Lord Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 20 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said: To be fair, this applies to both Shardul and Jadeja as well. Shardul's low release spinners seem to only work on gripping pitches and in the middle overs . Ashwin can at least turn it both ways unlike the other 2. Thakur is a wicket taker tbh. Can leak runs but can also pick bunch of wickets. SR is good. Frustrated 1 Link to comment
Nikhil_cric Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 1 minute ago, Lord said: Thakur is a wicket taker tbh. Can leak runs but can also pick bunch of wickets. SR is good. Depends on the pitch. He has proven to be useless at the death . So expect Rohit to bowl him for 3 overs there and 4 overs in the middle and not finish his spell. Lord 1 Link to comment
sensible-indian Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 1 hour ago, Nikhil_cric said: Essentially, this means that Jadeja is going to play every game at 7. It's going to be between Ash and Thakur. There is no chance in hell of Ash at 7 and Thakur at 8. So, let me get this straight. Thakur can't bowl with new ball or at the death so he can't bowl 10 overs every game but we have to play him because he might give us 15 runs on a rare good day. Hardik offers real threat with ball but he can't offer more than 7 overs because of his fitness. Jadeja can barely bat like a #8 and can't consistently pick wickets because he's a support bowler according to some fans but he has to play because lack of runs from tailenders is the bigger issue apparently . And because we have to play all 3 of them , we can only play 5 genuine batters and 3 genuine bowlers. Because through a mystical, almost alchemical process that can only be seen through the eyes of these fans and TM, playing these 3( who are less than the equivalent of 3 specialists ) will magically combine and give us the effect of 2 full bowlers and 2 full batters? Makes sense. Its a mess. Chill and enjoy the chaos. Only good thing is that WC format will allow us to test different combination and see what works for us. 7-4 is risky but who knows it might be the best bet for us. If Jaddu can bat up the order and control the innings then maybe 6-5 can work. Link to comment
sensible-indian Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 From what little i saw...i am not at all convinced about Thakur. Play Shami or a batter instead of him. But you never know with Thakur. He can surprise but some say his pace has dropped so maybe not. Link to comment
Nikhil_cric Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 (edited) 34 minutes ago, sensible-indian said: Its a mess. Chill and enjoy the chaos. Only good thing is that WC format will allow us to test different combination and see what works for us. 7-4 is risky but who knows it might be the best bet for us. If Jaddu can bat up the order and control the innings then maybe 6-5 can work. Pandya is not a batter. As a batter alone, he cannot make it to the top 6. There can be absolute no compromise on 1. Top 6 being the best batters available 2. Bottom 3 being the best bowlers available. The compromises, if any, have to be graded hitting ability commensurate to decline in wicket taking ability and can and should come only at 7 and 8 depending on the quality of bowlers and quality of bowling all-rounders available . 3-4 part time overs, from top 6 and, no, quality , doesn't matter for that. We are sacrificing everything else because the highly qualified art of Steve Smith level part time spin will cause rheumatoid arthritis for our batters . It's the best of all trade offs. We are not even doing point 1 despite all the evidence from the first 2 ODIs that it's exactly what we need . All this useless 6 bowler theory does is promote pathetic , defensive cowardly cricket in both innings. 7-4 is what we had in 2011. Edited September 28, 2023 by Nikhil_cric Link to comment
sensible-indian Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nikhil_cric said: Pandya is not a batter. As a batter alone, he cannot make it to the top 6. There can be absolute no compromise on 1. Top 6 being the best batters available 2. Bottom 3 being the best bowlers available. The compromises, if any, have to be graded hitting ability commensurate to decline in wicket taking ability and can and should come only at 7 and 8 depending on the quality of bowlers and quality of bowling all-rounders available . 3-4 part time overs, from top 6 and, no, quality , doesn't matter for that. We are sacrificing everything else because the highly qualified art of Steve Smith level part time spin will cause rheumatoid arthritis for our batters . It's the best of all trade offs. We are not even doing point 1 despite all the evidence from the first 2 ODIs that it's exactly what we need . All this useless 6 bowler theory does is promote pathetic , defensive cowardly cricket in both innings. 7-4 is what we had in 2011. I get you but 2011 7-4 is different from 2023 7-4. 2011 team was favourites to win the world cup and still it came inches close to defeat in qf, sf and somewhat even in finals. Now imagine a really unbalanced team. The goal is NOT to build a team that dominates normally and falters on a bad...but one which has the potential to go the distance. We have a lot of time to test. It will give us an idea. Edited September 28, 2023 by sensible-indian Link to comment
sandeep Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 1 hour ago, coffee_rules said: Why do we need 5 bowlers without any top order batsman bowling regularly is so 10 years ago. India needs 6 bowlers with Pandu bowling 4/5 overs that’s all. Its 4 bowlers and Pandu. That's the gamble. But it gives a batting unit that is intimidating and capable of going toe to toe against best in class. If Glenn *ing Maxwell can bowl a few overs, let's have Virat bowl his junkyard shtick for a couple of overs if we have to. Or whatever. Pandu can bowl 10 if needed. coffee_rules and Lord 1 1 Link to comment
sandeep Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 59 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said: All this useless 6 bowler theory does is promote pathetic , defensive cowardly cricket in both innings. 7-4 is what we had in 2011. 2011 had powerplay with 4 fielders in the last 10 IIRC - it definitely did not have 4 outfielders rule for 30 middle overs. That rule change has been a killer for part-time spin, even specialist finger spinners without the 'other' one struggle because of this rule change (and 2 new balls). Team balance has to evolve and adapt with the new rules. So there's that. Problem is that Jadeja is worse than Ash with the ball, without really offering that much with the bat. But the "conventional wisdom' is that his batting ability can be trusted in ODIs, when 15 years have shown this to be a mirage. Link to comment
coffee_rules Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 48 minutes ago, sandeep said: Its 4 bowlers and Pandu. That's the gamble. But it gives a batting unit that is intimidating and capable of going toe to toe against best in class. If Glenn *ing Maxwell can bowl a few overs, let's have Virat bowl his junkyard shtick for a couple of overs if we have to. Or whatever. Pandu can bowl 10 if needed. We will get barely 5/6 overs from Pandu these days. Hardly reliable to last a full tournament. We need full 6 bowlers with some like ke Pandya, Ashwin and Jadeja who could bat. Link to comment
sandeep Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 13 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: We will get barely 5/6 overs from Pandu these days. Hardly reliable to last a full tournament. We need full 6 bowlers with some like ke Pandya, Ashwin and Jadeja who could bat. Yes, 6 bowling options are really necessary in a 50 over game, but its all about trade offs. This is one I would make, given the squad we have. Especially going up against a team like full strength Aus/Eng/SA. Link to comment
Nikhil_cric Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 8 minutes ago, sensible-indian said: I get you but 2011 7-4 is different from 2023 7-4. 2011 team was favourites to win the world cup and still it came inches close to defeat in qf, sf and somewhat even in finals. Now imagine a really unbalanced team. The goal is to build a team which has the potential to go the distance. We have a lot of time to test. It will give us an idea. There is no balance to what we play. It's fundamentally severely imbalanced. No team is playing with 5 batters in the World Cup. No team has ever won a World Cup without playing at least 6 batters. Nobody needs to test this stuff out, lol. A simple thought experiment is enough to stuff this fraud idea. The fact that anyone thinks this will even have a chance and needs to be tested is what I find sad. You can check out the last 9 World Cups and there are clear templates that have worked . The limiting factor is 50 overs and 10 overs max per bowler. There is NEVER a good time to play more than 5 bowlers in any situation if they are bowlers first . You play your best six batters and if you can't get 5 high quality bowlers with consistent high level of wicket taking threat (which every team has struggled to do) , you keep sacrificing bowling strength by adding the bowler with more hitting ability or playing a proper hitter with part time bowling ability. Even 3 high quality bowlers are enough if you know what to compromise. Only England have successfully manufactured bowling "allrounders" by getting their obviously less elite seamers to hit at the death - Curran, Willey , even Woakes. No other team can or prefers to do that, they cut bowlers, play extra batters and get batters to bowl. The Aussies always do that unless they have some serious elite bowlers and backups for that. Pakistan lost Waqar in 92. Imran was finished as a bowler and had transformed into a batter . They had no bowler of international quality apart from Wasim, Mushtaq and Aaqib. They stacked the batting till 8 and between Imran , Aamer Sohail and others finished 20 overs . Pakistanis boast about their bowling strength winning tournaments when it was their batting heavy side that won them their only Cup- 92 World Cup. 2015 World Cup OZ couldn't put 4 bowlers because Cummins was raw and their best spinner was Doherty . Stacked the batting till 8, Maxwell, Watson, Faulkner and others gave 20. Cummins in a presser said they were wondering if they would even need a 2nd specialist spinner/allrounder . Now they've selected Marnus in the XV. They are 100% going to get batters until 8 at some point and just back Zampa, Hazlewood , one of Starc/Cummins and get 20 overs from Head, Green , Maxwell etc Cameron Green got absolutely smashed the other day. Indian TM and fans would immediately asked for extra bowler. They don't care. They dropped the extra bowler from the squad for Marnus . They know that **** doesn't work. The trade off for batting strength has always worked . Raw batting firepower can overcome high bowling strength and has been seen in every World Cup. Scoring rates in ODIs for 2 years before World Cup(excluding minnows of the time) 1983 1. India 5. Windies(very slow scoring team but high bowling strength ) 1987. 2. Australia 6. England (ODI rank 1) 1992 1. Pakistan 1996 4. SL -Probably 5th ranked side before World Cup added another dimension with unprecedented hitting by Jayasuriya. Beat World no. 1 Australia . 2003 2. India were 2nd fastest scoring side and we reached finals being 5th before the Cup. So going batting heavy to encourage aggressive batting is comfortably the better trade off. Anyhoo, let's see if Indian TM can do miracles and show the world the wonders of the extra bowling heavy balance Link to comment
sensible-indian Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said: There is no balance to what we play. It's fundamentally severely imbalanced. No team is playing with 5 batters in the World Cup. No team has ever won a World Cup without playing at least 6 batters. Nobody needs to test this stuff out, lol. A simple thought experiment is enough to stuff this fraud idea. The fact that anyone thinks this will even have a chance and needs to be tested is what I find sad. You can check out the last 9 World Cups and there are clear templates that have worked . The limiting factor is 50 overs and 10 overs max per bowler. There is NEVER a good time to play more than 5 bowlers in any situation if they are bowlers first . You play your best six batters and if you can't get 5 high quality bowlers with consistent high level of wicket taking threat (which every team has struggled to do) , you keep sacrificing bowling strength by adding the bowler with more hitting ability or playing a proper hitter with part time bowling ability. Even 3 high quality bowlers are enough if you know what to compromise. Only England have successfully manufactured bowling "allrounders" by getting their obviously less elite seamers to hit at the death - Curran, Willey , even Woakes. No other team can or prefers to do that, they cut bowlers, play extra batters and get batters to bowl. The Aussies always do that unless they have some serious elite bowlers and backups for that. Pakistan lost Waqar in 92. Imran was finished as a bowler and had transformed into a batter . They had no bowler of international quality apart from Wasim, Mushtaq and Aaqib. They stacked the batting till 8 and between Imran , Aamer Sohail and others finished 20 overs . Pakistanis boast about their bowling strength winning tournaments when it was their batting heavy side that won them their only Cup- 92 World Cup. 2015 World Cup OZ couldn't put 4 bowlers because Cummins was raw and their best spinner was Doherty . Stacked the batting till 8, Maxwell, Watson, Faulkner and others gave 20. Cummins in a presser said they were wondering if they would even need a 2nd specialist spinner/allrounder . Now they've selected Marnus in the XV. They are 100% going to get batters until 8 at some point and just back Zampa, Hazlewood , one of Starc/Cummins and get 20 overs from Head, Green , Maxwell etc Cameron Green got absolutely smashed the other day. Indian TM and fans would immediately asked for extra bowler. They don't care. They dropped the extra bowler from the squad for Marnus . They know that **** doesn't work. The trade off for batting strength has always worked . Raw batting firepower can overcome high bowling strength and has been seen in every World Cup. Scoring rates in ODIs for 2 years before World Cup(excluding minnows of the time) 1983 1. India 5. Windies(very slow scoring team but high bowling strength ) 1987. 2. Australia 6. England (ODI rank 1) 1992 1. Pakistan 1996 4. SL -Probably 5th ranked side before World Cup added another dimension with unprecedented hitting by Jayasuriya. Beat World no. 1 Australia . 2003 2. India were 2nd fastest scoring side and we reached finals being 5th before the Cup. So going batting heavy to encourage aggressive batting is comfortably the better trade off. Anyhoo, let's see if Indian TM can do miracles and show the world the wonders of the extra bowling heavy balance Man...you seem convinced your way is the only way out with no need to test anything. We saw what happened in 2017 CT (the finals was lost by half time). Get 10 batsmen to chase 350 in a knockout and they will still lose. If you gotta win a world tournament, there will be situations where you will be put to the test (exception being peak Aussies). Champion teams come out of it fighting. 2011 WC India had assembled it's GREATEST EVER batting XI. Honestly, it can also be called the greatest ever batting XI for Asian pitches. Yet that batting lineup ALMOST came close to losing against Aus, Pak and SL in WC 2011. Against Pak, Raina and Bhajji were at the crease by 37th over. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-cricket-world-cup-2010-11-381449/india-vs-pakistan-2nd-semi-final-433605/full-scorecard What happened to the famed lineup? It wasn't skill that saved. Skill was there but it was our mental fortitude that saved us. Raina stitched crucial partnerships with Bhajji and Zak which gave us a fighting chance and we won. The lesson you are gleaning from it: See, even they floundered. That's why we gotta strengthen the batting no matter what the consequences. The lesson I am gleaning from it: Just loading up our batting and making it scary doesn't mean they will always deliver. We gotta plan for situations when they don't too. 5 bowlers will make India look great until it doesn't. We have to build a team that can take blows and still be standing. Not be a Tyson when attacking and fall apart when dealt a crucial blow. The goal is NOT to build a team that looks dominating. It's to build one that checks all boxes and actually has the best shot to win the WC. Edited September 28, 2023 by sensible-indian Link to comment
vivek04 Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 Shardul is ordinary in bowling but have a golden arm. Can take crucial 1-2 wickets. Most batsmen falls for his dibbly dobbly pace. Jadeja has also been a passenger in the team recently. But we have no other option in bowling all-rounders. Also he is a live wire in field and can save crucial runs with his fielding. If there is a spinning track we could go with kuldeep ashwin with jadeja. Link to comment
mani sha Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 1 hour ago, Nikhil_cric said: There is no balance to what we play. It's fundamentally severely imbalanced. No team is playing with 5 batters in the World Cup. No team has ever won a World Cup without playing at least 6 batters. Nobody needs to test this stuff out, lol. A simple thought experiment is enough to stuff this fraud idea. The fact that anyone thinks this will even have a chance and needs to be tested is what I find sad. You can check out the last 9 World Cups and there are clear templates that have worked . The limiting factor is 50 overs and 10 overs max per bowler. There is NEVER a good time to play more than 5 bowlers in any situation if they are bowlers first . You play your best six batters and if you can't get 5 high quality bowlers with consistent high level of wicket taking threat (which every team has struggled to do) , you keep sacrificing bowling strength by adding the bowler with more hitting ability or playing a proper hitter with part time bowling ability. Even 3 high quality bowlers are enough if you know what to compromise. Only England have successfully manufactured bowling "allrounders" by getting their obviously less elite seamers to hit at the death - Curran, Willey , even Woakes. No other team can or prefers to do that, they cut bowlers, play extra batters and get batters to bowl. The Aussies always do that unless they have some serious elite bowlers and backups for that. Pakistan lost Waqar in 92. Imran was finished as a bowler and had transformed into a batter . They had no bowler of international quality apart from Wasim, Mushtaq and Aaqib. They stacked the batting till 8 and between Imran , Aamer Sohail and others finished 20 overs . Pakistanis boast about their bowling strength winning tournaments when it was their batting heavy side that won them their only Cup- 92 World Cup. 2015 World Cup OZ couldn't put 4 bowlers because Cummins was raw and their best spinner was Doherty . Stacked the batting till 8, Maxwell, Watson, Faulkner and others gave 20. Cummins in a presser said they were wondering if they would even need a 2nd specialist spinner/allrounder . Now they've selected Marnus in the XV. They are 100% going to get batters until 8 at some point and just back Zampa, Hazlewood , one of Starc/Cummins and get 20 overs from Head, Green , Maxwell etc Cameron Green got absolutely smashed the other day. Indian TM and fans would immediately asked for extra bowler. They don't care. They dropped the extra bowler from the squad for Marnus . They know that **** doesn't work. The trade off for batting strength has always worked . Raw batting firepower can overcome high bowling strength and has been seen in every World Cup. Scoring rates in ODIs for 2 years before World Cup(excluding minnows of the time) 1983 1. India 5. Windies(very slow scoring team but high bowling strength ) 1987. 2. Australia 6. England (ODI rank 1) 1992 1. Pakistan 1996 4. SL -Probably 5th ranked side before World Cup added another dimension with unprecedented hitting by Jayasuriya. Beat World no. 1 Australia . 2003 2. India were 2nd fastest scoring side and we reached finals being 5th before the Cup. So going batting heavy to encourage aggressive batting is comfortably the better trade off. Anyhoo, let's see if Indian TM can do miracles and show the world the wonders of the extra bowling heavy balance Agree with you . Batting firepower is important india has gill rohit kohli rahul ayer / sky pandya jadeja Ash / shardul kuldeep bumrah siraj using 8 batters is a bit of luxury . India does have in pandya a v capable batsman . He can be in team for batting alone our problem begins and ends with jadeja . He is a no 4 batsmen imo of the 80s . Plays slow , rotated strike . . He has lost his ability to hit sixes or the confidence at this stage all you can do is pray that that batting practise he got in the last match gets him some confidence . This wc will be ours if the batting version of jadeja shows up that we saw in 2019 . last but not the least - not many sides boast of three quality spinners . We may be underestimating the presence of these spin elites - as tournament goes forward , expect wear and tear and slightly spin friendly wickets . while historically batting deep has won world cups , England success is attributable to the new 5 fielder rule . Bowling allrounders like ali etc are needed who can give u 5-6 overs and give u 20-30 runs india vs Eng and pak/ Bangla vs australia likely 4 semi finalists. Link to comment
Nikhil_cric Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 16 minutes ago, sensible-indian said: Man...you seem convinced your way is the only way out with no need to test anything. We saw what happened in 2017 CT (the finals was lost by half time). Get 10 batsmen to chase 350 in a knockout and they will still lose. If you gotta win a world tournament, there will be situations where you will be put to the test (exception being peak Aussies). Champion teams come out of it fighting. 2011 WC India had assembled it's GREATEST EVER batting XI. Honestly, it can also be called the greatest ever batting XI for Asian pitches. Yet that batting lineup ALMOST came close to losing against Aus, Pak and SL in WC 2011. Against Pak, Raina and Bhajji were at the crease by 37th over. https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-cricket-world-cup-2010-11-381449/india-vs-pakistan-2nd-semi-final-433605/full-scorecard What happened to the famed lineup? It wasn't skill that saved. Skill was there but it was our mental fortitude that saved us. Raina stitched crucial partnerships with Bhajji and Zak which gave us a fighting chance and we won. The lesson you are gleaning from it: See, even they floundered. That's why we gotta strengthen the batting no matter what the consequences. The lesson I am gleaning from it: Just loading up our batting and making it scary doesn't mean they will always deliver. We gotta plan for situations when they don't too. 5 bowlers will make India look great until it doesn't. We have to build a team that can take blows and still be standing. Not be a Tyson when attacking and fall apart when dealt a crucial blow. The goal is NOT to build a team that looks dominating. It's to build one that checks all boxes and actually has the best shot to win the WC. There is no "my" way. Between a minimum of 6 pure batsman and a maximum of 8 batsman/batting all-rounders , you gotta do the trade offs . There are enough permutations and combinations there with respect to pure allrounders , batters who bowl , bowlers who hit etc . When did I say there is a singular way to build an LOI template ? You don't have to pull up some random example to make a point. Obviously you can find singular examples to counter a valid generalisation. Are you saying that the generalisation is wrong because you can find some random examples and apparently learnt something very subjective lesson from it? I'm referring to a comprehensive study done by Nathan Leamon for England after their 2015 World Cup cycle . It involved doing a bunch of regression analyses of ODI data for a period of 18 years and they simply could not avoid the conclusion that bowling strength is absolutely overrated in LOI cricket and especially in ODI cricket . Batting strength and high scoring rates in particular was the biggest predictor of success. Nothing even came close to it . Between bowling and batting strength , there was absolutely no argument that bowling strength had to be sacrificed in favour of batting strength . Because even if the 6th bowler offers high wicket taking threat comparable to your main 5 bowlers, you still only get to bowl 50 overs and yet you lose out on a batter and batting strength , as mentioned, could not be sacrificed . So , the logical point to construct a XI was to limit the number of bowlers to 5 and select the best wicket taking bowlers available. Basically their analysis rated high batting strike rates throughout and low bowling strike rates throughout in all phases. That is to say, defensive spin bowling in the middle overs to control the rate does not work according to their analysis. So those bowlers like Woakes whose strike rates rose after powerplay had to learn to power hit to make up for that and to be guaranteed a spot in the XI . Willey and Curran had to work on their power hitting to make up for lack of good bowling strike rates too. And they literally manufactured a side based on this massive study and won 2 out of 3 white ball tournaments. That's proof enough that their method actually works and their findings were pretty accurate . I won't diss the 6 bowler theory now. I'll try to keep an open mind to it in case I'm came across as someone who was a batting strength evangelist. But no team has played a 6 bowler "balance" and won a World Cup. In fact , I don't think any major team has played a 6 bowler balance where your #6 is not a batter first in a major World Cup at least since 1987. I'll also assume, although there is no evidence to suggest this, that CKM Dhananjai or whoever the analyst is found evidence that 6 bowlers are the best way to play LOI cricket and produced a study on that and that's why Rohit and Kohli are following this. But it's an absolute fact that this balance is absolutely unproven and India are taking a balance that no major team has likely used in 36 years and certainly no winning team. This 6 bowler balance , if it actually works, would be absolutely revolutionary and a trailblazer in LOI cricket. But as of now, unless you can find some comprehensive analysis to support this and India proves it right , then there 's no real argument And no number of random examples with selective learnings will suffice. This World Cup is absolutely the test of this balance . No excuses especially for a #1 team at home If you think I'm making it up, do read the book, "Hitting against the spin" by Nathan Leamon and Ben Jones . And random articles are also there by Nathan Leamon who references this . Link to comment
straighttalk Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 7 hours ago, mani sha said: Good decision to have another attacking spinner who can bowl carrom ball to tail , flight ball and can also bowl legspin . His batting has improved . my ideal 11 for most matches rohit gill kohli kishan rahul Pandya jadeja / sky ashwin kuldeep siraj bumrah Very good team...in pacy wickets though...jadeja plays and Ashwin is replaced by a seamer..useless Thakur or Shami remains to be seen..only risk is 5 bowlers and if someone gets injured Link to comment
sensible-indian Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said: There is no "my" way. Between a minimum of 6 pure batsman and a maximum of 8 batsman/batting all-rounders , you gotta do the trade offs . There are enough permutations and combinations there with respect to pure allrounders , batters who bowl , bowlers who hit etc . When did I say there is a singular way to build an LOI template ? You don't have to pull up some random example to make a point. Obviously you can find singular examples to counter a valid generalisation. Are you saying that the generalisation is wrong because you can find some random examples and apparently learnt something very subjective lesson from it? I'm referring to a comprehensive study done by Nathan Leamon for England after their 2015 World Cup cycle . It involved doing a bunch of regression analyses of ODI data for a period of 18 years and they simply could not avoid the conclusion that bowling strength is absolutely overrated in LOI cricket and especially in ODI cricket . Batting strength and high scoring rates in particular was the biggest predictor of success. Nothing even came close to it . Between bowling and batting strength , there was absolutely no argument that bowling strength had to be sacrificed in favour of batting strength . Because even if the 6th bowler offers high wicket taking threat comparable to your main 5 bowlers, you still only get to bowl 50 overs and yet you lose out on a batter and batting strength , as mentioned, could not be sacrificed . So , the logical point to construct a XI was to limit the number of bowlers to 5 and select the best wicket taking bowlers available. Basically their analysis rated high batting strike rates throughout and low bowling strike rates throughout in all phases. That is to say, defensive spin bowling in the middle overs to control the rate does not work according to their analysis. So those bowlers like Woakes whose strike rates rose after powerplay had to learn to power hit to make up for that and to be guaranteed a spot in the XI . Willey and Curran had to work on their power hitting to make up for lack of good bowling strike rates too. And they literally manufactured a side based on this massive study and won 2 out of 3 white ball tournaments. That's proof enough that their method actually works and their findings were pretty accurate . I won't diss the 6 bowler theory now. I'll try to keep an open mind to it in case I'm came across as someone who was a batting strength evangelist. But no team has played a 6 bowler "balance" and won a World Cup. In fact , I don't think any major team has played a 6 bowler balance where your #6 is not a batter first in a major World Cup at least since 1987. I'll also assume, although there is no evidence to suggest this, that CKM Dhananjai or whoever the analyst is found evidence that 6 bowlers are the best way to play LOI cricket and produced a study on that and that's why Rohit and Kohli are following this. But it's an absolute fact that this balance is absolutely unproven and India are taking a balance that no major team has likely used in 36 years and certainly no winning team. This 6 bowler balance , if it actually works, would be absolutely revolutionary and a trailblazer in LOI cricket. But as of now, unless you can find some comprehensive analysis to support this and India proves it right , then there 's no real argument And no number of random examples with selective learnings will suffice. This World Cup is absolutely the test of this balance . No excuses especially for a #1 team at home If you think I'm making it up, do read the book, "Hitting against the spin" by Nathan Leamon and Ben Jones . And random articles are also there by Nathan Leamon who references this . 6 bowlers including Pandya is NOT a choice bhai. It's a compulsion. Doesn't matter if it has never been done. We don't have a choice. If our bowlers suck in warm ups and league stages, then automatically management will move to 7-4 anyways. If Iyer, Surya, Kohli start bowling in the middle overs, we go back to 7-4. Let's get the lay of the land first. Lets see how they test the combos moving forward. The quality of testing will reveal a lot. Edited September 28, 2023 by sensible-indian Link to comment
vvvslaxman Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 Who opened that thread "Ashwin for world cup" lol I thought it was a joke thread. Now it is reality. Link to comment
vvvslaxman Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 There is absolutely no doubt this is probably the best bowling attack any team can field for Indian conditions. Bumrah Siraj Shami Ashwin Jadeja Kuldeep As a combo this attack is handsdown the best bowling attack. But that only tells half the story. It incredibly affects the balance in the batting department. Either Jaddu has to bat like Stokes or Maxwell or even Shakib or someone from batting unit bowl like Markram. Link to comment
Nikhil_cric Posted September 28, 2023 Share Posted September 28, 2023 9 minutes ago, sensible-indian said: 6 bowlers including Pandya is NOT a choice bhai. It's a compulsion. Doesn't matter if it has never been done. We don't have a choice. If our bowlers suck in warm ups and league stages, then automatically management will move to 7-4 anyways. If Iyer, Surya, Kohli start bowling in the middle overs, we go back to 7-4. Let's get the lay of the land first. Lets see how they test the combos moving forward. The quality of testing will reveal a lot. It is absolutely a choice . Sacrifice bowling strength, play the extra batter and get 3-4 overs of part time spin from the batters . Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now