If Aus had batted 30 overs for 100 runs and made India bat again early

[Trichromatic]

There were chances of India batting again for 1 hr when still had lot of help for bowlers.

 

We might have seen quick 3-4 wickets falling for India. Most people blaming young players for lack of patience, seniors for failing.

 

Lower order would have done some rescue job with India reaching 210-230.

 

Aus would have chased the scored target with ease and bowlers would have got blame for giving target easily on such track like it happened in SA.

 

Lot of would have, should have. Just wondering how much timing and conditions matter in test cricket.

[Trichromatic]

Starc literally saved Indian batsmen.

[BacktoCricaddict]

12 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Starc literally saved Indian batsmen.

Do you think it was strategic on India's part? I don't think it was, but I still wonder ...

[neel roy]

Evident in the Bangalore test. If we survived the first session we would have won the series. Weather screwed us

[Trichromatic]

4 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Do you think it was strategic on India's part? I don't think it was, but I still wonder ...

 

I don't think so. It just happened for India.

 

Labuschange's knock of 2 runs in 56 balls was really poor in this context.

 

This is one area where I felt that England have saved themselves multiple times in recent past.

 

Since they bat fast they maximise their runs when pitch is still flat.

[Trichromatic]

11 minutes ago, neel roy said:

Evident in the Bangalore test. If we survived the first session we would have won the series. Weather screwed us

 

Yes, cricket is amazing game in this regard.

 

If you're able to counter external conditions 10% better, difference in results is huge.

 

This case didn't even require Aus to score more, just getting same runs quickly might have forced India to bat in difficult conditions.

 

It just happened.

 

On the other hand, it can argued that if 2-3 batsmen in Aus could have batted like Labu to reach 50-3 or 50-4 by end of day 1, then who knows someone from middle order could have hit 100 in first inning on flat pitch.

[Trichromatic]

Also if India had scored 220-250 to avoid Aus batting on day 1, then also it could have been different game altogether.

[Trichromatic]

Starc, Labu, Lyon, Josh

 

They batted 35+ overs for 40 runs.

[Ultimate_Game]

Cricket is a conditions dependent game. In England you get cloud cover and the ball start swinging. Or sometimes you win the toss, put opponents in to bat and see the sun come out by the time batsmen walk out, or vice versa. Or sometimes you suddenly get rain which livens up the pitch and the team batting has to struggle.

 

This is not limited to Tests alone. In ODIs we have venues where ball moves considerably under lights and batting first is a huge advantage. And at other venues dew becomes a factor and chasing under lights is a big plus. Look at 2021 WT20 at Dewbai. Almost all non-minnow matches between the teams were won by chasing team. Aaron Finch won 6 out of 7 tosses and Aus won the cup. The only toss they lost, they were bundled out for 120 odd and were hammered by 8 wkts. If India had won all the tosses, we probably end up winning as well. One of the main reasons why we didn't win a tourney over the last decade was coz we lost 10 or 11 tosses in a row in knockout matches.

 

Same concept can be applied to umpiring calls. Some teams get rub of the green a lot more than others. Anyone who says luck evens out is from a team who hasn't got stiffed regularly. Cricket is one of the few sports where luck and non-cricketing factors can have bigger influence than skills alone. Cricket is not like Tennis or Soccer where conditions remain the same for both sides. That's the beauty of Cricket and probably what makes the sport so unique.

[vvvslaxman]

Just now, Ultimate_Game said:

Cricket is a conditions dependent game. In England you get cloud cover and the ball start swinging. Or sometimes you win the toss, put opponents in to bat and see the sun come out by the time batsmen walk out, or vice versa. Or sometimes you suddenly get rain which livens up the pitch and the team batting has to struggle.

 

This is not limited to Tests alone. In ODIs we have venues where ball moves considerably under lights and batting first is a huge advantage. And at other venues dew becomes a factor and chasing under lights is a big plus. Look at 2021 WT20 at Dewbai. Almost all non-minnow matches between the teams were won by chasing team. Aaron Finch won 6 out of 7 tosses and Aus won the cup. The only toss they lost, they were bundled out for 120 odd and were hammered by 8 wkts. If India had won all the tosses, we probably end up winning as well. One of the main reasons why we didn't win a tourney over the last decade was coz we lost 10 or 11 tosses in a row in knockout matches.

 

Same concept can be applied to umpiring calls. Some teams get rub of the green a lot more than others. Anyone who says luck evens out is from a team who hasn't got stiffed regularly. Cricket is one of the few sports where luck and non-cricketing factors can have bigger influence than skills alone. Cricket is not like Tennis or Soccer where conditions remain the same for both sides. That's the beauty of Cricket and probably what makes the sport so unique.

 

 

2019 semi final.  2-day ODI  India bat next day and got owned in the early morning conditions. If they had batted the previous day they could have own.

[Ultimate_Game]

8 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

 

2019 semi final.  2-day ODI  India bat next day and got owned in the early morning conditions. If they had batted the previous day they could have own.

 

Yup. There has never been a cricket match where conditions were exactly the same for both teams. The very fact that the 2nd team bats after the first team has batted means conditions will be different. This is what the sport is all about. That's why it's a much more cerebral sport with team composition, toss decisions, bowling changes etc. playing a huge role. That's why a captain for a cricket team is a lot different than say a captain in soccer.

 

If you take out "luck" factor, there won't be Cricket. You can dissect every match and series and I'll show you how the game could've gone either way. And I'm not even getting into luck factor with run outs or dropped catches etc.

[Trichromatic]

30 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

Cricket is a conditions dependent game. In England you get cloud cover and the ball start swinging. Or sometimes you win the toss, put opponents in to bat and see the sun come out by the time batsmen walk out, or vice versa. Or sometimes you suddenly get rain which livens up the pitch and the team batting has to struggle.

 

This is not limited to Tests alone. In ODIs we have venues where ball moves considerably under lights and batting first is a huge advantage. And at other venues dew becomes a factor and chasing under lights is a big plus. Look at 2021 WT20 at Dewbai. Almost all non-minnow matches between the teams were won by chasing team. Aaron Finch won 6 out of 7 tosses and Aus won the cup. The only toss they lost, they were bundled out for 120 odd and were hammered by 8 wkts. If India had won all the tosses, we probably end up winning as well. One of the main reasons why we didn't win a tourney over the last decade was coz we lost 10 or 11 tosses in a row in knockout matches.

 

Same concept can be applied to umpiring calls. Some teams get rub of the green a lot more than others. Anyone who says luck evens out is from a team who hasn't got stiffed regularly. Cricket is one of the few sports where luck and non-cricketing factors can have bigger influence than skills alone. Cricket is not like Tennis or Soccer where conditions remain the same for both sides. That's the beauty of Cricket and probably what makes the sport so unique.

 

Those are more or less expected or known scenario for cricket.

 

This type of scenario is less explored one where getting out in lesser overs or batting longer actually might have harmed the team.

 

Ashes was in similar boat I guess. Lot of things were turned around due to conditions and timing.

[Ultimate_Game]

6 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Those are more or less expected or known scenario for cricket.

 

This type of scenario is less explored one where getting out in lesser overs or batting longer actually might have harmed the team.

 

Ashes was in similar boat I guess. Lot of things were turned around due to conditions and timing.

 

This used to happen quite frequently in the days of uncovered pitches. Stories like declaring early so that opponents could be put into bat when conditions were still tricky, or teams reversing the batting order (Aus did it in Ashes) where Bradman batted at 6 or 7 so that by the time batters came in, conditions would be much better to bat.

 

Also remember SA or Aus declaring quite early in an Adelaide Pink Ball Test as the ball was doing a lot under lights and they decided it would be better to declare early and forego a few runs and let the opponent bat in tricky conditions.

[Serpico]

It is hard to plan for everything in a 5 day game, too many variables. If india collapses in the first hour today, everyone will be saying jaiswal and KL could have shown little more intent yesterday in flat conditions. But if the condition remains flat, it will be fantastic approach 

[Ultimate_Game]

2 minutes ago, Serpico said:

It is hard to plan for everything in a 5 day game, too many variables. If india collapses in the first hour today, everyone will be saying jaiswal and KL could have shown little more intent yesterday in flat conditions. But if the condition remains flat, it will be fantastic approach 

 

It's very easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. Conditions change all the time in cricket. It's not the first time pitch flattened out a bit and conditions became easier to bat, and it won't be the last. It happens literally every year in Eng and NZ.

[Norman]

3 hours ago, neel roy said:

Evident in the Bangalore test. If we survived the first session we would have won the series. Weather screwed us

 

Why blame the weather? Dumb Fatso literally won the toss that game and chose to bat first on what is probably the most bowling friendly surface and conditions india have ever seen on home soil.

[maniac]

These woulda coulda shoulda don’t work in cricket. Even a fluke 20 run lead would have been altogether a different ball game for India even with an easier pitch.

[rkt.india]

1 hour ago, maniac said:

These woulda coulda shoulda don’t work in cricket. Even a fluke 20 run lead would have been altogether a different ball game for India even with an easier pitch.

No, it wouldn't. It would still have been a job well done by the bowlers. No one expected Aus to get out to 100.

[AuxiliA]

Na King Kohli saved India by strategically by getting out early on day 1. 

 

Had we batted longer on day 1, Aus would have got better conditions to bat in on day 2. 

[diga]

2 minutes ago, AuxiliA said:

Na King Kohli saved India by strategically by getting out early on day 1. 

 

Had we batted longer on day 1, Aus would have got better conditions to bat in on day 2. 

and also by dropping sitters to make Aus bat longer