AT&T stats

[vvvslaxman]

[vvvslaxman]

[G_B_]

Whats the bowling for india

 

I feel this series the spinners had barely any impact.

 

Will show lack of 5th pace bowler. England had that with stokes.

[StraightDrive26]

5 hours ago, G_B_ said:

Whats the bowling for india

 

I feel this series the spinners had barely any impact.

 

Will show lack of 5th pace bowler. England had that with stokes.

England problem was not the fifth bowler but the first 4 bowlers. Woakes was ordinary. Tongue was inconsistent, Archer was fine but was rusty. Carse was good but did not have much variety. Stokes was the one who was keeping it alive for England. Gus Atkinson came in the final Test and made their bowling look better.

Edited August 7, 2025 by StraightDrive26

[Ultimate_Game]

5 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Sai's stat is an aberration. With such a high control %ge you expect him to average a lot higher. That's why he gives me hope that he'll be the one for the longer run 

[Gollum]

3 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Sai's stat is an aberration. With such a high control %ge you expect him to average a lot higher. That's why he gives me hope that he'll be the one for the longer run 

#3 is a tough position man, like opening. We need to give him some time to settle there. Pujara had major struggles in his first SENA assignments, but ultimately became our MVP, and won us 2 series in Aus. Chopping and changing won't accomplish anything useful. 

[Ultimate_Game]

4 minutes ago, Gollum said:

#3 is a tough position man, like opening. We need to give him some time to settle there. Pujara had major struggles in his first SENA assignments, but ultimately became our MVP, and won us 2 series in Aus. Chopping and changing won't accomplish anything useful. 

 

If there's a better option at 3, try them. But at the moment I don't see too many better options.

[Lord]

1 hour ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

If there's a better option at 3, try them. But at the moment I don't see too many better options.

 

There are many openers and no. 3 having better numbers in FC, but they dont play IPL so wont be considered, just like Easwaran has been ignored

[Ultimate_Game]

35 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

There are many openers and no. 3 having better numbers in FC, but they dont play IPL so wont be considered, just like Easwaran has been ignored

 

Easwaran hasn't done himself any favours either. In every A tour match or A series before the Test series he has struggled. Even Nair was able to pile on runs during the A matches whereas Easwaran has simply gone missing. Tough to play a player or back someone who can't even perform in A matches against poor opponents.

[Lord]

2 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Easwaran hasn't done himself any favours either. In every A tour match or A series before the Test series he has struggled. Even Nair was able to pile on runs during the A matches whereas Easwaran has simply gone missing. Tough to play a player or back someone who can't even perform in A matches against poor opponents.

Easwaran scored 80 in one game and 68 in another. Sai missed both the games. Despite better FC numbers and playing v England A, Sai was preferred. 

 

Nothing against Sai, but he seems more of a white ball player. Maybe backed due to age but then we have guys like Yash Dhull doing well in FC

 

The impact of IPL on selections in all formats can not be ignored. There is little incentive for doing well in domestic cricket especially in a say Pujara like manner 

 

[G_B_]

9 hours ago, StraightDrive26 said:

England problem was not the fifth bowler but the first 4 bowlers. Woakes was ordinary. Tongue was inconsistent, Archer was fine but was rusty. Carse was good but did not have much variety. Stokes was the one who was keeping it alive for England. Gus Atkinson came in the final Test and made their bowling look better.

 

 

Atkinson archer bashir stokes and woakes is the english preferred attack.

 

I dont think india have faced this attack. Woakes is effective bowling longish spells with bursts or archer n atkinson at the other end.

 

 

[Vk1]

9 hours ago, StraightDrive26 said:

England problem was not the fifth bowler but the first 4 bowlers. Woakes was ordinary. Tongue was inconsistent, Archer was fine but was rusty. Carse was good but did not have much variety. Stokes was the one who was keeping it alive for England. Gus Atkinson came in the final Test and made their bowling look better.

we were really lucky to have faced this bowling attack. If Stokes was not bowling we could have easily won by 4-0 margin.  Its just the gigantic class difference between Anderson & Broad vs these folks.. even Moeen Ali used to pick wickets for fun when they were around.

Edited August 8, 2025 by Vk1

[Ultimate_Game]

7 hours ago, Lord said:

Easwaran scored 80 in one game and 68 in another. Sai missed both the games. Despite better FC numbers and playing v England A, Sai was preferred. 

 

Nothing against Sai, but he seems more of a white ball player. Maybe backed due to age but then we have guys like Yash Dhull doing well in FC

 

The impact of IPL on selections in all formats can not be ignored. There is little incentive for doing well in domestic cricket especially in a say Pujara like manner 

 

 

Easwaran has never been able to perform better than the competition. In Aus he was out-batted by Sai and Jurel in India A matches. In Eng Nair out-performed him. He'll have to outbat his competition to get ahead of them. Yash Dhull will have to score big consistently like Sarfaraz did to break into the side.

 

The one player I genuinely feel bad for and who deserves to be in the team is Sarfaraz. The guy topped Ranji for 3 years averaging close to 100 for 3 seasons, and even when he supposedly failed against NZ he had a score of 150+! He paid the price for Kohli and Rohit's failure and was made the scapegoat. He's the one who deserves to be in the team.

[Bigg Brother]

15 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Sai's stat is an aberration. With such a high control %ge you expect him to average a lot higher. That's why he gives me hope that he'll be the one for the longer run 

He is going to come good. One good trait which absolutely necessary for test cricket is putting price on his wicket. He does that. Also good off side judgement to leave the ball as well. He restrained his shots after getting dropped from 1st test. Give him chance in home tests and he will show what he is capable of.

[Ultimate_Game]

Just now, Bigg Brother said:

He is going to come good. One good trait which absolutely necessary for test cricket is putting price on his wicket. He does that. Also good off side judgement to leave the ball as well. He restrained his shots after getting dropped from 1st test. Give him chance in home tests and he will show what he is capable of.

 

His biggest weakness surprisingly was balls going down the leg. He got out caught down the leg side a couple of times and was nearly dismissed that way a few times as well. That's much easier to work on than weakness outside off.

[vvvslaxman]

16 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Sai's stat is an aberration. With such a high control %ge you expect him to average a lot higher. That's why he gives me hope that he'll be the one for the longer run 

I was monitoring his control % . It was mostly in the 90s in a couple of innings.  He was more decisive. He got a couple of jaffas i have to say.

[BacktoCricaddict]

18 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

I was monitoring his control % . It was mostly in the 90s in a couple of innings.  He was more decisive. He got a couple of jaffas i have to say.

Sometimes control percentages don't say anything about shot selection in a particular moment.

 

Even if you don't get out to a Jaffa, the one false shot you play to a regular delivery can be so egregiously bad that it can dismiss you. So magnitude of falseness in the false shot matters 

 

It'll get corrected over time with a large sample size, so it should be worth persistening with a guy who has a high control percentage.

Edited August 8, 2025 by BacktoCricaddict

[BacktoCricaddict]

Not able to post it here but did you guys see that Prasidh Krishna induced the highest percentage of false shots of any Indian bowler?  But he also had the highest false-shots/wicket ratio. So, should we use the "unlucky" tag?

[Lord]

3 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

Easwaran has never been able to perform better than the competition. In Aus he was out-batted by Sai and Jurel in India A matches. In Eng Nair out-performed him. He'll have to outbat his competition to get ahead of them. Yash Dhull will have to score big consistently like Sarfaraz did to break into the side.

 

The one player I genuinely feel bad for and who deserves to be in the team is Sarfaraz. The guy topped Ranji for 3 years averaging close to 100 for 3 seasons, and even when he supposedly failed against NZ he had a score of 150+! He paid the price for Kohli and Rohit's failure and was made the scapegoat. He's the one who deserves to be in the team.

Not about Easwaran but people jumping ahead of FC performers based on IPL. Sarfaraz is another example. 

 

Why does Yash Dhull have to consistently score big when Sai got in for domestic average of 38? Same yardstick is not being applied 

[StraightDrive26]

19 hours ago, G_B_ said:

 

 

Atkinson archer bashir stokes and woakes is the english preferred attack.

 

I dont think india have faced this attack. Woakes is effective bowling longish spells with bursts or archer n atkinson at the other end.

 

 

That is not our problem. Their bowlers were unfit and also Woakes apart from couple of spells was bang average and was out bowled by Carse and Tongue. Bowling long spells means nothing when you don't pick any wickets in those spells. Woakes needs conditions to succeed, that's why he is poor outside of England.