Why did Indians continue hooking the ball?

[IndianRenegade]

I don't see anything wrong with it strategically, SA also kept hooking, it came off for them & it didn't for us, it happens. They were going for the hard length, if we just let the balls go, how many balls will you let go? it's a T20 game, not a test match. 

[vvvslaxman]

2 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

I don't see anything wrong with it strategically, SA also kept hooking, it came off for them & it didn't for us, it happens. They were going for the hard length, if we just let the balls go, how many balls will you let go? it's a T20 game, not a test match. 

 

No they didn't. The reason is we didn't bowl short. We bowled full and reaped rewards. 

[putrevus]

I did not see the match as I was travelling but why did they bat first.

[vvvslaxman]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

I did not see the match as I was travelling but why did they bat first.

 

OP has the article

 

Why bat first in Perth?
It's a fair question, keeping in mind how India had paced their chase to beat Pakistan, and how South Africa eventually paced their chase successfully against India. However, Australian grounds don't favour chasing sides as much as other venues do. At the Perth Stadium, the team batting first had won 15 and lost 11 matches before Sunday. The decision did not pay off, but you can see why India chose to bat first.

[vvvslaxman]

Other than the raw numbers i don't see the reason why they chose to bat first.

[putrevus]

9 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Other than the raw numbers i don't see the reason why they chose to bat first.

They should have chased , it would have given them time to undertstand the pitch.Too many wickets fell too soon and if Ashwin was effective, they could have won the match.Ashwin has been liability for this team.

[IndianRenegade]

10 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

No they didn't. The reason is we didn't bowl short. We bowled full and reaped rewards. 

what do you mean they didn't? the discussion is about why we went for hooks, not if we bowled more hard lengths than SA. We did bowl short balls but not as much as SA & SA did hook. 

[vvvslaxman]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

They should have chased , it would have given them time to undertstand the pitch.Too many wickets fell too soon and if Ashwin was effective, they could have won the match.Ashwin has been liability for this team.

 

He was the least suitable person on the pitch. He did create a chance. Kohli fumbled it. You can't blame him can you?

 

Ashwin to Markram, 1 run

Kohli, Kohli, Kohli drops the catch after a juggle! Ashwin cannot believe it. Kohli cannot believe it. Ashwin bowled it short and slow, Markram charged down, got into a tangle but ended up heaving it straight to deep midwicket, where Kohli backtracked but couldn't hang on. Was it the lights?

 

[SM2907]

13 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

Other than the raw numbers i don't see the reason why they chose to bat first.

Swings more under lights. Parnell would truly have become Akram 

[vvvslaxman]

1 minute ago, IndianRenegade said:

what do you mean they didn't? the discussion is about why we went for hooks, not if we bowled more hard lengths than SA. We did bowl short balls but not as much as SA & SA did hook. 

 

We used short stuff only later. And also our bowlers are not short b all exponents. our bowlers are not tall. Shami and Bhuvi is short. They don't even have to attempt bouncers. T hey just have to land the ball on a length ball will kick off

[zen]

22 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

I don't see anything wrong with it strategically, SA also kept hooking, it came off for them & it didn't for us, it happens. They were going for the hard length, if we just let the balls go, how many balls will you let go? it's a T20 game, not a test match. 

 

Yep, nothing wrong with playing hooks/pulls. 

 

If they had got out playing straight, ppl could be discussing, why they did not hook! 

[vvvslaxman]

Another trick India missed was not having someone very fine. India conceded 3 fours behind the keeper all top edged pulls. One even went for six... Just.. India not having a fielder there was perplexing.

[IndianRenegade]

5 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

We used short stuff only later. And also our bowlers are not short b all exponents. our bowlers are not tall. Shami and Bhuvi is short. They don't even have to attempt bouncers. T hey just have to land the ball on a length ball will kick off

Yeah you can talk about why our short pitch stuff didn't work out like SAs, & rationalize it. But the fact remains even with relatively less short balls we tried SA wasn't always in control, the edges of our hooks found the fielders while SA's edges found the boundary. it happens on somedays, plenty of instances when Indian bowling unit has bowled short & gotten better of SENA countries, & vice versa. 

 

In T20 on a pitch with bounce like perth, & batting first not knowing what is a good score the shot is on, shame it didn't come out. 

 

[vvvslaxman]

16 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

Yeah you can talk about why our short pitch stuff didn't work out like SAs, & rationalize it. But the fact remains even with relatively less short balls we tried SA wasn't always in control, the edges of our hooks found the fielders while SA's edges found the boundary. it happens on somedays, plenty of instances when Indian bowling unit has bowled short & gotten better of SENA countries, & vice versa. 

 

In T20 on a pitch with bounce like perth, & batting first not knowing what is a good score the shot is on, shame it didn't come out. 

 

 

You don't play at Perth like you play on Indian pitches when you handle short ball. You have to go right back. Not outside the crease, front foot. On the same pitch SKY flat batted over head bouncer from Rabada straight down the ground for 4.How did he do it? Only difference he set himself deep in the crease. It gave him enough time. He hit a short of length from Lungidi for a 92 meter six over fine leg. Why couldn't VK clear a 54 meter rope. I would say foolish bravado. Should have played percentage cricket until they get the pace of the pitch. Should have waited and picked the gap. Usual kohli would roll the wrist. He went for a six there.

[zen]

33 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

 

In T20 on a pitch with bounce like perth, & batting first not knowing what is a good score the shot is on, shame it didn't come out. 

 

 

 

At Perth, once the ball becomes soft, it is easy to play shots in the last 10 overs. However, batting first, it is not possible to plan in such a way. No issues w/ players playing shots. Most of them could have been 4s or 6s on a different day. 

[Nikhil_cric]

2 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/t20-world-cup-deepak-hooda-for-axar-patel-and-no-yorkers-why-did-india-do-that-1342640

 

 

Why keep playing the hook?
Four of India's top six got out playing the pull or hook, but their shot selection can't be faulted on an extremely fast and bouncy pitch against South Africa's four-pronged pace attack. If they didn't take the short ball on, they wouldn't have been able to score much at all. South African batter Aiden Markram was even asked at the post-match press conference about India's happy hookers. He said he saw nothing wrong in how they had batted.

 

"Look, I think on a wicket like this, you're going to end up playing more as a result of bad shots than on other wickets just because of the nature of the bounce," Markram said. "It's a tough shot to play when there's extra bounce. But ultimately, if a team keeps bashing that length in T20 cricket, you as a batter also need to make a play. That's probably the reasons that both teams took the short balls on tonight because if you don't, you're unfortunately not going to score at a rate that's quick enough."

Poor batting strategy. They were trying to score 180 on a pitch where 155 is par. 

 

Also there is a clear trend at Perth. Run rates for 1st 10 overs are a fair but lower than the 2nd half.  The new ball flies through and is difficult to play strokes safely. Once the ball gets softer, you can score more freely . 

 

Couple of things here . Either they were not aware what template is required and what par would be here in which case the back room analyst is to blame or they had no confidence in going after even Maharaj because they don't have a left hander to score aggressively against him and were not sure if they could get enough of the remaining pacers' overs to make up for it  

 

Complete tactical disaster. 

[vvvslaxman]

4 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Poor batting strategy. They were trying to score 180 on a pitch where 155 is par. 

 

Also there is a clear trend at Perth. Run rates for 1st 10 overs are a fair but lower than the 2nd half.  The new ball flies through and is difficult to play strokes safely. Once the ball gets softer, you can score more freely . 

 

Couple of things here . Either they were not aware what template is required and what par would be here in which case the back room analyst is to blame or they had no confidence in going after even Maharaj because they don't have a left hander to score aggressively against him and were not sure if they could get enough of the remaining pacers' overs to make up for it  

 

Complete tactical disaster. 

 

Exactly. That is what i am trying to say.  Normally i criticize tuk tuk start of India. If there is one place you want to bide your time until the ball gets softer that is here. Even Ashwin looked more comfortable taking on short balls in the back end. SKY got out to a slower ball not exactly on pace bouncer.  India was on a suicide mission from the get go. Even though traps were set Indian top order couldn't avoid succumbing to it. 

Edited October 31, 2022 by vvvslaxman

[zen]

Ind actually played 9 dot balls on the trot, putting additional pressure on itself. The writing was on the wall w/ SA gaining confidence. 

[IndianRenegade]

11 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

You don't play at Perth like you play on Indian pitches when you handle short ball. You have to go right back. Not outside the crease, front foot. On the same pitch SKY flat batted over head bouncer from Rabada straight down the ground for 4.How did he do it? Only difference he set himself deep in the crease. It gave him enough time. He hit a short of length from Lungidi for a 92 meter six over fine leg. Why couldn't VK clear a 54 meter rope. I would say foolish bravado. Should have played percentage cricket until they get the pace of the pitch. Should have waited and picked the gap. Usual kohli would roll the wrist. He went for a six there.

You are talking about execution here, on that I don’t disagree, how you execute a shot does matter, even though HP was deep in his crease when he pulled the ball on which he was caught.

 

[vvvslaxman]

37 minutes ago, IndianRenegade said:

You are talking about execution here, on that I don’t disagree, how you execute a shot does matter, even though HP was deep in his crease when he pulled the ball on which he was caught.

 

 

Not surprisingly he nailed it except it went flat and Rabada pulled off a blinder.  But when he played that shot we were already three down for not many.  So with good fielders set as traps, playing that shot against was not the best percentage cricket.  Had he waited for some more time Maharaj/Markram was there for the taking. Too bad we ended up with DK who was not going anywhere either against spin or pace.