Is ICF wrong and Virat right?

[Ankit_sharma03]

7 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

making every ball count is practically impossible. Cricket is played between a batsman and a bowler, if batsman is making every ball count means bowler has just become a harmless machine. That’s the day cricket will die but guess what cricket will never die.

 

they are ending making a lot of 300+ totals and sometimes even 400..thats what it means to make 300 balls count 

 

7 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

Also what exactly is attacking cricket according to you?

 

Attacking batting is looking for runs constantly not in phases

Attacking bowling is looking for wkts 

 

Simple 

 

7 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

A bowler cannot bowl attacking lengths every ball, on a flat pitch a ball close to off side wide line is worth its weight in gold more than a attempted full outswinger. Would you call it defensive cricket or sensible cricket.

 

Dont take every ball literally . Also in bowling when a batsman is attacking , dot balls are achievement.  In batting Dot balls arent an achievement 

 

7 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

Sensible batting doesn’t mean go all Pujara on the opposition. Assess the pitch, assess the opposition, assess the conditions, know your teams strengths batting/bowling and then target a score accordingly. Yes it is as hard as it sounds and because we have some genius batsmen amidst our ranks and bowlers we are top 2-3 in all formats. Simple example, had England targeted Kuldeep, played out Bhuvi or sensible cricket today we would have been in trouble because Hardik was unavailable to bowl I think.

 

Pujara ?? Matalb extreme men hi sochna 

 

Its not bhuvi or kuldeep they will attack every one and play like that, few looses will not make them change their plans unlike fans who get fickle minded every game.  No wonder they have Wc and are favs for next few as well and we know for sure we ll choke. No better example then those guys dumping root n t20s and dhawan still confusing us in t20 

 

7 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

Also Bairstow or Roy shot is not brainless, they were with the flow and that can be excused as attacking cricket as they were set but some of the other batsmen were brainless.

 

Thats the difference. Stop craving for highlights and enjoy the nuances of this great game.

 

I have a better advices - 

• world has moved on so stop living in 70s .
• When u can achieve more stop being happy with mediocrity 
• Also show off such style when u have trophies 

 

7 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

Afridi will be fun today forgotten tomorrow, A sachin lasts forever. 

 

matalb sochna to extreme hi sochna, balanced sochne pe to paisa lagta hai

[Ankit_sharma03]

3 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Nothing succeeds like success. They had the opportunity to shut up everyone during the last WC if they hadn't shat their pants in the SF. The irony is, the SF vs NZ as well as the infamous final were both relatively low scoring games for this era where they could have shown the "risk-free" approach works. Not only did the TO crumble but they also didn't have the conviction to send Dhoni at 4 to shut up the shop when it was needed. 

 

Exactly, actually even on that day it was jadeja attacking innings that gave us hope 

Risk free approach is better used by NZ then us 

[rkt.india]

10 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

Attacking cricket is fine but doesn’t mean

 

brainless cricket = attacking cricket 

 

Rohit,Kohli and even Dhawan will not be called defensive cricketers by any definition.

Neither mine, Wisden, Cricket manual or any one who knows even a little about cricket.

 

No  one will call them defensive batsmen.

 

On the other hand brainless cricket is unacceptable and England’s batting today is what most  ICF wants. High risk but High reward, the one time it comes off it will be as exciting as Afridi or my batting hero Axar Patel’s knock but rest will be what it is.

 

I think our batting approach is just fine. Need some right players in the right form/confidence  in the right places and Indian juggernaut under the leadership of Kohli and continued on field guidance from Rohit and off field cricket guidance from our coaching staff will be unstoppable.

You need a mix. They were at 135/0 through attacking batting and once RR was under control, just normal batting could have done the job for them. It's batting according to the situation. You play situations.

[putrevus]

Just now, rkt.india said:

You need a mix. They were at 135/0 through attacking batting and once RR was under control, just normal batting could have done the job for them. It's batting according to the situation. You play situations.

That's where they missed a guy like Root who would have used little bit more caution.

[ShoonyaSifar]

56 minutes ago, putrevus said:

I completely agree with your point.They had opportunity to shut everyone but Kohli of all people choked. Kohli had to absorb the pressure and take India over the line.Until Kohli does help India win ICC tournament, that choker tag will follow him everywhere.

 

I don't think they ever had belief that Dhoni could survive that opening spell that is why they did not send him up the order.

That Dhoni was not going to deliver in crunch situations was known for years. But this TM had an IOU to payback. Just could not put the team's interests ahead of their friend

[King6]

We need strong middle order for top order attacking game. 

[ShoonyaSifar]

58 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

You need a mix. They were at 135/0 through attacking batting and once RR was under control, just normal batting could have done the job for them. It's batting according to the situation. You play situations.

England didn't lose the game due to their approach. Only Bairstow and perhaps Roy got out trying to hit out. Our bowlers won it for us through some excellent bowling. Stokes, Morgan, Moeen, Billings all got out due to sustained pressure and some great set ups by our bowlers.

[ShoonyaSifar]

11 minutes ago, King6 said:

We need strong middle order for top order attacking game. 

For sometime now, its our middle order which has been saving us in ODIs (and even T20Is). Iyer and Rahul in NZ, Rahul, Pandya and Jadeja in Australia and again Rahul and Krunal Pandya y'day. The top order is content with consolidated 50s-60s putting all the pressure on the middle order. if the MO starts to bat like top order, we will never go beyond 250-260

[neel roy]

17 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

He acknowledged they were aiming for 340-350. 

 

Question is, can he convince Rohit-Dhawan to be more proactive? We got away with the score again.

If Rohit stayed for 10 more overs 350 was easy. Look at the shot he got out to. Pretty unnecessary.

Also between overs 34 to 41 ie 8 overs 48 balls we scored 28 runs due to the loss of the wickets. Even if we played run a ball sensibly we would have scored 20 extra and got 337. The template is not bad. We need to execute it. Though a big disclaimer. With dew coming into play even 350 can be chased by big teams. Remember Ashton Turner. 360 chased with ease. Ball was bar of soap 

[putrevus]

32 minutes ago, neel roy said:

If Rohit stayed for 10 more overs 350 was easy. Look at the shot he got out to. Pretty unnecessary.

Also between overs 34 to 41 ie 8 overs 48 balls we scored 28 runs due to the loss of the wickets. Even if we played run a ball sensibly we would have scored 20 extra and got 337. The template is not bad. We need to execute it. Though a big disclaimer. With dew coming into play even 350 can be chased by big teams. Remember Ashton Turner. 360 chased with ease. Ball was bar of soap 

Ashton Turner innings was such a fluke, I have not seen him again in Australian colors.

[jalebi_bhai]

49 minutes ago, neel roy said:

If Rohit stayed for 10 more overs 350 was easy. Look at the shot he got out to. Pretty unnecessary.

Also between overs 34 to 41 ie 8 overs 48 balls we scored 28 runs due to the loss of the wickets. Even if we played run a ball sensibly we would have scored 20 extra and got 337. The template is not bad. We need to execute it. Though a big disclaimer. With dew coming into play even 350 can be chased by big teams. Remember Ashton Turner. 360 chased with ease. Ball was bar of soap 

 

We need to start moving away from par-score mentality. There is enough depth in our batting now that we can afford to aim above. The mentality should be to score as many runs as possible. Sure, if we lose too many wickets along the way, we can recaliberate the score, but don't settle for par right from the outset.

[SRT100]

3 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

 

We need to start moving away from par-score mentality. There is enough depth in our batting now that we can afford to aim above. The mentality should be to score as many runs as possible. Sure, if we lose too many wickets along the way, we can recaliberate the score, but don't settle for par right from the outset.

 

Correct.

 

This then places pressure on the batsmen, especially when our spinners come to bowl when the RRR is rising.

 

When par scores are achieved, batsmen have the confidence to milk runs of the spinners without taking risks.

[ShoonyaSifar]

1 hour ago, neel roy said:

If Rohit stayed for 10 more overs 350 was easy. Look at the shot he got out to. Pretty unnecessary.

Also between overs 34 to 41 ie 8 overs 48 balls we scored 28 runs due to the loss of the wickets. Even if we played run a ball sensibly we would have scored 20 extra and got 337. The template is not bad. We need to execute it. Though a big disclaimer. With dew coming into play even 350 can be chased by big teams. Remember Ashton Turner. 360 chased with ease. Ball was bar of soap 

The middle and lower middle order is not going to score 100+ in last 10 overs everyday. The pathetic approach of consolidating till first 20-25 overs without any attacking shots has and will cost us big. Such an approach works only if one of the top scores a big 100 and plays till late in the innings. Even Rohit hasn't scored those big 100s for sometime now. Dhawan and Kohli are content with their 40s-50s.

 

It wouldn't cost Kohli anything to send someone else (could even be Senior Pandya) at 3 to give them the opportunity to score big 100s.  But na, he and his pal have to be in top 3.

[Global.Baba]

So conclusion 

 

Don’t’s : Dont assess the pitch, your own strength’s & weaknesses, opposition’s strength and weakness, conditions, par score etc 

 

Do’s : pack your side with hitters and try to smack the leather of the ball whatever the situation is.

 

Sorry not the cricket I like 

[neel roy]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Ashton Turner innings was such a fluke, I have not seen him again in Australian colors.

One fluke is what we dont need :). 

[putrevus]

16 minutes ago, neel roy said:

One fluke is what we dont need :). 

You cannot help if those things happen, you will lose.Inzi  even though he was a great player never scored 36 ball 60 again after 1992 world cup semifinals, or Salim Mallik scoring a 36 ball 72 to beat India.

[Mariyam]

Cliched, but nonetheless:

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Suhaan]

20 hours ago, SK_IH said:

It was impossible because the pitch in the morning was seaming & swinging & they had to play proper cricket. Otherwise they would have smashed 80 in first 10 overs

Yes, beautiful seducing batting display fromDhawan,truly artistic

Alaaa darje ki jan bazz ballebazi

[cowboysfan]

Indias style of Odi batting is outdated.you dont have to go crazy like the poms but you have to score more than a run a ball after 10 overs at the minimum.

[neel roy]

5 minutes ago, putrevus said:

You cannot help if those things happen, you will lose.Inzi  even though he was a great player never scored 36 ball 60 again after 1992 world cup semifinals, or Salim Mallik scoring a 36 ball 72 to beat India.

also Fakhar Zaman in CT and Lendl Simmons in T20 international against India in semi final if we remember . But the point here is in that regarding flukes it can happen again and again.. ask newzealand.. 5 times wc semifinalist, 2 times finalist.. only ICC trophy worth the salt is their Champions Trophy 2001 victory against India ( that too was a Chris Cairns fluke as he never could replicate that again). So based on that argument we should trust the process.. righy