Kishan should be test opener

[QuarantineTormentino]

Jaiswal is a much better option for tests. I don’t think Kishan has the right technique for test cricket. He’s like a better version of Fakhar Zaman 

[express bowling]

51 minutes ago, QuarantineTormentino said:

Jaiswal is a much better option for tests. I don’t think Kishan has the right technique for test cricket. He’s like a better version of Fakhar Zaman 

 

 

If we observe the career paths of Indian batsmen who have debuted in the T20 era and played 10 + tests including tests outside Asia, all are averaging 29 to 35 in tests except the dashing Pant. 

 

And all are proper batsmen like Rahul, Vihari and Gill.

 

We perhaps need the more aggressive batters in tests these days because even proper batsmen don't have the mindset to bat for long. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by express bowling

[Adamant]

8 hours ago, express bowling said:

Most batsmen cannot survive for more than 50 to 150 balls in test matches these days against better bowling attacks. 

 

So, we need batters who can maximize the returns from these 50 to 150 balls. 

This is absurd. 

 

We need batters who can survive and also score, not tullas or hacks. 

 

This is probably your worst idea. It's not t20. 

[Adamant]

8 hours ago, express bowling said:

Most batsmen cannot survive for more than 50 to 150 balls in test matches these days against better bowling attacks. 

 

So, we need batters who can maximize the returns from these 50 to 150 balls. We need more batters in the mould of Rishabh Pant in test cricket ... with just 2 sheet anchors to hold the innings at 1 and 4. 

 

Let the other 5 batters, that is 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 be stroke players. 

 

We have Pant and Jadeja at 5 and 7 for this.

 

Need 3 more stroke players. 

Also these 50-100 ball mercenaries will get out on zero on helpful tracks. 

 

Not every track is flat. 

[express bowling]

35 minutes ago, Adamant said:

This is absurd. 

 

We need batters who can survive and also score, not tullas or hacks. 

 

This is probably your worst idea. It's not t20. 

 

 

Great Teams always batted very fast in test cricket.  Be it Australia of 1995 to 2015 or the WI of 1976 to 1995.

 

Bradman batted very very fast.

 

Pant is our best test batsman in the last 2 years ... whether based on impact innings or batting average or total runs.

 

To think otherwise is just living in denial.

 

 

[express bowling]

45 minutes ago, Adamant said:

Also these 50-100 ball mercenaries will get out on zero on helpful tracks. 

 

Not every track is flat. 

 

On helpful tracks, Kohli, Rahane, Rahul, Gill, Vihari or Rohit .... none of the classical batters survive either these days.

 

And of the above lot, only Kohli in his best years did well on helpful tracks.

 

When the next Tendulkar or Kohli comes along, he will play for India. Nobody will be able to stop him. 

 

In the meantime, there is no point pretending that the batters who can't play fast, automatically have good defenses and ability to play in helpful conditions. 90% of them don't. They are neither here nor there.

Edited December 14, 2022 by express bowling

[nitinbwj]

Yes. Absolutely and he should be told to play his natural game. I am sick of the useless KL playing in every format and sucking donkey balls. Don't know why TM is playing this manhoos, darpok player who brings all his negativity in the team. 

[SRT100]

11 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

 

If we observe the career paths of Indian batsmen who have debuted in the T20 era and played 10 + tests including tests outside Asia, all are averaging 29 to 35 in tests except the dashing Pant. 

 

And all are proper batsmen like Rahul, Vihari and Gill.

 

We perhaps need the more aggressive batters in tests these days because even proper batsmen don't have the mindset to bat for long. 

 

 

 

Ignore the posts challenging you, because youre right.

 

20 years ago you were totally wrong. However in 2022 and beyond, youre 100% correct, anyone challenging does not at all comprehend or understand "modern" Test match cricket.

 

Test match results can be shaped by one session if the batsmen are on top.

Some of India's greatest recent test wins were based off aggressive batsmen. GABBA result, the clear example here.

 

 

 

 

 

[SRT100]

5 hours ago, nitinbwj said:

Yes. Absolutely and he should be told to play his natural game. I am sick of the useless KL playing in every format and sucking donkey balls. Don't know why TM is playing this manhoos, darpok player who brings all his negativity in the team. 

 

Good post, he brings negativity to the team, with his batting and now with his leadership.

He represents the meek, weak and pathetic mindset of Indian cricketers before Ganguly.

[SRT100]

5 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Great Teams always batted very fast in test cricket.  Be it Australia of 1995 to 2015 or the WI of 1976 to 1995.

 

Bradman batted very very fast.

 

Pant is our best test batsman in the last 2 years ... whether based on impact innings or batting average or total runs.

 

To think otherwise is just living in denial.

 

 

 

If you look at when India scored in the last 20 years of  Test match cricket it was a result of batting fast when we had Sehwag opening and also with SRT.

 

Both players could change the result of a game in a session or two. Sehwag always exploded, SRT had the ability to shift gears so even if he batted cautiously, he had the ability to tear apart the bowlers as his innings progressed.

 

Laxman too batted fast at times when you compare it to every single current Test batsman of India barring Pant.

[SRT100]

@express bowling I think you cracked the code here.

 

Modern Test match batsmen are batting only 50-150 balls, so having a high SR if they only survive 60 balls is crucial. White ball cricket has made Test match cricket a totally different game as players dont have the temperament to survive for long long periods and also contribute to the scoring.

Top 7 batsmen score 50 off 60, gives a score off 350 with a fast batting approach. Which is above par.

 

Compare that too scoring 35 off 60. A score off 245 or even less as the tuk tuk approach invariably leads to even worse SR.

 

I also believe as you mentioned, two anchors needed.  India has plenty of them lol.

[SRT100]

14 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

 

You pick first class players with high strike rates. That is how you build your side. Gone are the 90s style selection of picking heavy scorers.   That is how Bazball team has been built for England. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with this is the Madness that is Indian Cricket.

These plans are wrecked from the beginning because Uncles Rohit, Virat,KL and Cheteswar are automatic selections.

 

This stupid team is dumb enough to bring Rahane back into the team.

[Vijy]

13 minutes ago, SRT100 said:

 

The problem with this is the Madness that is Indian Cricket.

These plans are wrecked from the beginning because Uncles Rohit, Virat,KL and Cheteswar are automatic selections.

 

This stupid team is dumb enough to bring Rahane back into the team.

uadcutter will also find a place as "allrounder"

[SRT100]

33 minutes ago, Vijy said:

uadcutter will also find a place as "allrounder"

His selection in the squad set the tone for India to lose this match.

 

It was such a backward negative selection in every regard.

[Vijy]

3 minutes ago, SRT100 said:

His selection in the squad set the tone for India to lose this match.

 

It was such a backward negative selection in every regard.

very "indian" selection indeed. reminds me of the "good 'ole days" of the 80s when selection was atrocious. we are rapidly reaching those standards now

[express bowling]

9 hours ago, Vijy said:

very "indian" selection indeed. reminds me of the "good 'ole days" of the 80s when selection was atrocious. we are rapidly reaching those standards now

 

In the 1980s, lots of selections were atrocious, but big names got dropped too.

 

Kapil was removed from captaincy a year after winning the 1983 WC. He was dropped for a test too. Senior Amarnath kept getting dropped. No one was infallible.

 

Now the seniors are more secure than a PSU bank deposit.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by express bowling

[sandeep]

8 hours ago, express bowling said:

Now the seniors are more secure than a PSU bank deposit.

Do you remember when young Virat Kohli was given a chance to lead India in ODIs for the 1st time for a Zimbabwe tour?  Parvez Rasool was a rising lower order batsman who could bowl decent spin - 5 matches, and Virat played Jadeja ahead of him every single game. We won 5-0 btw - when asked about it, he said if there is an 'established senior' who is available, he gets to play, period.  Virat entrenched this senioritis into the Indian team from 2015-2021.  It will take bit of time to get rid of.  I've been critizing Kuptaan Wrogn's calculated decisions to block any and all potential young batting talent from getting opportunities to shine in ODI and T20 cricket over the last decade - this era of stagnation is hopefully coming to an end soon.

[express bowling]

132 off 195 balls by Kishan in Ranji Trophy against a decent bowling attack featuring Thampi and Jalaj Saxena.

[putrevus]

No wicket keeper opens the innings on a regular basis and is successful . It is too hard to keep and also open in test cricket.

 

If Kishen wants to be an opener as he will not be a keeper for Indian team why not put a request with his Ranji team and start opening there first.

Edited December 16, 2022 by putrevus

[R!TTER]

On 12/14/2022 at 8:23 PM, express bowling said:

 

 

Great Teams always batted very fast in test cricket.  Be it Australia of 1995 to 2015 or the WI of 1976 to 1995.

 

Bradman batted very very fast.

 

Pant is our best test batsman in the last 2 years ... whether based on impact innings or batting average or total runs.

 

To think otherwise is just living in denial.

 

 

They used to bat fast relative to the opposition, but not fast like say England recently & certainly not very very fast. They used to bat quickly without taking much risks, in facts batting quickly + minimal risks was one of the main reasons they were great! Likewise for Bradman, he used to bat like SRT or Lara, just that in his day you had 20-25 overs bowled in an hour. England cannot be a great team for this very reason - you have to minimize risks on most surfaces in order to score big consistently, of course on ready made flat surfaces (at home) they might win more but then they'll lose a lot more away because opposition teams will prepare juicy tracks for them.