Rajiv Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I am pretty sure we would have folded, if we are asked to chase. A very very intriguing test match and BCCI should give gambhir a special award for that kinda batting display Link to comment
cowboysfan Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 i dont agree in this instance- nz had more than 2 days to bowl us out and they didnt. Link to comment
Sachinism Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Amazing concentration shown by Gambhir Link to comment
satishg Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 i think we mite have won if they had set us some target..this team is definitely possible of that and Vettori took the safer option out :D Link to comment
Guest Hiten. Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Yep. NZ erred by asking India to bat again as their bowlers were drained out. Its not easy to bowl almost 300 overs, over a space of 3 days. Bad captaincy IMO. But India has to be given credit as going by our past records, we might have folded in a matter of hours had GG, RD not shown resilience in the middle. Two extraordinary performances in a space of 4 months shown by team India (Chased 387, batted for 200 overs in 4th innings). Link to comment
Shehezaada Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 What's going to be awesome is if we bat first in the next test. Their could be an injury coming. Link to comment
Deleted_User_1 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Yup great resolute batting. Link to comment
cowboysfan Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Yep. NZ erred by asking India to bat again as their bowlers were drained out. Its not easy to bowl almost 300 overs, over a space of 3 days. Bad captaincy IMO. But India has to be given credit as going by our past records, we might have folded in a matter of hours had GG, RD not shown resilience in the middle. Two extraordinary performances in a space of 4 months shown by team India (Chased 387, batted for 200 overs in 4th innings). that doesnt really apply to this pitch which has become an absolute road for the past 2 days.you need all the time in the world to dismiss a determined indian side. Link to comment
suraj Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 What's going to be awesome is if we bat first in the next test. Their could be an injury coming. Yes I am hoping for that maybe the "evil" BCCI can "force" NZ to prepone the next match by a couple of days and then use the "financial power" to let India win the toss and choose to bat first:winky::winky: Link to comment
Rajan Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I think the NZ bowlers did their level best. they were consistently maintaining 135k all the time. the pitch became progressively slower giving more time to the batsmen to play/leave. imagine, 9 sessions on the field, each bowlers bowling approx 55 overs, apart from diving around and generally fielding well for 750 runs.This crop of NZ bowlers are not used to that kind of load. Link to comment
diegovegaz Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 the follow on, from now, will hardly be put into action be it india, or any other nation Link to comment
Rajiv Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 Yes I am hoping for that maybe the "evil" BCCI can "force" NZ to prepone the next match by a couple of days and then use the "financial power" to let India win the toss and choose to bat first:winky::winky: ?? strange comment? where did u come up with this Link to comment
EnterTheVoid Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 India lives to fight another day GG engineered the great escape Take a bow Link to comment
bharat297 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It was a strange decision to enforce the follow on ... because we had already scored 300 odd runs (so the NZL bowlers were a little bit tired) ... with a lead of 300+ New Zealand could have easily scored a quick fire 100-150 and set us a 400+ target with 4 sessions to bowl us out and their bowlers fresh. But I suppose everything looks better in hindsight. Poor captaincy from Vettori. They had us by the scruff of the neck and we definitely got off the hook here. Link to comment
Ram Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 This match just reinforces my contention that the concept of follow-on is fundamentally flawed. Especially if the track is still good for batting, if you allow the team to bat again, you give them their BEST chance to come back. It always easier to bat out time facing a deficit, rather than bat 4th with a mountainous target in front of you. However, with respect to this match, you could understand why NZ enforced it. Their lead was massive and more importantly, the timing of India's 2nd innings was perfect - last one hour of day 3 - which gave NZ ample chances to pluck a couple of wickets before close of play. Link to comment
DomainK Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It was a strange decision to enforce the follow on ... because we had already scored 300 odd runs (so the NZL bowlers were a little bit tired) ... with a lead of 300+ New Zealand could have easily scored a quick fire 100-150 and set us a 400+ target with 4 sessions to bowl us out and their bowlers fresh. But I suppose everything looks better in hindsight. Poor captaincy from Vettori. They had us by the scruff of the neck and we definitely got off the hook here. Imagine Sehwag getting stuck for four sessions on that flat pitch. He would have easily chased it down. The Indian batting line up is full of batsmen who can score fast. Sachin, UV, Laxman, Gauti etc can score at will on a flat track. Even if Sehwag puts a solid platform and leaves, the rest can chase it down. However enforcing the follow on left India with an uncertain target. Batting out was the best option for India. Even if India had scored some huge fast runs, the NZ batsmen would have ensured a draw in the least. Link to comment
Ram Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Imagine Sehwag getting stuck for four sessions on that flat pitch. He would have easily chased it down. The Indian batting line up is full of batsmen who can score fast. Sachin, UV, Laxman, Gauti etc can score at will on a flat track. Even if Sehwag puts a solid platform and leaves, the rest can chase it down. Why a target of 400? They could have EASILY set us a target of 550, having batted an hour into the second session of day 4 and given us 135 overs to bat out in the last innings. Then, Sehwag or no Sehwag, that would have been an insurmountable total for us to chase down. Link to comment
cowboysfan Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 If you have 2 spinners in your team and you have more than 2 days to bowl your opposition out then most teams will ask the opposition to follow on. Link to comment
Shehezaada Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 This match just reinforces my contention that the concept of follow-on is fundamentally flawed. Especially if the track is still good for batting, if you allow the team to bat again, you give them their BEST chance to come back. It always easier to bat out time facing a deficit, rather than bat 4th with a mountainous target in front of you. However, with respect to this match, you could understand why NZ enforced it. Their lead was massive and more importantly, the timing of India's 2nd innings was perfect - last one hour of day 3 - which gave NZ ample chances to pluck a couple of wickets before close of play. There are situations when it's good to give a follow on and situations where it isn't good. It's not fundamentally flawed. It gives you a chance to beat a team by an innings, which is the ultimate slap to the face. Kolkatta 2001, the decision to give the follow on was a decent one. the innigns spanned just 58 overs, and they were all out early in the morning. Unfortunatly VVS and Dravid spoiled the party, but the decision was still good. What your negating is the pressure of following on after failing the first time. If you have a classy bowling attack going around, the Aussie attack of the 90s, the Paki attack of the 90s, then your fairly confident that they can get out batsmen even on a flat deck. But if you have a strictly "good" bowling lineup, ie ours, or average, like NZ, then maybe it's not such a good idea. Your completely right that this was the wrong decision from NZ though. Should have batted for another 40 overs, scored another 170 runs, given India to chase it in 160 overs. But seeing our batting lineup, I wouldn't be surprised if we chased that. Link to comment
DomainK Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Why a target of 400? They could have EASILY set us a target of 550' date=' having batted an hour into the second session of day 4 and given us 135 overs to bat out in the last innings. Then, Sehwag or no Sehwag, that would have been an insurmountable total for us to chase down.[/quote'] How would they know whether they are wasting time in setting up an out of reach target or not? Their first necessity was to take 10 more Indian wickets. On a flat pitch like that, it would need time. The Indian batsmen were not going to repeat their mistakes in the second innings. After taking the 10 Indian wickets, they would try to wipe off whatever lead India would have taken. But if they had batted again, they would have wasted quite a bit of time precious time in ensuring a large lead. There are valid arguments both ways. Dan took a decision that looked right to him at that time. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now