Would we have won had Jadeja played instead of Umesh?

[Ankit_sharma03]

Just now, Trichromatic said:

Difference doesn't decrease linearly. A 40 runs lead translateso to 70 runs in 4th inning.

 

With Jadeja India would have easily saved 30-40 runs in first inning, 15-20 runs in 2nd inning, probably added 15-20 extra in first inning. Chasing 200-210 could have been completely different scenario. India might have lost even then, but then mentality is different.

 

Having said that all these are could have, would have been scenarios even though something similar happened in first test.

he wud have been economical for sure

about batting against pace n bounce, i have no faith in his batting specially on this pitch 

[Sgattick10]

No. 

[Trichromatic]

27 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

he wud have been economical for sure

about batting against pace n bounce, i have no faith in his batting specially on this pitch 

That's why I said 15-20 runs extra (partnership runs).

 

Economical bowler is a huge plus especially if he is a workhorse. In 3rd inning, Bumrah and Shami bowled a lot. You could see that Kohli wanted to go back to Bumrah and reluctant to try Yadav who was leaking runs. It impacts whole team.

 

1. Captain becomes reluctant to set aggressive field for all bowlers. Someone like Kohli who is reactive captain will never be in comfortable position with expensive bowlers.

 

2. Your main bowlers are overbowled. Bumrah and Shami bowled 17-20 overs. Your economical spinner can be used to tie up one end while main pacer bowls at full steam.

 

3. Batsman find it easier to negotiate main bowlers. Remember Khawaja(?) dismissal in first test. Runs dried up and he just got frustrated. Happened in 2nd also, when Bumrah bowled very tight line and some other bowler took wicket (Ashwin or Shami?). If you have an expensive bowler, no matter what batsman won't even bother as he knows that someone like Bumrah won't bowl 40 mins later. 

 

4. Above points are not even taking conditions into account. Yadav got 2 wickets for 139. Spinner won't match Lyon's 8-106, but could have easily done better than 2-139.

 

In a line up of Ishant v1.0, RP Singh, Sreesanth, having a spinner doesn't matter because you don't have good bowlers. But when you have 1 world class pacer, 1 rhythm bowler and 1 support bowler in best form of his life then you need someone to support them and not diminish their returns.

 

It's like if someone is batting at 100 then you need someone who can support him and hang in there from lower order, not someone who goes for big sixes. In that case someone scoring 10 off 40 balls will feel like gold and dismissing them as not effective to justify other who goes for sixes and get out for 10 of 8 balls, doesn't make sense even when both were low scorers.

 

Here Bumrah and co are those bowlers who needs others to hang in there.

[rkt.india]

11 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

Difference doesn't decrease linearly. A 40 runs lead translateso to 70 runs in 4th inning.

 

With Jadeja India would have easily saved 30-40 runs in first inning, 15-20 runs in 2nd inning, probably added 15-20 extra in first inning. Chasing 200-210 could have been completely different scenario. India might have lost even then, but then mentality is different.

 

Having said that all these are could have, would have been scenarios even though something similar happened in first test.

yes. Umesh single handedly lost us this game. Even BK would not have done so much wrong. 2 wickets for 140 runs with RR close to 4 on that kind of a pitch.

[velu]

On 12/18/2018 at 11:59 AM, Pollack said:

Win or lose doesn't matter. Jaddeja or Kuldeep should have replaced Ashwin.

 

lyon tries to hit the rough 9/10 times when there is some rough ..

bakchod ashwn tries to avoid hitting the rough  

[rkt.india]

This loss is solely on Kohli's shoulder by selecting Umesh.

Edited December 19, 2018 by rkt.india

[Rasgulla]

We would have won playing with 10 players minus Umesh. Pant hands were hurting from phastttt yadav. 

[Rasgulla]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

This loss is solely Kohli's shoulder by selecting Umesh.

 Looks like spearhead of phastt gang has turned his back on Umesh. Chalo atleast you aren't hiding like @Mosher and Express  and @speedheat 

[rkt.india]

22 minutes ago, Rasgulla said:

 Looks like spearhead of phastt gang has turned his back on Umesh. Chalo atleast you aren't hiding like @Mosher and Express  and @speedheat 

You and also the captain need to understand the difference.  i am not saying drop him forever but he is not made for tests in SENA.  He is good at home so should be played only at home.

Edited December 19, 2018 by rkt.india

[GolGappe]

I don't think Jadeja would have made that big of a difference.

I don't think current Indian team can chase 150+ against any decent bowling attack away from home.

 

Half of the match was lost the moment Kohli lost the toss and the deal was pretty much sealed when Aussies openers put on 100+ for the opening partnership.

[maniac]

Am I missing something here? Jadeja has been on par with  Ashwin as an overseas bowler and worse as a batsman

[Austin 3:!6]

37 minutes ago, maniac said:

Am I missing something here? Jadeja has been on par with  Ashwin as an overseas bowler and worse as a batsman

Abe tu wapas aa gaya?

 

Woh Dot baba kaha gaya?

[rkt.india]

10 hours ago, GolGappe said:

I don't think Jadeja would have made that big of a difference.

I don't think current Indian team can chase 150+ against any decent bowling attack away from home.

 

Half of the match was lost the moment Kohli lost the toss and the deal was pretty much sealed when Aussies openers put on 100+ for the opening partnership.

Ashwin took six wickets in the first test which made a whole lot of difference to final score Australian score