Jump to content

More often than not our overrated batsmen have been culprits in overseas tours


Recommended Posts

Been like that even in 90s. Our batting unit almost always fails to justify its (inflated) reputation. Even in WI and Zimbabwe in the past where we failed to chase modest targets in the 4th or run away with the match in 3rd courtesy big lead. Ability not a question, our pampered batsmen in general lack the grit to grind it out during tough phases outside home soil. In places like Eng/NZ even poor batting units of Pak/Lanka/BD have exhibited more spine. 

 

This series:

1st test no scorecard pressure for bowlers. Even though we conceded some 50 runs extra, 3rd innings capitulation on a patta showed it wouldn't have mattered in the end. Can't win a test even in Zim with 160+190. 

2nd test bowlers brought us back even giving us a vital lead when none of us thought it was possible at end of day 1. Had Vihari not missed a sitter it could have been a 50 runs lead. What do maharathis do next? Get bowled out for 125 to give a paltry target.

 

In RSA and Eng, batsmen (both while batting and when catching) didn't support our top bowling efforts. How easily our TM applies 'horses for courses' policy when it comes to bowlers. But batsmen must play every match, everywhere in the world even if they keep on failing :hatsoff:. Truly this 'caste system' in Indian cricket will never go away, in fact our bowlers are worse than Dalits in the absence of reservation. Watch our experts lambast bowlers while making excuses for the batters. Gavaskar did that A LOT during our 2002 tour to the same country to protect his darlings. 

 

PS- Bowlers have *ed up in the past, but not nearly as much as batsmen. Moreover they aren't the kings in Indian cricket. 

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

you're actually onto something here, even when we were stereotyped as bad travellers because of having poor bowling our successes abroad have come because of spells from the likes of Agarkar, Kumble, Srinath, Prasad, etc while we failed because our star studded batting line up like this tour failed to turn up when it mattered. 

But this batting line isn't star studded. There is only one star that is Kohli. Mayank a newcomer, Shaw a rookie, vihari a new comer. Rahane-pujara both play only test and have been dispensed in the past. In this batting line, Kohli is the only one who is a certain starter and can be called a star. Others all have been dropped on his whims and fancies.

Edited by rkt.india
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

you're actually onto something here, even when we were stereotyped as bad travellers because of having poor bowling our successes abroad have come because of spells from the likes of Agarkar, Kumble, Srinath, Prasad, etc while we failed because our star studded batting line up like this tour failed to turn up when it mattered. 

Some examples to illustrate my point, who do you think the culprits are?

 

BARBADOS 1997

HARARE 2001

HAMILTON 2002

CAPE TOWN 2007

 

3 series wins (2 historic in WI, RSA) and a drawn series offered on a platter by bowlers. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, zen said:

One of the reasons I have stopped rating Indian batsmen too high. Only Gavaskar finds a place in my ATG Test 11. 

Gavaskar made merry against Packer rejects and weak WI attacks. When they were at full strength even he was found wanting. Break down his 100s and you will understand what I am saying. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

But this batting line isn't star studded. There is only one star that is Kohli. Mayank a newcomer, Shaw a rookie, vihari a new comer. Rahane-pujara both play only test and have been dispensed in the past. In this batting line, Kohli is the only one who is a certain starter and can be called a star. Others all have been dropped on his whims and fancies.

this isn't a star studded batting line up but i suppose you get my point, it's not teeming with spuds either and that is one reason why we were given a good chance of winning this series where previously even with more stronger batting units we would have been a long shot. in 'neutral' conditions all things being equal i'd still back our current lineup to score more runs than any other because it's a settled team and they are groomed in a system that teaches you how to build an innings.

Edited by rollingstoned
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Some examples to illustrate my point, who do you think the culprits are?

 

BARBADOS 1997

HARARE 2001

HAMILTON 2002

CAPE TOWN 2007

 

3 series wins (2 historic in WI, RSA) and a drawn series offered on a platter by bowlers. 

indeed our most memorable test wins abroad have come off the back of excellent bowling performances which went unsung while a much-vaunted batting line up flattered to deceive. 

Edited by rollingstoned
Link to comment

We did fail with our new ball bowling though, NZ bowlers striked early, we struggled and let them set the tone even on helpful wickets. Our main bowlers were all seam bowlers, except Ishant. They had to wait till the pitch quickened up, a swing bowler would have made a difference in second test with early wickets. You cannot deny that although the batsmen were at bigger fault for sure

Link to comment

  in  this game. especially w.r.t batting, rookies build in strength from  playing along with experienced  batsmen who perform .  So Virat,Pujara & Rahane

were the experienced ones around whom the rookies needed to built in confidence & become  better players. Then , all the 3 experienced batsmen under performed so emphatically. Kohli can be excused for his extreme workload. But Pujara & Rahane, especially Pujara has no such excuses. He has been the culprit in chief for quite some time now. One down is so vital to a team's fortunes. Pujara keeps on under performing which affects the performance of all the others around him...Rahane too has under performed so badly.   So, firstly the TM need to make right selections.  Selecting incompetent players and then mourning in  defeats accounts for nothing

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

No matter how much we curse our military medium bowlers of the past, fact is they used brains to get batsmen out. Take for example WC 1983. It was the bowlers who won the match. 

Even all the WC wins against Pakistan has come due to performances of our bowlers. Batsmen always have gone hiding when things have gone tough

2003 wc final, 2015 wc sf,2017 champions trophy final, Sydney test 2004, Johannesburg test 2013

Link to comment

Flawed argument. Only those instances are being cited where bowlers, for a change, did a decent job and batsmen failed. For a comprehensive  analysis, we need to see instances of batsmen making the par score but bowlers not delivering. 

Link to comment

125 runs by the Kiwi tail in the 1st test, 80 runs in this test - surely the bowlers had a minor role as well. Not to forget letting Kiwi opener blunt the new ball easily.

 

Senior batsmen have to be blamed (4 of the our top 7 batsmen have played less than 15 tests, 3 of whom were making a comeback in the series- Shaw, Vihari and Pant). Bowlers except Bumrah have all been playing for the last 7-8 years or more and were on their umpteenth tour outside Asia

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ShoonyaSifar said:

125 runs by the Kiwi tail in the 1st test, 80 runs in this test - surely the bowlers had a minor role as well. Not to forget letting Kiwi opener blunt the new ball easily.

Major role, this is easily the worst tail since the spin quartet & even then they had Bedi, Prasanna(?) who were major upgrades from Bumrah & now Shami :facepalm:

Link to comment
8 hours ago, zen said:

One of the reasons I have stopped rating Indian batsmen too high. Only Gavaskar finds a place in my ATG Test 11. 

No Tendulkar?

 

Gavaskar batted at a time when most of us were not born, but some of us are knowledgeable about his great centuries esp the ones in the WI against one of the greatest if not greatest pace attacks ever assembled in Test cricket.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

No matter how much we curse our military medium bowlers of the past, fact is they used brains to get batsmen out. Take for example WC 1983. It was the bowlers who won the match. 

Even all the WC wins against Pakistan has come due to performances of our bowlers. Batsmen always have gone hiding when things have gone tough

Actually it wasnt really the bowlers but a part time bowler that did the damage if I remember the history of this correctly.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, SRT100 said:

but some of us are knowledgeable about his great centuries esp the ones in the WI against one of the greatest if not greatest pace attacks ever assembled in Test cricket.

Not to be a skeptic of arguably our greatest test bat ever but as other have said he didn't score much against their main attack. In fact Amarnath was far ahead of him in that regard, his 500+ runs in 82(?) vs WI in WI is probably the best of the best in terms of performance against their top 4 bowlers ever! SRT though always stood against OZ, at their peak & even when India were nowhere near the force they are now! SMG gets extra brownie points for being an opener plus his superlative record in the 4th innings, if I had to pick one it would still be SRT for his ability to counter any sort of an attack on any surface. However if I am looking just for a draw or an improbable chase SMG would edge him.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...