zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said: Yes they do and that's why teams who go far need to have their stars step up. Both Gill and Sai did and that's why they reached the final. But other teams also have others to rely on. E.g., RCB had Patidar who won a couple of matches when their top order failed or Krunal showed up or Tim David took the bowling apart lower down the order. GT didn't have those players or performances anywhere close to them. Other than top 2 or 3 they had nothing in the batting dept. Sundar was useless at 4 and why Tewatia is still playing is a mystery to me. They're trying to replace Pandya and Miller from their earlier team with Sundar and Miller and the gap is huge. You can't expect Gill and Sai to score 600+ runs every season and succeed in every knockout to win the trophy. That's unrealistic. GT will end up like Indian team of old - highly consistent and with the best record but other teams (Aus, Eng) win tourneys. Or like RCB of old where they reached playoffs nearly every season with Gayle, ABDV and Kohli but it was CSK and MI who won the title coz they had more rounded teams. GT has work to do as the current team has reached its ceiling. They can't ask for more from their top order, and need to build some depth. That has happened with GT too where Sundar has stepped up. Holder has stepped up. And so on. That is why they were on the final. It is just that RCB played better than GT this season where RCB beat GT 3-1. It is probably the only team with a better H2H record against GT at the moment. If you reach the final, you deserve credit. Even in India recent World Cup win, it was reliance on Samson, who people have written against, that worked for India. People were asking Abhshek to be dropped, who clicked in final, acting as if cricket is a circus. Edited May 31 by zen
zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 1 hour ago, Ultimate_Game said: I think it's time we have the following template for T20 team and players need to be selected who can play that role... Opener 1: SR of 180-200 and an average of 30+ Opener 2: SR of 180-200 and an average of 30+ No. 3 batter: SR of 160+ and an average of 35+ ; someone who can consolidate and can also hit No. 4 batter: SR of 150+ and an average of around 40; someone who can consolidate and can also hit No. 5 batter: SR of 160+ and an average of 35+ No. 6 batting all-rounder: SR of 160+ and an average of 28+; someone who can also bowl 2-3 overs No. 7 all-rounder: SR of 150+ and an average of 25+; someone who can bowl his whole quota No. 8 bowling all-rounder: SR of 160+ and an average of 20+; someone who can bowl his 4 overs and can hit long No. 9 bowler: ER of less than 8.5 and bowling average of less than 30 No. 10 bowler: ER of less than 8 and bowling average of less than 25 No. 11 bowler: ER of less than 8 and bowling average closer to 20 If you don't find a player who is the exact match, get a player who's closest to the template. And have the right-left combo when there're multiple players who fit the criteria. That is an unidimensional way to think about cricket. Teams are based on resources and talent that a squad has access to. Many times, a team plays a player who is being developed.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 31 Posted May 31 6 minutes ago, zen said: That has happened with GT too where Sundar has stepped up. Holder has stepped up. And so on. That is why they were on the final. It is just that RCB played better than GT this season where RCB beat GT 3-1. It is probably the only team with a better H2H record against GT at the moment. If you reach the final, you deserve credit. Even in India recent World Cup win, it was reliance on Samson that worked for India. People were asking Abhshek to be dropped, who clicked in final. Sundar hasn't really stepped up. He has given the illusion of stepping up. His contributions have mostly been meaningless. He has either performed when others have already given a great platform or a batter is going strong from the other end, or he has done enough so he looks good on the scoreboard but hasn't changed the direction of the match just like today. He scored 50 off 37 today. If he hadn't scored today GT would've probably ended up around 140 but they would've still lost. Arshad was the only guy today who tried to take the game on and if he had stayed in for a few more deliveries, things could've been different. Sundar is just like Jadeja. They play supporting roles but don't impact the match. If the team is doing well, they'll continue that star and if they're struggling they will contribute but won't change the result of the match. In T20s you need high impact players so that when they click they impact result of the match just like Abhishek, Sooryavanshi, Ishan, Jaiswal etc. GT don't have those. Gill and Sai are ok but they need more impactful players.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 31 Posted May 31 2 minutes ago, zen said: That is an unidimensional way to think about cricket. Teams are based on resources and talent that a squad has access to. Many times, a team plays a player who is being developed. Could be but at least it allows selectors not to force players like Gill in our T20 team. Do you recall how poor our T20 team looked when Gill was forced back as VC in the team during Asia Cup? At least this sort of a template avoids favoritism. Of course it's not that cut and dry but at least you pick players closest to who can play that role. And right now India has players who can fit into majority of these roles.
zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 Just now, Ultimate_Game said: Sundar hasn't really stepped up. He has given the illusion of stepping up. His contributions have mostly been meaningless. He has either performed when others have already given a great platform or a batter is going strong from the other end, or he has done enough so he looks good on the scoreboard but hasn't changed the direction of the match just like today. He scored 50 off 37 today. If he hadn't scored today GT would've probably ended up around 140 but they would've still lost. Arshad was the only guy today who tried to take the game on and if he had stayed in for a few more deliveries, things could've been different. Sundar is just like Jadeja. They play supporting roles but don't impact the match. If the team is doing well, they'll continue that star and if they're struggling they will contribute but won't change the result of the match. In T20s you need high impact players so that when they click they impact result of the match just like Abhishek, Sooryavanshi, Ishan, Jaiswal etc. GT don't have those. Gill and Sai are ok but they need more impactful players. No IPL team has 11 impact player. The impact sub rule had to be brought in to help create teams more impact with their resources. There will always be some players who will contribute relatively less.
zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said: Could be but at least it allows selectors not to force players like Gill in our T20 team. Do you recall how poor our T20 team looked when Gill was forced back as VC in the team during Asia Cup? At least this sort of a template avoids favoritism. Of course it's not that cut and dry but at least you pick players closest to who can play that role. And right now India has players who can fit into majority of these roles. That Gill cannot be a part of an IPL team itself is an unidimensional view. If I am not wrong, you were one of the guys asking for Abhishek to be dropped from the World Cup 11 as he was not doing well earlier on. I think you may have been against Samson as well. It is good that selectors have more brains and vision than most cricket followers in India. Edited May 31 by zen
Ultimate_Game Posted May 31 Posted May 31 10 minutes ago, zen said: That Gill cannot be a part of an IPL team itself is an unidimensional view. If I am not wrong, you were one of the guys asking for Abhishek to be dropped from the World Cup 11 as he was not doing well earlier on. I think you may have been against Samson as well. It is good that selectors have more brains and vision than most cricket followers in India. Gill should be part of IPL and same with Sai. I don't think I've ever said Gill should not be in an IPL team. But they shouldn't be in our T20 team as there are better options. They don't have the impact which is needed for modern T20 which likes of Sooryavanshi, Abhishek, Ishan Jaiswal or Arya bring to the table. GT didn't lose due to Gill and Sai but because of over-reliance on these two. There's nobody else beyond these two and Buttler. And if Indian selectors had listened to Indian fans we wouldn't have endured a lost decade without an ICC trophy coz we would've kicked out likes of KL Rahul, Chahal and useless stat-padders ages ago. New guy 1
Ultimate_Game Posted May 31 Posted May 31 19 minutes ago, zen said: No IPL team has 11 impact player. The impact sub rule had to be brought in to help create teams more impact with their resources. There will always be some players who will contribute relatively less. Not 11 but least have 2 in the middle or lower order coz GT have none.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 31 Posted May 31 25 minutes ago, zen said: That is an unidimensional way to think about cricket. Teams are based on resources and talent that a squad has access to. Many times, a team plays a player who is being developed. But that player has to picked for a certain role. If the player doesn't fit a certain role what are they being developed for? For example we want to see Sooryavanshi as an opener or Iyer at 4 instead of SKY coz they can play those roles. Sooryavanshi can bat at a SR of more than 180 at an average of 30+, and Iyer can average 35+ with a 150-160+ SR at 4 and take on spinners. You don't randomly develop a player if they don't meet a certain criteria. That's why I wouldn't pick Sarfaraz in T20s at 4 coz he doesn't fit the bill no matter how much you develop them. They need to go to domestic cricket, change their game and if they're able to show they're meeting a certain criteria then a chance can be given.
zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 4 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said: Gill should be part of IPL and same with Sai. I don't think I've ever said Gill should not be in an IPL team. But they shouldn't be in our T20 team as there are better options. They don't have the impact which is needed for modern T20 which likes of Sooryavanshi, Abhishek, Ishan Jaiswal or Arya bring to the table. GT didn't lose due to Gill and Sai but because of over-reliance on these two. There's nobody else beyond these two and Buttler. And if Indian selectors had listened to Indian fans we wouldn't have endured a lost decade without an ICC trophy coz we would've kicked out likes of KL Rahul, Chahal and useless stat-padders ages ago. That notion is flawed too. Anyone who is in great form can be considered for team India in any format. The question that should be asked - is the player good enough to be in the 11 versus options available at the moment. If the answer is yes, he is in. If not, he is not. Indian fans rely on hypothetical situations where if X fails, their pick automatically becomes better. They do match like A scored 100, B scored 50, and C scored 0, so if I replace C with D, he would have scored a 50 as well. In real world such math does not work. It would be that D would run out both A & B and drop an important catch. So real world dynamics are different where a PBKS could lose out on a playoff spot despite winning 6 out of its first 7 games. An MI team with Indian regulars can finish 9. The truth is there is no guarantee that any replacement would change fortunes.
zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 10 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said: Not 11 but least have 2 in the middle or lower order coz GT have none. That is again a faulty framing as theoretically every team has players. What differentiates is the form. And in IPL teams, if you have more good batsmen, your bowling would likely suffer and vice versa so many times teams look to build on their strengths at some cost.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 31 Posted May 31 2 minutes ago, zen said: That is again a faulty framing as theoretically every team has players. What differentiates is the form. And in IPL teams, if you have more good batsmen, your bowling would likely suffer and vice versa so many times teams look to build on their strengths at some cost. What differentiates is their stats and whether they can perform a certain role. It's a no brainer to have 6 hitters and impact players in your team for T20s. You may not have stars but need to find players who can play the role. Relying on your openers to win a tourney is unrealistic.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 31 Posted May 31 8 minutes ago, zen said: That notion is flawed too. Anyone who is in great form can be considered for team India in any format. The question that should be asked - is the player good enough to be in the 11 versus options available at the moment. If the answer is yes, he is in. If not, he is not. Indian fans rely on hypothetical situations where if X fails, their pick automatically becomes better. They do match like A scored 100, B scored 50, and C scored 0, so if I replace C with D, he would have scored a 50 as well. In real world such math does not work. It would be that D would run out both A & B and drop an important catch. So real world dynamics are different where a PBKS could lose out on a playoff spot despite winning 6 out of its first 7 games. An MI team with Indian regulars can finish 9. The truth is there is no guarantee that any replacement would change fortunes. Nope. If say Pujara or Dravid or Sarfaraz are in great form, I won't bring them in T20s. Every format requires different skill sets and different roles. Very few can play across all 3 formats. Jaiswal and Bumrah are the only one I can think of, and even Jaiswal would struggle to get in T20s these days.
zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 11 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said: But that player has to picked for a certain role. If the player doesn't fit a certain role what are they being developed for? For example we want to see Sooryavanshi as an opener or Iyer at 4 instead of SKY coz they can play those roles. Sooryavanshi can bat at a SR of more than 180 at an average of 30+, and Iyer can average 35+ with a 150-160+ SR at 4 and take on spinners. You don't randomly develop a player if they don't meet a certain criteria. That's why I wouldn't pick Sarfaraz in T20s at 4 coz he doesn't fit the bill no matter how much you develop them. They need to go to domestic cricket, change their game and if they're able to show they're meeting a certain criteria then a chance can be given. An inform SKY can do better than Iyer who tends to struggle against short pitched balls no matter how much he has improved relatively. That Iyer should play above SKY, a part of two T20 World Cup winning teams, itself becomes a bogus idea of both are in good form. Which is why I said current form is the key. If Sarfaraz is in a better form than both SKY and Iyer, he can be considered too. If Sooryavanshi is struggling to put bat to ball in a lean patch, he can be replaced with someone else too. No position should be viewed as permenanetly assigned. Now it appears as if you are an Iyer fan so you go after GIll as he is the captain of ODIs (and tests) as you think going after someone on a forum would relieve him of captaincy and make Iyer captain? (Nothing really is decided based on what we think here).
Ultimate_Game Posted May 31 Posted May 31 1 minute ago, zen said: An inform SKY can do better than Iyer who tends to struggle against short pitched balls no matter how much he has improved relatively. That Iyer should play above SKY, a part of two T20 World Cup winning teams, itself becomes a bogus idea of both are in good form. Which is why I said current form is the key. If Sarfaraz is in a better form than both SKY and Iyer, he can be considered too. If Sooryavanshi is struggling to put bat to ball in a lean patch, he can be replaced with someone else too. No position should be viewed as permenanetly assigned. Now it appears as if you are an Iyer fan so you go after GIll as he is the captain of ODIs (and tests) as you think going after someone on a forum would relieve him of captaincy and make Iyer captain? (Nothing really is decided based on what we think here). SKY in "good form" has yet to play a match-winning knock when it has mattered. SKY has been lucky to win the WT20 titles riding on the coattails of the team. He has been useless and a passenger as a batter. His biggest contribution has been as a specialist fielder where he took Miller's catch.
zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 5 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said: What differentiates is their stats and whether they can perform a certain role. It's a no brainer to have 6 hitters and impact players in your team for T20s. You may not have stars but need to find players who can play the role. Relying on your openers to win a tourney is unrealistic. IPL teams depend on auction dynamics. So at times, they make use of what they end up with. At times, they back players to come good. For example, Sai S was developed by GT. Sundar found it hard to find a place early on but this season he was given a longer run. SRK was backed earlier too but he did not succeed. Again most teams rely on a handful of players. Some open. Some play at a different slot. Some teams are batting focused. Some teams are bowling focused. GT even played Hardik at 4-5, when he was not retained by MI, and when he was known to play lower down the order. GT backed Miller when he was not picked by any team. I think GT got him at base price. In hindsight, someone like you would say that when GT won, it had Hardik and Miller while you would probably be writing at that time that who bats Hardik at 3-4. Who opens with a down and dusted Saha. People even laughed when GT had got Tewatia for 9 crores. IF you don’t understand the game, why waste time with unidimensional limited views (as if they are correct)?
zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 5 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said: SKY in "good form" has yet to play a match-winning knock when it has mattered. SKY has been lucky to win the WT20 titles riding on the coattails of the team. He has been useless and a passenger as a batter. His biggest contribution has been as a specialist fielder where he took Miller's catch. when it matters when it not is again a pointless exercise. Espn put SKY in the team of the tournament of the 2024 T20 World Cup - https://www.espn.com/cricket/story/_/id/40465564/rohit-sharma-five-other-indians-headline-espncricinfo-team-t20-world-cup
maniac Posted May 31 Author Posted May 31 Just now, zen said: when it matters when it not is again a pointless exercise. Espn put SKY in the team of the tournament of the 2024 T20 World Cup - https://www.espn.com/cricket/story/_/id/40465564/rohit-sharma-five-other-indians-headline-espncricinfo-team-t20-world-cup espn ranked Sachin recently in greatest cricketers and skipped Warne and Lara, do you agree? Infact has Ashwin in there too https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-greatest-cricketers-2000-2025-1510638
Ultimate_Game Posted May 31 Posted May 31 3 minutes ago, zen said: when it matters when it not is again a pointless exercise. Espn put SKY in the team of the tournament of the 2024 T20 World Cup - https://www.espn.com/cricket/story/_/id/40465564/rohit-sharma-five-other-indians-headline-espncricinfo-team-t20-world-cup ESPN can put him in any list they want or also call him the best T20 batter of the decade. Doesn't change the fact that when the going gets tough, SKY doesn't show up. Saw that in 2022 WT20, 2024 WT20, 2026 WT20, and Asia Cup. All SKY has done is give cringe statements in the pressers and chew gum. But when it comes to cricket, other than meaningless bilaterals he hasn't done anything.
zen Posted May 31 Posted May 31 1 minute ago, maniac said: espn ranked Sachin recently in greatest cricketers and skipped Warne and Lara, do you agree? Infact has Ashwin in there too https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the-greatest-cricketers-2000-2025-1510638 I think only those who played like 80% of their matches in the 2000-2025 period should be considered. If Sachin played 80% of his matches in this period, he deserves to be on this list. He did not even play in the 50% of the period. Lara and Warne retired in 2006-7 so not enough games or time to be considered. New guy 1
Recommended Posts