Jump to content
Adamant

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Vickydev said:

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.

 

As I said, match ups are overrated as the actually usable information can be minute as it needs a deeper understanding of the game, a meaningful sample size (many new players play T20s), form of the player on the day, conditions, and so on ... Many of the decisions can be taken by a shrewd captain based on how the game is shaping up (every over changes the equation), that is where the focus should be ... For e.g. if the ball is turning big, you bring in a spinner despite of what the player v player match up is 

 

1 hour ago, Vickydev said:

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:

 

Oldies are just two players, a team is more than those two ... In terms of talent pool, India has some great talent including KL, Bumrah (though I do not rate his ability to perform under pressure at the moment), SDP (Hardik), who Brad Hogg rates as the most valuable player (saw a tweet in it), and so on ... As I said before a team can be competitive if 2-3 batsmen & 2-3 bowlers perform 

 

Only one team can win the World Cup so it does not mean others quality teams are not only among top teams ... To be among top teams, a team has to play good cricket both in the world cup and outside of it ... For e.g. SA has never won a world cup but it is among top teams based on its talent pool and competitiveness ... ICC ranking rewards consistency, which is again a trait of a top team 

 

The issue (or discussion) with India is not that it is not among top teams but how to make that team play per its potential esp. in the world cups 

 

 

1 hour ago, Vickydev said:

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. 

 

You can add a WK who can bat or a batsman who can keep well and so on which again that is just a theoretical wishlist ... Practically, teams are made based on its talent pool and the best way it can win a game from that talent pool 

 

 

Say I have five batsmen including a WK + 1 batting AR, and I have a choice to either play a Hooda or a Jadeja/Axar/Krunal/Sundar/D Chahar in the top 7, the positions that require batting talent to varying degrees. The decision I make here depends upon how the batting & bowling are shaping up.  If the batting AR & Hooda are both batting and bowling well, I could go with those. 

 

At #8-9, do I think I need to play a bowler who can bat based on some wishlist. Not necessarily, I can go with Moshin, Umran, Bumrah, & Yuzi, if I feel that combination + the two batting ARs can suffice to win me a game in those co dictions against that opponent  ... I am not going to rely on a wishlist to play a Thakur, an inferior bowler relatively, over Umran or Moshin to strengthen batting at #8 on paper ... To bat "deep", it may not be optimal to play Thakur, Bhuvi, Harshal, & Axar as bowlers versus those 4.

 

Now if the batting is in great form and if I feel that the bowling can be made more attacking, I can go with a Sundar (a better spinner) or D Chahar (for PP bowling) or a Thakur (if bowling and batting well) at #7, which reduces batting depth relatively on paper but improves other areas (a better 5th bowling option)


Now if Thakur is batting as well as one the 5th specialist batting option (say Rituraj who is struggling and back up is out of form or sick), play Thakur at 7 with Hooda moving at 6 or opening. Here you have more bowlers but at that point in time, the optimal combination. 

 

Cricket should not be played on paper or based on wishlists or algorithms (a team has to make the most of its resources) 

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

 

As I said, match ups are overrated as the actually usable information can be minute as it needs a deeper understanding of the game, a meaningful sample size (many new players play T20s), form of the player on the day, conditions, and so on ... Many of the decisions can be taken by a shrewd captain based on how the game is shaping up (every over changes the equation), that is where the focus should be ... For e.g. if the ball is turning big, you bring in a spinner despite of what the player v player match up is 

 

 

Oldies are just two players, a team is more than those two ... In terms of talent pool, India has some great talent including KL, Bumrah (though I do not rate his ability to perform under pressure at the moment), SDP (Hardik), who Brad Hogg rates as the most valuable player (saw a tweet in it), and so on ... As I said before a team can be competitive if 2-3 batsmen & 2-3 bowlers perform 

 

Only one team can win the World Cup so it does not mean others quality teams are not only among top teams ... To be among top teams, a team has to play good cricket both in the world cup and outside of it ... For e.g. SA has never won a world cup but it is among top teams ... ICC ranking rewards consistency, which is again a trait of a top team 

 

The issue (or discussion) with India is not that it is not among top teams but how to make that team play per its potential esp. in the world cups 

 

 

 

You can add a WK who can bat or a batsman who can keep well and so on which again that is just a theoretical wishlist ... Practically, teams are made based on its talent pool and the best way it can win a game from that talent pool 

 

 

Say I have five batsmen including a WK + 1 batting AR, and I have a choice to either play a Hooda or a Jadeja/Axar/Krunal/Sundar/D Chahar in the top 7, the positions that require batting talent to varying degrees. The decision I make here depends upon how the batting & bowling are shaping up.  If the batting AR & Hooda are both batting and bowling well, I could go with those. 

 

At #8-9, do I think I need to play a bowler who can bat based on some wishlist. Not necessarily, I can go with Moshin, Umran, Bumrah, & Yuzi, if I feel that combination + the two batting ARs can suffice to win me a game in those co dictions against that opponent  ... I am not going to rely on a wishlist to play a Thakur, an inferior bowler relatively, over Umran or Moshin to strengthen batting at #8 on paper ... To bat "deep", it may not be optimal to play Thakur, Bhuvi, Harshal, & Axar as bowlers versus those 4.

 

Now if the batting is in great form and if I feel that the bowling can be made more attacking, I can go with a Sundar (a better spinner) or D Chahar (for PP bowling) or a Thakur (if bowling and batting well) at #7, which reduces batting depth relatively on paper but improves other areas (a better 5th bowling option)

 

Cricket should not be played on paper or based on wishlists (a team has to make the most of its resources) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boy that's one big post...

I'll respond to what I could read up till at least... 

 

 

Yes there are decisions that need to be made based on the match ups data but they are not overrated. No one follows them blindly . If you and me can spot them pretty sure the guys being paid the bucks to do so can as well. If better options are available sure use them over the match up.The key thing is they can be used to influence the key players and nullify them.

 

My original point still stands having just 2-3 big players isn't enough, you need players to come in and keep the momentum going whether it be on the field or with the bat. They don't have to be stars but useful to perform the roles designed for them. That's what is at the highest level. The game is at a very high tempo. 

 

T20s are very specific to WT20s, no one takes bilaterals seriously apart from a couple of months before the big event. It's for trying options.

 

RE players, KL if stops being a mental midget maybe, Bumrah, SKY for sure, Pandya if he bats higher up yes.. then what. These guys can easily be nullified.

 

Having aggressive openers, batsman playing the modern pressing game, middle order able to play at very high SR with lower order and bowlers ready to tee off. That's how one needs to go about. Bowling has it's own mechanisms as I explained earlier. 

 

Batting depth is critical because as you said it's not played on paper. Lacking batting depth ensures a wicket or two early and it plays on their minds and everyone goes into consolidation mode. And on flatter wickets which we will see there is no time to slow down. And by depth I mean proper depth.

 

India doesn't have that as you rightly pointed out with those names. We will have to sacrifice our bowling to add numbers to our batting but it will limit us and ultimately will cost us. 

 

 

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

Boy that's one big post...

I'll respond to what I could read up till at least... 

 

 

I actually remembered a few more things so added a few more lines somewhere ... Trying to take my mind off the market crash today ... Anyways, last post on this

 

 

4 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Yes there are decisions that need to be made based on the match ups data but they are not overrated. No one follows them blindly . If you and me can spot them pretty sure the guys being paid the bucks to do so can as well. If better options are available sure use them over the match up.The key thing is they can be used to influence the key players and nullify them.

 

 

Overrated implies rated highly than where they should be. There can be some use of it if there is a strong pattern like a fast left armer bowling to Ind's top order (but you again do not need match up data for that) ... it is a new game ... I prefer the captain to make decisions based on how a game is actually going, conditions, performance in game, and so on 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

My original point still stands having just 2-3 big players isn't enough, you need players to come in and keep the momentum going whether it be on the field or with the bat. They don't have to be stars but useful to perform the roles designed for them. That's what is at the highest level. The game is at a very high tempo. 

 

It would depend upon how a game is going ... For openers, if the conditions are good for batting, they have to start positively as they set the tempo 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

Batting depth is critical because as you said it's not played on paper. Lacking batting depth ensures a wicket or two early and it plays on their minds and everyone goes into consolidation mode. And on flatter wickets which we will see there is no time to slow down. And by depth I mean proper depth.

 

It is a 20 overs game so the goal should be to play the optimal 11 based on what gives you best win ... If a team has options, bat till #11

 

 

11 minutes ago, Vickydev said:

ndia doesn't have that as you rightly pointed out with those names. We will have to sacrifice our bowling to add numbers to our batting but it will limit us and ultimately will cost us. 

 

Pick the optimal 11 (if your top 6-7 bat well, you are set in 20 overs. Not many instances where #8-9 have to play too many balls. If the talent is available, play bowlers who can bat at even #11) and play your best and fearlessly ... that is what most fans want 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, zen said:

 

As I said, match ups are overrated as the actually usable information can be minute as it needs a deeper understanding of the game, a meaningful sample size (many new players play T20s), form of the player on the day, conditions, and so on ... Many of the decisions can be taken by a shrewd captain based on how the game is shaping up (every over changes the equation), that is where the focus should be ... For e.g. if the ball is turning big, you bring in a spinner despite of what the player v player match up is 

 

 

Oldies are just two players, a team is more than those two ... In terms of talent pool, India has some great talent including KL, Bumrah (though I do not rate his ability to perform under pressure at the moment), SDP (Hardik), who Brad Hogg rates as the most valuable player (saw a tweet in it), and so on ... As I said before a team can be competitive if 2-3 batsmen & 2-3 bowlers perform 

 

Only one team can win the World Cup so it does not mean others quality teams are not only among top teams ... To be among top teams, a team has to play good cricket both in the world cup and outside of it ... For e.g. SA has never won a world cup but it is among top teams based on its talent pool and competitiveness ... ICC ranking rewards consistency, which is again a trait of a top team 

 

The issue (or discussion) with India is not that it is not among top teams but how to make that team play per its potential esp. in the world cups 

 

 

 

You can add a WK who can bat or a batsman who can keep well and so on which again that is just a theoretical wishlist ... Practically, teams are made based on its talent pool and the best way it can win a game from that talent pool 

 

 

Say I have five batsmen including a WK + 1 batting AR, and I have a choice to either play a Hooda or a Jadeja/Axar/Krunal/Sundar/D Chahar in the top 7, the positions that require batting talent to varying degrees. The decision I make here depends upon how the batting & bowling are shaping up.  If the batting AR & Hooda are both batting and bowling well, I could go with those. 

 

At #8-9, do I think I need to play a bowler who can bat based on some wishlist. Not necessarily, I can go with Moshin, Umran, Bumrah, & Yuzi, if I feel that combination + the two batting ARs can suffice to win me a game in those co dictions against that opponent  ... I am not going to rely on a wishlist to play a Thakur, an inferior bowler relatively, over Umran or Moshin to strengthen batting at #8 on paper ... To bat "deep", it may not be optimal to play Thakur, Bhuvi, Harshal, & Axar as bowlers versus those 4.

 

Now if the batting is in great form and if I feel that the bowling can be made more attacking, I can go with a Sundar (a better spinner) or D Chahar (for PP bowling) or a Thakur (if bowling and batting well) at #7, which reduces batting depth relatively on paper but improves other areas (a better 5th bowling option)


Now if Thakur is batting as well as one the 5th specialist batting option (say Rituraj who is struggling and back up is out of form or sick), play Thakur at 7 with Hooda moving at 6 or opening. Here you have more bowlers but at that point in time, the optimal combination. 

 

Cricket should not be played on paper or based on wishlists or algorithms (a team has to make the most of its resources) 

T20s are much simpler to plan for if you realise that the best 20 overs with the ball is what wins you the game. This means you won't sacrifice bowling for more batting depth which you would need to do in the longer formats. Conditions and match up based analysis to select teams is not different from the regular due diligence you do going into any match, tournament or format but it is secondary to emphasising your strengths as it is reactive and predicated on the opposition. Eg. If your best bowler who is also a prime wicket taker is a leggie you shouldn't necessarily hold him back because the oppositions best batsman ie a leftie is at the crease. You back your strength anyway. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

Eg. If your best bowler who is also a prime wicket taker is a leggie you shouldn't necessarily hold him back because the oppositions best batsman ie a leftie is at the crease. You back your strength anyway. 


Yeah, every game is a new game that is going to create new and maybe a different data set. 
 

After every over the equation and momentum change, so it is more about taking decisions based on reading the game - who is batting, how are the playing conditions changing, who is bowling well, and so on. 

 

IIRC, in the Qualifier 2, RCB was defending a low total but probably due to some match up left Hasaranga for later and RR ran away with the game in the power play. A shewed captain would have used Hasaranga to go for early strikes. In fact Hasaranga was the 6th bowler!

Link to comment

Our strength is actually traditional LOI cricket. On flat wickets, dewy conditions etc. where it's all about  power hitting and hard lengths, we often get outgunned. 

Last night's pitch was perfect for the Indian team. 

 

Indian LOI pitches and conditions need to change. Need to prepare balanced 280-320 wickets for the 2023 world cup and push the boundaries as far back as possible. 

 

It would help both our batters and bowlers.

Link to comment

Ever since I started following cricket never thought we had the best ODI batting unit, except a couple of years maybe. 

Only in the 2009-11 (till March, after that freefall) period can we claim to have had the best ODI (not T20) batting lineup in the world, and that was more because of ATG Australia's decline. Moreover we weren't the dominant number one, more like first among equals with RSA (Smith, Gibbs, Amla, ABDV, Kallis, Duminy, Boucher) almost at our level. Even sides like Lanka and Pak had better batting lineups than ours at various points of time in the last  20-25 years.

 

But we were generally top 3, now I doubt we are top 5. Flawed batting structure/mindset in 2015-19 and after that still trying to find our best combo. We look back fondly at our 2000s teams, sure they were innovative and had flair, but gained consistency, collectively clicked, had depth only around the 2011 WC. ATG Aus was far far ahead in the 2000s. 

 

1999-2009 Aus (dominance ended post their CT triumph)

2009-11 Ind marginally ahead of RSA

2011-16 RSA except 2015 when Aussies peaked

Since then Eng numero uno

 

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment

2011 team had some batting firepower

Viru (prime)

SRT (prime)

Gambo (peak)

Kohli (developing)

Yuvi (peak)

MSD (prime)

Raina (peak)/Yusuf (peak)

 

wow, will we ever see another batting lineup like that representing Indian colours?

 

In fact all WC winning teams since 1996 WC have had legendary batting units. This Indian batting lineup doesn't even warrant comparison with those elite ones....what are we going to do next year in the WC? 

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
On 6/15/2022 at 12:51 PM, Gollum said:

2011 team had some batting firepower

Viru (prime)

SRT (prime)

Gambo (peak)

Kohli (developing)

Yuvi (peak)

MSD (prime)

Raina (peak)/Yusuf (peak)

 

wow, will we ever see another batting lineup like that representing Indian colours?

 

In fact all WC winning teams since 1996 WC have had legendary batting units. This Indian batting lineup doesn't even warrant comparison with those elite ones....what are we going to do next year in the WC? 

nope, we won't be seeing anything like that. even our 2003 WC lineup was pretty solid. most of the same core, with Kaif batting at 7 and the underrated Dravid keeping

Link to comment
On 6/15/2022 at 12:50 PM, Gollum said:

Ever since I started following cricket never thought we had the best ODI batting unit, except a couple of years maybe. 

Only in the 2009-11 (till March, after that freefall) period can we claim to have had the best ODI (not T20) batting lineup in the world, and that was more because of ATG Australia's decline. Moreover we weren't the dominant number one, more like first among equals with RSA (Smith, Gibbs, Amla, ABDV, Kallis, Duminy, Boucher) almost at our level. Even sides like Lanka and Pak had better batting lineups than ours at various points of time in the last  20-25 years.

 

But we were generally top 3, now I doubt we are top 5. Flawed batting structure/mindset in 2015-19 and after that still trying to find our best combo. We look back fondly at our 2000s teams, sure they were innovative and had flair, but gained consistency, collectively clicked, had depth only around the 2011 WC. ATG Aus was far far ahead in the 2000s. 

 

1999-2009 Aus (dominance ended post their CT triumph)

2009-11 Ind marginally ahead of RSA

2011-16 RSA except 2015 when Aussies peaked

Since then Eng numero uno

 

The batting lineups post 2000 were all generally quite good, often chasing large totals. Yuvi and Kaif shone in many situations and we had Yusuf Pathan too at the end of that decade along with dhoni and Raina with young Hitman and Uthappa to round it out. Of course that Aussie team was on another level but we were not bad by any stretch of imagination and could outgun any other batting lineup in flat conditions.

Edited by rollingstoned
Link to comment
2 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

The batting lineups post 2000 were all generally quite good, often chasing large totals. Yuvi and Kaif shone in many situations and we had Yusuf Pathan too at the end of that decade along with dhoni and Raina with young Hitman and Uthappa to round it out. Of course that Aussie team was on another level but we were not bad by any stretch of imagination and could outgun any other batting lineup in flat conditions.

Even 2000s RSA was so so good, on tougher pitches they were better than us.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Vijy said:

nope, we won't be seeing anything like that. even our 2003 WC lineup was pretty solid. most of the same core, with Kaif batting at 7 and the underrated Dravid keeping

2003 was good but Kaif never fulfilled his initial promise. And Dinesh Mongia was a passenger against good bowling lineups. 

 

I think even the 2013 CT team had a strong batting lineup. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Gollum said:

2003 was good but Kaif never fulfilled his initial promise. And Dinesh Mongia was a passenger against good bowling lineups. 

 

I think even the 2013 CT team had a strong batting lineup. 

ah, yes, forgot dinesh mongia. VVS would have been a better bet esp. against teams like Oz.

Link to comment
On 6/15/2022 at 3:21 AM, Gollum said:

2011 team had some batting firepower

Viru (prime)

SRT (prime)

Gambo (peak)

Kohli (developing)

Yuvi (peak)

MSD (prime)

Raina (peak)/Yusuf (peak)

 

wow, will we ever see another batting lineup like that representing Indian colours?

 

In fact all WC winning teams since 1996 WC have had legendary batting units. This Indian batting lineup doesn't even warrant comparison with those elite ones....what are we going to do next year in the WC? 


The youngsters have not played that many games yet. The 2011 team has players who were very experienced. Tendulkar made his debut in 1989, Sehwag in 1999, GG in 2003, Yuvi in 2000, Dhoni in 2004, Raina in 2005. In 2007 ODI WC, many of these guys came out a cropper. If 2011, WC was not in India, the team may not have won it.


Among the current corp, only KL & SDP have been playing since 2016. And they have not even got a consistent run. SDP in fact started as a bowler so as a batsman he has limited experience too (was also fast tracked to international cricket). Others are even fresher. The point is the upcoming corp can be compared to that 2011 team in 2027 WC (or 2024 T20WC) if comparing similarly experienced teams and assuming that most of the younger crop (U30 players. Only KL is 30 among those who have played for some time. SKY is 31 but just starting out) get a consistent run. 

 

Another factor is T20s which has changed batting approach of the youngsters. 
 

As for Rohit (debut 2007) & Kohli (debut 2008), along with Jadeja (debut 2009) as he is persisted with by the selectors, they (the players from 2000s) are yet to win a WC for India as senior players. They should ideally be compared to the seniors of the 2011 team if they are still in the playing 11.

Edited by zen
Link to comment
On 6/15/2022 at 12:51 PM, Gollum said:

2011 team had some batting firepower

Viru (prime)

SRT (prime)

Gambo (peak)

Kohli (developing)

Yuvi (peak)

MSD (prime)

Raina (peak)/Yusuf (peak)

 

wow, will we ever see another batting lineup like that representing Indian colours?

 

In fact all WC winning teams since 1996 WC have had legendary batting units. This Indian batting lineup doesn't even warrant comparison with those elite ones....what are we going to do next year in the WC? 

Those ODI rules allowed us to play part timers so we cud play yusuf, raina at times even Rohit n Uthappa at 7 . Now we have to play Jadeja n Axar kind of batsman at 7  to have that proper balance. Wahi pe bahut farq dikhne lag jaata hai batting men 

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...