, Aus relied on bowling from likes of Waugh, Clarke, Symmonds, Lehman, Katich, etc .... that is simply not an option available to Ind now and as explained by various posters as to the canvas having changed due to impact of the newer format - T20 .... Also if you have a batting line up like Aus had and someone like Gilly who could bat at 6 or 7, your options are not as limited as Ind's are :winky:

Edited by zen
Link to post
Just now, Ankit_sharma03 said:

They had ATG like Mcgrath n Warne

 

Do we have a spinner like Warne ?? No 

Do We have part timers like Waugh bros, Clarke, symonds ???? No 

Did they have workload of 3 formats + IPL ????? Nooo 

Warne and McGrath don’t come by every day and same applies to ATG allrounders.

 

Just like you don’t play a guy who has similar action to Warne and McGrath hoping he will become like them, you don’t play an allrounder just for the sake of it hoping he will become a genuine allrounder.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

They had ATG like Mcgrath n Warne

 

Do we have a spinner like Warne ?? No 

Do We have part timers like Waugh bros, Clarke, symonds ???? No 

Did they have workload of 3 formats + IPL ????? Nooo 

I am beginning to wonder if it is mostly the clueless wonders who are supporting playing 6 batsmen because of how teams did in past and in an era where T20 was not a factor or a huge factor :lol:

 

Link to post
Just now, Global.Baba said:

Warne and McGrath don’t come by every day and same applies to ATG allrounders.

Doesnt mean u stop selecting bowlers so why stop selecting all rounder

JSt becoz u dnt find next dravud shud we stop selecting Pujara

and no one become a gr8 overnight to 

Just now, Global.Baba said:

Just like you don’t play a guy who has similar action to Warne and McGrath hoping he will become like them, you don’t play an allrounder just for the sake of it hoping he will become a genuine allrounder.

World doesnt stop jst becoz u cnt find special players, u hve to keep selecting and no one becomes special over night ....the name we take took yrs n yrs

 

All rounder becomes all rounder over a period of time only . Check stats of all gr8 all rounder , they all took their sweet time 

Link to post
37 minutes ago, zen said:

As mentioned in OP, "if your horses are running like donkeys, we cannot hope to win a race by adding more horses who run like donkeys". We would need to have horses who run like horses  

 

The case for adding a relatively weak 6th batsman, considering that we have already done our due diligence and picked the best 5 who still make the batting vulnerable, is not strong practically. And when our bowling is strong relatively. We have to safe guard the bowling first .... If you think batting can be a strength, let the batting perform first to show that as a group the top 5 can compensate for the diluted bowling. Let's see if we have a 6th batsman who can avg highly too (we cannot assume that the 6th batsman will be our best batsman as if he is he would not be the 6th batsman) 

 

In the current scenario, the 6th does not add much when the best five on form and conditions can be chosen, along w/ being ably supported by others batting positions, as demonstrated below:

 

View overall figures [change view]
Primary team India remove India from query
Start of match date greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 remove greater than or equal to 7 Sep 2018 from query
Batting position less than or equal to 6 remove less than or equal to 6 from query
Ordered by runs scored (descending)
Page 1 of 1 Showing 1 - 6 of 6   First pageFirst Previous pagePrevious Next Next page Last Last page dblBakArwB.gifReturn to query menu
dblBakArwW.gifCleared query menu
Overall figures
Player Mat Inns NO RunsDescending HS Ave BF SR 100 50 0 4s 6s  
KL Rahul 1 2 0 186 149 93.00 277 67.14 1 0 0 24 1 investigate this query
GH Vihari 1 2 0 56 56 28.00 130 43.07 0 1 1 7 1 investigate this query
V Kohli 1 2 0 49 49 24.50 71 69.01 0 0 1 6 0 investigate this query
CA Pujara 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 104 35.57 0 0 1 5 0 investigate this query
AM Rahane 1 2 0 37 37 18.50 114 32.45 0 0 1 5 0 investigate this query
S Dhawan 1 2 0 4 3 2.00 12 33.33 0 0 0 0 0

 

 

I'd much rather add a relatively weaker 6th batsman, instead of playing Pant at 6 (who is not ready), or Ashwin (who's regressed beyond all measure as a batsman), or Jadeja (who is a no. 7 or 8 rather than a 6) or Pandya (who averages 13 at 6!).

 

c17111ca-9527-4697-8c97-dec86df99f8a.png

 

Our bowling is relatively strong which is why as long as we pick the right 4 bowlers according to the conditions we should be fine. Our batting is relatively weaker which is why it's essential to pick not only right top 5 but also strengthen it by picking a specialist 6th batsman. Still I am not averse to picking an all-rounder in Asia/WI or on roads in SENA countries. But on most surfaces in SENA, I'd much rather go in with 6 batsmen because as we have seen already, with just 5 specialist batsmen we might as well concede the game at the toss itself if we are fielding first.

Edited by Jimmy Cliff
Link to post
1 minute ago, zen said:

I am beginning to wonder if it is mostly the clueless wonders who are supporting playing 6 batsmen because of how teams did in past and in an era where T20 was not a factor or a huge factor :lol:

 

No its jst lack of watching games

 

They dnt knw no one becomes gr8 night??? they compare a young career to career of reaching their peek

They cnt over text book crap???? Thats why lack of flexibility in our mindsets at society only 

Bravery for them is finding soft targets???? how many here has questioned pujara but every one jumped on pandya, pant and rahul 

 

 

Link to post
5 minutes ago, zen said:

I am beginning to wonder if it is mostly the clueless wonders who are supporting playing 6 batsmen because of how teams did in past and in an era where T20 was not a factor or a huge factor :lol:

 

The only teams that have these bits and pieces allrounders in 2018 are Srilanka and WI due to lack of resources.

 

England has struggled due to too many allrounders in some conditions. 

 

Nzl plays Grandhomme who I think is the closest in terms of Pandya. Santner is in as a spinner first.

 

Shakib is a genuine allrounder but he too is a bowler first but again it is Bangladesh.

 

Aus has almost given up on Mitch Marsh experiment.

 

Pak too has too many bits and pieces players

Edited by Global.Baba
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

I'd much rather add a relatively weaker 6th batsman, instead of playing Pant at 6 (who is not ready), or Ashwin (who's regressed beyond all measure as a batsman), or Jadeja (who is a no. 7 or 8 rather than a 6) or Pandya (who averages 13 at 6!).

We had that rohit sharma relatively weeker batsman 

We had those weeker batsman like dhawan- who was a walking wkt .....and everyone wanted 6 batsman not knowing the 1st batsman is a batsman of name 

 

 

Whats being ready , high rate of consistency...........rarely ull find young batsman being so consistent in alien conditions which last over a period of time  . Stop having such bizzare expectation

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

I'd much rather add a relatively weaker 6th batsman, instead of playing Pant at 6 (who is not ready), or Ashwin (who's regressed beyond all measure as a batsman), or Jadeja (who is a no. 7 or 8 rather than a 6) or Pandya (who averages 13 at 6!).

 

c17111ca-9527-4697-8c97-dec86df99f8a.png

 

Our bowling is relatively strong which is why as long as we pick the right 4 bowlers according the conditions we should be fine. Our batting is relatively weaker which is why it's essential to pick not only right top 5 but also strengthen it by picking a specialist 6th batsman. Still I am not averse to picking an all-rounder in Asia/WI or on roads in SENA countries. But on most surfaces in SENA, I'd much rather go in with 6 batsmen because as we have seen already, with just 5 specialist batsmen we might as well concede the game at the toss itself if we are fielding first.

But note that

  • the 6th batsman is not likely to do much better than what Pant, Ashwin, Pandya, Jadeja, etc. can offer at 6 and collectively as a group. The average listed above accounts for relatively difficult playing conditions as well  
  • we lost by playing 6 batsmen despite not winning the toss and bowling first.  Therefore the concept that the team could do well w/ 6 batsmen despite batting 2nd was not proved in this series. In fact, take Rahul's 100 out and this is one of the worst batting performance by the top 6 in relatively batting friendly conditions  
  • when our batting is strong, we play extra batsman. and when our bowling is strong, we play extra batsman. So it could be that playing 6 batsmen could be serving the purpose of providing comfort to fans rather than offering meaningful benefits than what an AR/bowler could in that position in the current set up. In that case, teams cannot be chosen to provide imaginary assurances to fans. There have to be tangible benefits as well

 

Thank you! 

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to post
Just now, Ankit_sharma03 said:

We had that rohit sharma relatively weeker batsman 

We had those weeker batsman like dhawan- who was a walking wkt .....and everyone wanted 6 batsman not knowing the 1st batsman is a batsman of name 

 

 

Whats being ready , high rate of consistency...........rarely ull find young batsman being so consistent in alien conditions which last over a period of time  . Stop having such bizzare expectation

So Jadeja outscored Rahane does it mean Jadeja can play even if he stops taking wickets?

 

Simple Rahane gets replaced by another bat and Jadeja by another bowler. They are judged on their primary skill simple.

 

If Rohit Sharma failed at 6, another batsman gets into his place. Just because Bhuvi or Pandya made 5-10 runs more than him, you don’t bat them at 6.

 

Simple you expect a batsman to score a 100 every time he walks in.

 

you expect a bowler to take 5 wickets every time he bowls.

 

You can’t go in expecting  35 runs and 1 wicket from a player. 

 

How is such a simple concept not  getting through?

 

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

We had that rohit sharma relatively weeker batsman 

We had those weeker batsman like dhawan- who was a walking wkt .....and everyone wanted 6 batsman not knowing the 1st batsman is a batsman of name 

 

 

Whats being ready , high rate of consistency...........rarely ull find young batsman being so consistent in alien conditions which last over a period of time  . Stop having such bizzare expectation

Abe what bizarre expectation? I have low expectations which is why I want Pant to continue at 7 and establish himself before he's given the extra responsibility of batting in the top 6. And no one here with half a brain wants Rohit or Dhawan in the Test side. Stop creating faaltu strawmen arguments.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...