Pujara's dedication to tests and team Ind

[Frustrated]

1 hour ago, ShoonyaSifar said:

Pujara doesn't have to prove to anyone his dedication for test cricket. But for him literally putting his body into the line in Australia, we wouldn't even have been in the WTC final.

 

He has won us two of our biggest test series wins and those performances alone will give him the status of an Indian cricket, even if he doesn't score a test run from here on.

We won the Gabba test primarily becz of Pant's heroics.   Pujara did a good job to ensure that india draws the test.  Not taking anything away from him.       But I did not write any thing wrong about pujara.  His record is poor in SENA overall.  (Except in Australia)

[Sandeep99]

Fleming did a good job for his country by selecting Pujara and thereby not allowing him to play county cricket this season before the all important test championship Final

[Trichromatic]

On 4/4/2021 at 12:01 PM, Frustrated said:

We won the Gabba test primarily becz of Pant's heroics.   Pujara did a good job to ensure that india draws the test.  Not taking anything away from him.       But I did not write any thing wrong about pujara.  His record is poor in SENA overall.  (Except in Australia)

 

Dravid and Sehwag are ATG and great by missing out in 2-3 of SENA countries most of the time. 

 

Pujara is Indian great for all his performances. 

 

 

[Jay]

With new drs rule both  labshagne, Pujara and Warner plus Smith would have been out long before they were given out. 

 

All 4 have been lbw and marginal decision won't go in favour of batsman anymore if the ball hits the stumps. 

[Vk1]

On 4/4/2021 at 10:17 AM, ShoonyaSifar said:

Pujara doesn't have to prove to anyone his dedication for test cricket. But for him literally putting his body into the line in Australia, we wouldn't even have been in the WTC final.

 

He has won us two of our biggest test series wins and those performances alone will give him the status of an Indian cricket, even if he doesn't score a test run from here on.

keeping his body on line was his choice ( needless to say very dangerous )  but far from an ideal one and 9/10 of cricketers wont do that..  it only tells you that he is begining to lose the trust on his defence.. he is the most experienced player in the team and his contribution in that series is on expected lines ( 2018 tour was brilliant though ) 

Edited April 7, 2021 by Vk1

[sandeep]

On 4/4/2021 at 2:31 AM, Frustrated said:

We won the Gabba test primarily becz of Pant's heroics.   Pujara did a good job to ensure that india draws the test.  Not taking anything away from him.       But I did not write any thing wrong about pujara.  His record is poor in SENA overall.  (Except in Australia)

Did you watch D5 at Gabba?  Once Gill got out, Pujara showed ample positive intent, taking 3 boundaries off of one over from Cummins/Starc.  It took an umpire's call 50-50 legbefore to dismiss him.  

 

Of course Pant's performance was the match-winner and a classic for the ages, but Pujara's batting was a lot more than stonewalling for a draw.  He batted really well.  

 

ChePu's problem in ANUS (outside of Aus) is that his batting style of attrition and scoring runs more quickly after batting 130+ balls, has low probability of success in NZ, Eng, SA.  Because those places have relatively more in favor of the bowlers, and you still can get good deliveries that 'do a bit' even if you grind the bowlers and 'see off' the new ball.  But overall, his batting method still helps the team cause - arguably a 150 ball 45 from Pujara in Eng/NZ can be the tentpole around which a winning team total can be built.  On paper, its not a 'success', and will not boost his average much.  But from a team perspective its more than handy.  

 

Not saying he's unquestionably awesome in those conditions - he is a limited player, but he makes it work.  

[sandeep]

39 minutes ago, Vk1 said:

keeping his body on line was his choice ( needless to say very dangerous )  but far from an ideal one and 9/10 of cricketers wont do that..  it only tells you that he is begining to lose the trust on his defence.. he is the most experienced player in the team and his contribution in that series is on expected lines ( 2018 tour was brilliant though ) 

 

That's an odd extrapolation - I don't think anybody in cricket would ever suspect ChePu of "not trusting his defence".   On a 5th day wicket with a bit of uneven bounce, making a tactical choice to cut out a defensive prod that carries risk - is a smart move.  Not an indicator of "not trusting defence".  I mean, his entire batting career is built on his defence and grinding out bowlers to cash in on big scores later.   

[Vk1]

2 hours ago, sandeep said:

 

That's an odd extrapolation - I don't think anybody in cricket would ever suspect ChePu of "not trusting his defence".   On a 5th day wicket with a bit of uneven bounce, making a tactical choice to cut out a defensive prod that carries risk - is a smart move.  Not an indicator of "not trusting defence".  I mean, his entire batting career is built on his defence and grinding out bowlers to cash in on big scores later.   

yeah but we have never seen him get hit so many times in a game.. vihari with a severe hamstring issue batted without getting hit so not unrealistic to expect it from ChePu.. end of the day nobody wants to see him get hit so many times even if our win is on the line

Edited April 7, 2021 by Vk1

[Vk1]

on the same 5th day's wicket rookies like Gill/Pant batted without getting hit so often.. I dont like this putting body on the line stuff.. esp when other batters are able to do it..

[sandeep]

28 minutes ago, Vk1 said:

on the same 5th day's wicket rookies like Gill/Pant batted without getting hit so often.. I dont like this putting body on the line stuff.. esp when other batters are able to do it..

Both Gill and Pant chose to take the risk of attacking the short ball.  Pujara chose to stick to his strengths and play defense, duck or take the hit.  Guess what - I'm going to trust the guy who made that decision.  He knows a bit about what he's doing.

[zen]

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Both Gill and Pant chose to take the risk of attacking the short ball.  Pujara chose to stick to his strengths and play defense, duck or take the hit.  Guess what - I'm going to trust the guy who made that decision.  He knows a bit about what he's doing.

 

Let's not forget that Pujara's knocks are virtually chanceless 

[Jay]

6 hours ago, zen said:

 

Let's not forget that Pujara's knocks are virtually chanceless 

Except one lbw I think in Gabba. Under new rules he is out. But overall a beastly performance. 

[zen]

6 minutes ago, Jay said:

Except one lbw I think in Gabba. Under new rules he is out. But overall a beastly performance. 

 

How would that matter?

[Jay]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

How would that matter?

That he would be out under new rules? Take nothing away though. Pujara is a legend. I am sure he will find ways to be successful under new rules too. 

[DeepSpace]

In Gabba on the last day, he wore the Aussie quicks out. They kept dishing out, and he kept taking blow after blow. You can bend Puji, but you can't break Puji. By the time he was out, the Aussies were running out of gas. He was a big part of both Aus series wins. 

 

How many previous maharathis including Ailaa can claim that? Long like Tortoise. I will take this Tortoise over a Cheetah any day!

[zen]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

That he would be out under new rules? Take nothing away though.

 

How is that even relevant (whether he would have been out under new rule is a different discussion)? LBW laws have constantly changed over the years. FYI, cricket was played without DRS too. Earlier, there were no 3rd umpires as well ... Are you going to evaluate batsmen of the past says 90s to see if they were out or not based on today's DRS or rule x in future? What is the point of discussing new or old rule when discussing such things (and when same parameters are there for all batsmen)? ... Are you implying that Ind would not have won at Gabba if it played under new rules? If that is the case, have you seen if Aus batsmen benefited from old rule or not? 

 

 

Quote

Pujara is a legend. I am sure he will find ways to be successful under new rules too. 

 

 If rules are changed, they are applicable to every batsman, not just Pujara. Are you implying that every batsman would need to find a way to be successful because of a rule change? What adjustments need to be made by batsmen? LBW is not recently introduced, nor it is the only way to get out. 

Edited April 8, 2021 by zen

[rkt.india]

11 hours ago, Vk1 said:

yeah but we have never seen him get hit so many times in a game.. vihari with a severe hamstring issue batted without getting hit so not unrealistic to expect it from ChePu.. end of the day nobody wants to see him get hit so many times even if our win is on the line

SCG was a slow pitch. Gabba is fastest and bounciest in Australia. Remember he had not played any serious cricket since lockdown. Rustiness was also there in that series.

[Jay]

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

How is that even relevant (whether he would have been out under new rule is a different discussion)? LBW laws have constantly changed over the years. FYI, cricket was played without DRS too. Earlier, there were no 3rd umpires as well ... Are you going to evaluate batsmen of the past says 90s to see if they were out or not based on today's DRS or rule x in future? What is the point of discussing new or old rule when discussing such things (and when same parameters are there for all batsmen)? ... Are you implying that Ind would not have won at Gabba if it played under new rules? If that is the case, have you seen if Aus batsmen benefited from old rule or not? 

 

 

 

 If rules are changed, they are applicable to every batsman, not just Pujara. Are you implying that every batsman would need to find a way to be successful because of a rule change? What adjustments need to be made by batsmen? LBW is not recently introduced, nor it is the only way to get out. 

Ofcourse that's what I meant. It applies to everyone hence why I don't rate Aussies of 2000. They were the only fit team at the time and benefitted a lot due to home umpiring bias and no drs. 

 

Pujara would have done well regardless of the rule change. Smith was out early several times under new rules. 

 

Labuschagne wouldnt have crossed 30. 

 

India would have whipped their butts regardless whether the new drs rules were implemented or not. Pujara would have still contributed and helped India overcome the Aussie attack. 

 

All I said was Pujara may have gotten out slightly earlier in Gabba. Just a statement. So would the Aussie players who are even worse vs inswinging balls. 

 

Pujara was a standout batsman apart from pant in that series. 

[zen]

57 minutes ago, Jay said:

Ofcourse that's what I meant. It applies to everyone hence why I don't rate Aussies of 2000. They were the only fit team at the time and benefitted a lot due to home umpiring bias and no drs. 

 

Pujara would have done well regardless of the rule change. Smith was out early several times under new rules. 

 

Labuschagne wouldnt have crossed 30. 

 

India would have whipped their butts regardless whether the new drs rules were implemented or not. Pujara would have still contributed and helped India overcome the Aussie attack. 

 

All I said was Pujara may have gotten out slightly earlier in Gabba. Just a statement. So would the Aussie players who are even worse vs inswinging balls. 

 

Pujara was a standout batsman apart from pant in that series. 

 

All batsmen are not out per the rules period ... the purpose of my post was to drive the point that it is not wise to speculate based on old/new rules (an irrelevant discussion in the first place) 

 

After rebuilding in late 80s, Aus had been an improving test side, becoming the best in mid 90s by beating WI in WI, along with beating many teams at their home too (someone can even argue that they could have got more decision in their favor if under today's rule and may have won the 2001 series in Ind, whose umpiring was not always spot on) 

 

PS below are a few examples where DRS would have helped:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2021 by zen

[Jay]

5 hours ago, zen said:

 

All batsmen are not out per the rules period ... the purpose of my post was to drive the point that it is not wise to speculate based on old/new rules (an irrelevant discussion in the first place) 

 

After rebuilding in late 80s, Aus had been an improving test side, becoming the best in mid 90s by beating WI in WI, along with beating many teams at their home too (someone can even argue that they could have got more decision in their favor if under today's rule and may have won the 2001 series in Ind, whose umpiring was not always spot on) 

 

PS below are a few examples where DRS would have helped:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aussies did the same in their home country though. They just competed vs Unfit teams in an era where there were virtually 2 teams that took fitness seriously. 

 

Real test was post 2010 ish.