CAN INDIA PLAY 7 +4 COMBINATION

[Vijy]

10 hours ago, raki05 said:

I too love this combo…. May be on swinging pitches play extra fast bowler in place of Ash.

I like it too, but who does 5th bowler. pandu and boomer are both susceptible to injuries, siraj has off days on occasion. moreover, sami/prasidh are better wicket takers than ashwin

[sensible-indian]

@Nikhil_cric bhai

 

Imagine if India had gone with 7-4 combo with 1 spinner against Aus.

 

Bumrah

Siraj

Kuldeep

Shardul

Pandya

 

Pandya looked off colour but he would have had to bowl atleast 7-8 overs.

 

Only spinner Kuldeep.

 

Aus would have got 250 - 270 easily (maybe more too with wickets in slog overs).

 

Don't you think so?

 

This is why we gotta test combos and see where everyone stands.

[Nikhil_cric]

47 minutes ago, sensible-indian said:

@Nikhil_cric bhai

 

Imagine if India had gone with 7-4 combo with 1 spinner against Aus.

 

Bumrah

Siraj

Kuldeep

Shardul

Pandya

 

Pandya looked off colour but he would have had to bowl atleast 7-8 overs.

 

Only spinner Kuldeep.

 

Aus would have got 250 - 270 easily (maybe more too with wickets in slog overs).

 

Don't you think so?

 

This is why we gotta test combos and see where everyone stands.

I don't agree with that.  10 overs of spin were pretty much wasted - I believe 6 overs of Jadz and 4 overs of Ash did not produce a wicket. Only after that did Jadeja break the game open. Ash's bowling looked very average.   

 

Let's not forget that Marsh had a shocker with an early dropped catch. Also, there was dew which doesn't often happen in Chennai. Zampa could not get the ball to grip on that surface.

 

If it was 20/4 with Marsh taking Kohli, this would have been a different match. Had we lost this then, you will say the extra batsman would not have made any difference anyway.

 

 

 

 

[MediumPacer]

29 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

I don't agree with that.  10 overs of spin were pretty much wasted - I believe 6 overs of Jadz and 4 overs of Ash did not produce a wicket. Only after that did Jadeja break the game open. Ash's bowling looked very average.   

 

Let's not forget that Marsh had a shocker with an early dropped catch. Also, there was dew which doesn't often happen in Chennai. Zampa could not get the ball to grip on that surface.

 

If it was 20/4 with Marsh taking Kohli, this would have been a different match. Had we lost this then, you will say the extra batsman would not have made any difference anyway.

 

 

 

 

By this logic,kishan and iyer played poor shots, it had nothing to do with the bowling and rohit's ball disturbed the top surface otherwise it too was a harmless ball and Hazelwood could hit that spot again .

[Nikhil_cric]

2 minutes ago, MediumPacer said:

By this logic,kishan and iyer played poor shots, it had nothing to do with the bowling and rohit's ball disturbed the top surface otherwise it too was a harmless ball and Hazelwood could hit that spot again .

You don't understand logic, then. 

[SRT100]

India were 3/0 vs Australia and should have been 4/12 if Kohli wasnt dropped.

 

Its the same scorecard I would expect if we played Pakistan, I can see us shitting out pants against their fast bowlers.

We need a stronger batting line up, but at the same time, because our batsmen are so useless at bowling, we need 5 bowlers at least. Jaddu and Pandya have to play, we dont have choices here.

[Khota]

No team should play 7+4. Too much risk.

[sensible-indian]

7 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

I don't agree with that.  10 overs of spin were pretty much wasted - I believe 6 overs of Jadz and 4 overs of Ash did not produce a wicket. Only after that did Jadeja break the game open. Ash's bowling looked very average.   

 

Let's not forget that Marsh had a shocker with an early dropped catch. Also, there was dew which doesn't often happen in Chennai. Zampa could not get the ball to grip on that surface.

 

If it was 20/4 with Marsh taking Kohli, this would have been a different match. Had we lost this then, you will say the extra batsman would not have made any difference anyway.

 

 

 

 

huh?

 

Quote

10 overs of spin were pretty much wasted - I believe 6 overs of Jadz and 4 overs of Ash did not produce a wicket. Only after that did Jadeja break the game open. Ash's bowling looked very average. 

 

Ok. Now imagine no Jaddu, no Ashwin and instead you have Pandya leaking at 10 rpo and Shardul.

 

Quote

 

If it was 20/4 with Marsh taking Kohli, this would have been a different match. Had we lost this then, you will say the extra batsman would not have made any difference anyway.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

Imagine chasing 250 - 270 from 20-4.

 

What would have happened even if you had an extra bat?

Edited October 10, 2023 by sensible-indian

[sensible-indian]

6 hours ago, SRT100 said:

India were 3/0 vs Australia and should have been 4/12 if Kohli wasnt dropped.

 

Its the same scorecard I would expect if we played Pakistan, I can see us shitting out pants against their fast bowlers.

We need a stronger batting line up, but at the same time, because our batsmen are so useless at bowling, we need 5 bowlers at least. Jaddu and Pandya have to play, we dont have choices here.

Yes.

 

We have to pick our poison (time will tell which option is better for us).

 

We will never have a balanced XI for this WC.

[Nikhil_cric]

1 minute ago, sensible-indian said:

huh?

 

 

Ok. Now imagine no Jaddu, no Ashwin and instead you have Pandya leaking at 10 rpo and Shardul.

 

Exactly.

 

Imagine chasing 250 - 270 from 20-4.

 

What would have happened even if you had an extra bat?

I've already given you a lot of evidence either in this thread of somewhere else SIFFY. Also quoted the exact study done by Leamon and co. for that and you kept quoting random matches and scenarios .

 

We'll keep going in circles regarding this 

 

Every time this bowler balance fails, you will always claim it's not because of that .

[sensible-indian]

8 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

I've already given you a lot of evidence either in this thread of somewhere else SIFFY. Also quoted the exact study done by Leamon and co. for that and you kept quoting random matches and scenarios .

 

We'll keep going in circles regarding this 

 

Every time this bowler balance fails, you will always claim it's not because of that .

And I have agreed that a deep batting lineup is ideal. Who can deny that.

 

But our current resources make it very very tough.

 

Yesterday's game was one example.

 

Bowler balance can fail.

 

Batting balance can fail.

 

- Which is why we gotta test and see what works for us (something which you don't agree with).

 

- We can't have only 1 spinner. Doesn't matter what the stats are post 2019 (sample sets are low, pitches not the same)....we need atleast 2 unless the pitch is a guaranteed 350 highway (and even there I wouldn't be too sure about 1 spinner)

Edited October 10, 2023 by sensible-indian

[sensible-indian]

Btw...I would NEVER say the 1 extra batsmen will never make a difference.

 

In a close game, they could totally make a difference.

 

India's QF and SF 2011 WC games are a testament to that.

 

Issue is whether we will even get to a close game with a lopsided XI filled with batsmen and an incomplete bowling attack?

 

The argument is what gives us the best odds to win the tournament?

Edited October 10, 2023 by sensible-indian

[Nikhil_cric]

1 minute ago, sensible-indian said:

And I have agreed that a deep batting lineup is ideal. Who can deny that.

 

But our current resources make it very very tough.

 

Yesterday's game was one example.

 

Bowler balance can fail.

 

Batting balance can fail.

 

- Which is why we gotta test and see what works for us (something which you don't agree with).

 

- We can't have only 1 spinner. Doesn't matter what the stats are post 2019 (sample sets are low, pitches not the same)....we need atleast 2 unless the pitch is a guaranteed 350 highway (and even there I wouldn't be too sure about 1 spinner)

Bh argument is that a batting balance will succeed note often than not compared to a bowler balance most of the time.

 

The sample set they used is not from 2019.  It is actually from 97. 

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that a bowler balance works in ODIs. 

 

 

[sensible-indian]

11 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Bh argument is that a batting balance will succeed note often than not compared to a bowler balance most of the time.

 

The sample set they used is not from 2019.  It is actually from 97. 

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that a bowler balance works in ODIs. 

 

 

Yes.

 

But....if your XI is soooo imbalanced that going for a batting balance makes your bowling super incomplete...then you have to rethink your strategy.

 

We won CT 2013 through the power of our bowling.

 

Not batting.

 

2014 World T20 too...it was our bowling plus Kohli.

 

In fact, if we had dropped Yuvi and played with 10 players + 1 substitute fielder, we would have lifted the cup.

 

So different situations call for different strategies.

 

Obviously I would love to see Iyer, KL, Surya, Pandya and then the tail to follow.

 

But having that lineup is like playing bazball on a super tough bowling pitch. You keep attacking and hope your weakness doesn't get exposed. Sooner or later, you are gonna collapse in a crucial game.

Edited October 10, 2023 by sensible-indian

[Nikhil_cric]

3 minutes ago, sensible-indian said:

Yes.

 

But....if your XI is soooo unbalanced that going for a batting balance makes your bowling super incomplete...then you have to rethink your strategy.

 

We won CT 2013 through the power of our bowling.

 

Not batting.

 

2014 World T20 too...it was our bowling plus Kohli.

 

In fact, if we had dropped Yuvi and played with 10 players + 1 substitute fielder, we would have lifted the cup.

 

So different situations call for different strategies.

 

Obviously I would love to see Iyer, KL, Surya, Pandya and then the tail to follow.

 

But having that lineup is like playing bazball on a super tough bowling pitch. You keep attacking and hope your weakness doesn't get exposed. Sooner or later, you are gonna collapse in a crucial game.

You're not understanding the argument at all .

 

Leave it. I don't want to argue on this point. 

 

Bowling strength does not matte anywhere near as much as people think in ODIs. 

 

Given that, bowling heavy balances are inherently inferior. 

 

I don't know why you keep arguing this point when Im not even agreeing it's a weakness at all. 

 

 

[cowboysfan]

1 hour ago, sensible-indian said:

Yes.

 

But....if your XI is soooo imbalanced that going for a batting balance makes your bowling super incomplete...then you have to rethink your strategy.

 

We won CT 2013 through the power of our bowling.

 

Not batting.

 

2014 World T20 too...it was our bowling plus Kohli.

 

In fact, if we had dropped Yuvi and played with 10 players + 1 substitute fielder, we would have lifted the cup.

 

So different situations call for different strategies.

 

Obviously I would love to see Iyer, KL, Surya, Pandya and then the tail to follow.

 

But having that lineup is like playing bazball on a super tough bowling pitch. You keep attacking and hope your weakness doesn't get exposed. Sooner or later, you are gonna collapse in a crucial game.

agree 100%,if we win the WC its most likely because our excellent bowling attack.

[straighttalk]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:47 AM, Khota said:

Disagree. If top 6 batsman cannot score, 7th will not do it either.

Australian score went up bcos of Cummins and starc..if it was India..we would have been bowled out for 150.

[Khota]

2 hours ago, straighttalk said:

Australian score went up bcos of Cummins and starc..if it was India..we would have been bowled out for 150.

It is about striking balance. The 5th bowler will leak pretty bad.

[Vijy]

we should go for 7th batter if pitch is like the one vs aus

[bsriharsha]

If we can get the likes of Kohli , Sharma to contribute 4-5 overs with the ball in a game. I could see the logic of playing an extra batsman.

 

The extra runs that they give might well be compensated by the extra batsman allowing the batting line-up to bat more freely.