Isn't it more effective to field an eleven with as much as multi dimensional players??

[rtmohanlal]

Was  going thru the current ENG-SL series ... ENG  is on the verge of  winning 3-0 . Not withstanding the luck with toss, they fielded several multi dimensional players in Stokes,Curran,Foakes,Ali,Rashid to go with Bairstow & Butler(both can keep if needed) . I think it brought that much flexibility to the team in that when ever  they were in trouble or SL was marching ahead, ENG  could turn to various options  to pull it back in either batting or bowling .If Ali was instrumental in the 2nd test, it was Stokes and Rashid in this test. I have always maintained this as a great choice of team selection  . I think India too can adopt this  policy. India  have  Jadeja, Ashwin, Pandya, Kuldeep,Bhuvi to go with Pant. All of the 5 bowlers in the list can bat too which in times of trouble can be very worthy. Even Hanuma Vihari is some body who can bowl if needed as he showed in ENG. Apart from Bumrah, we do not have a quality seam  bowler  any  way in tests.That being the case , why it is not  a good option to go with '2 seamers only' along  with   '9 others including all the earlier  7 names I specified'.Thoughts.....

[vvvslaxman]

I want a player who can bowl left handed/ right handed  bat left handed/right handed  someone who can bowl fast and bowl spin :)

Actually Karsan Ghavri India's opening bowling partner for Kapil Dev was both a spinner and a seamer. Not a great bat. Back in the 80s India won a lot of ODIs thanks to players with multi skills. Binny, Madanlal, Ravi Bot even Sandhu could bat. L Siva wasn't bad either. Same way Mohinder could bowl , Sandip patil could bowl. Even Cheekh has got 2 fifers. This is by far the worst team when it comes to shining in more than one department. Those who do, don't deserve their place purely based on their ability in their main department. Both Raina, Yuvi, Sachin, Sehwag all four could bowl a few overs. All 3 were good in their main department too. Ganguly used to bowl as well.

[rtmohanlal]

3 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

I want a player who can bowl left handed/ right handed  bat left handed/right handed  someone who can bowl fast and bowl spin :)

Actually Karsan Ghavri India's opening bowling partner for Kapil Dev was both a spinner and a seamer. Not a great bat. Back in the 80s India won a lot of ODIs thanks to players with multi skills. Binny, Madanlal, Ravi Bot even Sandhu could bat. L Siva wasn't bad either. Same way Mohinder could bowl , Sandip patil could bowl. Even Cheekh has got 2 fifers. This is by far the worst team when it comes to shining in more than one department. Those who do, don't deserve their place purely based on their ability in their main department. Both Raina, Yuvi, Sachin, Sehwag all four could bowl a few overs. All 3 were good in their main department too. Ganguly used to bowl as well.

sadly in place of Sachin,Sehwag,Sourav who all could bowl  if needed , we have Kohli,Rahane,Pujara who don't  even try a bit of bowling

despite being far inferior in batting too.This is why , what I posted in the OP  deserves far more importance...

[vvvslaxman]

Ashwin with brilliant test record at home never needed to do well with bat. But he saved our ass many times with the bat.  I think these guys have grown up in a culture where they bat , bat ,bat more in the nets. They just don't try different things. Tendulkar could bowl a mean googly. He never needed to be good. Dravid could keep for us in the world cup. 

[rtmohanlal]

On a practical note, I was wondering as to why all 3 of Ashwin,Kuldeep & Jadeja were not  fielded  together. To think of it now, one of the premier seamers, Shami proved to be a disaster in  ENG  in the previous series there. And this has been happening in almost all of the abroad series for India, i mean more than one seamer getting proved to be heavily expensive .That being the case why not take chance with as much multi dimensional players as possible ??

[Global.Baba]

Well multidimensional doesn’t mean can’t  bat and can’t bowl

[Ankit_sharma03]

2 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

On a practical note, I was wondering as to why all 3 of Ashwin,Kuldeep & Jadeja were not  fielded  together. 

where? in england?

Edited November 24, 2018 by Ankit_sharma03

[rtmohanlal]

32 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

where? in england?

may be I went a bit exaggerated in using  the term 'wondering' , but yet while evaluating Shami's over all performance &  now watching England's  'horses for courses' policy working emphatically  I strongly feel all 3 should have played atleast in the last test, by the time series was already lost 1-3.For instance in the on going ENG-SL test  , while the 'till that time' tormentors  Ali & Leech  were not at all being effective and SL running away with the game, in comes Rashid and gets more help from the pitch straight away. So they could sustain with him which caused a dramatic collapse.From 176-1 , SL fell off alarmingly. Just see the huge difference fall of  1 wkt  could attain.

[Ankit_sharma03]

11 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

may be I went a bit exaggerated in using  the term 'wondering' , but yet while evaluating Shami's over all performance &  now watching England's  'horses for courses' policy working emphatically  I strongly feel all 3 should have played atleast in the last test, by the time series was already lost 1-3.For instance in the on going ENG-SL test  , while the 'till that time' tormentors  Ali & Leech  were not at all being effective and SL running away with the game, in comes Rashid and gets more help from the pitch straight away. So they could sustain with him which caused a dramatic collapse.From 176-1 , SL fell off alarmingly. Just see the huge difference fall of  1 wkt  could attain.

wait 

ashwin was injured by last test so it was not possible

Kuldeep was struggling to pitch the ball coz it was diff for him to grip duke balls so he was sent back

So both scenarios werent possible 

 

Ali, rashid, leech can be played as it subcontinet and that was england and no one wud play 3 spinners

If shami was avg then kuldeep was poor as he was even struggling to grip the ball 

 

The main problem in england was batsman failure no point looking here n there, batsman were the culprit

We hve to stop being easy on guys like pujara n rahane coz they save themselves by playing 1-2 innings , acceptable from guys like rahul n pant who are in their 1st overseas cycle not from pujara n rahane

[Sgattick10]

I feel kuldeep can be developed as a lower order batsman

[vvvslaxman]

2 hours ago, Sgattick10 said:

I feel kuldeep can be developed as a lower order batsman

To be honest it is entirely upto the player to improve in other areas.

[Khota]

Tell me exactly what has England won so far?

[Stan AF]

7 hours ago, Sgattick10 said:

I feel kuldeep can be developed as a lower order batsman

And that's how Irfan Pathan lost his bowling.

[philcric]

It is not about pure batsmen, pure bowlers or all rounders.

 

It's about the cumulative batting strength and cumulative bowling strength of the playing XI, taking into consideration the team's resources and the pitch conditions.

 

At this time, Aus' bowling is strong with Starc, Hazelwood, Cummins and Lyon who are consistent, effective and can bowl longish spells. Batting is weak in the absence of Smith and Warne. So for a standard pitch which is not an absolute patta, their best combination would be 6 bats + 1 WK + 4 bowlers.

 

For the same match on the same pitch, Eng's combination could be slightly different. They could go with even 6 bowlers (4 pacers + 2 spinners) because their spinners are not as good/consistent as Lyon and the same applies to their pacers relative to Aussie pacers. Their overall batting strength would still be on par in spite of playing 6 bowlers because that bowling line up would have the likes of Stokes, Moeen, Curran, Rashid who as a unit contribute very well to the batting score.

 

People on this forum tend to look at individual players in isolation and constantly worried about the definition of a player who contributes with both bat and ball. Whether he is a batsman who can bowl or a bowler who can bat or is he good enough to bat at #7 or can he get into the team on bowling alone etc. etc. Better way to look at is whether that playing XI together can score enough runs and pick 20 wickets to win a test match.

 

[philcric]

4 hours ago, Khota said:

Tell me exactly what has England won so far?

 

7 out of the last 8 tests they played.

On their way to winning 8 out of 9.

 

[rtmohanlal]

1 hour ago, philcric said:

It is not about pure batsmen, pure bowlers or all rounders.

 

It's about the cumulative batting strength and cumulative bowling strength of the playing XI, taking into consideration the team's resources and the pitch conditions.

 

At this time, Aus' bowling is strong with Starc, Hazelwood, Cummins and Lyon who are consistent, effective and can bowl longish spells. Batting is weak in the absence of Smith and Warne. So for a standard pitch which is not an absolute patta, their best combination would be 6 bats + 1 WK + 4 bowlers.

 

For the same match on the same pitch, Eng's combination could be slightly different. They could go with even 6 bowlers (4 pacers + 2 spinners) because their spinners are not as good/consistent as Lyon and the same applies to their pacers relative to Aussie pacers. Their overall batting strength would still be on par in spite of playing 6 bowlers because that bowling line up would have the likes of Stokes, Moeen, Curran, Rashid who as a unit contribute very well to the batting score.

 

People on this forum tend to look at individual players in isolation and constantly worried about the definition of a player who contributes with both bat and ball. Whether he is a batsman who can bowl or a bowler who can bat or is he good enough to bat at #7 or can he get into the team on bowling alone etc. etc. Better way to look at is whether that playing XI together can score enough runs and pick 20 wickets to win a test match. 

 

that is exactly this England team is doing at the same time. Are Ali,Rashid,Stokes, Curren  ATG all rounders??? No , but all of them combined  win them match after match.

[Ankit_sharma03]

3 hours ago, Stan AF said:

And that's how Irfan Pathan lost his bowling.

no he lost his bowling coz he fiddled with action a lot and his fitness started going down , other all rounder didnt

[Ankit_sharma03]

5 hours ago, Khota said:

Tell me exactly what has England won so far?

a series in SL....where recently Sa was thrashed badly 

before that beat India in their own backyard......beating a strong team at home is no less of feat

[Global.Baba]

40 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

that is exactly this England team is doing at the same time. Are Ali,Rashid,Stokes, Curren  ATG all rounders??? No , but all of them combined  win them match after match.

Stokes has a shot at being one. 6 100s one of them a 250, 16 50s, 4 4 wicket hauls and 4 5 wicket hauls in tests

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by Global.Baba

[philcric]

44 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

that is exactly this England team is doing at the same time. Are Ali,Rashid,Stokes, Curren  ATG all rounders??? No , but all of them combined  win them match after match.

 

I'm with you on this.

 

You could be a genuine all rounder (could get into team either on batting or bowling alone, very rare, Shakib is probably the only one at the moment), or a batsman who can bowl, or a bowler who can bat, or a player who is valuable only with batting+bowling skills combined. What matters is the overall balance of the team, and the batting and bowling strength of all playing XI combined.