Jump to content
goose

When did they start going for it?

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Phase 1:

Gill-Pujara - Gill playing normally, Pujara in blockathon mode

Overs 36, Runs 71, RR 1.97

Gill 57(114), Pujara 8(87)

 

Phase 2:

Gill attacking, Pujara still in blockathon mode

Over 41, Runs 95. RR 2.35

Gill 72(125), Pujara 11(101)

First real acceleration. 5 overs 24 runs mainly due to Gill who scored 15 runs in next 11 balls and Pujara scored 3 in 14 balls.

 

Phase 3:

Pujara also goes in acceleration mode along with Gill. Highlight - Pujara smashing Starc for boundary on off in 42 over - Chepu's first boundary. Starc 20 runs in 46th over.

Overs 48, Runs 132 RR 2.75

Gill 91(146), Pujara 26(123)

7 overs, 37 runs, Gill scored 19 in 21 balls, Pujara 14 in 22 balls. 

 

Gill got out here.

 

Phase 4:

Rahane comes out with intent and scores 24 off 22. This was the time when it looked like India might be going for draw by not sending Pant in. But Rahane's approach was different.

Overs 57, Runs 167 RR 2.92

9 overs, 35 runs, Pujara 37 (154) Pujara scored 11 in 34 balls - took some blows in this phase.

 

Phase 5

Pant and Pujara - at this point people probably expected Pant to attack, didn't happen. 

Overs 80, Runs 228 2.85 (Run rate actually dropped when Pant joined)

Phase Overs 23. Runs 61, Pujara 19 runs in 55 balls, Pant 34 (84)

 

Pant batted at SR of 40 and Pujara 35 - who would have thought? They built partnership and new ball was taken. Pant played only 2 attacking shots IIRC. One he missed and keeper also. Second was 4 on mind on.

2nd session was also over and team was in final session.

Pujara got out in 81 over, just after new ball. 

 

Overs left 20, Runs requred 100.

 

Some are commenting that Pujara got out at right time otherwise it would have not been possible. I disagree. Phase 2, 3 and 4 yielded 96 runs in 21 overs with 2 wickets in which Pujara was also batting. RRR was similar here. 

 

Phase 6

Mayank is dismissed scoring 9 off 15, Pant scored 23 runs in 24 balls here.

Overs 87, Runs 265. RR 3.06

Phase overs 7, runs 37

 

Phase 7

Sundar and Pant partnership. It was going nicely, but RRR was ticking up.

At point it was 44 balls 49 required. At this point it looked like it might just go out of hand. 

 

India needed a big over to stay in hunt.

 

Then Sundar smoked Cummins for six, then slashed over slips for 4. They scored 33 runs in next 12 balls and sealed the game.

 

 

 

 

This. There was no one moment. It was a plan to aim for a win and hope the players you back to score the runs are able to do so.

Every few overs the situation was probably reassessed. If a few overs end up going your way you carry on with the go for a win strategy, if something goes wrong, you regroup and build again.

 

I agree with your point. re Pujara, if needed he would've thrown the bat around a bit more, but the chase was built around him so there was no need to do anything different earlier

Link to post

Once Rahane walked in i think the plan was simple. Pujara would be the rock around which India would hit. Rahane Pant Agarwal Sunder and Thakur are all hitters.

 

Another issue that Pant basically took over once Pujara fell. Between Rahane walking in and Pujara wicket India added around 120 runs at 4rpo.

 

Thats when the game was won IMO

Link to post
55 minutes ago, G_B_ said:

Once Rahane walked in i think the plan was simple. Pujara would be the rock around which India would hit. Rahane Pant Agarwal Sunder and Thakur are all hitters.

 

Another issue that Pant basically took over once Pujara fell. Between Rahane walking in and Pujara wicket India added around 120 runs at 4rpo.

 

Thats when the game was won IMO

To me, the most important thing why they could chase was Aussies being attacking. They were also going for a win. They didn't get the chance to go on completely defensive because they were kept sniffing a collapse, first Gill got out, then Rahane, later Pujara and Mayank. On all these stages, there was every chance of a collapse which we kept avoiding.

Edited by rkt.india
Link to post
1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

To me, the most important thing why they could chase was Aussies being attacking. They were also going for a win. They didn't get the chance to go on completely defensive because they were kept sniffing a collapse, first Gill got out, then Rahane, later Pujara and Mayank. On all these stages, there was every chance of collapse which we kept avoiding.

 

coz for them even a draw was going to be like a defeat, anything less then a win against a more then half a injured side wud not have been acceptable. Ponting did talk about this a day prior 

 

A Draw Would Be Nothing Short Of A Defeat For Australia: Ricky Ponting

https://cricketaddictor.com/cricket-news/a-draw-would-be-nothing-short-of-a-defeat-for-australia-ricky-ponting/

 

Link to post
41 minutes ago, Sachinism said:

This. There was no one moment. It was a plan to aim for a win and hope the players you back to score the runs are able to do so.

Every few overs the situation was probably reassessed. If a few overs end up going your way you carry on with the go for a win strategy, if something goes wrong, you regroup and build again.

 

I agree with your point. re Pujara, if needed he would've thrown the bat around a bit more, but the chase was built around him so there was no need to do anything different earlier

Totally agree with the last sentence.  He hit some rasping shots at specific moments and ran hard the whole time.  He was not playing for a draw.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

But posters are right. We might not have scored 100 in 20 overs had Pujara stayed till the end. This was the time you needed runs from both ends.

If Pujara stayed till the end, both he and Pant would've upped their scoring rate a few overs earlier knowing that there's still Agarwal, Sundar and Thakur in the shed. We might have won an over or two earlier even. Because we lost Pujara and then Agarwal, we took it till the last 6 overs because Australia could still pick 2-3 wickets and then finish off the tail to win. By T20/ODI standards, the run rate was still achievable, but we needed to make sure we didn't lose wickets and give them a chance for a win.

Link to post

I think Pujara got out at the right time..  Things were slowing down as Pant wasn't able to dominate Cummins as good as he was handling Hazel & Starc.  Pujara would have struggled big time had he stayed with the new ball with Cummins tirelessly steaming in & he is lethal vs RHB.  His dismissal was vital.  A little stand between Agarwal & Pant we had some decent tempo going into the final 15.. 

Then that Sundar knock & that over of Cummins sealed the deal.  Thank goodness we had another lefti in the form of Sundar there. 

Link to post
4 hours ago, goose said:

Falling asleep at lunch on the 5th day, 3am UK time will be a life long regret! Very bummed out because I watched most of the series. I've seen the highlights now and listened to 8 hours of recorded radio commentary. It's not immediately obvious to me when they started going for it. Can someone comment? Was there an over, a moment, did they push forward then reverse course? Maybe it was more gradual. When you've seen Tendulkar, Kohli, Dravid bat countless times the signs are easy to read but most of these guys we've never seen before, certainly not in this situation. Looking at the scorecard, the standout is Rahane's 22 ball 24. The only bat with a 100+ strike rate. Maybe his knock was the clearest signal of intent both for the viewer and the team.

 

I'd say it was when Gill was on 70-odd.  Both Gill and Pujara combined to hit a flurry of boundaries and suddenly the tenor of the chase completely shifted.  Until then, Pujara was 6(100) and didn't look too interested in scoring, while Gill was doing his thing but again with a more guarded approach.  That flurry, and Pujara joining in very clearly signalled that India hadn't put away thoughts of the win at all, and were just biding their time.  

 

I would add Rahane's cameo as the next major marker, came right after Gill's dismissal which would give every excuse to the team if they wanted to go conservative.  Even before he walked out, I remember there were folks clamoring for promoting Pant a la Sydney and cussing out Rahane.  But it was clear, and Rahane's innings made it even more so - that the team had decided to attack.  

 

Personally, I thought that India would be a bit more safety-minded than what they were - I thought they needed to be more 'ahead' of the asking rate towards the end, or have more batting left in the shed, to keep going for it.  I mean, I fully expected India to attempt the chase if they got to lunch without losing more than one or two.  But I thought that their approach would include maintaining a high probability for the draw while trying for the win.  And it was very frustrating from that perspective, because every single time India started getting into a position where 25 more runs would mean the chase would start to turn downhill, they would lose a wicket.  Starting with Gill, then Rahane, then Puji, and then even Mayank.  To the team's credit, they still persisted and how.  

 

 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said:

I think Pujara got out at the right time..  Things were slowing down as Pant wasn't able to dominate Cummins as good as he was handling Hazel & Starc.  Pujara would have struggled big time had he stayed with the new ball with Cummins tirelessly steaming in & he is lethal vs RHB.  His dismissal was vital.  A little stand between Agarwal & Pant we had some decent tempo going into the final 15.. 

Then that Sundar knock & that over of Cummins sealed the deal.  Thank goodness we had another lefti in the form of Sundar there. 

yeah I disagree with this - a set Pujara with 130 balls and 50 runs under his belt is a very different batsman in terms of scoring approach and capability.  That's a feature of his risk management at the crease.  Of course, his scoring options are more limited than a Pant or even a Mayank.  

Link to post

Pujara played sheet anchor and others batted around him. 
 

gill batted with most intent imo then rahane then agrawal and then pant sundar and thakur 

 

it was not mindless slogging . It was played like an extended one day chase . Wore out the fast bowlers , took runs based on deliveries and comfort zones and accelerated at end . 
 

at 20 overs left , india needed a 100 runs . Perfect setting . Pant was the key - if pant would have been out india would have shut shop 

Link to post

Post lunch when Gill upped the ante, the chance of India win was 1% at lunch, in session 2 India had scored at 4 RPO, by tea we needed 145 in 37 overs, chance of India win was almost 25%.

 

I watched The whole of last session, it was always certain that as long as Pant was there, they would go for it. With the new ball, India had slowed down. Agarwal who failed also showed intent, Pant was getting the occasional boundary. Only when it became run a ball 48 runs in 50 balls, Washington first and Pant followed with hammer and tongs, but post Lunch everybody was aggressive and looked for runs to survive and also pushed for victory 

Link to post

They were always going to go for it.

It was evident towards the end of the Australian innings once Green got out. When most of the experts were thinking about when they would declare and India must use delaying tactics, we were trying to go with the two length stuff of bouncers and full length balls to get them out ASAP, setting attacking fields and even using the odd slower one in the process. The win was obviously in our thought process throughout. And we planned the chase beautifully, stalling the game when they were on top and attacking once things settled.

Link to post
54 minutes ago, sandeep said:

yeah I disagree with this - a set Pujara with 130 balls and 50 runs under his belt is a very different batsman in terms of scoring approach and capability.  That's a feature of his risk management at the crease.  Of course, his scoring options are more limited than a Pant or even a Mayank.  

Well what I was seeing is Pujara was struggling.  And Cummins would have only made things tougher. 

Left handers were tougher to dislodge & contain for Right arm bowlers & that resulted in us chasing that total.  It was not 3 RPO situation...  Even after a quickfire stand between Mayank & Pant resulted  nearly 6 RPO in final stages until Sundar Cut loose. 

Link to post
9 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Well what I was seeing is Pujara was struggling.  And Cummins would have only made things tougher. 

Left handers were tougher to dislodge & contain for Right arm bowlers & that resulted in us chasing that total.  It was not 3 RPO situation...  Even after a quickfire stand between Mayank & Pant resulted  nearly 6 RPO in final stages until Sundar Cut loose. 

Don't forget the same Pujara hit the same Cummins for 3 back-to-back boundaries in the Sydney 4th innings with the new ball.  And that's after Pant got out at Sydney.  Because the chase was still on.  It was only after Vihari's injury that Pujara shifted back into "you shall not pass" mode.  

 

I mean, I accept your point about lefty batsmen's efficacy and value, and that Pujara is no Lara or Kohli in terms of free scoring.  But you are exaggerating the limitations on his scoring capabilities.  Thats all.

Link to post
22 hours ago, goose said:

Falling asleep at lunch on the 5th day, 3am UK time will be a life long regret! Very bummed out because I watched most of the series. I've seen the highlights now and listened to 8 hours of recorded radio commentary. It's not immediately obvious to me when they started going for it. Can someone comment? Was there an over, a moment, did they push forward then reverse course? Maybe it was more gradual. When you've seen Tendulkar, Kohli, Dravid bat countless times the signs are easy to read but most of these guys we've never seen before, certainly not in this situation. Looking at the scorecard, the standout is Rahane's 22 ball 24. The only bat with a 100+ strike rate. Maybe his knock was the clearest signal of intent both for the viewer and the team.

 

Last 100 runs or so ... but truly I knew the chase was on after Pujara got out. IMHO it was a tactical mistake on part of Aussies to get him out. If Pujara had not lost his wicket this match was a straightforward draw. The guy does OTT tuk tuk. Yes defense is important in Test Cricket but mindless dead-bat style of play for many many hours can only help take time out of the match and draw it.  4th innings chases are won by scoring runs.

 

PS: you can download the full days play for free at acrossthetasman dot com ( need to create a a/c )

 

Edited by bossbhai2
Link to post
4 hours ago, bossbhai2 said:

 

Last 100 runs or so ... but truly I knew the chase was on after Pujara got out. IMHO it was a tactical mistake on part of Aussies to get him out. If Pujara had not lost his wicket this match was a straightforward draw. The guy does OTT tuk tuk. Yes defense is important in Test Cricket but mindless dead-bat style of play for many many hours can only help take time out of the match and draw it.  4th innings chases are won by scoring runs.

 

PS: you can download the full days play for free at acrossthetasman dot com ( need to create a a/c )

 

Yup. If pujara had played for even 3-5 overs more, the game would have been a draw. 

Link to post

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...