Jump to content
Adamant

Is this the end of India's legacy of producing the best LOI batting lineups in the world.

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Vijy said:

it may be good if ODIs actually die out altogether. I actually remember the days when the format was new, and how it came to prominence post-packer. nowadays, it seems stripped of any context and most players seem to be going through the motions.

 

if only T20s and tests survive, these 2 formats will be so distinctive that most teams can switch to having specialist players and managing workloads better.

I really hope odis survive. It still needs some talent to play odis and odi world cup still is pinnacle for lot of players and fans, last T20 worldcup was a joke where toss more or less determined the result. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, zen said:

 

Your original point is that India has been a mediocre T20 side only saved by Kohli, however Ind won the 2007 WC without Kohli, which is a great achievement much like how WI won the first ODI WC in 1975 (does not matter how many ODIs were played earlier as top teams are starting at the similar point).  WI has won two T20 WCs, which is what matters, not how it looks on paper, or did in bilaterals (where its key players do not even play most of the time), etc. 

 

T20 is a format where 2-3 batsmen & 2-3 bowlers in form can make a difference. To win tournaments, you do not need to be the best side. In fact, Ind has been seen as a favorite in many events ... Bilaterals is not the best way to judge teams. 

 

Yeah nobody would say West Indies were a great odi side if it won just one tournament when the format was new to everyone and then dissappeared in the next 3. That's a definition of a one off thing like India's. South Africa won the CT in 1998 and they are still called chokers..one offs don't matter. 

 

 

We are a mediocre t20 setup because we lack the basics.. Power hitters at top and lower order(minus 2007 obviously), depth in batting till 8-9, wicket taking leggies and fast bowlers. 

 

And T20I sides need depth, IPL maybe not. 2-3 batters and 2-3 bowlers need to be clutch and everyone needs to play a role. Because matchups can lead to someone not performing and others will have to step up and maintain the momentum. It's that simple

 

Again I'm not anyone's fanboy.. Just stating facts. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, zen said:

I rate Sachin hardcore fanboys as the worst group of cricket fans. Many of these guys have moved to supporting Rohit (and to write against Kohli, who competes with Sachin). 

 

Now it appears as if Kohli fanboys are beginning to show their colors as well. Many have been going around writing against other players lately. These guys also tend to write against IPL where Kohli with RCB have not won anything (therefore seek solace in bilaterals) :hmm:

 

Agree with you there. Fanboys' opinions need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Yeah nobody would say West Indies were a great odi side if it won just one tournament when the format was new to everyone and then dissappeared in the next 3. That's a definition of a one off thing like India's. South Africa won the CT in 1998 and they are still called chokers..one offs don't matter. 

 

In T20s, there is no concept of great sides yet. In ODIs, there have only been two great sides - the WI of 70s-80s & Aus of 2000s ... WI would still be a good team if it won 1975 and did reasonably well overall ... Teams like Aus, WI, Eng, etc., do not even field their full strength teams in all T20s bilaterals. 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

And T20I sides need depth, IPL maybe not. 2-3 batters and 2-3 bowlers need to be clutch and everyone needs to play a role. Because matchups can lead to someone not performing and others will have to step up and maintain the momentum. It's that simple

 

On field, 2-3 in-form batsmen & 2-3 in-form bowlers can win tournaments ... The challenge would be if that team faces a team with 3-4 inform batsmen and 3-4 inform bowlers

 

In the recent T20 WC, a NZ beat a strong Eng, while a peaking Aus brushed past a firing Pak in UAE conditions. Both Eng & Pak had not lost a game till the SF

 

Match ups are overrated unless there is a sufficient sample size, proper understanding of what went into forming the pattern, a valid influencing factor, and form of the player on the day to execute the plan well 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

We are a mediocre t20 setup because we lack the basics.. Power hitters at top and lower order(minus 2007 obviously), depth in batting till 8-9, wicket taking leggies and fast bowlers. 

 

Those things depend upon what a team strengths are and how it plans to win ... For example if a team has  a strong collection of match winning bowlers, it could sacrifice batting depth to win games.  if a team has abundance of great batting talent relative to bowling, it would focus on batting depth. If a team has a bunch of high quality AR, it would create new dynamics ... If a team lacks a strong pool, it would need to identify inform players who could do well in specific conditions (SL has played 3 T20 WC finals and would do well on slow turning pitches). 

 

Ind issue could be that it plays potentially outdated players like Rohit-Kohli in all formats and unnecessarily attempts to device a team around them. Bowlers like Bumrah have cracked under pressure. 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment

I don't understand this fanboy nonsense. Any great Indian player should be praised by all Indian fans. Great players also have great responsibility on their shoulders. You cannot be  great player and run away from big spots.Personally I thought Kohli would be able to handle pressure far better based on his  t20 world cup exploits and some innings earlier in his career.But as his career progressed he flatout stunk in big spots.But he was still the best Indian batsmen across all the formats for decade.

 

He should not be playing in any format for team India until he proves he can score runs in FC .He and Rohit are done as T20 players anyways.No player is bigger than the team.If he is relucant to go back to FC then he should just retire.

Edited by putrevus
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, zen said:

 

In T20s, there is no concept of great sides yet. In ODIs, there have only been two great sides - the WI of 70s-80s & Aus of 2000s ... WI would still be a good team if it won 1975 and did reasonably well overall ... Teams like Aus, WI, Eng, etc., do not even field their full strength teams in all T20s bilaterals. 

 

 

 

On field, 2-3 in-form batsmen & 2-3 in-form bowlers can win tournaments ... The challenge would be if that team faces a team with 3-4 inform batsmen and 3-4 inform bowlers

 

In the recent T20 WC, a NZ beat a strong Eng, while a peaking Aus brushed past a firing Pak in UAE conditions. Both Eng & Pak had not lost a game till the SF

 

Match ups are overrated unless there is a sufficient sample size, proper understanding of what went into forming the pattern, a valid influencing factor, and form of the player on a day to execute the plan well 

 

 

 

Those things depend upon what a team strengths are and how it plans to win ... For example if a team has  a strong collection of match winning bowlers, it could sacrifice batting depth to win games.  if a team has abundance of great batting talent relative to bowling, it would focus on batting depth. If a team has a bunch of high quality AR, it would create new dynamics. 

 

Ind issue could be that it plays potentially outdated players like Rohit-Kohli in all formats and unnecessarily attempts to device a team around them. Bowlers like Bumrah have cracked under pressure. 

 

Match ups are not overrated. Sample size and pattern identification are a bare minimum for any statistical inference so I doubt that would be an issue for they are not plotted for every situation, they are backed by specifics and rigorous look at the data. And more often than not they come right as they are . And every team plans for them because they have world class analysts. 

 

The four SFs in the last WT20 had all of those basics maybe missing one or the other but those are exceptions. And any one of those 4 could have won that championship. It was in fact the fringe (not 2-3 players inform players in batting and bowling) who add the depth that made the difference really. A lopsided team would still have to cover at least 3/4 of those basics to be competitive. 

 

I agree form and pressure handling comes into play but the ability to pull it off needs to be there first of all. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Vickydev said:

Match ups are not overrated. Sample size and pattern identification are a bare minimum for any statistical inference so I doubt that would be an issue for they are not plotted for every situation, they are backed by specifics and rigorous look at the data. And more often than not they come right as they are . And every team plans for them because they have world class analysts. 

 

That is a speculation as it is possible to get a different interpretation/synthesis of data from different teams/analysts ... Team India selections are influenced by stats padders (therefore, a known issue with interpretation & synthesis)  ... One area where data can be more useful is in understanding weak areas of a player, which is arrived at by a) observing the player, b) corroborated with data acquired over a number of matches and conditions. However, players improve too so there is also a constant need for adjustments.  

 

As for matchups, someone like me is a master of making data work for me. For e.g. even when I used to play cricket, I used to smash bowlers who used to bowl well or could get me out so captains would not bowl them much, and play with respect those who had less chances of getting me out, milking them for singles and getting a 4 in.  Good luck doing match ups with someone like me without proper synthesis. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Vickydev said:

The four SFs in the last WT20 had all of those basics maybe missing one or the other but those are exceptions. And any one of those 4 could have won that championship. It was in fact the fringe (not 2-3 players inform players in batting and bowling) who add the depth that made the difference really. A lopsided team would still have to cover at least 3/4 of those basics to be competitive. 

 

And that shows there is no concept of great teams in T20s yet  ... and those teams had relatively different strengths. Were not based on any standard formulas (at the end of the day, there are only 20 overs with bat & ball respectively) 

 

For e.g. NZ had a Santner at #7 & Milne at #8 (relying more on its bowling strength), while Eng had Billings and Woakes at #7 & #8 respectively (relying more on batting depth) 

 

Ind too was considered a pre tournament favorite. 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
1 hour ago, zen said:

 

That is a speculation as it is possible to get a different interpretation/synthesis of data from different teams/analysts ... Team India selections are influenced by stats padders (therefore, a known issue with interpretation & synthesis)  ... One area where data can be more useful is in understanding weak areas of a player, which is arrived at by a) observing the player, b) corroborated with data acquired over a number of matches and conditions. However, players improve too so there is also a constant need for adjustments.  

Team India selectors are known for their selection gaffes mainly relying on set hierarchies and experiences. Lets not get into that for match ups. Thats a lot more detailed looking at each particular game and opponents. Match ups are taken into by any and all competent setups and they are lot more in depth. 

1 hour ago, zen said:

As for matchups, someone like me is a master of making data work for me. For e.g. even when I used to play cricket, I used to smash bowlers who used to bowl well or could get me out so captains would not bowl them much, and play with respect those who had less chances of getting me out, milking them for singles and getting a 4 in.  Good luck doing match ups with someone like me without proper synthesis. 

 

 

Again match ups are not that simple as you put it based on your anecdotes, nobody does that in international cricket at the highest level when every run is vital. Milking the easier bowlers lol . If there is a chance they would be good against you there are higher probabalities are that they will be good against you. These are not gully level cricketers we are talking about.

 

Even attacking the tougher bowlers creates risk and thats what all teams are after. 

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

And that shows there is no concept of great teams in T20s yet  ... and those teams had relatively different strengths. Were not based on any standard formulas (at the end of the day, there are only 20 overs with bat & ball respectively) 

 

For e.g. NZ had a Santner at #7 & Milne at #8 (relying more on its bowling strength), while Eng had Billings and Woakes at #7 & #8 respectively (relying more on batting depth) 

 

Ind too was considered a pre tournament favorite. 

 

There dont need to be great teams, there need to be competent teams to win one. Ours is a mediocre setup. And for NZ, Santner is an AR with 120+ SR and batted at 8 in the GS, and had batting depth with Southee and Boult who are as good as  8-9 that any of the teams will be happy with. Also Sodhi and Milne are more than handy. So essentially they batted till 11

 

As I said atleast 3/4 of the boxes need to be checked. No team will compromise on that. You can work around that with other slight balance issues.

 

 

Edited by Vickydev
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

eam India selectors are known for their selection gaffes mainly relying on set hierarchies and experiences. Lets not get into that for match ups. Thats a lot more detailed looking at each particular game and opponents. Match ups are taken into by any and all competent setups and they are lot more in depth. 

 

The "selectors" is an example of how data can be misread and therefore misused, which is applicable to other areas as well ... Only relevant match-ups, implying player to player match-ups, arrived through deep understanding of the game are relevant ... And if so the content for such quality match-ups would be very low anyways, requiring captains to make calls based on how a game is going on most things 

 

As I said, relevant data is on strengths & weaknesses of a player ... For a batsman say Kishan, it is bounce around shoulders (not necessarily short stuff). This knowledge would be arrived at observing the batsman  ... T20 match up data says that Norkje has never got Kishan out in 7 innings . The understanding of the game says that on a pitch where ball keeps low, Norkje with its height & pace can get the ball up to the shoulders ... Result - he got Kishan in an uncomfortable position and out ... That is what captains have to go on than on match up arrived at without a deep thought, which is what most of the stuff is with a low sample size 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Again match ups are not that simple as you put it based on your anecdotes, nobody does that in international cricket at the highest level when every run is vital. Milking the easier bowlers lol . If there is a chance they would be good against you there are higher probabalities are that they will be good against you. These are not gully level cricketers we are talking about.

 

Even attacking the tougher bowlers creates risk and thats what all teams are after. 

 

That is an example of how data can be created 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

There dont need to be great teams, there need to be competent teams to win one. Ours is a mediocre setup.

 

 

No top team is mediocre. 

 

 

Quote

 

And for NZ, Santner is an AR with 120+ SR and batted at 8 in the GS, and had batting depth with Southee and Boult who are as good as  8-9 that any of the teams will be happy with. Also Sodhi and Milne are more than handy. So essentially they batted till 11 

 

As I said atleast 3/4 of the boxes need to be checked. No team will compromise on that. You can work around that with other slight balance issues.

 

Buddy, we are talking "relatively" here ... At 7, Billings is a better batsman than Santner, who is an AR but a bowling one.  Batting depth refers to generally relatively reliable options at that position ... Otherwise, every team someone batting at 7, 8, & 9 with some kind of #s ... Relatively speaking, Eng had Billings, Woakes, Jorden, Rashid, & Wood in that game 

 

If the way you proposed creates depth, even Ind, which you termed mediocre, can have depth on paper 

 

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, zen said:

 

The "selectors" is an example of how data can be misread and therefore misused, which is applicable to other areas as well ... Only relevant match-ups, implying player to player match-ups, arrived through deep understanding of the game are relevant ... And if so the content for such quality match-ups would be very low anyways, requiring captains to make calls based on how a game is going on most things 

 

 

 

Yup basically Indian selection are not an example of match ups where experience, seniority come into play. Its a flawed example.

 

And match ups are indeed arrived at the way you mentioned. Its not statasticians just crunching through the numbers but then data fed to the strategists and coaches, the actual cricket people. Lets not think these people are novices that these simple facets of the game are missed out on them. Thats why they are so popular among every team and why they usually work

 

30 minutes ago, zen said:

 

That is an example of how data can be created 

 

 

 

yeah thats why irrelevant to the current discussions about International teams using match ups

 

30 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

No top team is mediocre. 

 

 

 

 

There you said it..its what I think of the current Indian T20 setup as well. 

 

32 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Buddy, we are talking "relatively" here ... At 7, Billings is a better batsman than Santner, who is an AR but a bowling one.  Batting depth refers to generally relatively reliable options at that position ... Otherwise, every team someone batting at 7, 8, & 9 with some kind of #s ... Relatively speaking, Eng had Billings, Woakes, Jorden, Rashid, & Wood in that game 

 

If the way you proposed creates depth, even Ind, which you termed mediocre, can have depth on paper 

 

 

 

ofcourse, relatively speaking individuals can differ at each position. Billings bats at 7 because they have others who can play as All rounders and bat higher up. And Santner is more than a capable AR in T20s as good as Jaddu. The main idea is to have depth while not compromising on the bowling options. Thats a different game altogether. India doesnt have that luxury

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Yup basically Indian selection are not an example of match ups where experience, seniority come into play. Its a flawed example.

 

Match-up encompass use of data, which is gathered and presented by analysts not selectors

 

22 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

There you said it..its what I think of the current Indian T20 setup as well. 

 

You implied that Indian team is mediocre ... I said no top team, which India is esp. given its talent pool , is mediocre

 

22 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

ofcourse, relatively speaking individuals can differ at each position. Billings bats at 7 because they have others who can play as All rounders and bat higher up. And Santner is more than a capable AR in T20s as good as Jaddu. The main idea is to have depth while not compromising on the bowling options. Thats a different game altogether. India doesnt have that luxury

 

The combination depends upon the quality of pool of players not some formulas ... Eng was more batting oriented, while NZ more bowling relatively speaking  ... Practically, Santner at 7 is not the same as Billings at 7 (that shows the difference in strategies & tactics) 

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Match-up encompass use of data, which is gathered and presented by analysts not selectors

 

 

 

Basically yes. So why bring Indian selectors into discussions of match ups when they precisely look at other criteria for selections ? They are useful at match by match basis depending on the opponent as the name clearly suggests

 

12 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

 

You implied that Indian team is mediocre ... I said no top team, which India is esp. given its talent pool , is mediocre

 

 

 

 

 

Precisely why i said you made it clear..India is not a top t20 team at the moment

 

13 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Match-up encompass use of data, which is gathered and presented by analysts not selectors

 

 

You implied that Indian team is mediocre ... I said no top team, which India is esp. given its talent pool , is mediocre

 

 

The combination depends upon the quality of pool of players not some formulas ... Eng was more batting oriented, while NZ more bowling relatively speaking  ... Practically, Santner at 7 is not the same as Billings at 7 (that shows the difference in strategies & tactics) 

 

 

Santner and Billings at 7 are part of 11s that have the same core concepts of having depth in the batting which includes regular batsmen, ARs and bowlers who can bat. England can have an AR at 5 while NZ can have one at 7, but the key is the length of their batting is the same. Going till #9 without compromising on their main bowlers. Im not concerned about how many bowling options England have vs New Zealand, its how lower down they have their batting to come in and have a go. 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Basically yes. So why bring Indian selectors into discussions of match ups when they precisely look at other criteria for selections ? They are useful at match by match basis depending on the opponent as the name clearly suggests

 

As already mentioned multiple times - an example of misreading & misusing data to impact decision in cricket 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Precisely why i said you made it clear..India is not a top t20 team at the moment

 

 

Buddy, Ind is among the top T20 sides esp. considering its talent pool ... In terms of results too, it won 12 T20s in a row and currently ranked #1 on ICC rankings 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Santner and Billings at 7 are part of 11s that have the same core concepts of having depth in the batting which includes regular batsmen, ARs and bowlers who can bat. England can have an AR at 5 while NZ can have one at 7, but the key is the length of their batting is the same. Going till #9 without compromising on their main bowlers. Im not concerned about how many bowling options England have vs New Zealand, its how lower down they have their batting to come in and have a go. 

 

NZ's batting or its depth is not comparable to Eng's in terms of overall quality/strength ... One team is using a bowler (or a bowling AR) at 7, while the other uses one or two batsmen (or batting ARs) to function as the 5th bowler based on their relative talent pools and approach to win a game ... All teams are set up similarly with some batmen, some bowlers (it would need 5 players to bowl 20 overs), & 1 WK (to keep wkts), along with ARs (or someone who can roll his arm or hit a few balls) where applicable ... the point is about the focus of a team based on its strengths and talent pool

 

In T20s, a few good performance can make a team go a long way ... It is important for teams to identify its strengths (it could be batting, bowling, ARs, ...) based on the pool of players to devise a strategy to win through an optimized playing 11 per the conditions 

 

 

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, zen said:

 

As already mentioned multiple times - an example of misreading & misusing data to impact decision in cricket 

 

Yeah not the sort of data that is being discussed though I mean it's pretty much different strata. One is a lot more detailed player v player and one is individual stats at the macro level. Relevant would be misreading od match ups to arrive at different conclusions. 

 

44 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

Buddy, Ind is among the top T20 sides esp. considering its talent pool ... In terms of results too, it won 12 T20s in a row and currently ranked #1 on rankings

 

 

 

 

Again with the bilaterals and rankings in T20 when no one is really paying attention to them. There are loads of quality T20 cricketers across all the nation's we are not stand out by any means. 

 

44 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

NZ's batting or its depth is not comparable to Eng's in terms of overall quality/strength ... One team is using a bowler (or a bowling AR) at 7, while the other uses one or two batsmen (or batting ARs) to function as the 5th bowler based on their relative talent pools and approach to win a game ... All teams are set up similarly with some batmen, some bowlers (it would need 5 players to bowl 20 overs), & 1 WK (to keep wkts), along with ARs (or someone who can roll his arm or hit a few balls) where applicable ... the point is about the focus of a team based on its strengths and talent pool

 

 

 

 

Again I'm not concerned about whether a batter plays at 7 or an AR or who is having a better one there I mean we can discuss that about each position. It's about their roles, the thing is they can both bat convincingly ( Santner is a top 6-7 batter easy ) and are part of a deep batting setup that goes into atleast #8-9 without compromising their bowling. That's what almost every top team does need to have. 

Edited by Vickydev
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Yeah not the sort of data that is being discussed though I mean it's pretty much different strata. One is a lot more detailed player v player and one is individual stats at the macro level. Relevant would be misreading od match ups to arrive at different conclusions. 

 

It shows that cricket does not necessarily use "data" optimally ... In cannot be that in one area, it is not optimal, and in the other, magically optimal 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Again with the bilaterals and rankings in T20 when no one is really paying attention to them. There are loads of quality T20 cricketers across all the nation's we are not stand out by any means. 

 

 

Some weird logic in use 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Again I'm not concerned about whether a batter plays at 7 or an AR or who is having a better one there I mean we can discuss that about each position. It's about their roles, the thing is they can both bat convincingly ( Santner is a top 6-7 batter easy ) and are part of a deep batting setup that goes into atleast #8-9 without compromising their bowling. That's what almost every top team does need to have. 

Edited just now by Vickydev

 

 

Again that is like saying a team has batsmen, bowlers, and a keeper ... BD has Liton Das as opener, Eng Buttler. Both play the same roles, but the strength & depth are discussed on quality.

 

Teams are termed as bowling or batting or ARs oriented based on the type of players in the 11 and depth and strength based on quality 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, zen said:

 

It shows that cricket does not necessarily use "data" optimally ... In cannot be that in one area, it is not optimal, and in the other, magically optimal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Match ups are a lot more precise analysis at the breaking down of the game. Comparing it with squad selections is superfluous. It's like F1 teams who select certain drivers because of the past racing records will use the same logic in applying decision making while adding parts to their cars to optimize performance.

 

Can it go wrong?! Of course it can at times. But more often than not it works in decision making and influences games. That's the whole point.

 

15 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Some weird logic in use 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Mmmm you could tell me how though. I mean most of the stats were based on those oldies which we both agree are not really useful. Talent pool we can't compare when we don't have the better ones playing yet. Then what's the point of using that stuff:dontknow:

 

18 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Teams are termed as bowling or batting or ARs oriented based on the type of players in the 11 and depth and strength based on quality 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No that's too simplistic. They can be whatever batting heavy, bowling heavy, AR whatever..while keeping most of the basics to the T. 

 

Have openers who are aggressive, batters who show intent, have Lower MO hitters, Bat deep till 8-9, and have spinners and a fast bowler who are strike bowlers. 

Link to comment

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...