What MSD did to India...

[Guest Hiten.]

....Gayle is doing to West Indies. Of course the think-tank too is to be blamed for coming up/supporting this decision. During the ongoing tour of South Africa to West Indies, Gayle has won toss 3 out of 3 times now (2 T20s and 1 ODI) and he has elected to field first despite knowing that Windies are totally depended on the start he gives. WI lost both the T20s and are currently *****ing their pants with Amla scoring a hundred. What's with the absurd planning to field first and chasing when you know you can't chase it, irrespective of the total :giggle:.

[someone]

Hindsight Close topic

[achilles]

Dhoni's got company :cheer:

[CSK Fan]

Hindsight Close topic

When you have seen all the T20 matches in the world cup before your game, and all the T20 matches before that, then its not exactly hindsight, is it? When the only matches you have won, and the only matches you have run the opposition close is when you batted forst, its not exactly hindsight, is it?

[zen]

in the T20 WC (R2 onwards): Eng beat Pak chasing (R2) Eng beat NZ chasing (R2) SL beat Ind chasing (R2) Aus beat WI chasing (R2) Aus beat Pak chasing (SF) Eng beat SL chasing (SF) Eng beat SA chasing (F) So out of 15 games (R2+SF+F), a side chasing won 7 times so too much shouldn't be read about winning the toss and batting first .... Batting first doesn't guarantee you success, but yeah playing well does :winky:

[vvvslaxman]

in the T20 WC (R2 onwards): Eng beat Pak chasing (R2) Eng beat NZ chasing (R2) SL beat Ind chasing (R2) Aus beat WI chasing (R2) Aus beat Pak chasing (SF) Eng beat SL chasing (SF) Eng beat SA chasing (F) So out of 15 games (R2+SF+F), a side chasing won 7 times so too much shouldn't be read about winning the toss and batting first .... Batting first doesn't guarantee you success, but yeah playing well does :winky:

For team with weak bowling unitl batting first is a better option coz pressure of chasing add 10 or 20 more. If you possess bowling like Australian you could go either way.

[someone]

When you have seen all the T20 matches in the world cup before your game' date=' and all the T20 matches before that, then its not exactly hindsight, is it? When the only matches you have won, and the only matches you have run the opposition close is when you batted forst, its not exactly hindsight, is it?[/quote'] So you are making a right mess about yourself, Just because we won some matches batting first, it is a law that we will continue to win matches batting first. Similar, we lost some matches fielding first, so we will lose all future matches when fielding. This is a mess and never ending topic cuz you will always say smth like that, even if India batted first and got out early, you would say why did not Dhoni see the pitch and early movement. To conclude, is there a law that when we would have done things that we did not do and act oppositely, it would only make us win. Who is to say, batting first would have made us win vs making us lose more badly

[saneindian]

2 out of the 3 t20 WCs have been won by the side chasing in the final!! And in the same tournament, the last 3 knockut matches (semis and finals) were won by the side chasing. Moral of the story " Whether you are batting first or chasing, you need to play well and play with some common sense to win matches.

[Ranjha]

MSD was good until Ipl happened......Now he is can be seen on tv saying ' I have enough money'.......

[achilles]

The only thing MSD can do these days is swear after winning a domestic T20 match and then say, "Our franchise owners spend so much money on us. The least we can do is get to the Semis". Why doesn't he do something similar for Team India and say, "Our NATION devotes so much time, money, patience and passion to us. The least we can do is stop whining and up our game".

[zen]

For team with weak bowling unitl batting first is a better option coz pressure of chasing add 10 or 20 more. If you possess bowling like Australian you could go either way.

It could be a better option if you bat well but Ind did lose to SL even after batting first. What's was pathetic is that Dilshan who did zilch in the tourney fired against us, along with the Kapu guy What did Ind in, more than anything, was that we didn't play good cricket, the team selection wasn't good and our strategy and tactics weren't spot on. If these factors had been good and if Ind still lost then I would probably look in to factors like toss

[CSK Fan]

It could be a better option if you bat well but Ind did lose to SL even after batting first. What's was pathetic is that Dilshan who did zilch in the tourney fired against us, along with the Kapu guy What did Ind in, more than anything, was that we didn't play good cricket, the team selection wasn't good and our strategy and tactics weren't spot on. If these factors had been good and if Ind still lost then I would probably look in to factors like toss

Rett, teh match they did lose to SL was a real clsoe game unlike the oens where we just rolled over after feilding first. The batsmen did seem under a lot less pressure.

[CSK Fan]

So you are making a right mess about yourself, Just because we won some matches batting first, it is a law that we will continue to win matches batting first. Similar, we lost some matches fielding first, so we will lose all future matches when fielding. This is a mess and never ending topic cuz you will always say smth like that, even if India batted first and got out early, you would say why did not Dhoni see the pitch and early movement. To conclude, is there a law that when we would have done things that we did not do and act oppositely, it would only make us win. Who is to say, batting first would have made us win vs making us lose more badly

If there is a pattern and there is a higher % of chance of things going your way, you ALWAYS do that so that your chances are better. Only a MORON will stack things against yourslef and try to prove yourself right. Except Clarke's brain fart, Aussies have, particualrly under Ponting, ALWAYS chosen to bat first in any format of the game after winnign the toss. Their is a reason there is a reason when you are 4-5 wickets down batting first you can easily make 50 runs in the last 5 overs but very rarely can when in the same situation chasing in conclusion, yes you can still win after making things harder for urself but only a MORON will initially raise the odds

[Serani]

Gayle is afraid of batting first.

[CSK Fan]

2 out of the 3 t20 WCs have been won by the side chasing in the final!! And in the same tournament, the last 3 knockut matches (semis and finals) were won by the side chasing. Moral of the story " Whether you are batting first or chasing, you need to play well and play with some common sense to win matches.

Please, please look at the totals in those matches which were won after chasing. Except Hussey's freak innings , other sides were able to restrict the oppostion to low scores. Now please honestly answer these questions if you are serious about a discussion 1)Do we have the bowling fire-power to restrict oppostion to score low enough so that we dont have the pressure of chasing? In the only T20 Wc we won in 2007, we batted first most of the times. When we chased against NZ, that was the only match we lost 2) isnt our strength batting? Hasnt our batting fallen apart under the pressure of chasing. Werent our batsmen clearly way more comfortable while batting first? Didnt they have the luxury to leave short balls while batting first? 3)We were clearly relying on our spinners in all the matches and didnt have our main bowler zaheer in two. In that case, what was the sense in bowling first? 4) In all the matches we played, we were never once troubled by seam or swing. We were only trouble by bounce and pace. So the fear of juice in the wicket is stupidty Considering all the points above do you stiill think it was a sensible descion to bowl first?

[saneindian]

Please, please look at the totals in those matches which were won after chasing. Except Hussey's freak innings , other sides were able to restrict the oppostion to low scores. Now please honestly answer these questions if you are serious about a discussion 1)Do we have the bowling fire-power to restrict oppostion to score low enough so that we dont have the pressure of chasing? In the only T20 Wc we won in 2007, we batted first most of the times. When we chased against NZ, that was the only match we lost 2) isnt our strength batting? Hasnt our batting fallen apart under the pressure of chasing. Werent our batsmen clearly way more comfortable while batting first? Didnt they have the luxury to leave short balls while batting first? 3)We were clearly relying on our spinners in all the matches and didnt have our main bowler zaheer in two. In that case, what was the sense in bowling first? 4) In all the matches we played, we were never once troubled by seam or swing. We were only trouble by bounce and pace. So the fear of juice in the wicket is stupidty Considering all the points above do you stiill think it was a sensible descion to bowl first?

All your points are valid. But now put on the captain's hat for a while. What are the considerations you will have 1. Match against Australia - Barbados pitch, expected to be have lots of bounce, opposition has bowlers who can bounce us out. If we bat first, we could be bundled out well before 100. (and when we played Aussies in a t20 in Aus, we did get bundled out for 74-75). Now would you want to repeat the same mistake again? Also in their previous match, Australians were troubled by Mortaza's swing early on and then struggled against BD spinners. Spinners and pacers both got help, pacers due to an early morning start and spinners due to the wickets being slightly damp (again due to early morning start and due to the persistent rain). Next, what are the options as bowlers? Zaheer, Nehra and Bhajji are certain, choice is between Vinay Kumar, Chawla or to play an additional batsman. So pack the side with batsmen and slow bowlers and opt to chase, hoping that your spinner will be able to make an early breakthrough and then seamers can come into play as well. And that was going perfectly till that drop catch by Jadeja. Had that catch been taken, the story would have been entirely different. 2. Match against WI- Again there were showers before the match began and more showers were predicted for the day. With D/L likely to have a role, its always safe to chase. So again nothing wrong with the decision to chase. In both the matches, we craeted chances, but catches were dropped and both the times the guys who punished us the most were those who were dropped early. In fact in this match against WI, they were 38/0 after 7 overs when jadeja dropped Gayle's catch and from then on we were on the back foot. So to say, that we lost because we batted first at Barbados isn't correct IMO. Fact is we didn't bowl well and were not even club class with fielding and catching.Yes the team selection could have been better and the captain could have been a little more aggressive, but given how well his bowlers have bowled , there is a reason why he wanted to bat first, so as to give the best bowling conditions to the bowlers. Had we batted first, who knows the same set of bowlers wouldn't have been able to defend even 190-200. But thats speaking with hidnsight We lost not because we chased, but because we didn't bowl or field well and then some of the decisions on the field by Dhoni were bizarre.

[someone]

If there is a pattern and there is a higher % of chance of things going your way, you ALWAYS do that so that your chances are better. Only a MORON will stack things against yourslef and try to prove yourself right. Except Clarke's brain fart, Aussies have, particualrly under Ponting, ALWAYS chosen to bat first in any format of the game after winnign the toss. Their is a reason there is a reason when you are 4-5 wickets down batting first you can easily make 50 runs in the last 5 overs but very rarely can when in the same situation chasing in conclusion, yes you can still win after making things harder for urself but only a MORON will initially raise the odds

Look you just have limited data, just using the t20 world cup 2010 is not enough to justify your point. Again, there is no law that you will have less pressure when fielding second, there is always pressure whatever you do. Who is to say, then when India played Austrilia , and had India batted first, India might have played even worse due the fast bowling and the added early morning movement.

[CSK Fan]

All your points are valid. But now put on the captain's hat for a while. What are the considerations you will have 1. Match against Australia - Barbados pitch, expected to be have lots of bounce, opposition has bowlers who can bounce us out. If we bat first, we could be bundled out well before 100. (and when we played Aussies in a t20 in Aus, we did get bundled out for 74-75). Now would you want to repeat the same mistake again? Also in their previous match, Australians were troubled by Mortaza's swing early on and then struggled against BD spinners. Spinners and pacers both got help, pacers due to an early morning start and spinners due to the wickets being slightly damp (again due to early morning start and due to the persistent rain). Next, what are the options as bowlers? Zaheer, Nehra and Bhajji are certain, choice is between Vinay Kumar, Chawla or to play an additional batsman. So pack the side with batsmen and slow bowlers and opt to chase, hoping that your spinner will be able to make an early breakthrough and then seamers can come into play as well. And that was going perfectly till that drop catch by Jadeja. Had that catch been taken, the story would have been entirely different. 2. Match against WI- Again there were showers before the match began and more showers were predicted for the day. With D/L likely to have a role, its always safe to chase. So again nothing wrong with the decision to chase. In both the matches, we craeted chances, but catches were dropped and both the times the guys who punished us the most were those who were dropped early. In fact in this match against WI, they were 38/0 after 7 overs when jadeja dropped Gayle's catch and from then on we were on the back foot. So to say, that we lost because we batted first at Barbados isn't correct IMO. Fact is we didn't bowl well and were not even club class with fielding and catching.Yes the team selection could have been better and the captain could have been a little more aggressive, but given how well his bowlers have bowled , there is a reason why he wanted to bat first, so as to give the best bowling conditions to the bowlers. Had we batted first, who knows the same set of bowlers wouldn't have been able to defend even 190-200. But thats speaking with hidnsight We lost not because we chased, but because we didn't bowl or field well and then some of the decisions on the field by Dhoni were bizarre.

I agree that we lost becuas eof all the things you stated. Bit i will say again that by batting second, we made the odds more in favour of us losing. i have read through all the reasons you provided why Dhoni might have decided to bowl first but i still think that the advantages of batting first far outweigh the ones you have provided for bowling first Again, i am not saying we would definitely have won if we had batted. But odds would have been more in our failure A score of 191-192 puts pressure on the opposition batsmen, no matter how pathethic the bowling attack is. The sight of the RRR climbing gives the jewbees to even the best of batsmen and encourages the worst of bowlers

[CSK Fan]

Look you just have limited data, just using the t20 world cup 2010 is not enough to justify your point. Again, there is no law that you will have less pressure when fielding second, there is always pressure whatever you do. Who is to say, then when India played Austrilia , and had India batted first, India might have played even worse due the fast bowling and the added early morning movement.

But the pressure of fielding is very different from the pressure of batting. during batting the two individuals in the field bear the brunt. During fielding you have your captain, all the fielders, the captian has different choices whom to go to. So the pressure is more distributed and less felt

[zen]

Rett' date=' teh match they did lose to SL was a real clsoe game unlike the oens where we just rolled over after feilding first. The batsmen did seem under a lot less pressure.[/quote'] As I said before, you lose if you don't play well. Toss is something you don't have much control over. Ind could well have lost all its toss and chased (if you think others would have batted). Good teams tend to pick players that do well whether they are batting or bowling first And just because Ind batted 2nd and rolled over, doesn't mean that it wouldn't have rolled over batting first :winky: