Impressions about Ishan Kishen

[Ankit_sharma03]

57 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

None of our batsman are moving ball specialists.  India just needs to have depth in case of a collapse. If you lose a wicket of Kishan up the order it is not a great loss. But losing KL Rahul is a bigger loss.  

Acc to team structure only one wud fit

[Majestic]

Rohit

Pant

Kohli

Rahul/Shreyas

Surya

Pandya/V Iyer

[Vijy]

On 2/25/2022 at 9:02 AM, Majestic said:

Rohit

Pant

Kohli

Rahul/Shreyas

Surya

Pandya/V Iyer

too many slowpokes in top 4 if KLR plays. I know their career SRs are good, but most of them have slowed down lately in T20s if minnows are excluded.

[Majestic]

15 minutes ago, Vijy said:

too many slowpokes in top 4 if KLR plays. I know their career SRs are good, but most of them have slowed down lately in T20s if minnows are excluded.

Honestly, India's problem is not lack of explosiveness but choking in big matches.

[Vijy]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Honestly, India's problem is not lack of explosiveness but choking in big matches.

what about 2016 T20 SF vs WI? that was lack of explosiveness more than choking. I think both issues are there. we need batters who are neither chokers nor retreat into a shell

[Majestic]

7 minutes ago, Vijy said:

what about 2016 T20 SF vs WI? that was lack of explosiveness more than choking. I think both issues are there. we need batters who are neither chokers nor retreat into a shell

2016 team had Rahane, Pandey, Dhoni, Jadeja type players which is why lost there. 

 

Currently we don't have that problem. Only Kohli is what you call slowpoke at the moment. If you look at other teams, they have got more slowpokes than ours. Pakistan has Babar and Rizwan, NZ have Williamson and Latham. But both teams did better against us recently.

[Adamant]

20 minutes ago, Vijy said:

what about 2016 T20 SF vs WI? that was lack of explosiveness more than choking. I think both issues are there. we need batters who are neither chokers nor retreat into a shell

190+ was a great score, our bowling performed horribly. 

[Vijy]

10 minutes ago, Adamant said:

190+ was a great score, our bowling performed horribly. 

that pitch needed 200+ to be safe. bowlers were indeed horrible but batters like rahane were too slow.

[dilliboy]

3 hours ago, Adamant said:

190+ was a great score, our bowling performed horribly. 

190 was par... Rahane scoring 40 from 35 balls opening the batting, cost us the game

[Adamant]

4 hours ago, Vijy said:

that pitch needed 200+ to be safe. bowlers were indeed horrible but batters like rahane were too slow.

We would have lost even after 200+.

Thats how bad our bowling was. 

[goose]

he has a lesbian quality

[Ankit_sharma03]

5 hours ago, Adamant said:

190+ was a great score, our bowling performed horribly. 

in semi 2016, no

Against WI hitter, small ground , heavy dew we were easily 20-25 runs short

 

[AuxiliA]

5 hours ago, Adamant said:

190+ was a great score, our bowling performed horribly. 

 

No. 220+ was chased twice(?) on that ground in the group stages. With 55m boundaries, flat pitch, dew factor and WI's powerpacked batting, 192 was at best a par score. 

 

Rahane f**ked up big time that day. Scored 40(35) with just 2 boundaries. Completely sucked the momentum out during the middle overs. A cricinfo article had it as the worst T20I inning of all time! 

[Vijy]

3 hours ago, AuxiliA said:

 

No. 220+ was chased twice(?) on that ground in the group stages. With 55m boundaries, flat pitch, dew factor and WI's powerpacked batting, 192 was at best a par score. 

 

Rahane f**ked up big time that day. Scored 40(35) with just 2 boundaries. Completely sucked the momentum out during the middle overs. A cricinfo article had it as the worst T20I inning of all time! 

exactly so. required at least 20-30 runs more. too much tuk-tuking

[Ankit_sharma03]

 

 

 

[Majestic]

On 2/27/2022 at 11:27 AM, Vijy said:

that pitch needed 200+ to be safe. bowlers were indeed horrible but batters like rahane were too slow.

We were lacking explosiveness at that time, no questions. But that was 2016.

[vvvslaxman]

Though opening was his best spot with power play as he was clueless down the order. Looks like he looks ungainly in all spots. 

[Majestic]

We give too much priority to these limited overs mercenary. Should only rate players who are doing well in all formats. Kishan and Samson aren't even successful in ODIs or play tests. They are just T20 mercenaries. Prefer guys who play all formats, especially test and ODIs.

 

Rohit

Kohli

Rahul

Pant

Shreyas

SKY

Bumrah

Shami

Jadeja

Sundar

Axar

Ashwin

Siraj

Shardul

 

Priority should be Test matches -> ODIs-> T20s. Ofcourse all format batters should be given more priority.

[MK55]

He's got absolutely zero back foot game. He's found out with the short ball and has now become a target. 

Even balls that are slightly short of length always seem to be hitting the splice of his bat or his gloves.

He's young and I'm sure he can work that out with targeted practice. But things won't change a lot if he doesn't specifically work on it. He might get back into some form but unless he works on his current weaknesses, he's gonna keep facing these issues.

[Vijy]

3 hours ago, MK55 said:

He's got absolutely zero back foot game. He's found out with the short ball and has now become a target. 

Even balls that are slightly short of length always seem to be hitting the splice of his bat or his gloves.

He's young and I'm sure he can work that out with targeted practice. But things won't change a lot if he doesn't specifically work on it. He might get back into some form but unless he works on his current weaknesses, he's gonna keep facing these issues.

moreover, the top tier int'l teams will not have that many "easy" bowlers as IPL currently does with its 10 teams, i.e., many teams have at least 1-2 weak links. once his limitations are known, bowlers will home in on that and keep exploiting ruthlessly