4th test, 3rd day's Dhoni's tactics :Intelligent or negative?

[DomainK]

:blink:

:haha::haha::haha::haha:

[Fontaine]

Once again Ian Chappell criticizes Ponting as well as Dhoni equally and fairly. Overall he heaped praise on the Indian team for being superior and rightful winners: http://content-www.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/377652.html?view=transcript About as fair as it gets.

[donkey]

u know what else is against the spirit of the game...mouthing off at the batsman when u cant get him out :mad:

[Silly Point]

To be fair, Ian Chappell has also criticised the Aussies for their slow over rate throughout this series and especially yesterday when it cost them a chance of pushing for a win. I was disappointed that Dhoni only managed to get his bowlers through 21 overs in the morning session, it was really bad and I suppose not in the best interests of Cricket, the fact that India won hides this, but he must watch it in future.

[cochise]

Ian Chappell is a very fair character...I have observed him over many years and seen him fall equally harshly on both sides about his pet dislikes. The only criticism I have of him is that he tends to get a little tunneled vision at times, where he focuses on one factor in exclusion of all the other factors at play that influence it and give it it's context.

[Silly Point]

@ssd123 are you serious mate?...Indian pitches will always be low and slow and too be fair they are too slow nowadays even for the spinners (ref Delhi), the pitches are not prepared like they usd to be back in the 70s/80s/90s where they were cracking dust bowls. See how our fast bowlers out bowled the Aussies before you make any comments. No one complains how Eng, Aus, SA and NZ prepare green/fast/bouncy tracks for India to play on, do they?

[bharat297]

To be fair' date=' Ian Chappell has also criticised the Aussies for their slow over rate throughout this series and especially yesterday when it cost them a chance of pushing for a win. [b']I was disappointed that Dhoni only managed to get his bowlers through 21 overs in the morning session, it was really bad and I suppose not in the best interests of Cricket, the fact that India won hides this, but he must watch it in future.

Yes that was really bad. I hope that doesnt continue in the future.

[CSK Fan]

Whose victory is it anyways? The game of cricket, they say, is greater than individuals. Over the course of 150 years, the game has seen it all, victories and losses, joy and tears, celebrations and despair. It has seen fame swell like balloons and burst like bubbles . Each legend has contributed his bit to its legacy and for each successful player there have been scores who have been unable to stand its grind. It has changed with the times and adapted and re-invented itself. It has outlived most of its pioneers and watched the birth of numerous babies striding nervously but proudly for their first strike. Test cricket has been the purest and most untouched version of cricket. A true test of the character of any player, it had managed to sustain its fan following amidst all the glitter and glamour of his much younger but colorful sibling - One Days. But the birth of 20/20 may be just in the process of driving it to an early grave.Notice the sparse crowd when the two best teams have been contesting and when history was being re-written. How many were present to watch the mesmerising contest between bat and ball? How can players and officials rescue it from its untimely demise? What role do they have to play here? Players talk about contributing for cricket's betterment after they have retired. Dont they have an equal responsibilty while they are still playing and hence have greater influence. When Sachin plays like a snail to save his team from a possible test loss, doesnt he realise that he might be driving one more nail into test cricket's coffin? As one of the legends of the game does he not have responsibilty towards the games itself? If playing the game a bit faster can bring more crowds, then why not? Dhoni's negative tactics brought him a test victory but at what cost? Will the youngsters and mothers present in the stadium, most for the first time, ever return again? How often would they have been able to clap and cheer? What about officials and curators. Dead lifeless pitches might bring a series victory for the home team but there will not be much of a home crowd to cheer such a facile victory. Test cricket is dying as the pundits proclaim with a shake of their heads. Everyone's attitude is that of a near relative who stands by the bedside, with a mournful expression, while wondering what amount of inheritence he would soon be coming into. Their futures are secure with 20/20 and the local leagues. Test cricket can only survive if the men running them have the vision and will to let it survive. BCCI being the richest board, can contribute a lot towards it. Unfortunatley their vision stops at earning truckloads of cash. Its time for the legends to put back what they took from the game. Its time for them to re-invent themselves so that test cricket can adapt and compete with 20/20. When a company faces the threat of competitiors its re-invents itself to survive. The onus falls on the players and officials to make the game more exciting without losing its fundamentals. We dont need radical changes in rules for test cricket to be more exciting. Surely the players can play a tad faster, the pitches can be much more sportive? If Sachin can play slow for his country, cant he take on bowlers for the betterment of the game which has given him so much. And this goes for all players and officials everywhere. Until that happens, we will continue to see facile victories in front of empty stadiums. Whose victory is this anyways?

[flamy]

The thing is, you want to change the game is played just to cater to a bigger audience. The point of Test cricket is to test the player's skills to the maximum. Test their temperament. Which is why Sach is such a great player. He is able to curb his natural instincts. Remember his 241 against Aus. That is Test cricket.

[bharat297]

Game is not the same: Patrick Smith Game is not the same Patrick Smith | November 11, 2008 Article from: The Australian THERE is a favourite saying in cricket these days and it is not "back of a length". That is a popular phrase (though not the present No 1) made up by coaches and commentators to suggest they have found some new subtlety to bowling. It is actually the same as saying short of a length. But if it makes commentators feel more incisive and coaches more sophisticated then let them have their ego rubbed. Just as "hitting the right areas" can be boiled down to the old fashioned concept of line and length. Cricket reinvents itself but makes no new ground. You cannot call yourself a fast bowler any more unless you have mastered the art of reverse swing. The time is now right for someone to rediscover the lost art of traditional swing. You will become a guru overnight and the ball might move in the air in the first over and not the 50th. No, the favourite phrase in the commentary jargon now is "the primacy of Test cricket". It is a state worshipped by the conservative and the traditional. It demands that the five-day form of the game be so cared for by supporters, players and officials that Test cricket will always remain the No1 form of the game. Two things. We must establish what is so important in Test cricket and not shared by the shorter forms of the game that so deserves to be preserved from the force of change in the modern community. Then, having settled on its exclusive virtues, look where and how they are under attack. The essential elements that demand Test cricket be cared for are that it continues to provide the most worthwhile benchmark for calibrating the ability of those who play the sport. The first Test was played in 1877 so a lot of cricketers have come and gone. Don Bradman's Test average of 99.94 therefore defines him and every other batsman, past and present. Second, it is played over five days, an indulgence that allows the beauty of the game to be appreciated. Batting innings can be constructed either quickly or slowly but rarely radically. Bowlers can plot and probe for wickets and not rely on the manic pace of the shorter games to force batsmen into error. That's why Shane Warne and Dennis Lillee were so intoxicating to watch. Why Sachin Tendulkar's cover drive and Warne's flipper become things of beauty, executed by masters. Lastly, cricket is played over such a long period of time it allows for moods and not just moments. Matches are won or lost, retrieved or squared over long periods where a match hangs in the balance not for an over or just one ball but a set of strategies applied by both bowlers and batsmen. No other form of cricket allows for this intrigue. That is why we must consider comments by colleague Malcolm Conn, a Walkley Award-winning reporter and the best cricket writer in the country. Yesterday Conn said that the first session of the third day drove "a stake through the heart of Test cricket." Fairfax columnist Peter Roebuck was of the same mind though we need to wait a day or two to see if Roebuck holds firm to this view. One day he is bowling over the wicket and the next moment around it. He is a hard man to set a field to. What irritated Conn and Roebuck and many more commentators was the output of that session. Just 42 runs for the loss of one Australian wicket. Indian skipper MS Dhoni set fields with eight men on the offside and one on the leg and had his bowlers aim wide of off stump. The Australian batsmen did nothing different or inventive to make Dhoni reconsider his tactics. Former captain Ian Chappell was so appalled by what he saw that he called for a change to the laws of the game. Conn and others made forceful arguments that such slow cricket would drive more and more people to Twenty20 and offered it as an explanation as to why so few people sat about in the heat of Nagpur to watch the critical fourth and final Test. The counter argument is that Simon Katich and Michael Hussey had scored freely before stumps on the preceding day and Dhoni, whose side was protecting a one-Test lead and a first-innings score of 441, was entitled to ask Australia to come after him. To continue to attack with his bowlers and field placings, and give away runs would have put his series win in doubt and be considered an irresponsible response. Test cricket can be both entertaining and thoughtful. Just ask Jason Krejza. With figures of 8-215 he has both bowled the opposition out and bowled them to a substantial first-innings score. In the legendary 1960-61 series between Australia and the West Indies, Lindsay Kline and Slasher Mackay held out for 100 minutes against the West Indies with barely an attacking shot played to record a draw that was as exciting as the famous tied Test. Spectators are drawn to limited over cricket and Twenty20. They are forms of the game that have their own skills, both brutal and nuanced, but neither game allows for periods where one side dares another, asks for a response, tests for a weakness in mind and heart. Five days of Twenty20 would be as tiresome and numbing as five days of Dhoni's offside tactics. Both games are played for different reasons and both provide different entertainment. To try and make one live as the other would be to kill off both. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24632005-12270,00.html

[bharat297]

I think this is a very good article that puts things into perspective a lot. There has been large scale over-reaction about Dhoni's tactics.

[Chandan]

I think this is a very good article that puts things into perspective a lot. There has been large scale over-reaction about Dhoni's tactics.

How about this: It was Test cricket at its best G Rajaraman India's tactics on Day 3 should be lauded because it showed that the side had matured Saturday, November 08, 2008 One man's meat is another man's poison. That became obvious on the third day of the final Test between India and Australia at the VCA Stadium in Jamtha on the outskirts of Nagpur where India gained an 86-run first innings lead with tactics that tested the visiting team's patience both on and off the field. The Indian tactics were simple: Dry the flow of runs, frustrate Australia's batsmen and force them into error. The rewards were ample. The team conceded just 42 runs in the first session. And kept the team that had scored at close to four runs an over on Friday to just 166 runs in 85 overs while claiming eight wickets. The Indian captain and his bowlers found success in a different way. To begin with, they employed a field that had eight men on the off-side. The fielder at mid-on could well have felt quite lonely and mostly unemployed as the bowlers attacked the off-stump and often bowled beyond the off-stump. Some – including experts commenting on the live telecast – found the first session boring to watch and criticised India's ploy. To me, however, it was Test cricket at its best. It is not a two-minute duel that we had come to watch but a 15-round prizefight. And, like it happens in such contests, India challenged Australia to be creative in its quest for runs that could set up a victory. For most of the day, Australia did not have an answer for India's tactics. It did not change the batting order. When it became apparent that India was drying the flow of runs, Australia did not respond with anything to counter that. It had the likes of Shane Watson and Cameron White who could have been sent with the specific purpose of increasing the run rate. Curiously, Simon Katich and Michael Hussey took no chances. The odd time they moved from the script, they were unsuccessful and quickly went back to waiting for the bad ball. Hussey tried to pull a short ball that was pitched outside off-stump but made no contact. Katich played a rare delivery on the leg stump off the leading edge to mid-on and retreated into his shell. Katich came across quite complainingly against the Indian team's tactics but he also admitted that the home side executed its plans well. Indeed, you can devise tactics but you need the men to implement them. And in Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma, Dhoni has the right personnel who stuck to the task and bowled their hearts out in the morning session. Over after over, they pegged away on or outside the off-stump and bowling neither too short nor too full. It will be easy to criticse the Indian slow bowlers for not courting as much success as Jason Krejza but they were bowling on a pitch that did not offer them as much encouragement. The home bowlers had to prise the Australians out on a track that had lost much of the pace that was on show on the opening day. India had to nibble away at the batsmen's patience, subjecting them to a form of slow torture. And the results started showing a short while before lunch. Just after he reached his century, with the intent of forcing the pace and flicking the ball off his pads, Katich shuffled far too across the stumps and was leg before wicket to Zaheer Khan. After that, it was a matter of piling on the pressure and working on the nerves of the batsmen. Michael Clarke lingered at the crease for around 14 overs but did not bring in a fresh approach. After playing 43 deliveries, without once looking to force the pace, the Australian vice-captain was done in by a peach of a delivery from Ishant Sharma. He was forced to play it and even if he wanted to draw his bat away, the ball drew it magnetically as it swung away just that shade. The instinctive desire to pinch a single and rotate the strike saw Hussey being run out by M Vijay with a superb piece of fielding and reflex action that saw him stretch to the right, stop the ball and fling it back at the stumps. He missed it but Dhoni backed him up smartly and broke the stumps before Hussey could regain his crease. And when Watson – also intent to defend his citadel rather than take the fight into the India camp – played a top-spinner on to the off-stump, the India captain was ****-a-hoop. The manner in which he leapt on the way to embrace Harbhajan Singh told of how thrilled he was that his ploy of making the Australian batsmen's stay at the crease nightmarish worked. There was rearguard action by Cameron White and Brad Haddin who added 52 runs but by that time India was taking the game farther away from Australia. And it was showing that patience and understanding are virtues that help those who play the game at this level. Come to think of it, those who watch Test cricket, not the least being those who make a living out of it, need these.

[bharat297]

Yep ... but the reason I was impressed with Patrick Smith's article is that he spoke of the dangers of trying to make Tests like T20