Who should bat at #4 in the WC?

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

How many you need, you tail cannot score and you don't have a middle order. 45/0 is better than 80/2 in India's case.Unless top3 end up with 500 plus runs each, India is going nowhere in this cup.

No 45/0 is not better than 80/2.  Especially if Virat is walking in at 80/2, and we have one of Dhawan/Rohit still at the crease, with Dhoni, Jhadav, Hardik to follow.  And especially if the track is a road, like 80% of ODI tracks in England have been over the last few years.  

 

I'd take 80/2 every single ODI with Virat walking in, and Rohit not out having faced 30 balls already.  

 

Now I'm not saying India need to imitate England's batting tactics all the way, what I'm saying is that they need to aim at 70 in the 1st 10, even if 1 wicket falls in the process.  Can't do that if Virat is at #3, because if we are 80/2 with Virat back in the hut, that's a very different ball game.  This is why a KL Rahul or a Rishabh Pant should have been given a minimum of 10 games as ODI opener over the last 24 months.  To see how the player does, and how the rest of the batting unit adapts.  Work the kinks out of the new strategy.  

 

But naah.  Let's wait till 5-8 games left for the WC, so that we can say that there's "not enough time" to make 'radical' changes.   There is one team in the modern ODI era that has won more ODI WC than any other - and their selectors - while having their own set of flaws - consistently use bilateral ODIs as a test-bed with a clear view to build the best possible squad and XI for the WC.  England ODI team, coaching staff, board, selectors - everybody, has been planning and thinking about 2019 WC since 2015.  Our captain is more dedicated to doing PR for "athleisure", wedding apparel, etc than to building the best possible ODI XI for the WC.  

[sandeep]

9 minutes ago, putrevus said:

2011 was loaded lineup which could sustain early wickets and still chase 270 plus. Do you think this line up will chase the same score 270 plus from 20/2 in any match.

2011, India was the strongest batting unit - not just on paper, but in terms of run output.  Can't say that today.  Yes, we have a bit of fragility in our middle order - that is an undeniable fact.  But I would assert that pound for pound, India have a better list of available ODI batsmen to select from, than England.  I refuse to believe that the likes of Alex Hales, Jason Roy etc are better than Dhawan/Rohit/KL Rahul.  But those guys are comfortably out-producing our batsmen.  consuming fewer deliveries.  Not because they are better batsmen, but they are a better unit as a sum of their parts.  

 

I'm not arguing for India to aim for 400 every game.  I'm arguing for them to stop settling for 320.  Aim at 350, and you'd be surprised how often the team ends up going comfortably past 350.  Because looting 75+ runs in the 1st 10 really sets the rest of the game up.  It forces the bowling team to switch to plan B, use up its best bowlers in an attempt to stem the flow, get defensive in their bowling plans as well as their field placing.   

 

This really isn't rocket science.  

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

No 45/0 is not better than 80/2.  Especially if Virat is walking in at 80/2, and we have one of Dhawan/Rohit still at the crease, with Dhoni, Jhadav, Hardik to follow.  And especially if the track is a road, like 80% of ODI tracks in England have been over the last few years.  

 

I'd take 80/2 every single ODI with Virat walking in, and Rohit not out having faced 30 balls already.  

 

Now I'm not saying India need to imitate England's batting tactics all the way, what I'm saying is that they need to aim at 70 in the 1st 10, even if 1 wicket falls in the process.  Can't do that if Virat is at #3, because if we are 80/2 with Virat back in the hut, that's a very different ball game.  This is why a KL Rahul or a Rishabh Pant should have been given a minimum of 10 games as ODI opener over the last 24 months.  To see how the player does, and how the rest of the batting unit adapts.  Work the kinks out of the new strategy.  

 

But naah.  Let's wait till 5-8 games left for the WC, so that we can say that there's "not enough time" to make 'radical' changes.   There is one team in the modern ODI era that has won more ODI WC than any other - and their selectors - while having their own set of flaws - consistently use bilateral ODIs as a test-bed with a clear view to build the best possible squad and XI for the WC.  England ODI team, coaching staff, board, selectors - everybody, has been planning and thinking about 2019 WC since 2015.  Our captain is more dedicated to doing PR for "athleisure", wedding apparel, etc than to building the best possible ODI XI for the WC.  

How can you be 80/2 and have both Rohit and Kohli still not out. For this team to win either Rohit or Kohli have to bat till 45th over.

 

This team means the squad selected.What you have said does not apply.

[sandeep]

22 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

We scored more than 45 in the powerplays in 2011 as well, with Sehwag and Sachin opening.

Yes, but 310 was a "winning" score in those days.  Today, its barely par.  

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

How can you be 80/2 and have both Rohit and Kohli still not out. For this team to win either Rohit or Kohli have to bat till 45th over.

 

This team means the squad selected.What you have said does not apply.

Because you'd have KL Rahul either opening or at #3.  So you lose one of the openers for "this team", and Rahul.  

 

What I said is still doable for this team, not that they will do it. 

[putrevus]

Just now, sandeep said:

2011, India was the strongest batting unit - not just on paper, but in terms of run output.  Can't say that today.  Yes, we have a bit of fragility in our middle order - that is an undeniable fact.  But I would assert that pound for pound, India have a better list of available ODI batsmen to select from, than England.  I refuse to believe that the likes of Alex Hales, Jason Roy etc are better than Dhawan/Rohit/KL Rahul.  But those guys are comfortably out-producing our batsmen.  consuming fewer deliveries.  Not because they are better batsmen, but they are a better unit as a sum of their parts.  

 

I'm not arguing for India to aim for 400 every game.  I'm arguing for them to stop settling for 320.  Aim at 350, and you'd be surprised how often the team ends up going comfortably past 350.  Because looting 75+ runs in the 1st 10 really sets the rest of the game up.  It forces the bowling team to switch to plan B, use up its best bowlers in an attempt to stem the flow, get defensive in their bowling plans as well as their field placing.   

 

This really isn't rocket science.  

Alex Hales and co are not better than Indian top three. But they have a lineup which can bat till no11. They have that liberty like Sehwag had, to attack from ball 1 .Sehwag was given license to attack knowing fully well they had lineup which could absorb his early dismissal.

 

Indian top three cannot take those chances period.You cannot aim for 350 in this team, 300 is the upper limit that too on a good day. This team is built to score 270 plus. They just don't have any batting depth.

 

Shankar's upper limit is 50, I will be surprised if he scores 50.Top3 have been covering so many holes in this team. I wish they had flopped miserably so atleast that would have forced to bring some new talent.It is a sin that guy like Pant has not been given enough chances in this team.

[putrevus]

10 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Because you'd have KL Rahul either opening or at #3.  So you lose one of the openers for "this team", and Rahul.  

 

What I said is still doable for this team, not that they will do it. 

Rahul was never the answer nor he will be the answer. He has no game to be consistent in odis.

[zen]

2 hours ago, sandeep said:

45/0 is just fine?  Again.  Please "ask Alexa" what date it is.  Hint: Its not 2011.  

Teams lose by 1 run and games could go to the last ball .... but we have guys who write stuff like "it is ok to be 20 runs short in PPs"  

 

.... and then go on to create a strawman like "we do not need to play like Eng", when the point is about optimizing the batting 

 

Some of the reasons for this could be that Ind has never been great in sports so many lack that killer instinct and overall understanding of sports. At times, their favorite players are past their best but folks still try to support them. They know they can't get better to try to settle for reduced performance even at the team's cost 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by zen

[putrevus]

Why stop at 80/2 , India was capable of scoring 149/2 in 15 overs way back in 2004 .So this notion that England has somehow reinvented the wheel by having attacking openers is false, what England has done is create a line up which could bat till no 10. India cannot match England's firepower.

 

India has weakest middle order and lower middle order of all teams.People are expecting 80/2 from this team and then what get all out for 150.

Edited April 18, 2019 by putrevus

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

 

Indian top three cannot take those chances period.You cannot aim for 350 in this team, 300 is the upper limit that too on a good day. This team is built to score 270 plus. They just don't have any batting depth.

 

ODI innings is 300 deliveries.  You don't have survive 3 sessions. just 300 deliveries.  Yes, Indian team does not have optimal batting depth, but we have enough to make it work.  India need to re-jig their batting order and tactics, so that Rohit and Virat look to anchor the innings - while the other 3 batsmen look to attack.  If one or both of the primary anchors goes cheap, we can move Dhoni up from #7 to #5.  

 

Dhawan & KL Rahul to open - with clear instructions to aim for 70+ in the 1st 10.  Doesn't mean they slog from ball 1.  But none of this 25 ball 12 business that Rohit indulges in.  

Rohit/Virat -  If wicket falls early, i.e. before 11th over, Rohit, else Virat.  

If we have a wobble and lose 3 wickets before the 18th over, send Dhoni in to do his patented front-foot block.  Else in 9 games out of 10, he bats only after Jadhav and Pandya.  Never before.  He's basically playing in the ODI team like we used to play Saha in the test team - quality gloveman, batting is a bonus.  

 

You can't play a game with a defeatist negative mindset, claiming we can only win if 2 "hero" players play well.  Their "heroic" numbers are being scored from plum positions in the batting order, in heavy scoring games on flattish tracks against weak opposition.  There is no reason to believe that KL Rahul can't replicate Rohit Sharma's success at the top of the order. As it is, 4 games out of 5, Rohit Sharma gets dismissed for a paltry score with a sub-75 strike rate, i.e. a deadweight performance that drags the team's winning percentage way down.  

[sandeep]

21 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Rahul was never the answer nor he will be the answer. He has no game to be consistent in odis.

Give KL Rahul or Rishabh Pant the same opportunities that Rohit got, before writing them off.  

[sandeep]

7 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Why stop at 80/2 , India was capable of scoring 149/2 in 15 overs way back in 2004 .So this notion that England has somehow reinvented the wheel by having attacking openers is false, what England has done is create a line up which could bat till no 10. India cannot match England's firepower.

 

India has weakest middle order and lower middle order of all teams.People are expecting 80/2 from this team and then what get all out for 150.

This false dichotomy of either settle for 300, or be 150 all out, is phattu bullshit.  Tweaking the lineup by inserting a batsman at #1 or #3, instead of at #4 is neither a major change, nor a major risk.  Only thing at risk is the reduced chances for Brohit (Bunty's jamaai) and Virat (Bunty's primary client) to rack up centuries.  

 

Top order batting slots are not maibaap ki jaagir that these guys are squatting on it like Kaalia Naag.   

[sandeep]

17 minutes ago, putrevus said:

So this notion that England has somehow reinvented the wheel by having attacking openers is false,

What England have done, is use their batting depth to change the role definition for ODI openers.  Indian team gives their openers the luxury of "getting set", seeing off the new ball, etc in the name of giving the team a "good start", "platform" etc.  England demands that their opener target 80 runs on the team scoreboard in the 1st 10.  They don't give their batsman the excuse of "you go and bat big, and the team score will eventually benefit".  The openers job is to assess conditions, and get the team run-rate and score on optimal trajectory.  And if you get your individual milestone in that process, great.  Not ass-backwards like the Indian "think tank".  

 

What England does, is accept a much higher risk of wicket loss, even multiple wicket loss in the 1st 15, betting that the middle order will be able to rebuild if necessary.  Or that in all likelihood, the gambit will succeed.   Indian team, by contrast, puts an unnecessary maximum ceiling on their optimal team score, in order to minimize the chances of an early collapse.  And guess what, even with the so-called "safe" approach, we still have our share of collapses anyway.  

 

 

While India do not possess the same batting depth as England, they don't have to aim for 80.  But even aiming for 65 or 70, would have a massive impact on our batting output.  This is a very simple and obvious point, once you grasp it. 

Edited April 18, 2019 by sandeep

[putrevus]

3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

ODI innings is 300 deliveries.  You don't have survive 3 sessions. just 300 deliveries.  Yes, Indian team does not have optimal batting depth, but we have enough to make it work.  India need to re-jig their batting order and tactics, so that Rohit and Virat look to anchor the innings - while the other 3 batsmen look to attack.  If one or both of the primary anchors goes cheap, we can move Dhoni up from #7 to #5.  

 

Dhawan & KL Rahul to open - with clear instructions to aim for 70+ in the 1st 10.  Doesn't mean they slog from ball 1.  But none of this 25 ball 12 business that Rohit indulges in.  

Rohit/Virat -  If wicket falls early, i.e. before 11th over, Rohit, else Virat.  

If we have a wobble and lose 3 wickets before the 18th over, send Dhoni in to do his patented front-foot block.  Else in 9 games out of 10, he bats only after Jadhav and Pandya.  Never before.  He's basically playing in the ODI team like we used to play Saha in the test team - quality gloveman, batting is a bonus.  

 

You can't play a game with a defeatist negative mindset, claiming we can only win if 2 "hero" players play well.  Their "heroic" numbers are being scored from plum positions in the batting order, in heavy scoring games on flattish tracks against weak opposition.  There is no reason to believe that KL Rahul can't replicate Rohit Sharma's success at the top of the order. As it is, 4 games out of 5, Rohit Sharma gets dismissed for a paltry score with a sub-75 strike rate, i.e. a deadweight performance that drags the team's winning percentage way down.  

IMO Rahul is not the answer , I am not going to break up my top three for Rahul . If Shankar flops which I think he will then Rahul will play at no4 and you just hope top three does the job.This team has to hope that bowlers do their jobs.Any match where top three fail, it will be very difficult for this team to win.

 

Rahul is only other specialist bat in this squad ( how can anyone select just three fast bowlers and 4 batsmen it is so stupid), so he might end up playing at no3 majority of match with Kohli at no4 just to extend the lineup.

[putrevus]

16 minutes ago, sandeep said:

This false dichotomy of either settle for 300, or be 150 all out, is phattu bullshit.  Tweaking the lineup by inserting a batsman at #1 or #3, instead of at #4 is neither a major change, nor a major risk.  Only thing at risk is the reduced chances for Brohit (Bunty's jamaai) and Virat (Bunty's primary client) to rack up centuries.  

 

Top order batting slots are not maibaap ki jaagir that these guys are squatting on it like Kaalia Naag.   

Stop with nonsenical conspiracy theories.They are not batting safe because of their connections. They know they are the only hope for this team so they have to bat safe for this team to win. Rahul is not great by any means.Rahul was never the answer for any of the India's batting problems.He is not that good period.

Edited April 18, 2019 by putrevus

[Ankit_sharma03]

19 hours ago, putrevus said:

Rahul was never the answer nor he will be the answer. He has no game to be consistent in odis.

ppl use to say same about rohit 

What is it in his game that he cant be consistent btw ?

[putrevus]

20 hours ago, sandeep said:

What England have done, is use their batting depth to change the role definition for ODI openers.  Indian team gives their openers the luxury of "getting set", seeing off the new ball, etc in the name of giving the team a "good start", "platform" etc.  England demands that their opener target 80 runs on the team scoreboard in the 1st 10.  They don't give their batsman the excuse of "you go and bat big, and the team score will eventually benefit".  The openers job is to assess conditions, and get the team run-rate and score on optimal trajectory.  And if you get your individual milestone in that process, great.  Not ass-backwards like the Indian "think tank".  

 

What England does, is accept a much higher risk of wicket loss, even multiple wicket loss in the 1st 15, betting that the middle order will be able to rebuild if necessary.  Or that in all likelihood, the gambit will succeed.   Indian team, by contrast, puts an unnecessary maximum ceiling on their optimal team score, in order to minimize the chances of an early collapse.  And guess what, even with the so-called "safe" approach, we still have our share of collapses anyway.  

 

 

While India do not possess the same batting depth as England, they don't have to aim for 80.  But even aiming for 65 or 70, would have a massive impact on our batting output.  This is a very simple and obvious point, once you grasp it. 

There is nothing backward thinking in it. If you feel Rohit Sharma is wasting PP then find someone who is good enough to replace him. There is nobody who is better than him as of today. 

 

Kohli has shown in few matches if bats with freedom he can also be more explosive but he has told many times , he has the responsibility towards his team so he cannot take chances.

 

England can play with higher risks as they have a longer lineup.Indian lineup ends at no3 so they cannot be as explosive as England.

Edited April 19, 2019 by putrevus

[Khota]

Rahul. This is a no brainer. Rahul is 10 times the bat Shankar is or the other choices.

[zen]

In a bilateral series, you can even play a Bhuvi/Ashwin/Jadeja at 4. A tourney like WC esp. in round robin format where teams are expected to beat not only  minnows but 4-5 major teams, you need match winning  batsmen in your top 5

 

A team can afford to take calculated risks with a stroke-maker at the top where a team needs to leverage on PP but at #4, you need to have a versatile batsman, who can play as per situation. Be able to build an inning if wickets fall, play till the end if situation demands, take calculated risks if opportunity presents, etc., .... 

 

[zen]

the below looks like the best 11 (from those in the squad) that Ind can start with 

 

Rohit

Dhawan

Kohli

KL

Pandya

Dhoni

Jadeja/Jadhav/Shankar 

4 bowlers