Positives and negatives in this T20 series

[SK_IH]

31 minutes ago, Gollum said:

If target is 180 Ind prefers to be 70/1 in first 10 and score 110 in last 10. Problem is 1-2 good overs can push the RRR to 14-15 with opponent team holding back a few overs of its spearheads. Too much work for middle order without PP advantage, older ball, slower conditions, more pressure.....

 

Eng prefers to be 100/3 or 110/4 in first 10 and manage 70-80 in last 10. Last T20I against RSA they chased 192 with 15 balls remaining, no last over or taking deep BS. That is ruthlessness, that is the hallmark of a champion side. Ind too can be 192/1 in that position but will take the match to final over because of our consolidation nonsense in PP and lethargy in middle overs. 

 

Eng is the gold standard of modern white ball batting, India's importance lies in the fact that we show the world how not to construct a T20 innings. 

Nicely put. 

[jalebi_bhai]

1 hour ago, SK_IH said:

It's hard to argue with someone who thinks India's top 3 is not an issue. All of the top 3 cannot bat in same tempo & expect miracles.

Targeting power plays is essential.

 

Did we have poor powerplays in the last two games? rr of 10 and 9 respectively. And this is without Rohit. Hardly poor. Yes, PPs must be maximized but that is not achieved by senseless, rush of blood hitting. 

 

No arguments about the tempo. There is room for improvement there. A top 3 of Rohit, Rahul and Kohli can achieve that, not Dhawan. 

 

1 hour ago, SK_IH said:

We can lament as much as we want about middle order being the issue but T20 is only about strikers, you push them up to play most balls. All six batsman have to be six hitters who play the situation instead of consolidation/anchoring, may be one anchor but others have to strike proactively.

 

 

Why play with just 6 six hitters? Why not play 11 six hitters? Score 400 in every match and keep the opposition down to 375. Sure shot formula for victory. No need even for one anchor.

[SK_IH]

4 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

 

Did we have poor powerplays in the last two games? rr of 10 and 9 respectively. And this is without Rohit. Hardly poor. Yes, PPs must be maximized but that is not achieved by senseless, rush of blood hitting. 

 

No arguments about the tempo. There is room for improvement there. A top 3 of Rohit, Rahul and Kohli can achieve that, not Dhawan. 

 

 

 

Why play with just 6 six hitters? Why not play 11 six hitters? Score 400 in every match and keep the opposition down to 375. Sure shot formula for victory. No need for one even anchor.

Top 3 should not be Rahul, Rohit and Kohli. Kohli at 4, no 3 can be someone like Samson who trues to hit from start instead of building an innings. And let Virat take up the responsibility of tough no.4 slot.

 

Regarding the bolded part, don't think the rhetorical statement merits a reply.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Gollum said:

If target is 180 Ind prefers to be 70/1 in first 10 and score 110 in last 10. Problem is 1-2 good overs can push the RRR to 14-15 with opponent team holding back a few overs of its spearheads. Too much work for middle order without PP advantage, older ball, slower conditions, more pressure.....

 

Eng prefers to be 100/3 or 110/4 in first 10 and manage 70-80 in last 10. Last T20I against RSA they chased 192 with 15 balls remaining, no last over or taking deep BS. That is ruthlessness, that is the hallmark of a champion side. Ind too can be 192/1 in that position but will take the match to final over because of our consolidation nonsense in PP and lethargy in middle overs. 

 

Eng is the gold standard of modern white ball batting, India's importance lies in the fact that we show the world how not to construct a T20 innings. 

 

I pointed out the cost of India's conservative batting tactics, even wrote an "article" on ICF - before the 2015 ODI World Cup. The one where England sucked, went away and re-structured its ODI batting philosophy.  

 

Again, its not that the Indian team management and players do not know what needs to be done.  They are not stupid. Its just that their priorities and financial interests are not served by adopting that style of cricket.  

[jalebi_bhai]

13 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

Top 3 should not be Rahul, Rohit and Kohli. Kohli at 4, no 3 can be someone like Samson who trues to hit from start instead of building an innings. And let Virat take up the responsibility of tough no.4 slot.

 

Kohli at 4 doesn't work in T20 anymore. Might as well not play him.

 

Also, what was wrong with my 11 six-hitters suggestion? "Innovation" and "out-of-the-box" thinking is in vogue on ICF atm.

[zen]

Negatives - out dated top order batting culture in terms of impact. still read names of Rohit, Dhawan & Kohli in the T20 setup (probably need to move on from them sooner than later)

 

Positives - SDP (displayed leadership too) and Natarajan. Samson given chances. Iyer and Pandey found out 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by zen

[maniac]

Iyer is fine. That 111m 6 whoa, I think he is a monster 6 hitter, can hit as big 6’s as Rohit when in the zone.

 

 

[rkt.india]

We need to move on from Dhawan-Rohit-Kohli from T20. Make a fresh team.

 

Opener Rahul-Kishan, Samson 3, SKY 4.

[rkt.india]

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

Iyer is fine. That 111m 6 whoa, I think he is a monster 6 hitter, can hit as big 6’s as Rohit when in the zone.

 

 

His hitting range is limited.

[SK_IH]

9 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

 

Kohli at 4 doesn't work in T20 anymore. Might as well not play him.

 

Also, what was wrong with my 11 six-hitters suggestion? "Innovation" and "out-of-the-box" thinking is in vogue on ICF atm.

T20 lineups have to flexible, it should not be a case of accomodating someone at a particular number. If you have to be accomodated at a particular number, then surely that batsman doesn't deserve a place in the side.

 

 

[Ankit_sharma03]

27 minutes ago, maniac said:

Iyer is fine. That 111m 6 whoa, I think he is a monster 6 hitter, can hit as big 6’s as Rohit when in the zone.

 

 

 

Height doesnt matter in the end, what matters is how many can he 

[jalebi_bhai]

32 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

T20 lineups have to flexible, it should not be a case of accomodating someone at a particular number. If you have to be accomodated at a particular number, then surely that batsman doesn't deserve a place in the side.

 

 

 

Umm....you do realize the irony here? The very same logic can be applied to Sanju Samson, who has not crossed 30 even once in 7 innings. 

[SK_IH]

7 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

 

Umm....you do realize the irony here? The very same logic can be applied to Sanju Samson, who has not crossed 30 even once in 7 innings. 

Irony? Kuch bhi? You brought out the point about Kohli's utility only at no.3. 

Where did Samson came in this? The point about Samson or his type of player at no 3 (in fact even one of the opener's slot) is about being beneficial to the team, not the individual.

[jalebi_bhai]

2 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

Irony? Kuch bhi? You brought out the point about Kohli's utility only at no.3. 

Where did Samson came in this? The point about Samson or his type of player at no 3 (in fact even one of the opener's slot) is about being beneficial to the team, not the individual.

 

The irony is you speak about flexibility but only expect it from Kohli and not from Samson. Who is stopping Sanju from striking the ball from the get go at number 4? It would've been very beneficial to the team today. He had enough time today.

 

Why exactly should Kohli sacrifice his utility for the potential of Samson's utility? What has Samson done in his 7 innings to warrant such a huge sacrifice? 

[SK_IH]

2 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

 

The irony is you speak about flexibility but only expect it from Kohli and not from Samson. Who is stopping Sanju from striking the ball from the get go at number 4? It would've been very beneficial to the team today. He had enough time today.

 

Why exactly should Kohli sacrifice his utility for the potential of Samson's utility? What has Samson done in his 7 innings to warrant such a huge sacrifice? 

Firstly it's not about Samson. Anyone who can break the monotony of top 3's ditto batting approach is welcome. I think you conveniently made it a point of assuming flexibility is only expected from Kohli.

Secondly, yes Samson failed today & didn't have breakthrough innings throughout the tour but he deserves chances. He had the right approach, didn't convert but Indian cricket need to invest in such players like Pant, Kishan and Yadav.

 

 

[jalebi_bhai]

10 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

Firstly it's not about Samson. Anyone who can break the monotony of top 3's ditto batting approach is welcome. I think you conveniently made it a point of assuming flexibility is only expected from Kohli.

 

Ok, let's get a bit serious now.

 

Why is the top 3 approach the way it is? Rohit, Rahul, Dhawan or Kohli, any combo of these 3 plays with the same tempo. Is it lack of faith in the middle order, personal style or management directive? This approach has been around since Dhoni's era starting from 2013.

 

17 minutes ago, SK_IH said:

Secondly, yes Samson failed today & didn't have breakthrough innings throughout the tour but he deserves chances. He had the right approach, didn't convert but Indian cricket need to invest in such players like Pant, Kishan and Yadav.

 

And I agree with this. Samson should've opened today imo. However, players must maximize the chances they're given. Sanju has had 5 on the trot I believe in T20s and hasn't grabbed them. There is only so much you can blame the management if you keep throwing away chances.  

[AuxiliA]

3 hours ago, Gollum said:

If target is 180 Ind prefers to be 70/1 in first 10 and score 110 in last 10. Problem is 1-2 good overs can push the RRR to 14-15 with opponent team holding back a few overs of its spearheads. Too much work for middle order without PP advantage, older ball, slower conditions, more pressure.....

 

Eng prefers to be 100/3 or 110/4 in first 10 and manage 70-80 in last 10. Last T20I against RSA they chased 192 with 15 balls remaining, no last over or taking deep BS. That is ruthlessness, that is the hallmark of a champion side. Ind too can be 192/1 in that position but will take the match to final over because of our consolidation nonsense in PP and lethargy in middle overs. 

 

Eng is the gold standard of modern white ball batting, India's importance lies in the fact that we show the world how not to construct a T20 innings. 

 

Good post. However the reason England could afford to play this way is coz they bat really deep. 

 

We can't have that approach with the lower order we have got. What we can do is have aggressive openers with kohli at 3 and then send in batsmen according to the situation like we did in the 2nd T20. 

[putrevus]

Has Samson shown he can bat at this level, so why are people anointing as number three. Pandya who is the finisher of this team failed to finish in 2 out three matches. today's match was well within reach of T20 finisher.

Rahul has not shown he has improved one bit against spinners.  Much maligned Shikar Dhawan has higher SR than Rahul in last two IPLs. Dhawan still is very much a force in odis.

 

Some geniuses are suggesting TM has made Rahul bat cautiously.Any TM wants consistency and results. Did TM ask Rahul to bat slowly in IPL too.Has TM asked Rahul to stink against spinners too.

 

Is Kohli on the wane,  he is just 32 but  he has to either change his style to adapt to growing needs of moden day T20. But this is a lean Kohli year , he is allowed to have off year after being brilliant for so many years.

 

India is not England who are loaded with allrounders. Even for them it took ages to send Bulter up the order. For some people players sitting outside the team are always world beaters. If Pandey play why is Iyer not playing.

[putrevus]

4 hours ago, Gollum said:

If target is 180 Ind prefers to be 70/1 in first 10 and score 110 in last 10. Problem is 1-2 good overs can push the RRR to 14-15 with opponent team holding back a few overs of its spearheads. Too much work for middle order without PP advantage, older ball, slower conditions, more pressure.....

 

Eng prefers to be 100/3 or 110/4 in first 10 and manage 70-80 in last 10. Last T20I against RSA they chased 192 with 15 balls remaining, no last over or taking deep BS. That is ruthlessness, that is the hallmark of a champion side. Ind too can be 192/1 in that position but will take the match to final over because of our consolidation nonsense in PP and lethargy in middle overs. 

 

Eng is the gold standard of modern white ball batting, India's importance lies in the fact that we show the world how not to construct a T20 innings. 

If India is 110/4 they will end up with less than 150 in 90 out 100 matches. England have ability to bat deep. India does not have that luxury. So it is foolish to say India has to adapt English style of batting.

 

[Gollum]

1 hour ago, AuxiliA said:

 

Good post. However the reason England could afford to play this way is coz they bat really deep. 

 

We can't have that approach with the lower order we have got. What we can do is have aggressive openers with kohli at 3 and then send in batsmen according to the situation like we did in the 2nd T20. 

 

57 minutes ago, putrevus said:

If India is 110/4 they will end up with less than 150 in 90 out 100 matches. England have ability to bat deep. India does not have that luxury. So it is foolish to say India has to adapt English style of batting.

 

England didn't transform overnight. None of their players developed overnight. You can't reject this idea by saying our M/LO will fold, without them getting chances to test themselves in that situation. Ultimately the more you expose them to such scenarios the better they will develop and role identification will be smoother. If you look at the squad we fielded this series I think a 6-9 of Hardik, Jaddu, Sundar, Chahar/Thakur/Saini could have get the job done....70 odd in last 10, more consistently if you put them in the situation many times.