Pant has all the skills leveling with Tendulkar but match awareness of Arshdeep

[Chakdephatte]

Just in last test he scored fifties in both innings at strike rates above 100. He was our shining light in 3-0 loss against NZ. 

 

Kuch bhi thread! 

[Ultimate_Game]

19 minutes ago, Chakdephatte said:

Just in last test he scored fifties in both innings at strike rates above 100. He was our shining light in 3-0 loss against NZ. 

 

Kuch bhi thread! 

 

Pant has been our best bat over the last 4-5 years.

[Lord]

6 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Pant has been our best bat over the last 4-5 years.

and it has come with same 'Arshdeep awareness' approach

[Nikhil_cric]

The only question with Pant is whether he should be batting at #5 ?

 

I think he should bat lower down at #7 where he can capitalise on an older ball and weary bowlers .

 

There's no point trying to make him into an SRT because that's not his role. 

[lemsip]

38 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

The only question with Pant is whether he should be batting at #5 ?

 

The reason he is batting at #5 currently is simply because he is currently the most consistent batsman in a shaky lineup. As was clear in the NZ series and also the first innings here, he does a pretty good job of  stabilizing the innings and also keep the scoreboard ticking once a shaky top order gives way under pressure. In a properly functioning batting lineup with others pulling their weight, he can come lower.

[maniac]

8 hours ago, Lord said:

 

Pant has Afridi approach now? c;mon

No I was just giving an example saying is attacking cricket is not blind slogging:

[Lord]

6 hours ago, maniac said:

No I was just giving an example saying is attacking cricket is not blind slogging:

 

and Pant plays attacking cricket according to situation. Just won't be a Pujara or even Rahane type ever

[vvvslaxman]

In terms of achievement he exceeded MSD long back. But wish he develops a bit of percentage cricket as he gets older.  Being a short his frontfoot game is open to examination. Gilchrist was reasonably tall. He could belt most lengths on the frontfoot.  Pant has to run down the wicket to meet the ball due to his short stature.  It makes his game more risky than Gilchrist's game.  As he gets older he has to get the sweet spot right so that he is more dependable. 

Edited December 9, 2024 by vvvslaxman

[New guy]

Pant gets our playing defensive shots ways more than attacking shots. Last test both dismissals were while defending. 

[New guy]

On 11/26/2024 at 12:31 AM, Nikhil_cric said:

The only question with Pant is whether he should be batting at #5 ?

 

I think he should bat lower down at #7 where he can capitalise on an older ball and weary bowlers .

 

There's no point trying to make him into an SRT because that's not his role. 

The most consistent batsman who top scored or was second top scorer in every series for us since 2020 should bat lower? Based on one match?

 

Dude he was the top scorer from BOTH sides in the NZ series and you want to demote him and let him play with tail enders so he gets less chances?

 

What kind of logic is this?

[singhvivek141]

17 minutes ago, New guy said:

Pant gets our playing defensive shots ways more than attacking shots. Last test both dismissals were while defending. 

Swing is his nemesis.

Pant usually does well against spin and bounce (unless awkward).

Pink ball game is very similar to a test in England or NZ.

[New guy]

23 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said:

Swing is his nemesis.

Pant usually does well against spin and bounce (unless awkward).

Pink ball game is very similar to a test in England or NZ.

He does have 2 100s in England though, 146 and 114.

[Nikhil_cric]

4 hours ago, New guy said:

The most consistent batsman who top scored or was second top scorer in every series for us since 2020 should bat lower? Based on one match?

 

Dude he was the top scorer from BOTH sides in the NZ series and you want to demote him and let him play with tail enders so he gets less chances?

 

What kind of logic is this?

Gilchrist batted at #7.     Did you think that was a poor decision?

 

 

[lemsip]

4 hours ago, New guy said:

He does have 2 100s in England though, 146 and 114.

Plus a hundred in SA which are currently the most difficult batting conditions anywhere. And then Australia of course.

Since he has returned from his injury just a few games ago he has scored a hundred in his first game back, a 99, 2 60s on a spinning minefield and has always chipped in with 20s and 30s in almost every match. Compared to most other keeper bats playing in the world, that's a massive advantage to India.

Gilchrist used to bat with a top order which can't be compared to this Indian team.

 

[New guy]

58 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Gilchrist batted at #7.     Did you think that was a poor decision?

 

 

Australia had a deep goat batting line-up and even at no 7 Gilchrist ended up batting with one of the top order bat.

 

Meanwhile we are brittle and our tailenders cannot hold a bat. If pant comes at no 7, he will just run out of partners.

[lemsip]

8 minutes ago, New guy said:

Australia had a deep goat batting line-up and even at no 7 Gilchrist ended up batting with one of the top order bat.

 

Yeah by the time Gilchrist came in to bat, Australia had at least 200-250 on the board. Pant is regularly coming in at when half the side is back in the hut for low double figures. Can't compare at all. If India had a functioning top order, Pant would be much more impactful and could bat lower. At the moment he has to play at 5 simply because any lower would mean he runs out of partners. The issue then becomes unrealistic expectations as people start him to be the main batsman in the side and single handedly score runs in every single innings while accepting failure after failure from the designated batsmen.

[Nikhil_cric]

40 minutes ago, New guy said:

Australia had a deep goat batting line-up and even at no 7 Gilchrist ended up batting with one of the top order bat.

 

Meanwhile we are brittle and our tailenders cannot hold a bat. If pant comes at no 7, he will just run out of partners.

We won't develop proper middle order if we keep playing Pant at #5. 

 

Pant should bat no higher than #6 imo, where counter attacking batsmen have traditionally batted.

 

The fact that we don't have competent batters doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying folks in the Top 5. 

[singhvivek141]

4 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

We won't develop proper middle order if we keep playing Pant at #5. 

 

Pant should bat no higher than #6 imo, where counter attacking batsmen have traditionally batted.

 

The fact that we don't have competent batters doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying folks in the Top 5. 

 

Nothing will happen till the 2 maharathis plus the side actor remain in the team.

 

Jurel is a good batsman, sure he failed in one overseas test.....but one should back someone who is talented and has a high ceiling. Pant & NKR both need support in order to play a substantial role, which our top order isnt giving them.

 

Pant at 5, Jurel at 6 & NKR at 7 is a viable team. 

 

[singhvivek141]

9 hours ago, New guy said:

He does have 2 100s in England though, 146 and 114.

If Pant can battle it out at the start, he usually adapts the condition well and can score runs at a rapid pace.

[gattaca]

16 hours ago, New guy said:

Pant gets our playing defensive shots ways more than attacking shots. Last test both dismissals were while defending. 

Then he has improve his defense. It’s test cricket he can’t always play attacking cricket.