Gabba 2021 vs MCG 2024.- compare and contrast

[Ultimate_Game]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

It is not about the “100” (it is being mentioned as it is what he scored) but he contributed in a test that India won (could have been a 60 as well).  India could have declared before Kohli scored a 100 is not the same as India would have declared before Kohli walked in.
 
While someone else may (or may not) have done better, it is difficult say that “India would won the series just by replacing X and/or Y”. 

 

If you can't see that India is carrying Kohli and Rohit as passengers and that any half-decent performances would be better than them then I don't think you're seeing the same series. Pujara was supported by Pant, Gill, Aggarwal, Sundar, Thakur etc. in 2020. Here we don't have anyone supporting Jaiswal, Reddy and Sundar coz we're playing with 9 players.

 

"Contributing" when the score is 300/2 and scoring cheap runs is not really a contribution. Contribution is what Nitish Reddy, Jaiswal and Reddy are doing, and what Rahul did at Perth. This team is paying the price of carrying the two has been passengers and inability to replace them, and not absence of Pujara - the same way we didn't miss Pujara against NZ at home but lost due to playing Rohit and Kohli whose 4 innings in a match are equivalent to a no. 11's performances.

[zen]

1 minute ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

If you can't see that India is carrying Kohli and Rohit as passengers and that any half-decent performances would be better than them then I don't think you're seeing the same series. Pujara was supported by Pant, Gill, Aggarwal, Sundar, Thakur etc. in 2020. Here we don't have anyone supporting Jaiswal, Reddy and Sundar coz we're playing with 9 players.

 

"Contributing" when the score is 300/2 and scoring cheap runs is not really a contribution. Contribution is what Nitish Reddy, Jaiswal and Reddy are doing, and what Rahul did at Perth. This team is paying the price of carrying the two has been passengers and inability to replace them, and not absence of Pujara - the same way we didn't miss Pujara against NZ at home but lost due to playing Rohit and Kohli whose 4 innings in a match are equivalent to a no. 11's performances.

The thread is on the difference b/w India’s past series and this one. And as I said, it is a lack of Pujara like performance in terms of runs, ball faced, playing out tough sessions and passage of play, and shielding other batsmen, who get a better chance of scoring. 
 

What you are saying is that X and Y would have been better than Kohli and Rohit, but that does not equate to India “winning” the series. 

 

As I already said, India has players who can give 1-2 good performances in a series (esp. where conditions vary), what it lacks is someone to have a big consistent series in terms of factors listed. 
 

 

 

[Ultimate_Game]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

The thread is on the difference b/w India’s past series and this one. And as I said, it is a lack of Pujara like performance in terms of runs, ball faced, playing out tough sessions and passage of play, and shielding other batsmen, who get a better chance of scoring. 
 

What you are saying is that X and Y would have been better than Kohli and Rohit, but that does not equate to India “winning” the series. 

 

As I already said, India has players who can give 1-2 good performances in a series (esp. where conditions vary), what it lacks is someone to have a big consistent series in terms of factors listed. 
 

 

 

 

What I'm saying is that we would've the same result as earlier series if we replace Rohit and Kohli with any half-decent batters which we had in 2020 and earlier. The difference is not absence of Pujara but addition of the two tailenders. That's what's the difference between 2020 and now. Plus we have Rohit's clueless captaincy to drag us down further.

 

In other words, simply adding Pujara to this team (say at 3) won't make any difference if Kohli and Rohit continue to be in the team.

[zen]

6 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

What I'm saying is that we would've the same result as earlier series if we replace Rohit and Kohli with any half-decent batters which we had in 2020 and earlier. The difference is not absence of Pujara but addition of the two tailenders. That's what's the difference between 2020 and now. Plus we have Rohit's clueless captaincy to drag us down further.

 

In other words, simply adding Pujara to this team (say at 3) won't make any difference if Kohli and Rohit continue to be in the team.

Adding a Pujara like performance would as it would mean India playing more overs as a team, other batsmen being shielded when the going gets tough (arresting collapses), etc. 

 

And as I said, X and Y could have performed like tailenders too. Or performing “relatively” better does not translate into series wins. 
 

Edited December 30, 2024 by zen

[Ultimate_Game]

Just now, zen said:

Adding a Pujara like performance would as it would mean India playing more overs as a team, other batsmen being shielded when the going gets tough (arresting collapses), etc. 

 

And as I said, X and Y would not have performed like tailenders too. Or performing “relatively” better does not translate into series wins. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relatively better means we don't lose to Aussies. Look at Rohit here. The team is well settled and playing as a team. He comes in, disrupts the team and team chemistry, and breaks up the Jaiswal-Rahul opening partnership which was working decently. He disrupted the team single handedly. An dthen we've all seen his stellar captaincy and his fetish for running Bumrah into the ground.

 

And then we have "King" Kohli who can't even play deliveries outside off (staple and most common deliveries in cricket) without edging one. He doesn't score at all and runs out the batters who are actually scoring.

 

So yeah, it's the presence of these two passengers which has been the biggest difference maker, not the absence of Pujara. Remove these two cancers and we don't lose to this Aussie team.

[zen]

Just now, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Relatively better means we don't lose to Aussies. Look at Rohit here. The team is well settled and playing as a team. He comes in, disrupts the team and team chemistry, and breaks up the Jaiswal-Rahul opening partnership which was working decently. He disrupted the team single handedly. An dthen we've all seen his stellar captaincy and his fetish for running Bumrah into the ground.

 

And then we have "King" Kohli who can't even play deliveries outside off (staple and most common deliveries in cricket) without edging one. He doesn't score at all and runs out the batters who are actually scoring.

 

So yeah, it's the presence of these two passengers which has been the biggest difference maker, not the absence of Pujara. Remove these two cancers and we don't lose to this Aussie team.

“relatively better” means doing relatively better than Kohli and Rohit, it does not equate to having a big series. 

I don’t agree with your analysis. 

 

[Ultimate_Game]

13 minutes ago, zen said:

“relatively better” means doing relatively better than Kohli and Rohit, it does not equate to having a big series. 

I don’t agree with your analysis. 

 

 

Relatively better means India replicating its performances from previous 2 Aus tours. Whether you agree or not, it's more than clear how much Rohit and Kohli are dragging the team down. Not just their batting performances, which are almost non-existent, and also in captaincy, team selections, and forcing literally every other team member playing out of position so that they can continue to play.

 

You can put Viv Richards in this team and he would struggle to reverse the damage caused by the Dynamic Duo of Kohli and Rohit.

[zen]

Just now, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Relatively better means India replicating its performances from previous 2 Aus tours. Whether you agree or not, it's more than clear how much Rohit and Kohli are dragging the team down. Not just their batting performances, which are almost non-existent, and also in captaincy, team selections, and forcing literally every other team member playing out of position so that they can continue to play.

 

You can put Viv Richards in this team and he would struggle to reverse the damage caused by the Dynamic Duo of Kohli and Rohit.

I think you are too upset with Ind’s performance because of these two. 
 

I don’t mind if these two retire but am not looking at magical turnaround performances from the replacements.
 

At SCG, relatively familiar conditions can make the team more competitive.

[Ultimate_Game]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

I think you are too upset with Ind’s performance because of these two. 
 

I don’t mind if these two retire but am not looking at magical turnaround performances from the replacements.
 

At SCG, relatively familiar conditions can make the team more competitive.

 

You don't need "magical" performances from others. Simply showing up and scoring consistent 20s & 30s in 60-70 deliveries would've been enough. We got these sort of performances from other in 2020 and earlier. Here we've 2 walking wkts which was the major difference.

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

You don't need "magical" performances from others. Simply showing up and scoring consistent 20s & 30s in 60-70 deliveries would've been enough. We got these sort of performances from other in 2020 and earlier. Here we've 2 walking wkts which was the major difference.

20s-30s don’t win test series. And  there is no guarantee that a Padikkal or an Eshwaran or a Sardaraz or whoever would get that. 
 

In 2020, there was Pujara who played out tough periods of play, arresting potential collapses. 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

The OP question was simply referring to the 4th innings chase, not the rest of the backdrop. Almost exactly the same required score in the same amount of time on a similar track against the same attack. Results vastly different. 

 

Great case study for someone to try and dissect. 

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

The OP question was simply referring to the 4th innings chase, not the rest of the backdrop. Almost exactly the same required score in the same amount of time on a similar track against the same attack. Results vastly different. 

 

Great case study for someone to try and dissect. 

Dissect and Trisect

[rollingstoned]

8 hours ago, zen said:

“relatively better” means doing relatively better than Kohli and Rohit, it does not equate to having a big series. 

I don’t agree with your analysis. 

 

2021 BGT was an eg of exactly doing enough as a team instead of having consistent stand out performances from any one player in the batting line up. None of the batsmen finished with stellar averages but more or less maintained their avgs with contributions from lower order. You'd expect your senior batsmen in important batting positions to fo at least this much, even if it is not a series where they pile on 1000 runs. If they don't then it is not rocket science to see that those lack of runs are badly hurting you. If they had even matched Pujara in 2021 that would have been enough, we are not saying they should have done what he did in 2018. 

[zen]

3 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

The OP question was simply referring to the 4th innings chase, not the rest of the backdrop. Almost exactly the same required score in the same amount of time on a similar track against the same attack. Results vastly different. 

 

Great case study for someone to try and dissect. 

Well, every game is different! (Or the powerful WI would have chased 183 in “83. WI chased a similar score against Pak in the SF with ease)!

 

[zen]

46 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

2021 BGT was an eg of exactly doing enough as a team instead of having consistent stand out performances from any one player in the batting line up. None of the batsmen finished with stellar averages but more or less maintained their avgs with contributions from lower order. You'd expect your senior batsmen in important batting positions to fo at least this much, even if it is not a series where they pile on 1000 runs. If they don't then it is not rocket science to see that those lack of runs are badly hurting you. If they had even matched Pujara in 2021 that would have been enough, we are not saying they should have done what he did in 2018. 

Pujara was exceptional in the 2nd half of the series, scoring 3 50s in 4 innings, playing tons of balls including in tough sessions to shield other batsmen and prevent potential collapses.

 

[zen]

Btw, talking about collapses, a painful one against Pak at B’lore in 2005 after Sehwag-Gambhir had given a good platform (when it appeared that Ind would draw the game):

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/pakistan-tour-of-india-2004-05-61525/india-vs-pakistan-3rd-test-64127/full-scorecard

[Ultimate_Game]

9 hours ago, zen said:

20s-30s don’t win test series. And  there is no guarantee that a Padikkal or an Eshwaran or a Sardaraz or whoever would get that. 
 

In 2020, there was Pujara who played out tough periods of play, arresting potential collapses. 

 

 

 

20s and 30s from 2 players who're scoring 3s and 4s will make a difference. And there's no guarantee that an over the hill Pujara is gonna do much either. If I was forced to pick just one has been player out of all we have, I would pick Rahane for his captaincy and drop all of Rohit, Kohli, Pujara etc.

[Bigg Brother]

Gabba- Rohit failed 

 

MCG- Rohit failed again 

 

 

2 of the 3 architects of that win (Pujara,Gill) aren't in team while the guy who scored single digit both the times is captain. 

[Ultimate_Game]

11 minutes ago, Bigg Brother said:

Gabba- Rohit failed 

 

MCG- Rohit failed again 

 

 

2 of the 3 architects of that win (Pujara,Gill) aren't in team while the guy who scored single digit both the times is captain. 

 

That's what's called "experience" and that's why we play "seniors" 

[BacktoCricaddict]

8 hours ago, zen said:

Pujara was exceptional in the 2nd half of the series, scoring 3 50s in 4 innings, playing tons of balls including in tough sessions to shield other batsmen and prevent potential collapses.

 

I think there's something to this.

 

Pujara, Vihari and Ashwin's grind-it-out batting in the previous tests had worn their bowling out. Now, this can be disproved easily with hard numbers that I am too lazy to look up. But it just seems like Starc and Cummins have more juice now.