Taking 20 wickets vs Scoring few extra runs

[vvvslaxman]

I think we have deviated away from this mantra of taking 20 wickets because of persisting with useless seniors for far too long.  India should risk going in with the best possible bowling combination without compromise at the risk of having a longish tail. Even with extra batsman we collapse anyway. Redd/Sundar type partnership can happen occasionally. But it is a compromise move. Looking at the SCG it makes more sense going in with 4 proper seamers meaning batting will be light. But even with extra batting we couldn't even score 200.  Been the case for a while. 

[Lord]

this is just a jugaad for accomodate RoKo.

[vvvslaxman]

8 minutes ago, Lord said:

this is just a jugaad for accomodate RoKo.

It affects us two ways. We end up overbowling our strike forces. Also batsmen don't get to face variety. Just 3 type of bowlers. Two of them very similar. Very easy to get used to.

[singhvivek141]

13 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

It affects us two ways. We end up overbowling our strike forces. Also batsmen don't get to face variety. Just 3 type of bowlers. Two of them very similar. Very easy to get used to.

We didn't chose variety.

Akash & Siraj are similar bowlers...Harshit & Prasidh have different strengths like Bumrah yet they both weren't trusted enough.

Basically this became a Bumrah-Siraj attack with 3rd quickie as a lottery and always under pressure to perform.

[Vijy]

2 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

I think we have deviated away from this mantra of taking 20 wickets because of persisting with useless seniors for far too long.  India should risk going in with the best possible bowling combination without compromise at the risk of having a longish tail. Even with extra batsman we collapse anyway. Redd/Sundar type partnership can happen occasionally. But it is a compromise move. Looking at the SCG it makes more sense going in with 4 proper seamers meaning batting will be light. But even with extra batting we couldn't even score 200.  Been the case for a while. 

4 pacers + Sundar should have been enough. if Sundar batted up the order, he could have made as much as (or more than) Jaddu. Likewise, Sundar's 14 could have been made by a fit Akash or perhaps by Rana.

[Ultimate_Game]

5 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

I think we have deviated away from this mantra of taking 20 wickets because of persisting with useless seniors for far too long.  India should risk going in with the best possible bowling combination without compromise at the risk of having a longish tail. Even with extra batsman we collapse anyway. Redd/Sundar type partnership can happen occasionally. But it is a compromise move. Looking at the SCG it makes more sense going in with 4 proper seamers meaning batting will be light. But even with extra batting we couldn't even score 200.  Been the case for a while. 

 

Have been saying since Gabba Test that we need to play all 4 specialist pacers to support Bumrah. Rohit and Kohli are anyway useless and any of the bowlers will give you a similar performance with the bat while making sure we have fresh pacers bowling at Aussie batters all the time.

[Vijy]

57 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Have been saying since Gabba Test that we need to play all 4 specialist pacers to support Bumrah. Rohit and Kohli are anyway useless and any of the bowlers will give you a similar performance with the bat while making sure we have fresh pacers bowling at Aussie batters all the time.

no need for jadeja either. 1 spinner was enough on this pitch. if sundari batted up the order, (s)he would have scored more

[Ultimate_Game]

3 hours ago, Vijy said:

no need for jadeja either. 1 spinner was enough on this pitch. if sundari batted up the order, (s)he would have scored more

 

Jadeja is there for his batting and TBF he does contribute with the bat and is a much better bat than Kohli or Rohit so he deserves to play. It's Kohli who should make his way, not Jadeja or Sundar.

Edited January 4, 2025 by Ultimate_Game

[Vijy]

1 minute ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Jadeja is there for his batting and TBF he does contribute with the bat and is a much better bat than Kohli or Rohit so he deserves to play.

Instead of Jadeja, you could have played Jurel or Sarfaraz.

[Chakdephatte]

17 hours ago, Lord said:

this is just a jugaad for accomodate RoKo.

Nope. Gambhir is thinking in ODI terms. The idea of having multi dimensional players is a limited overs strategy. In test cricket, basics work better. 

 

Nitish and Washi are not taking specialist batting slots, Roko were always safe. 

[Lord]

6 hours ago, Vijy said:

Instead of Jadeja, you could have played Jurel or Sarfaraz.

They are not better batsmen in these conditions. Maybe Jurel could come in for Kohli/Gill. Sarfaraz is too flashy and loose technique

[Lord]

1 minute ago, Chakdephatte said:

Nope. Gambhir is thinking in ODI terms. The idea of having multi dimensional players is a limited overs strategy. In test cricket, basics work better. 

 

Nitish and Washi are not taking specialist batting slots, Roko were always safe. 

 

yes but they need to have someone to clean up after RoKo. if not for Nitish,Sundar and Jaddu, we'd be 3-1 down already

[vvvslaxman]

Although Prasidh looked woeful from one end, he looked deadly from other end. May be Prasidh would have done well in pink ball test, Gabba test. If we had gone with  Bumrah, Siraj, Akash, Prasidh chances are we could always keep them down below par. Now because of 3+1+2 we missed a trick. Also Rohit refused to use Reddy/Sundar often enough to relieve other bowlers. He totally bowled Bumrah into ground with so many mini spells.

[rollingstoned]

5 hours ago, Chakdephatte said:

Nope. Gambhir is thinking in ODI terms. The idea of having multi dimensional players is a limited overs strategy. In test cricket, basics work better. 

 

Nitish and Washi are not taking specialist batting slots, Roko were always safe. 

The all rounder formula is followed by England and Saf because of their conditions. They also produce most bowlers who can bat for the same reason. We are better off going the Aussie way and focussing on specialists. Too much chopping and changing this series. 

[Vijy]

3 hours ago, rollingstoned said:

The all rounder formula is followed by England and Saf because of their conditions. They also produce most bowlers who can bat for the same reason. We are better off going the Aussie way and focussing on specialists. Too much chopping and changing this series. 

Eng didn't have many ARs prior to Ben Stokes + Woakes, followed by others. Most teams in the world - apart from SA - opted for specialists for much of their history.

[rollingstoned]

7 hours ago, Vijy said:

Eng didn't have many ARs prior to Ben Stokes + Woakes, followed by others. Most teams in the world - apart from SA - opted for specialists for much of their history.

By ARs I include bits and pieces players. Spinner is generally expected to be Swann.or Symcox level with the bat. 

[Vijy]

9 minutes ago, rollingstoned said:

By ARs I include bits and pieces players. Spinner is generally expected to be Swann.or Symcox level with the bat. 

Swann was a proper bowler. Wasn't considered a true AR at int'l level, but more of a Kumble-level batter