14 overs of Akashdeep out first 28 overs in England's 2nd inn - early declaration would have made it impossible

[R!TTER]

4 hours ago, adi B said:

you all would have rushed to chop off Gambhir's head

I would've aimed for little GG but you do you  

[Trichromatic]

5 hours ago, Lord said:

520 in 140 overs is doable. We scored 420 in 80 overs. 

 

I don't think runs were the issue. It was timing only.

[Trichromatic]

3 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

You can't use exceptions as a rule. Also, a lot of difference between 370 and 520. While chasing 370 they didn't have to worry about RR. India could've easily bowled negative lines here to slow them down with Jadeja and Sundar.

 

To me the risk-reward simply wasn't there. Once the target crosses 400, the chances to chase diminishes exponentially and at 500 the risk is almost nil. We should've declared when 510-520 ahead to give bowlers more time. We lucked out due to an unbelievable Akash else it could've been a case of so near and yet so far.

 

You don't get into such strong positions away from home that often and it would've been a pity had we missed the chance to win.

 

With 500, bowlers would have been left to bowl 1.5 sessions and a lot of those by spinners which wouldn't have helped.

 

Increasing time wouldn't have increased chances of taking wickets.

[Trichromatic]

7 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Things fell into place. It may not have been entirely planned. It became possible because of how Jadeja batted after pant again threw his wicket. Had Jadeja tried same and lost his wicket, we may have bundled out early and things could have been different. 

 

Maybe Jadeja was asked to bat like this for same plan only.

[Trichromatic]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

It was moronic batting by Jadeja. If he cannot take even singles when field was so wide spread then there is a big problem. He is purely playing as batsman.

 

Not every day team score 1000 runs.
 

They got lucky with their defensive declaration.

Last test they simply failed to get wickets with new ball which is vital. 370 would have been hard to chase then also.

 

How is it defensive declaration when it allowed team to attack England batting more with new ball?

[Lord]

4 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

I don't think runs were the issue. It was timing only.

Bit of both imo. It's a young attack. You don't want them on defensive like it happened in first innings 

[Trichromatic]

2 minutes ago, Lord said:

Bit of both imo. It's a young attack. You don't want them on defensive like it happened in first innings 

 

Runs wise team would have felt safe after 500 also. Even 550 couldn't bring declaration tells that it was mostly timing.

 

For sure they wouldn't have declared with 450 due to runs issue.

[Ultimate_Game]

13 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

 

With 500, bowlers would have been left to bowl 1.5 sessions and a lot of those by spinners which wouldn't have helped.

 

Increasing time wouldn't have increased chances of taking wickets.

 

510-520 was a good enough target. It eliminates the chance of Eng batting out a draw, which was a possibility thanks to us batting needlessly for an extra hour. If you lose defending a target of 500+, you doff your cap at the opponents and give them credit for the record breaking event. But the answer is not to bat some more for a miniscule chance that opponents may chase 500+ in the 4th innings.

[Lord]

13 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Runs wise team would have felt safe after 500 also. Even 550 couldn't bring declaration tells that it was mostly timing.

 

For sure they wouldn't have declared with 450 due to runs issue.

 

You say that and I feel 500 chase is very close to happening. 418 was chased 16 years ago and similar scores have been mowed down easily in recent times especially by England, More teams will be doing it due to T20 effect

[Lord]

6 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

510-520 was a good enough target. It eliminates the chance of Eng batting out a draw, which was a possibility thanks to us batting needlessly for an extra hour. If you lose defending a target of 500+, you doff your cap at the opponents and give them credit for the record breaking event. But the answer is not to bat some more for a miniscule chance that opponents may chase 500+ in the 4th innings.

 

But we wanted them to bat for a draw, their techniques are suspect and they still went down swinging

[rkt.india]

7 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

You say that and I feel 500 chase is very close to happening. 418 was chased 16 years ago and similar scores have been mowed down easily in recent times especially by England, More teams will be doing it due to T20 effect

SA almost chased 458 against us in Joburg in 2013, ran out of time.

Edited July 7, 2025 by rkt.india

[Ultimate_Game]

4 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

But we wanted them to bat for a draw, their techniques are suspect and they still went down swinging

 

We reduced our chances of a win by leaving less time on the table. Have to be more ruthless and aggressive. As I said if a team chases 500 and beats them, so be it. I can live with that. But continuing to bat to account for a "once in a blue moon" chase and ending up drawing a winnable game is something difficult to digest. It ended well but I would prefer we prioritize wins compared to safety first approach which we saw.

[rkt.india]

1 minute ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

We reduced our chances of a win by leaving less time on the table. Have to be more ruthless and aggressive. As I said if a team chases 500 and beats them, so be it. I can live with that. But continuing to bat to account for a "once in a blue moon" chase and ending up drawing a winnable game is something difficult to digest. It ended well but I would prefer we prioritize wins compared to safety first approach which we saw.

No, you will crib about that, letting them chase 500. You won't live with that. 

[putrevus]

13 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

 

How is it defensive declaration when it allowed team to attack England batting more with new ball?

They wanted to save the test first and then win. That is called defensive declaration.

 

If you cannot win defending 500 , you won't win defending 600 either. Remember Dhoni screwing India by declaring too late in NZ with 600 plus lead. He was just happy winning the series 1-0 against a very weak NZ team.

 

It worked out for Gill  but it does not mean it was correct call.Last test Stokes batted first , it worked out for him but it was a wrong call then also.

 

You don't bowl first on flat pitch and put your team out of the test match in first innings itself.It was lucky for England India did not score more runs in first innings there also.

 

Edited July 7, 2025 by putrevus

[Ultimate_Game]

34 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

No, you will crib about that, letting them chase 500. You won't live with that. 

 

I would be more upset if we run out of time coz we were too busy setting up a target of 600

[Trichromatic]

3 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

We reduced our chances of a win by leaving less time on the table. Have to be more ruthless and aggressive. As I said if a team chases 500 and beats them, so be it. I can live with that. But continuing to bat to account for a "once in a blue moon" chase and ending up drawing a winnable game is something difficult to digest. It ended well but I would prefer we prioritize wins compared to safety first approach which we saw.

More time doesn’t equate to more chances of wickets beyond an extent.

 

More wickets require favourable conditions.

[Trichromatic]

3 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

We reduced our chances of a win by leaving less time on the table. Have to be more ruthless and aggressive. As I said if a team chases 500 and beats them, so be it. I can live with that. But continuing to bat to account for a "once in a blue moon" chase and ending up drawing a winnable game is something difficult to digest. It ended well but I would prefer we prioritize wins compared to safety first approach which we saw.

Do you think Akashdeep would have bowled 14 overs with full tilt in a session?

[vvvslaxman]

test

Edited July 7, 2025 by vvvslaxman

[New guy]

On 7/6/2025 at 11:56 PM, rkt.india said:

Things fell into place. It may not have been entirely planned. It became possible because of how Jadeja batted after pant again threw his wicket. Had Jadeja tried same and lost his wicket, we may have bundled out early and things could have been different. 

Cheap shot on Pant for absolutely no reason. I have to agree with others that you are just an attention seeker. 

[rkt.india]

3 hours ago, New guy said:

Cheap shot on Pant for absolutely no reason. I have to agree with others that you are just an attention seeker. 

He threw his wicket is a fact.