Let's keep track of number of dot balls wasted by Rohit Sharma in each innings.

[zen]

5 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

Shankar has played lesser matches than Rahul. Yet he is making most of the chances, whereas Rahul isn't. Shankar could also flop and give the excuses but he isn't doing.

 

If this was 400 batting track then what did Rahul and Jadhav do. In that case their performances should come under scanner.

Shankar has played the whole series. KL could have done better but not being harsh on him at this point as it was his first ODI game after some time (and was considered out of form too) 

[Straight Drive]

15 minutes ago, zen said:

Shankar has played the whole series. KL could have done better but not being harsh on him at this point as it was his first ODI game after some time (and was considered out of form too) 

Shankar has batting average of 37.25 at strike rate of 99.33 from  4 ODI innings.  Rahul has bating average of 34.3 at strike rate 80.9 from 13 ODI innings.

 

Shankar has better batting average and much higher strike rate.

 

Rahul also has been around international team (test) for 4 years. What use has be made of having taken the coaching and facilities received in 4 years. He has also faced Indian blowers in nets and international bowlers in tests. Has he made use of that yet? Whereas Shankar on other hand without being around international squad or exposure to international bowlers is performing early in career.

 

A player occupying a spot in Indian ODI  team with batting average of 34 at strike rate of 80.9 should consider himself lucky rather than being treated harshly.That average is fine for Afghanistan, Pakistan,Bangladesh or SriLankan specialist batsmen but not for Indian ODI specialist batsmen.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Straight Drive

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

Shankar has batting average of 37.25 from 4 ODI innings.  Rahul has bating average of 34.3 from 13 ODI innings. Rahul also has been around international team (test) for 4 years. What use has be made of having taken the coaching and facilities received in 4 years. Shankar on other hand without being around international squad is performing early in career.

 

A player occupying a spot in Indian ODI  team with batting average of 34 at strike rate of 80.9 should consider himself lucky rather than being treated harshly.That average is fine for Afghanistan, Pakistan,Bangladesh or SriLankan specialist batsmen but not for Indian ODI specialist batsmen.

Irrelevant points as when you are in and out, it can be difficult for some players vs when you have played a few games in the series. No one is saying Shankar is bad or Rahul is good (or is treated harshly. he was rightly dropped for his bad form) but we are only considering the circumstances  (and giving some leeway based on those) .... It appears as if you have not understood the post 

Edited March 11, 2019 by zen

[vvvslaxman]

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/13455/scorecard/416239/india-vs-australia-4th-odi-australia-tour-of-india-2009-10

 

Tendulkar at MOhali against Australia lol 68 balls out of which 48 dot balls. That makes him tuk tuk Tendulkar. 

 

[Straight Drive]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

Irrelevant points as when you are in and out, it can be difficult for some players vs when you have played a few games in the series. No one is saying Shankar is bad or Rahul is good (or is treated harshly. he was rightly dropped for his bad form) but we are only considering the circumstances  (and giving some leeway based on those) .... It appears as if you have not understood the post 

Not at all irrelevant because Shankar is out performing Rahul as specialist batsman by 3 runs per innings and also outperforming Rahul by 18 runs more per hundred balls. He is a clear winner in that comparison. Can you mention in what aspect is Rahul better than Shankar as far as actual performances is concerned.

 

As for circumstances, Rahul and Jadhav batted on a wicket which according to you was 400 one. Yet there was a fault in someone who scored 92 runs at more than run a ball but others who could not even score 30's at a pathetic strike rate escape criticism.

 

 

 

 

[vvvslaxman]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8532/scorecard/535797/bangladesh-vs-india-4th-match-asia-cup-2011-12

 

72 dot balls Tendulkar lol Guys you could make anyone look bad with stupid "dot ball filter"

[vvvslaxman]

1 minute ago, Straight Drive said:

Not at all irrelevant because Shankar is out performing Rahul as specialist batsman by 3 runs per innings and also outperforming Rahul by 18 runs more per hundred balls. He is a clear winner in that comparison. Can you mention in what aspect is Rahul better than Shankar as far as actual performances is concerned.

 

As for circumstances, Rahul and Jadhav batted on a wicket which according to you was 400 one. Yet there was a fault in someone who scored 92 runs at more than run a ball but others who could not even score 30's at a pathetic strike rate escape criticism.

 

 

 

 

5

If he has no answer his typical go to statement "it is irrelevant". 

[Lannister]

1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

What are you talking about? Kohli scored 122 of 95 balls. Dots are irrelevant in big picture. Modern cricket is more about 4s and 6s.

If he indeed wasted 6 overs in dots, as you said, I don't see how he would have chased that score with that approach. 

 

I am not blaming him for that loss as he was coming off from a lean form, and he didn't get any support from other batsmen. I wonder what was the second best batsman in the team doing then. 

[vvvslaxman]

8 minutes ago, Lannister said:

If he indeed wasted 6 overs in dots, as you said, I don't see how he would have chased that score with that approach. 

 

I am not blaming him for that loss as he was coming off from a lean form, and he didn't get any support from other batsmen. I wonder what was the second best batsman in the team doing then. 

So basically when someone bowls a good ball somehow the batsman has to take risk and score runs lol. If we are talking about Kohli missing full tosses like KL Rahul i can agree.  Let us say if Kohli scores 122 singles in 122 balls .. That makes it  a better innings than 122 in 95 balls?  We have guys like Amla bhai does that.

[zen]

21 minutes ago, Straight Drive said:

Not at all irrelevant because Shankar is out performing Rahul as specialist batsman by 3 runs per innings and also outperforming Rahul by 18 runs more per hundred balls. He is a clear winner in that comparison. Can you mention in what aspect is Rahul better than Shankar as far as actual performances is concerned.

Where am I comparing Rahul with Shankar. I am saying that Rahul can be given leeway because it was his first game in the ODI series (and been in and out of the side) vs. others including Shankar, who have played more games in the series. I have no problems if Shankar opens with Dhawan for e.g. .... If Rohit came after a break and scored a 90 of 90 on a 350-400 pitch, I would have given him some leeway as well .... Rahul vs Shankar is irrelevant to the discussion

 

Quote

As for circumstances, Rahul and Jadhav batted on a wicket which according to you was 400 one. Yet there was a fault in someone who scored 92 runs at more than run a ball but others who could not even score 30's at a pathetic strike rate escape criticism.

As mentioned Rahul just returned, while Jadhav played only 12 balls. I hope you realize that towards the end the batsman is trying to hit both good and bad balls, and does not have the luxury of opening the innings and picking balls to hit. If Shankar, Pant, etc., get the same luxury as Tuktuk does, they would score at a higher SR than Tuktuk 

Edited March 11, 2019 by zen

[vvvslaxman]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8038/scorecard/1133003/united-arab-emirates-vs-west-indies-6th-match-group-a-icc-cricket-world-cup-qualifier-2017-18

 

Chris gayle 91 balls. 45 dot balls. against uAE. He made 123 in 91 balls. All his sixes came towards the end.  

[zen]

9 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8038/scorecard/1133003/united-arab-emirates-vs-west-indies-6th-match-group-a-icc-cricket-world-cup-qualifier-2017-18

 

Chris gayle 91 balls. 45 dot balls. against uAE. He made 123 in 91 balls. All his sixes came towards the end.  

How is that relevant? .... The problem is the batman does not know when he will pull off a good inning (or Rohit would be hitting 100s in every game) and when Rohit scored at below par SR even after playing 90+ balls (and he does that more often than not) .... If you want to pull random scorecards, you can do that for Rohit's 100s too. I am sure, he would have some innings where he would have played a lot of dot balls but eventually ended up with a higher SR 

Edited March 11, 2019 by zen

[ShoonyaSifar]

3 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8038/scorecard/1133003/united-arab-emirates-vs-west-indies-6th-match-group-a-icc-cricket-world-cup-qualifier-2017-18

 

Chris gayle 91 balls. 45 dot balls. against uAE. He made 123 in 91 balls. All his sixes came towards the end.  

See how the phoney analyst is ignoring all such stats. Run this dot ball analysis for Sehwag, Gilly, Sachin, Ganguly, Ponting, Sanga, Kohli, Root - all of them top ODI batsmen who batted in the top order.

 

But Don’t ruin his day any further please. He/She has discovered a new toy of dot balls.

 

1. You do not understand 

2. Your stats/posts are irrelevant 

3.Yours posts are zero value while his analysis deserves a Nobel or a Field’s medal for its novelty and great service to mankind.

[vvvslaxman]

6 minutes ago, zen said:

How is that relevant? .... The problem is the batman does not know when he will pull off a good inning (or Rohit would be hitting 100s in every game) and when Rohit scored at below par SR even after playing 90+ balls (and he does that more often than not) .... If you want to pull random scorecards, you can do that for Rohit's 100s too. I am sure, he would have some innings where he would have played a lot of dot balls but eventually ended up with a higher SR 

"How is that relevant" you should your moniker to this. lol It means "i am hopelessly exposed"

[vvvslaxman]

Lack of basic understanding of nuances in cricket. We can't help it. Probably started following cricket few years back?

[zen]

5 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

"How is that relevant" you should your moniker to this. lol It means "i am hopelessly exposed"

If meanings are to be deduced -> I will take it as you also believing that Tuktuk needs to get off the blocks quickly or be dropped 

 

Thank you! 

Edited March 11, 2019 by zen

[Lannister]

15 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

So basically when someone bowls a good ball somehow the batsman has to take risk and score runs lol.

That is the point of LOIs. Keep the dot balls to absolute minimum and rotate strike as much as possible. That's why Kohli is so successful in this format. 

 

19 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Let us say if Kohli scores 122 singles in 122 balls ..

Rotating strike will give an equal opportunity to your partner at the other end. Just because you scored a boundary, doesn't mean you block the next 4 balls. 

[vvvslaxman]

1 minute ago, Lannister said:

That is the point of LOIs. Keep the dot balls to absolute minimum and rotate strike as much as possible. That's why Kohli is so successful in this format. 

 

Rotating strike will give an equal opportunity to your partner at the other end. Just because you scored a boundary, doesn't mean you block the next 4 balls. 

Dot balls are bad for players like Amla, Pujara, Rahane. Not for six hitting monsters llike  Rohit sharma, Gayle.  They will more than make up.   India lacks big hitters especially six hitters. All are "innings builders".  There is nobody anywhere remotely close in India to Rohit sharma when it comes to pulling ball fast bowlers for sixes or straight driving them for sixes.  You need players who can produce big overs on demand. Not generic singles players like Amla. Too bad we have only one Rohit sharma. Thought KL Rahul would become a bit more consistent. But he is an useless show pony. Play well one innings, disappear for the next 10. 

[zen]

19 minutes ago, Lannister said:

That is the point of LOIs. Keep the dot balls to absolute minimum and rotate strike as much as possible. That's why Kohli is so successful in this format. 

 

Rotating strike will give an equal opportunity to your partner at the other end. Just because you scored a boundary, doesn't mean you block the next 4 balls. 

Your thread has these dumb fanboys rushing with their mouths foaming

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by zen

[zen]

12 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Dot balls are bad for players like Amla, Pujara, Rahane. Not for six hitting monsters llike  Rohit sharma, Gayle.  They will more than make up.   India lacks big hitters especially six hitters. All are "innings builders".  There is nobody anywhere remotely close in India to Rohit sharma when it comes to pulling ball fast bowlers for sixes or straight driving them for sixes.  You need players who can produce big overs on demand. Not generic singles players like Amla. Too bad we have only one Rohit sharma. Thought KL Rahul would become a bit more consistent. But he is an useless show pony. Play well one innings, disappear for the next 10. 

the only scoring stroke is a 6! .... and you see only Tuktuk Sharma .... Great!

 

Demand is to get off the blocks quickly

Edited March 11, 2019 by zen