Positives and negatives in this T20 series

[Ankit_sharma03]

2 hours 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. 

 

even if we had lower order our approach wont have been that different, we are taught to play safe. Intent is missing but every has their limitation to

 

• Dhawan middle phase isnt great
• Rohit starts slow
• Kohli batting is now getting affecting with burden of captaincy 
• Iyer and manish both have same tempo
• even gill, mayank are no dashers
• Jaddu has batted at wrong position most his life
• Rahul is the new one adopting this safe policy 

 

Also england doesnt go bonkers coz they have batting till 10 , they go bonkers coz thats the success formula they have found and they can do it to. Pick gilly or hayden opening partnership frm 2000s and look at the rate they use to bat at , our approach is conservative . What batting depth did MI had but yet they batted like england this IPL

 

[putrevus]

2 hours ago, Gollum said:

 

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. 

They all got chances this series both in odis and t20. Pandya delivered in one match and failed in other two  matches. There is no guarantee that more you expose them the better they will become. They first should have talent to do the job.

 

I don't see any such talent , you are just assuming that these guys will do job if there are given  certain number of matches.What happens if they fail to deliver. How many Indian  players are playing role of middle and lower middle order in IPL. 

 

SKY bats at number 3.I would selected him place of Manish Pandey.  Jadeja till this series was liability by many in T20s/Odis he scores in couple of matches  now all of sudden  he has become an asset.

 

The only guy who has ability to be hitter is Pandya. Pandya has shown over larger sample size in IPL too that he will be effective as lower order player. Ishan is another player whose name is thrown around over here, he is top order batsman and unless he is keeping wickets, he does not belong in Indian team.He will not command a place on the team as a batsman.Sundar has no power game.

 

Saying we should play like England is easy but doing it is very difficult. Players who are sitting out are not always better than players who are playing. Thakur cannot be a regular player, he will be exposed.

 

You are just assuming that names you have thrown around are good enough as international players.

Edited December 8, 2020 by putrevus

[SK_IH]

8 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

 

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.

 

 

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.  

Regarding the cautious approach, it's the culture ingrained in the system. Let's get settled first, then we ll start taking chances. And the other auxillary of that approach is that apparently only of the batsman has to be the aggressor & other bats through. This is just an outdated approach. The reason is two fold, as I said is that it's become part of the culture, you are encouraged to play risk free cricket and secondly, this approach definitely is personal style of the trio. This may be going around since 2013 but now it's has reached its sell by date & need rectification. I for one is sick & tired of watching the same old crap repeated ad nauseam i.e. Dhawan starting a T20 WC poorly & being replaced by Rahane 

Regarding Samson & chances to players, TM has to smart in identifying certain talents & give them enough time before discarding them. I ll give you example, Jason Roy was playing Bangladesh Premier League before making his Eng debut & he had an ordinary start to his career but England backed him post WC. Stokes had a horror 2014, couldn't buy a run against Ind but was persisted with post the WC. Similarly, Buttler didn't have a great start to career, infact he failed to close down a simple chase against India in Champions Trophy but England didn't kick him out & he only started delivering consistently 2014 onwards.

These players namely Samson, Kishan, Pant, SKY, Iyer etc may not have same skill sets but they definitely play with same mindset/approach. If such players are not brought into the setup & given good enough chances to prosper, status quo will be maintained & we will keep witnessing retrograde form of cricket. This TM has been poor with most young batsmen.

 

[SK_IH]

8 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

 

 

Delete

Edited December 9, 2020 by SK_IH
Double post