Ok Calm your tits everyone

[vice]

So India lost, no biggie.  My observations:

 

England won the toss and chose to bat. 

 

They read the conditions better by picking Plunket.  

 

India didn't rotate their bowlers well esp when the spinners were getting hammered in the 10-25 over range.  When they were hammering at 10rpo in the 10-25 over range, needed to bring in a strike bowler to keep it quite.  Starc was brought in by Finch when Williamson/Taylor partnership was threatening and quickly got the breakthrough.

 

Kohli's captaincy is very predictable or has a template to it.  Even when the main spinners were getting hammered, could have tried Jadhav and even in previous games, Shankar was barely used at all.  

 

India was lacking a 4th pacer who could vary the pace.

 

England targeted the boundaries.England hit 13 sixes compared to India's one.

 

Pandya after being hit early quickly adapted by bowling change of pace/cutters, bouncers,etc. Mixed it up well

 

England bowlers bowled with a plan by using cutters/change of pace.. This is quite handy as pressure builds up and batsmen have to go for shots.

 

Rahul's timidness and fear of failure. People's patience is running out for him.  We might see either a different approach or swap him from opening position.

 

The top 3 are looking to build the innings which isn't bad for 250-280 scores but for chasing almost 350, India needs one of them to kick on early or have a pinch hitter.

 

Pandya was timing it beautifully early on and splitting the field easily but then England changed their tactics and Pandya wasn't able to adapt and everything was going to the fielders on the off side especially towards long off.  England had covered that area and bowlers were bowling according to the field.  I was surprised, Pandya wasn't able to counter attack by playing cut shots and maneuver the field. 

 

Indian batsmen also weren't able to take advantage of the short boundary to maneuver the field according to them.  Played into England's hand with those change of pace/cutters/etc

 

Kohli was batting beautifully and actually leading the charge with Rohit was struggling early on but Kohli got out at the wrong time once again.  I don't know what it is like 5 fifties?  Needs to convert. 

 

India had done really well peg back England in the 31-40 over range  after the 10-20 over carnage, but gave back the momentum back to England in the last 10-12 overs. While Bumrah kept one end tight, bowlers from the other end in Chahal/Shami were going for 10-15 runs regulary in the last 10 overs. 

 

In the end, I believe the bowling was the difference between the two sides with England having around 5 pacers to bowl change of pace deliveries whereas India got exposed by the spinners. 

 

But what's all this about India not 'showing their hand'? Spin duo card was shown quite clearly and so was Bumrah/ Shami . What else was left?  Dhoni and Jadhav not 'showing their hand' to England in the death overs?

 

Sure I was quite pissed that India lost the match which I believe was quite chaseable. Anyways, at the end of the day, should be another important lesson for India and good preparation for the knockouts.  

 

[vvvslaxman]

1 hour ago, Reddysaab said:

save the shpiel brother.

 

this was a tactical loss and very correct one.

 

otherwise we were looking at CT finals repeat. then if we lose in semis to Pak, we will be distraught

 

Shastri realized this and acted and rightly so

uh what. So it is okay to get thumped by England again on designer pitch? This is even more infuriating .

[Reddysaab]

24 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

uh what. So it is okay to get thumped by England again on designer pitch? This is even more infuriating .

send me ur paypal account emailid. i will take a $500 bet with you that if india faces england in semis, we will win for sure. only team that can beat us in semi is pakistan bcos of the high pressure stakes

[Reddysaab]

its going to be a India v Australia final with Virat Kohli lifting the WC at Lords

[sandeep]

5 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

Imagine the Australian team of late 90's and early 2000. Would they shut shop? Would they play anything else but aggressive? If we want to be at the top, we need to keep proving it all the time, we need to be ruthless. 

 

And thereby lies the difference between a great team and just a good team. What feels bad is, the team is beatable not because of lack of talent, but because every time a wrong selection is being done just to benefit a handful. And everybody's turning a blind eye to it.

Here we go, your "great team" played 13 overs to score 19 runs, to knock out New Zealand from the 1999 World Cup and gain maximum points for super 6 stage. 

 

In this case, there happens to be a great instance of where the mythology of the "great" Aussie team who played "anything else  but aggressive".   This is what I meant, let's not get carried away and give undeserving overly hagiographic credit to teams of the past. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/1999/may/31/cricketworldcup1999.cricketworldcup5

 

Quote

The day England disappeared from the World Cup also turned out to be the day the tournament disappeared up its own rear end. Some have thought the complexities of the qualification system unfathomable. Yesterday the Australians fathomed them, and the result was a dreadful and shameful game of cricket.

Australia are now in the Super Six, and they may well have taken the West Indians with them - at the expense of New Zealand. The problem was that once it was clear Australia were bound to win, it suited both teams for them to do so as slowly as possible. The Aussies had to win inside 47.2 overs to go through. They were always likely to do this after they had bowled West Indies out for 110 and got within 19 of victory with almost half their overs left. Then they stamped on the brakes. The game maundered on for another 13 overs, with neither team trying to end it.

Australia wanted to stop New Zealand, not out of some atavistic bit of regional hatred (though there's a bit of spikiness there) but because of the peculiar workings of the Super Six. A few days ago the consensus was that the system being used in this tournament was all rather elegant; its downside has now been exposed. Remember that teams who qualify carry through results against the opponents who go through with them. Because Australia beat West Indies but lost to New Zealand they want the team they beat to qualify. Got that?

This event being in the Information Stone Age, most spectators won't have done. As you would expect, Steve Waugh did. Ruthlessly, heedlessly, he and Michael Bevan drove almost half the crowd towards the exits and sent the rest into chants of "boring". Later, both he and Brian Lara admitted trying to use the rules to their advantage but they denied collusion - angrily, in Lara's case. Steve Rixon, the New Zealand coach, said he would have done the same in Waugh's shoes. But he is an Aussie, after all.

 

[maniac]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Here we go, your "great team" played 13 overs to score 19 runs, to knock out New Zealand from the 1999 World Cup and gain maximum points for super 6 stage. 

 

In this case, there happens to be a great instance of where the mythology of the "great" Aussie team who played "anything else  but aggressive".   This is what I meant, let's not get carried away and give undeserving overly hagiographic credit to teams of the past. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/1999/may/31/cricketworldcup1999.cricketworldcup5

 

 

Point is they won first and then did the calculations. Not throw away the game.

 

Its like say you need 1 run to win with 100 balls to spare and the non-strike  batsman is on 99 and a batsman on strike plays out a maiden to give him the strike, that is acceptable because the end result is win.

 

How are you equating that to blocking and not attempting to win for some dumb NRR.

 

You know that god forbid something unusual happens and we lose the next 2 games badly there is still a mathematical probability for us to get knocked out right?

Edited July 1, 2019 by maniac

[philcric]

5 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Steve Rixon, the New Zealand coach, said he would have done the same in Waugh's shoes. But he is an Aussie, after all.

 

 

[Vijy]

5 minutes ago, maniac said:

Point is they won first and then did the calculations. Not throw away the game.

 

Its like say you need 1 run to win with 100 balls to spare and the non-strike  batsman is on 99 and a batsman on strike plays out a maiden to give him the strike, that is acceptable because the end result is win.

 

How are you equating that to blocking and not attempting to win for some dumb NRR.

 

You know that god forbid something unusual happens and we lose the next to games badly there is still a mathematical probability for us to get knocked out right?

it usually does when kohli captains.

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

Point is they won first and then did the calculations. Not throw away the game.

 

Its like say you need 1 run to win with 100 balls to spare and the non-strike  batsman is on 99 and a batsman on strike plays out a maiden to give him the strike, that is acceptable because the end result is win.

They manipulated the game results, crawling for 13 overs, and denied "entertainment" to the crowd.  Here's what the guardian went on to say:

 

Quote

 Steve Waugh did. Ruthlessly, heedlessly, he and Michael Bevan drove almost half the crowd towards the exits and sent the rest into chants of "boring". Later, both he and Brian Lara admitted trying to use the rules to their advantage but they denied collusion - angrily, in Lara's case. Steve Rixon, the New Zealand coach, said he would have done the same in Waugh's shoes. But he is an Aussie, after all.

Rixon's men are now faced with a fiendish set of calculations affecting their game against Scotland today. The point of the tactics at Old Trafford was to make their task as hard as possible by improving West Indies' overall differential. New Zealand probably now have to win by something between 110 and 120 runs if they bat first, and to get their runs in less than 25 overs if they bat second.

It's not quite as simple as that, but life is short. This is nothing to do with Messrs Duckworth and Lewis but something to do with Messrs Net and Runrate. As if cricket wasn't complicated enough. The football World Cup realised years ago that the last matches of qualification groups need to be played simultaneously. The most amusing outcome will be West Indies getting through, striking form and stuffing Australia in the semi-final.

It's hard to imagine that, though. The poor devils who paid to watch this (forgoing Manchester City) got freezing cold and no apologies.

 

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

How are you equating that to blocking and not attempting to win for some dumb NRR.

 

You know that god forbid something unusual happens and we lose the next to games badly there is still a mathematical probability for us to get knocked out right?

If you really want to get into "mathematical probabiliity", Sambit Bal on cricinfo posted the calculations - thanks to "dumb NRR", India have to lose by 70+ runs and BD have to win another game by 70+ runs to get ahead of India into the semifinals.  If Dhoni and Jadhav had gotten out cheaply attempting to "entertain the crowd", it could come down to 60 run margins. 

 

So by arguments of "mathematical probability", Dhoni's call was the right one.  I happen to disagree, I would have preferred to see him try and smack a few.  But I can appreciate a differing perspective even while disagreeing with it - without resorting to throwing hate-feces and casting aspersions on the players whom I am supposedly rooting for. 

 

 

[maniac]

Just now, sandeep said:

They manipulated the game results, crawling for 13 overs, and denied "entertainment" to the crowd.  Here's what the guardian went on to say:

 

 

If you really want to get into "mathematical probabiliity", Sambit Bal on cricinfo posted the calculations - thanks to "dumb NRR", India have to lose by 70+ runs and BD have to win another game by 70+ runs to get ahead of India into the semifinals.  If Dhoni and Jadhav had gotten out cheaply attempting to "entertain the crowd", it could come down to 60 run margins. 

 

So by arguments of "mathematical probability", Dhoni's call was the right one.  I happen to disagree, I would have preferred to see him try and smack a few.  But I can appreciate a differing perspective even while disagreeing with it - without resorting to throwing hate-feces and casting aspersions on the players whom I am supposedly rooting for. 

 

 

So you are saying it is unheard of or impossible to lose to Bangladesh by 70 runs? 

 

We lost to Pak by 150 runs in CT did you miss it while marching to the anthem of the Azad hind fauj?

 

Point is you need to try and win the game first. 5 overs 70 runs is not impossible, 10 overs 100 runs is relatively easy especially for a top side.

 

Boring or clinical cricket to win a game is totally different from a game where you don’t show intent and give up.

[maniac]

You don’t lose without getting allout and that too with 5 wickets in hand chasing a stiff target. Period. It was pathetic game.

 

Apart from a few people every one including top players are calling them out on it. Now Pakistanis might have a different theory but the NRR theory is dumb as well.

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

Point is you need to try and win the game first. 5 overs 70 runs is not impossible, 10 overs 100 runs is relatively easy especially for a top side.

Point is I'll trust the judgement of a professional cricketer out in the middle - about the conditions, and the probabilities of success, rather than those of an armchair fantasist who wants Rohit Sharma to be given another 6 chances in test cricket. Or is it 10 now? 

 

Again, you and the others on this thread are making me repeat myself - but let me do it one more time - I disagree with the choice made by Dhoni & co.  But I am pointing out that there is a certain logic behind the choice and jumping to conclusions, and venting your spleen by writing trash accusations, simply because as a fan, you didn't get to see what YOU wanted, is not objective, nor fair. 

 

 

[maniac]

Just now, sandeep said:

Point is I'll trust the judgement of a professional cricketer out in the middle - about the conditions, and the probabilities of success, rather than those of an armchair fantasist who wants Rohit Sharma to be given another 6 chances in test cricket. Or is it 10 now? 

 

Again, you and the others on this thread are making me repeat myself - but let me do it one more time - I disagree with the choice made by Dhoni & co.  But I am pointing out that there is a certain logic behind the choice and jumping to conclusions, and venting your spleen by writing trash accusations, simply because as a fan, you didn't get to see what YOU wanted, is not objective, nor fair. 

 

 

The only logic for a sportsman is to win. Period. 

 

everything else looks like clutching at straws and trying to find excuses for a pathetic performance.

 

If Dhoni’s attitude is to give up and start thinking about NRR that is flawed thinking and should be rightfully punished. I would rather accept that he was incompetent and failed than saying that he deliberately decided to block and improve NRR.

 

There is no gold standard for logic, I am sure a suicide bomber has some sort of logic in his head for what he doing but doesn’t make it right   

[maniac]

@sandeep if you think Dhoni’s approach was wrong then why the fk are you playing devil’s advocate? Are you a hired attorney by Rhiti inc.

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

The only logic for a sportsman is to win. Period. 

Win the tournament is the greater goal.  If there is some marginal run rate advantage to be gained, along with some psychological advantage - then that has to be acknowledged.  Just because you'd prefer that the team pursue the best outcome, and not settle for the secondary one, doesn't mean that the 'logic' used by the team is comparable to the obviously flawed logic of a "suicide bomber". 

 

But your acumen (lack of) specializes in bullshit strawman arguments, so its not surprising that you make a dumb analogy like that. 

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, maniac said:

@sandeep if you think Dhoni’s approach was wrong then why the fk are you playing devil’s advocate? Are you a hired attorney by Rhiti inc.

Pakistani logic.  If you don't see it "my" way, you must be part of the yahoodi conspiracy.

[sandeep]

6 minutes ago, maniac said:

@sandeep if you think Dhoni’s approach was wrong then why the fk are you playing devil’s advocate? Are you a hired attorney by Rhiti inc.

I'll give you a honest answer as well -

 

As a fan, I am trying to get my head around how the game played out, and why the team did what it did.  Especially because its not something that I would have done.  

 

Plenty of folks around here have mindlessly attributed the decision to all kinds of trashy reasons - Dhoni wanted to save his "average" etc, they wanted to knock out Pakistan etc etc.  

 

Thinking about the game, a plausible alternative came to mind, and felt it was worth the discussion.

[maniac]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

Win the tournament is the greater goal.  If there is some marginal run rate advantage to be gained, along with some psychological advantage - then that has to be acknowledged.  Just because you'd prefer that the team pursue the best outcome, and not settle for the secondary one, doesn't mean that the 'logic' used by the team is comparable to the obviously flawed logic of a "suicide bomber". 

 

But your acumen (lack of) specializes in bullshit strawman arguments, so its not surprising that you make a dumb analogy like that. 

How does NRR guarantee winning a tournament over winning a match? That’s the dumbest thing I have heard from you in a while (take it as a compliment that you have upped your game recently)

 

so if we have a great NRR and end up on 2 or 3 we might face Pakistan or England both relatively tougher opponents than Newzealand if we lose.

 

We still have to go 2 full games trying to confirm our slot.

 

There are too many intangible factors.

 

The only way is to win. Are you telling me there was some master statistician who told Dhoni and Jadhav 308 is the par score based on this advanced predictive model and these guys are so talented that they ensured we got there as if they can control their own destiny. This is way too a convenient argument.

 

 

We needed 100 runs and had 6 wickets in hand, even if we went in a blaze of glory we would have max lost by 50 runs that is in case we lost.  Atleast we would have tried. Also it wasn’t like Dhoni was batting with a no.11, he was batting with a no.7 a guy who is infact a frontline batsman.

 

I think sometimes you just want to play the devil’s advocate just for the sake of it

[maniac]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I'll give you a honest answer as well -

 

As a fan, I am trying to get my head around how the game played out, and why the team did what it did.  Especially because its not something that I would have done.  

 

Plenty of folks around here have mindlessly attributed the decision to all kinds of trashy reasons - Dhoni wanted to save his "average" etc, they wanted to knock out Pakistan etc etc.  

 

Thinking about the game, a plausible alternative came to mind, and felt it was worth the discussion.

That’s a fair answer but that doesn’t mean you make up theories justifying it. It was pathetic and should be rightfully called out.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, vice said:

Rahul's timidness and fear of failure. People's patience is running out for him.  We might see either a different approach or swap him from opening position.

 

This is a major concern for me.  KLPD got a golden opportunity to cement himself as 3rd opener thanks to Dhawan's injury and he is seriously fluffing it.  Not just because of his results, which are poor - but because of the way he's going about it.  It doesn't bode well going forward either.

 

1 hour ago, vice said:

In the end, I believe the bowling was the difference between the two sides with England having around 5 pacers to bowl change of pace deliveries whereas India got exposed by the spinners. 

Agree 100%

 

1 hour ago, vice said:

Sure I was quite pissed that India lost the match which I believe was quite chaseable. Anyways, at the end of the day, should be another important lesson for India and good preparation for the knockouts. 

Agree 100%.

 

1 hour ago, vice said:

But what's all this about India not 'showing their hand'? Spin duo card was shown quite clearly and so was Bumrah/ Shami . What else was left?  Dhoni and Jadhav not 'showing their hand' to England in the death overs?

 

If we're going to sit here and seriously consider motivations like "preserving ODI average" etc,  I think its way more plausible that a Pandya could have attempted to counter England's bowling tactics, but maybe chose not to.  Not claiming that this is what happened, but its a possibility.  Its possible that Dhoni could have attempted a few low percentage shots that he may be working on - a scoop, walking around the crease - although that's not really his batting method, he prefers to be balanced and use his hands and power instead of being mobile - but it is realistic that they would have been more pro-active in attempting to bat with more "intent" if this was a more meaningful game. 

 

And there is some value in not "showing your hand" in terms of adjustments that you may have.  As well as a bit of psychological advantage in letting England have the league stage win, but still maintaining the facade that you didn't play your 'A' game and exhaust all possibilities.