How useful would Shankar + Jadhav be in the WC19?

[vvvslaxman]

 

 

1

 

 

1

4 minutes ago, zen said:

A team needs different type of batsmen. We have Kohli to anchor the innings and aim for consistency. The likes of Dhoni are there too to use their experience. Therefore, guys like Pant make even more sense to try to take the game away from the other team. If they get out, we still have others. If they succeed, Ind puts up an above par total or ends up with a beneficial NRR

 

Ind not only needs Pandya but likes of Pant as well. Both of them need to be played in optimal batting positions 

From whatever i have seen he has an unreliable slogging technique which has so far worked only in IPL.  In this edition alone he has played atleast 4 or 5 ridiculous shots few of them came when the team was on the brink of  a victory. Pant's wicket can be treated as bonus wicket only if he plays as a keeper not as a specialist batsman especially with woeful tailenders. They cannot go on a whim he will succeed. 90% of the time with our current bowling we are not even required to "take the game away" from anyone.  We just have to play sensible cricket. India won couple of one dayers like that in Australia. Any slogging at that time would result in a dramatic collapse while chasing a meagre total. Pant doesn't have the maturity to construct a one day innings. Either boom or bust. Bit like Afridi. 

[rkt.india]

I go by potential of a player and what is the team requirement.  i am not advocating for Pant in Indian team right now because he can only play in place of Dhoni as he is a very bad fielder which is not unexpected from someone who has always been a keeper. 

 

My point is about consistency or lack of it.  You need different type of batsmen in the team.  Pant is not like Kohli or Dhoni.  You want him to blast the opposition out.  It may not happen all the time, but he is a match winner when he clicks.  we need match winners in the team.  Shankar is okayish but yet to show he can win a game, Rayudu, Jadhav are not match winners.  Champion teams need match winners.  Our top 3 are match winners on their day but none after that.  Panday bats too low to have a huge effect in ODIs. We had Yuvraj before who was not the most consistent but was a match winner.  Pant is in the same mold.  The guy is doing never seen before things at the age of 21.  I dont remember any batsman even close to him at the same age and he is still developing his game.  We need to give him as much international exposure possible after WC.

 

@vvvslaxman

[zen]

32 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Buddy, you need to understand that India is not going to get all out more often than not in batting friendly conditions, so there is no point in constantly talking about tailenders. Batting friendly conditions = opportunity for a batsman to do well, back himself, play his shots and so on. No sportsman should play with fear of failure but look forward to succeeding in such conditions  

 

As for Pant, I have no issues with his approach as long as he can craft out a few match-winning/impactful innings, which he has played wherever he has got a consistent run, whether in IPL or Tests (where he has 100s in Eng and Aus). We have batsmen, who play more conservatively in the line up as well 

 

As far as I am concerned, we are playing sensible cricket. The great WI had the best bowling attack and still its batsmen played to take the game away from the opposition. Tomorrow, you will say Viv Richards did not need to score at an SR of 90+ in an era where batsmen went at 60-70 and the bowling attack that WI had. In 2003 final, Aus scored 360 on a good batting surface despite having a strong attack. When you bat, the goal is to try to take the game away or at least put an above par total or vice versa when bowling

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by zen

[vvvslaxman]

8 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

I go by potential of a player and what is the team requirement.  i am not advocating for Pant in Indian team right now because he can only play in place of Dhoni as he is a very bad fielder which is not unexpected from someone who has always been a keeper. 

 

My point is about consistency or lack of it.  You need different type of batsmen in the team.  Pant is not like Kohli or Dhoni.  You want him to blast the opposition out.  It may not happen all the time, but he is a match winner when he clicks.  we need match winners in the team.  Shankar is okayish but yet to show he can win a game, Rayudu, Jadhav are not match winners.  Champion teams need match winners.  Our top 3 are match winners on their day but none after that.  Panday bats too low to have a huge effect in ODIs. We had Yuvraj before who was not the most consistent but was a match winner.  Pant is in the same mold.  The guy is doing never seen before things at the age of 21.  I dont remember any batsman even close to him at the same age and he is still developing his game.  We need to give him as much international exposure possible after WC.

 

@vvvslaxman

No way Yuvraj can be compared with Pant. Even at the age of 18 Yuvraj displayed measured aggression against the likes of Mcgrath while scoring 80 odd runs. He believes in getting into position first before hitting. Pant is just the opposite. At this point he has to develop more gears to be a successful one day batsman. Even in T20 internationals, he has this confused approach when he can't find the gaps. Ironically he looks a better test bat as he is able to protect his wicket when needed and hit boundaries with field up. If you want to become a specialist batsman play like one. Viru was a special genius. He was extremely smart about his placement.  Jadhav,Shankar are not picked because they are match winners. They are there because they could potentially offer 6th bowling option. Only one of them will play.

[vvvslaxman]

1 minute ago, zen said:

Buddy, you need to understand that India is not going to get all out more often than not in batting friendly conditions, so there is no point in constantly talking about tailenders. Batting friendly conditions = opportunity for a batsman to do well, back himself, play his shots and so on. No sportsman should play with fear but look forward to succeeding in such conditions  

 

As for Pant, I have no issues with his approach as long as he can craft out a few match-winning innings, which he has played wherever he has got a consistent run, whether in IPL or Tests (where he has 100s in Eng and Aus). We have batsmen, who play more conservatively in the line up as well 

 

As far as I am concerned, we are playing sensible cricket. Unless you are confusing playing like a wuss being sensible. The great WI had the best bowling attack and still its batsmen played to take the game away from the opposition. Tomorrow, you will say Viv Richards did not need to score at an SR of 90+ in an era where batsmen went at 60-70.  In 2003 final, Aus scored 360 on a good batting surface despite having a strong attack. When you bat, the goal is to try to take the game away or at least put an above par total or vice versa when bowling

 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10732/scorecard/1034819/india-vs-england-1st-odi-england-tour-of-india-2016-17

 

Can you tell me how India won this match? And why do you think current line up is a "wuss" line up without Pant. 

 

What about this innings where Dhawan/Kohli/Rahul all got out and score was 25/3 and India ended up with 381? Indi was 43/3 after 10 overs.  Current Indian team has high number of 300 plus chases, also setting of 300 plus totals. This line up has mastered the art of constructing one day innings. THey don't need certain "Pant" to teach them how to get there. 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10732/scorecard/1034821/india-vs-england-2nd-odi-england-tour-of-india-2016-17

 

 

About the West Indies, you know how good a batsman Marshall, Roberts, Holding were?  They had Dujon batting at 7 as Richards could bowl 12 overs along with Gomez. 

 

Current line up's problem is batting stops at 7.  They cannot afford a collapse in any match. Don't say teams should not collapse. Australia collapsed twice in 2003 world cup badly. Both time Andy bichel bailed them out.

 

Against England chasing 208 Australia was 135/8. Bichel and Bevan helped them win  the match from that position. 

 

Against New zealand they were 84/7 after Bond breathing fire. Bichel came in at no.9 made 64 runs which helped them win the match.

 

 

Against Pakistan they were 146/5 after 52/3.  Symonds added 94 runs with no.8, no.9, no.10 to push the total to 310.  

 

You are completely ignoring the worst case scenarios. You are always assuming top 7 can throw the bat around and one of them will  click. That is not how  things happen. Scoring quickly without losing the wicket is not easy.  In a high pressure worldcup match if you collapse you could lose to even a minnow side like we did against Bangladesh in 2007 world cup when  we had Tendulkar,Dravid, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Dhoni. 

 

Remember 1987 world cup against Pakistan. Amir SOhail was bossing our attack. One indiscrete shot. It set off a dramatic collapse. Set the panic.

 

 

[zen]

52 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10732/scorecard/1034819/india-vs-england-1st-odi-england-tour-of-india-2016-17

 

Can you tell me how India won this match? And why do you think current line up is a "wuss" line up without Pant. 

 

What about this innings where Dhawan/Kohli/Rahul all got out and score was 25/3 and India ended up with 381? Indi was 43/3 after 10 overs.  Current Indian team has high number of 300 plus chases, also setting of 300 plus totals. This line up has mastered the art of constructing one day innings. THey don't need certain "Pant" to teach them how to get there. 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10732/scorecard/1034821/india-vs-england-2nd-odi-england-tour-of-india-2016-17

 

 

About the West Indies, you know how good a batsman Marshall, Roberts, Holding were?  They had Dujon batting at 7 as Richards could bowl 12 overs along with Gomez. 

 

Current line up's problem is batting stops at 7.  They cannot afford a collapse in any match. Don't say teams should not collapse. Australia collapsed twice in 2003 world cup badly. Both time Andy bichel bailed them out.

 

Against England chasing 208 Australia was 135/8. Bichel and Bevan helped them win  the match from that position. 

 

Against New zealand they were 84/7 after Bond breathing fire. Bichel came in at no.9 made 64 runs which helped them win the match.

 

 

Against Pakistan they were 146/5 after 52/3.  Symonds added 94 runs with no.8, no.9, no.10 to push the total to 310.  

 

You are completely ignoring the worst case scenarios. You are always assuming top 7 can throw the bat around and one of them will  click. That is not how  things happen. Scoring quickly without losing the wicket is not easy.  In a high pressure worldcup match if you collapse you could lose to even a minnow side like we did against Bangladesh in 2007 world cup when  we had Tendulkar,Dravid, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Dhoni. 

 

Remember 1987 world cup against Pakistan. Amir SOhail was bossing our attack. One indiscrete shot. It set off a dramatic collapse. Set the panic.

 

 

I don’t see any reason for not backing youngsters such as Pant, who is being promoted because potentially he is one of the best upcoming players. And someone who can single handedly turn the game like the innings in the scorecard that you presented. Sooner or later, he is going to be in the team so sooner the better 

 

In the scorecards that you presented, Ind did not get all out so again I do not see the point of constantly complaining about tailenders on good batting surfaces. Also a data was shown by me on one of the threads, where a vast majority of runs were scored by the top 7. Last 4 avg was in the 13-15 range for top teams 

 

Those collapses that you talked about only shows that no matter what you plan or how strong your batting is, it can collapse or lose early wkts. You can be 80/7 even if you try to shut the shop at 50/3 for e.g. but get to a good total by playing positively. If X played an unexpected inning to rescue his team, a Bhuvi/Shami can do it for Ind too “unexpectedly”.  Which is why good batsmen play normal attacking/positive cricket on good batting wkts (on bowler friendly wkts you obviously play differently)

 

Buddy, I do not understand why you follow sports. If players play with fear of failure, no one is going to hit boundaries but just block and get out. Also playing positively does not mean playing rash shots (repeated a million times) but taking runs constantly by running hard, hitting boundaries in gaps, creating scoring opportunities and putting bad balls away. In every single game, people are going to get out whether through good balls, bad decisions, run outs, good catches, bad shots, and so on. If someone gets out to a bad shot, it does not mean that he would have got a 100 if he had not played that shot. In cricket, you could get out to a good ball the next ball or get run out. Or Sachin Tendulkar would have scored a 100 in every single game 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by zen

[vvvslaxman]

No Zen, you have not watched obviously enough cricket to understand how complex cricket is a sports is. You want everybody bat like Afridi. We saw that with Pant. Failed 4 out of 5 times in the last 5 innings.  You are over-simplifying the batting. India rarely suffered on good batting tracks. If anything we have great FTBs.  I have noticed you appreciating guys who gets out after 2 balls just because he gets out attempting a shot. May be you promoted the theory of attack at all cost and you are forcing yourself to stick by it. If anything you should have learnt from the IPL, team that finished well won more often than not. Russell mania, Pandya blitzkreigs, Pollard mayhem, Dhoni's assault. On the other hand DC sometimes started well only to collapse in the backend. How you finish is more important how you start. It is all the more true in one dayers where you have ample time to catch up. Apart from England majority of the teams struggle to score in the middle overs. But India is good in middle overs compared to others. Only time we go uber slow in middle overs when Dhoni is in so early. It doesn't matter which phase of the innings you score faster, as long as you score faster at some point

[vvvslaxman]

Today CSK was 3 in 4 overs or so ended up with 179 simply by preserving the wickets.  DC on the other hand did not value preserving the wickets and imploded.

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10732/scorecard/1034819/india-vs-england-1st-odi-england-tour-of-india-2016-17

 

Can you tell me how India won this match? And why do you think current line up is a "wuss" line up without Pant. 

 

What about this innings where Dhawan/Kohli/Rahul all got out and score was 25/3 and India ended up with 381? Indi was 43/3 after 10 overs.  Current Indian team has high number of 300 plus chases, also setting of 300 plus totals. This line up has mastered the art of constructing one day innings. THey don't need certain "Pant" to teach them how to get there. 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/10732/scorecard/1034821/india-vs-england-2nd-odi-england-tour-of-india-2016-17

 

 

About the West Indies, you know how good a batsman Marshall, Roberts, Holding were?  They had Dujon batting at 7 as Richards could bowl 12 overs along with Gomez. 

 

Current line up's problem is batting stops at 7.  They cannot afford a collapse in any match. Don't say teams should not collapse. Australia collapsed twice in 2003 world cup badly. Both time Andy bichel bailed them out.

 

Against England chasing 208 Australia was 135/8. Bichel and Bevan helped them win  the match from that position. 

 

Against New zealand they were 84/7 after Bond breathing fire. Bichel came in at no.9 made 64 runs which helped them win the match.

 

 

Against Pakistan they were 146/5 after 52/3.  Symonds added 94 runs with no.8, no.9, no.10 to push the total to 310.  

 

You are completely ignoring the worst case scenarios. You are always assuming top 7 can throw the bat around and one of them will  click. That is not how  things happen. Scoring quickly without losing the wicket is not easy.  In a high pressure worldcup match if you collapse you could lose to even a minnow side like we did against Bangladesh in 2007 world cup when  we had Tendulkar,Dravid, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Dhoni. 

 

Remember 1987 world cup against Pakistan. Amir SOhail was bossing our attack. One indiscrete shot. It set off a dramatic collapse. Set the panic.

 

 

Yuvraj and Dhoni both are past their best.  After top 3, there is none who you can expect to scorer 300 plus.

 

India team never really had batting after 7.  So giving examples of Australia does not work in Indian scenario.  top 3 bats slow because our middle order is nonexistent at this point and not reliable.

Edited May 2, 2019 by rkt.india

[zen]

6 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

No Zen, you have not watched obviously enough cricket to understand how complex cricket is a sports is. You want everybody bat like Afridi. We saw that with Pant. Failed 4 out of 5 times in the last 5 innings.  You are over-simplifying the batting. India rarely suffered on good batting tracks. If anything we have great FTBs.  I have noticed you appreciating guys who gets out after 2 balls just because he gets out attempting a shot. May be you promoted the theory of attack at all cost and you are forcing yourself to stick by it. If anything you should have learnt from the IPL, team that finished well won more often than not. Russell mania, Pandya blitzkreigs, Pollard mayhem, Dhoni's assault. On the other hand DC sometimes started well only to collapse in the backend. How you finish is more important how you start. It is all the more true in one dayers where you have ample time to catch up. Apart from England majority of the teams struggle to score in the middle overs. But India is good in middle overs compared to others. Only time we go uber slow in middle overs when Dhoni is in so early. It doesn't matter which phase of the innings you score faster, as long as you score faster at some point

I have watched and played enough cricket to spot an armchair expert like you! 

 

If you ever held a bat, you should know that it is about execution. I can hit a ball for a 6 and get out on a similar ball. The fact is until I attempt the shot, I do not know the result.  Similarly, I can get out playing a defensive shot as well. An armchair expert would clap at the 6 and criticize my batting when I mishit a similar shot on a similar delivery with the benefit of hindsight. The fact is that if a ball can be hit, a batsman will attempt a shot. Until the contact is made with the hittable ball, no one knows the result. Most of benchmark-able batsmen play positively. Have you seen how Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Richards play and particularly start their inning? 

 

By suggesting that I want everyone to play like Afridi, you are either misrepresenting my position or do not understand the depth of what is being said. All teams need a variety of batsmen, it would need Kohlis too and big hitters like Afridi, Pandya, etc, too. No team will have everyone playing like a Kohli or a Afridi only. I can misrepresent your position by suggesting that you want everyone to play like a Shastri 

 

On getting out for 2 runs. I do not know where you got it from but it all depends upon situation. If I am chasing 200+ inT20s, I expect my batsman to go for his shots and in that process he can get out, which I am not going to hold it against him. I do not want my batsman to waste precious balls to play 30 of 30 type of innings when asking rate is 10+ at the start and when I have 3-4 batsmen who can win the game for the team. Cricket is a team sport 

 

Like Shastri and Afridi extremes, you have created another black and white situation where now there is a clash b/w starting well and ending well when a team should look to do both. Everyone knows well began is half done and SRH got a good total recently by starting well (you can find examples for everything) 

 

May be it is time for you to move away from your computer and play some sports! 

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

Today CSK was 3 in 4 overs or so ended up with 179 simply by preserving the wickets.  DC on the other hand did not value preserving the wickets and imploded.

DC had started well they were 60 plus in PP.  Their problem is nonexistent middle order like Indian team.  They have no batsman after Pant.  Preserving wickets is no guarantee of a good ending.  We should always look to have a good start because that is the best time to score quickly in LOIs.  There is a reason openers are the most successful batsmen in LOI history.  

[vvvslaxman]

 

 

1

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

DC had started well they were 60 plus in PP.  Their problem is nonexistent middle order like Indian team.  They have no batsman after Pant.  Preserving wickets is no guarantee of a good ending.  We should always look to have a good start because that is the best time to score quickly in LOIs.  There is a reason openers are the most successful batsmen in LOI history.  

MI pretty much won all their matches due tot heir big finish. Same with CSK. Both of them are slow starters. No batsman after Pant. Their depth is so bad that even 20 odd runs they couldn't manage against good death bowling. All the more reason the top order had to stay right till the end. You cannot justify blind slogging knowing well you don't have anyone after you. Your batting should based on what your team strength is not what the norm is.  There are times run may be harder to come at the top like we saw in NZ. 

 

Most recently England scored 402 runs between 11th and 50th overs against Australia

Against Srilanka India scored 359 runs between 11th and 50th over

Against Windies India scored 314 runs between 11th and 50th over.

 

If you look at IPL most of the gigantic run sequence came in the end overs. You could have amazing top order. But if you don't have anyone to pick up the pace in the middle order late order you are pretty much out of it. 

 

 

In the Ashton turner match that Australia won, they were like 43/2 chasing 359. THey won with balls to spare.

 

End over hitting is 10 times more important. At best you can get 30 run above par in power play by playing uber aggressively You are not going to get like 135 in the first 10 overs very often like you get in the last 10. In last 10 you can get as high as 150, 160. India makes up for it in the middle overs big time. Very few can score as fast as Kohli in the middle overs that too with zero risks.  

 

Team like cannot afford to batsman blindly slog upfront unless you have someone like Sehwag who can place the ball in the gaps. Even he was not a resounding success in the one dayers like in Tests. 

[vvvslaxman]

 

 

 

4 hours ago, zen said:

I have watched and played enough cricket to spot an armchair expert like you! 

 

If you ever held a bat, you should know that it is about execution. I can hit a ball for a 6 and get out on a similar ball. The fact is until I attempt the shot, I do not know the result.  Similarly, I can get out playing a defensive shot as well. An armchair expert would clap at the 6 and criticize my batting when I mishit a similar shot on a similar delivery with the benefit of hindsight. The fact is that if a ball can be hit, a batsman will attempt a shot. Until the contact is made with the hittable ball, no one knows the result. Most of benchmark-able batsmen play positively. Have you seen how Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Richards play and particularly start their inning? 

 

By suggesting that I want everyone to play like Afridi, you are either misrepresenting my position or do not understand the depth of what is being said. All teams need a variety of batsmen, it would need Kohlis too and big hitters like Afridi, Pandya, etc, too. No team will have everyone playing like a Kohli or a Afridi only. I can misrepresent your position by suggesting that you want everyone to play like a Shastri 

 

On getting out for 2 runs. I do not know where you got it from but it all depends upon situation. If I am chasing 200+ inT20s, I expect my batsman to go for his shots and in that process he can get out, which I am not going to hold it against him. I do not want my batsman to waste precious balls to play 30 of 30 type of innings when asking rate is 10+ at the start and when I have 3-4 batsmen who can win the game for the team. Cricket is a team sport 

 

Like Shastri and Afridi extremes, you have created another black and white situation where now there is a clash b/w starting well and ending well when a team should look to do both. Everyone knows well began is half done and SRH got a good total recently by starting well (you can find examples for everything) 

 

May be it is time for you to move away from your computer and play some sports! 

Tell me in which match our top order pushed the asking rate beyond 10 while are they are at the crease.

 

[putrevus]

Fast start is not at all imperative for India to score runs.Keep wickets intact is far more important.Top three are capable enough to increase the tempo if they are set.Kohli and Dhawan always score fast.If Rohit takes time so be it.There is nobody after them to score runs.

[vvvslaxman]

Having Dhoni at 80/3 at 11th over  is worse than going in at 55/0 in first 10 overs. At best we may score 30 runs more than par.  Pandya can make it up big time when he is up against the tired bowlers with old ball.

[putrevus]

3 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Having Dhoni at 80/3 at 11th over  is worse than going in at 55/0 in first 10 overs. At best we may score 30 runs more than par.  Pandya can make it up big time when he is up against the tired bowlers with old ball.

If they are 80/3 in 11th over with top three  back in the hut,they might end up with with less than 200.Dhoni is scoring all these runs in IPL he will become his usual self in odis.You can make a case for India having the worst middle order and their tail is the worst among all the teams playing in cup.

[zen]

what is this fascination w/ making up random numbers? If random numbers are to be generated: 

 

• 70/1 after 10 > 75/1 after 15
• 80/1 after 10 > 80/3 after 20 
• 65/0 after 10 > 45/0 after 10
• 100/2 in 15 overs > 100/2 in 23 overs 
• and so on 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2019 by zen

[zen]

If Jadhav is injured and Shankar likely to wither away, the chances of Ind having to field the below sooner than later in the tourney increases:

 

Rohit

Dhawan

Kohli

KL

Pandya

Dhoni

Jadeja

Kuldeep / Chahal

Bhuvi / Chahal

Shami

Bumrah 

[bowl_out]

 

 

Similar IPL stats this year for 1d and 3d

 

Edited May 5, 2019 by bowl_out

[vvvslaxman]

40 minutes ago, bowl_out said:

 

 

Similar IPL stats this year for 1d and 3d

 

Put strike rate lol Rayudu has something like 90