What should be the playing combination of Indian XI on subcontinental featherbeds?

[thevortex]

his selection without 100 percent fitness shows lack of options in team' date=' if they had mishra instead of Bhajji nobody is there to at least control one end.[/quote'] Tells you the state of our spin resources, na? No matter what - we need fit bowlers. Especially considering that the current team management is terrified of making do with just 6 specialist batsmen! Somebody needs to change the Indian team's mindset. With Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman you really should not need 7 batsmen! Give them some serious responsibility. Stockpile on your weaker suit - which has been bowling all along!

[putrevus]

Tells you the state of our spin resources, na? No matter what - we need fit bowlers. Especially considering that the current team management is terrified of making do with just 6 specialist batsmen! Somebody needs to change the Indian team's mindset. With Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman you really should not need 7 batsmen! Give them some serious responsibility. Stockpile on your weaker suit - which has been bowling all along!

Historically our seven batsman have not shown the spine needed when playing abroad, so are reluctant to go with six. As Gary said today if Irfan was that all rounder who instead taking a wicket every five matches and bowl faster than 115, this version of Yuvraj especially is expendable he seems totally lethargic on field without any energy.Gambhir it seems is a reluctant fielder at forward shortleg.

[Clarke]

Tells you the state of our spin resources, na? No matter what - we need fit bowlers. Especially considering that the current team management is terrified of making do with just 6 specialist batsmen! Somebody needs to change the Indian team's mindset. With Sehwag, Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman you really should not need 7 batsmen! Give them some serious responsibility. Stockpile on your weaker suit - which has been bowling all along!

++ It might be the defensive mindset that doesnt wanna risk playing 5 batsmen + Dhoni. After all, Yuvi could save a match for us ..

[thevortex]

Historically our seven batsman have not shown the spine needed when playing abroad, so are reluctant to go with six. As Gary said today if Irfan was that all rounder who instead taking a wicket every five matches and bowl faster than 115, this version of Yuvraj especially is expendable he seems totally lethargic on field without any energy.Gambhir it seems is a reluctant fielder at forward shortleg.

There is absolutely no excuse of not trusting a lineup which has not just Sehwag and Sachin but also Dravid and Laxman. Throw the ball in their court. Give them the responsibility. Challenge them. They are not just proven and talented but supremely mature. They should be given the business end of the job. Not the rookie bowlers. We must not forget that in the last 3 to 4 years, it has been the batting which has led to India climbing to the top in Test cricket. Sehwag in particular played a stellar role in this. There is absolutely no reason to doubt this lineup and add a failsafe number 7. I would have said this even if he had 4 fully fit, experienced bowlers. And now we have one debutant and one half fit bowler - who happens to be the strike bowler! The decision should have been obvious. Glaring blunder by Dhoni and the team management as far as I am concerned.

[Chandan]

There is absolutely no excuse of not trusting a lineup which has not just Sehwag and Sachin but also Dravid and Laxman. Throw the ball in their court. Give them the responsibility. Challenge them. They are not just proven and talented but supremely mature. They should be given the business end of the job. Not the rookie bowlers. We must not forget that in the last 3 to 4 years, it has been the batting which has led to India climbing to the top in Test cricket. Sehwag in particular played a stellar role in this. There is absolutely no reason to doubt this lineup and add a failsafe number 7. I would have said this even if he had 4 fully fit, experienced bowlers. And now we have one debutant and one half fit bowler - who happens to be the strike bowler! The decision should have been obvious. Glaring blunder by Dhoni and the team management as far as I am concerned.

This formula has never worked for us and we have lost many matches playing with 5 bowlers. Remember the Mumbai test against England in 2006, when Sachin Tendulkar was booed in his own city? We were playing that match with 5 bowlers. I can remember many wins with just 4 bowlers but hardly any while playing with 5 bowlers. One more factor here could be that our tailenders are terrible batsmen, unlike England or Australia where even a frontline bowler hits a 50 and even a 200 (remember Gillespie?).

[saneindian]

There is absolutely no excuse of not trusting a lineup which has not just Sehwag and Sachin but also Dravid and Laxman. Throw the ball in their court. Give them the responsibility. Challenge them. They are not just proven and talented but supremely mature. They should be given the business end of the job. Not the rookie bowlers. We must not forget that in the last 3 to 4 years, it has been the batting which has led to India climbing to the top in Test cricket. Sehwag in particular played a stellar role in this. There is absolutely no reason to doubt this lineup and add a failsafe number 7. I would have said this even if he had 4 fully fit, experienced bowlers. And now we have one debutant and one half fit bowler - who happens to be the strike bowler! The decision should have been obvious. Glaring blunder by Dhoni and the team management as far as I am concerned.

Playing 5 bowler just for the sake of it won't work. Unless you have soeone whom you can trsut to bowl 15-20 overs in a day without giving too many runs and capable of picking some wickets besides being capable of scoring 30-40 runs regulalrly , no team will ever go with 5 specialist bowlers. All it will do is give rest to the other 4 bowlers and ensure that Sehwag doesn't get to bowl at all. And given what happened to our batting on the last Lankan tour, I don't think it will be a good idea to try that option either. BTW last time we played with 5 bowlers in a test match in the sub continent, we lost the test by an innings and were shot out for 76 by SA in Ahmedabad. http://www.cricinfo.com/indvrsa/engine/match/332912.html Don't think Kirsten (for whom that was his 2nd test as India's coach) will ever take that risk again. Also the 6th specialist batsman has many a times, saved us from the embarassment of a bad start on perfectly fine pitches (rather roads) like the Bangalore test vs Pakistan in 2007 , Ahmedabad test vs Sri Lanka etc).

[thevortex]

This formula has never worked for us and we have lost many matches playing with 5 bowlers. Remember the Mumbai test against England in 2006, when Sachin Tendulkar was booed in his own city? We were playing that match with 5 bowlers. I can remember many wins with just 4 bowlers but hardly any while playing with 5 bowlers. One more factor here could be that our tailenders are terrible batsmen, unlike England or Australia where even a frontline bowler hits a 50 and even a 200 (remember Gillespie?).

Playing 5 bowler just for the sake of it won't work. Unless you have soeone whom you can trsut to bowl 15-20 overs in a day without giving too many runs and capable of picking some wickets besides being capable of scoring 30-40 runs regulalrly , no team will ever go with 5 specialist bowlers. All it will do is give rest to the other 4 bowlers and ensure that Sehwag doesn't get to bowl at all. And given what happened to our batting on the last Lankan tour, I don't think it will be a good idea to try that option either. BTW last time we played with 5 bowlers in a test match in the sub continent, we lost the test by an innings and were shot out for 76 by SA in Ahmedabad. http://www.cricinfo.com/indvrsa/engine/match/332912.html Don't think Kirsten (for whom that was his 2nd test as India's coach) will ever take that risk again. Also the 6th specialist batsman has many a times, saved us from the embarassment of a bad start on perfectly fine pitches (rather roads) like the Bangalore test vs Pakistan in 2007 , Ahmedabad test vs Sri Lanka etc).

I have the same answer for both of you. You can count the number of Tests that we went in with 5 bowlers with the fingers in both of your hands - in all probability. Does that mean we have thoroughly explored that idea and all that it has to offer Indian cricket? Have we tried it consistently? Have we given it a chance to succeed? Looks like we have only given it a chance to fail. In any case cricket is not a game driven by statistics. The game drives the numbers. And simple cricketing logic would make yourself ask this question. Take the batting lineup with Sehwag, Sachin, Dravid and Laxman. Now take the bowling lineup consisting of one debutant, one out of form pace bowler, one half fit off spinner (your strike bowler) and another rookie left arm spinner. Which lineup do you think is stronger? Common sense should dictate that you reinforce the team to cover up your weakness a little bit better. That is what I have been suggesting. I think some stronger, braver and fresher captaincy is required for India to truly become the No.1 team in Test matches. I am not saying they dont deserve that spot now. Take a look at it. That came through mostly because of our batting exploits and the time that our batsmen granted the bowlers to do their job. So trust them. Give them a bit more to do. And spread the load of bowling a little bit more evenly. That is all I am suggesting.

[gaurav92]

I agree with bala We should have gone in with 5 bowlers.the gamble should have been taken after having such a strong batting Line up with Dhoni himself coming at no.6. But the question arises Well is it worth taking Munaf Patel in the line up and trust him to do the job.Is he the bowler who will make the difference ? He is in for Yuvi, so will he do with the ball something special ?.He will do one thing and that is disappoint us. If we had a fiot Sree, still i dont think we should have gone with 5 bowlers, i would have picked sree instead of Ishant who has been in terrible form.

[saneindian]

I have the same answer for both of you. You can count the number of Tests that we went in with 5 bowlers with the fingers in both of your hands - in all probability. Does that mean we have thoroughly explored that idea and all that it has to offer Indian cricket? Have we tried it consistently? Have we given it a chance to succeed? Looks like we have only given it a chance to fail. In any case cricket is not a game driven by statistics. The game drives the numbers. And simple cricketing logic would make yourself ask this question. Take the batting lineup with Sehwag, Sachin, Dravid and Laxman. Now take the bowling lineup consisting of one debutant, one out of form pace bowler, one half fit off spinner (your strike bowler) and another rookie left arm spinner. Which lineup do you think is stronger? Common sense should dictate that you reinforce the team to cover up your weakness a little bit better. That is what I have been suggesting. I think some stronger, braver and fresher captaincy is required for India to truly become the No.1 team in Test matches. I am not saying they dont deserve that spot now. Take a look at it. That came through mostly because of our batting exploits and the time that our batsmen granted the bowlers to do their job. So trust them. Give them a bit more to do. And spread the load of bowling a little bit more evenly. That is all I am suggesting.

Playing a mediocre bowler as the 5th one will in all probability will be meaningless. A 6th batsman in the side at least gives the side the hope that getting them out twice in a test will be tough, hence chances of us coming out with a draw will be higher and if we bat first, chances of us winning will be very good. That may sound like a defensive approach and we can slate the team management as much as we want, but they are the ones who know the reality and the strength of the bowling unit. yes the need is to have "stronger, braver and fresher captaincy" but that doesn't mean being foolish either. A dwhile we continue to berate the bowling attack, isn't it a fact that they created 3 chances which were put down? Aus or SA would have snapped up those chances hence making their bowlers look far more lethal.

[The Outsider]

It's not as if we are not able to play some McGrath or Warne because we are going in with 4 bowlers. There is no point playing a 5th bowler unless he is of decent quality. Really, what would Munaf have done yesterday? The current team composition is a good one. Quite a few times the 6th batsman has come in very handy. The 387 chase at Chennai is one example. Another crucial example is the first test against Sri Lanka last year at Motera. 30/4 in the opening session of a test series. Without an extra batsman we could have been bowled out for even 100-150 and ended up conceding a lead in the first test of the series. Nothing an extra bowler could have done to avoid it. 5 bowlers make sense if at least one of them is an international level all rounder ie. capable of scoring a test hundred, chipping in regularly with 30s and 50s, having the batting nous to be able to pull the team out of tough situations when batting with the tail. Playing a 5th bowler might sound as the 'aggressive' option but given the resources at disposal, it's a 'foolish' option. We are struggling to put together 4 international class bowlers on the field, where will we get the 5th one from?

[putrevus]

It's not as if we are not able to play some McGrath or Warne because we are going in with 4 bowlers. There is no point playing a 5th bowler unless he is of decent quality. Really, what would Munaf have done yesterday? The current team composition is a good one. Quite a few times the 6th batsman has come in very handy. The 387 chase at Chennai is one example. Another crucial example is the first test against Sri Lanka last year at Motera. 30/4 in the opening session of a test series. Without an extra batsman we could have been bowled out for even 100-150 and ended up conceding a lead in the first test of the series. Nothing an extra bowler could have done to avoid it. 5 bowlers make sense if at least one of them is an international level all rounder ie. capable of scoring a test hundred, chipping in regularly with 30s and 50s, having the batting nous to be able to pull the team out of tough situations when batting with the tail. Playing a 5th bowler might sound as the 'aggressive' option but given the resources at disposal, it's a 'foolish' option. We are struggling to put together 4 international class bowlers on the field, where will we get the 5th one from?

the point of debate is not playing five bowlers but playing Irfan as that all rounder who is also team's fifth bowler, is Irfan's bowling that worse than Mathews and his batting that better than Irfan's batting. Answer to that lies in our batting line up and Dhoni's confidence of batting at no 6. if they went to selectors and asked to send Irfan as replacement for Zaheer instead of Munaf would they have denied that request. As it is suicidal to have gone with Munaf as fifth bowler, is not the same to expect miracle from these four bowlers to bowl out the best batting line up in their home conditions, this Srliankan batting line up have battered almost everybody when they play at home.To have Irfan as swing bowler doesn't look such a bad option.

[The Outsider]

the point of debate is not playing five bowlers but playing Irfan as that all rounder who is also team's fifth bowler, is Irfan's bowling that worse than Mathews and his batting that better than Irfan's batting. Answer to that lies in our batting line up and Dhoni's confidence of batting at no 6. if they went to selectors and asked to send Irfan as replacement for Zaheer instead of Munaf would they have denied that request. As it is suicidal to have gone with Munaf as fifth bowler, is not the same to expect miracle from these four bowlers to bowl out the best batting line up in their home conditions, this Srliankan batting line up have battered almost everybody when they play at home.To have Irfan as swing bowler doesn't look such a bad option.

I am not averse to playing Irfan as an all rounder in conditions where we are playing 2 spinners. Having said that, Mathews is a proper batsman who can bowl. He has a First Class average of 50+. But playing a 5th specialist bowler is pretty stupid given the quality we have at our disposal. Irfan seems to have fallen out of favor with someone on quite a serious note. Because regardless of the debate one can have over his place in the test side, that he does not make the squad or even the 30 probables for ODIs and T20s is quite surprising. He is the perfect number 7 batsman in the format and should be able to give you 6-0-35-1 on a regular basis. I also agree that our choice of fast bowlers is not at all in line with the swinging conditions in Sri Lanka. All our fast bowling choices are hit the deck variety and though they can get some reverse swing, their swing credentials with the new ball are non existent.

[thevortex]

Playing a mediocre bowler as the 5th one will in all probability will be meaningless. A 6th batsman in the side at least gives the side the hope that getting them out twice in a test will be tough, hence chances of us coming out with a draw will be higher and if we bat first, chances of us winning will be very good. That may sound like a defensive approach and we can slate the team management as much as we want, but they are the ones who know the reality and the strength of the bowling unit. yes the need is to have "stronger, braver and fresher captaincy" but that doesn't mean being foolish either. A dwhile we continue to berate the bowling attack, isn't it a fact that they created 3 chances which were put down? Aus or SA would have snapped up those chances hence making their bowlers look far more lethal.

Inspite of those chances created, the Indian attack was pathetic. Would you agree? I am afraid if 4 of these giants as batsmen do not inspire enough confidence, India may never ever field 5 specialist bowlers. Why do you think the captain would be a fool if he plays 5 bowlers? I am not saying we should do that everywhere. But on these Sri Lankan wickets, where bowlers more often than not end up being heartbroken, an extra bowler could mean the difference between a rested strike bowler and an overworked one. And that could be crucial for the series result. That is my point.

[thevortex]

It's not as if we are not able to play some McGrath or Warne because we are going in with 4 bowlers. There is no point playing a 5th bowler unless he is of decent quality. Really, what would Munaf have done yesterday? The current team composition is a good one. Quite a few times the 6th batsman has come in very handy. The 387 chase at Chennai is one example. Another crucial example is the first test against Sri Lanka last year at Motera. 30/4 in the opening session of a test series. Without an extra batsman we could have been bowled out for even 100-150 and ended up conceding a lead in the first test of the series. Nothing an extra bowler could have done to avoid it. 5 bowlers make sense if at least one of them is an international level all rounder ie. capable of scoring a test hundred, chipping in regularly with 30s and 50s, having the batting nous to be able to pull the team out of tough situations when batting with the tail. Playing a 5th bowler might sound as the 'aggressive' option but given the resources at disposal, it's a 'foolish' option. We are struggling to put together 4 international class bowlers on the field, where will we get the 5th one from?

Really, Outsider, will you play a 5th bowler only if they were Warne or Mcgrath? You surely realize that those two bowlers were hardly their team's 5th bowlers! You guys come up grand stories of 6th batsmen contributing merely because that is the only tactic we have tried - over the decades. We can be accused of various things but our team can never be accused of playing true attacking cricket for any serious length of time. And that is reflected in our mindset. Test cricket is won by taking 20 wickets. There are two ways you can go about doing that. Bat out of your skin thereby making more time for 4 average and slightly better than average bowlers to take the wickets or by supplementing the bowling strength and getting the batting unit to rely on discipline and consistency rather than sporadic brilliance. I am sure you would agree that this batting lineup is second to none in any of those areas.

[The Outsider]

Really, Outsider, will you play a 5th bowler only if they were Warne or Mcgrath? You surely realize that those two bowlers were hardly their team's 5th bowlers! You guys come up grand stories of 6th batsmen contributing merely because that is the only tactic we have tried - over the decades. We can be accused of various things but our team can never be accused of playing true attacking cricket for any serious length of time. And that is reflected in our mindset. Test cricket is won by taking 20 wickets. There are two ways you can go about doing that. Bat out of your skin thereby making more time for 4 average and slightly better than average bowlers to take the wickets or by supplementing the bowling strength and getting the batting unit to rely on discipline and consistency rather than sporadic brilliance. I am sure you would agree that this batting lineup is second to none in any of those areas.

It was in the manner of speaking - that by playing 4 bowlers it's not as if we are keeping some worthy 5th bowler out of the team. No need to take it literally. No team ever has played 5 bowlers on a regular basis, unless there is a genuine all rounder in the side. Surely, not all teams in the history of cricket and all captains to have captained sides have been lacking in confidence and aggression. I have no problems playing 5 bowlers if there is a genuine all rounder. Most teams and captains would jump at the opportunity. There is no way in hell that a below ordinary fifth bowler is going to help you take 20 wickets at a significantly smaller total. 4 front line bowlers picked up 1 wicket on the first day amongst them. You are losing 80-100 runs in a test match by replacing a proper batsman with a 'specialist' bowler. Do you really think having a Munaf Patel as your 5th bowler is going to cover up that difference?

[thevortex]

It was in the manner of speaking - that by playing 4 bowlers it's not as if we are keeping some worthy 5th bowler out of the team. No need to take it literally. No team ever has played 5 bowlers on a regular basis, unless there is a genuine all rounder in the side. Surely, not all teams in the history of cricket and all captains to have captained sides have been lacking in confidence and aggression. I have no problems playing 5 bowlers if there is a genuine all rounder. Most teams and captains would jump at the opportunity. There is no way in hell that a below ordinary fifth bowler is going to help you take 20 wickets at a significantly smaller total. 4 front line bowlers picked up 1 wicket on the first day amongst them. You are losing 80-100 runs in a test match by replacing a proper batsman with a 'specialist' bowler. Do you really think having a Munaf Patel as your 5th bowler is going to cover up that difference?

I understood the implication. Still, I think the value in adding the 5th bowler is not JUST in getting that man to take 2 or 3 wickets. It is also about freshening up your main bowlers. That is the whole name of the game. And why would you want to assume that Munaf is the only one who can be picked? Why not Amit Mishra? One cannot have 3 spinners? If not in SL then how many other places will you employ such strategies? Also this all rounder thing is getting out of hand. When will we ever realize that M.S.Dhoni is our all rounder. He is the closest thing we have to Adam Gilchrist. So that no longer is a valid excuse for not having attacking strategies.

[putrevus]

I understood the implication. Still, I think the value in adding the 5th bowler is not JUST in getting that man to take 2 or 3 wickets. It is also about freshening up your main bowlers. That is the whole name of the game. And why would you want to assume that Munaf is the only one who can be picked? Why not Amit Mishra? One cannot have 3 spinners? If not in SL then how many other places will you employ such strategies? Also this all rounder thing is getting out of hand. When will we ever realize that M.S.Dhoni is our all rounder. He is the closest thing we have to Adam Gilchrist. So that no longer is a valid excuse for not having attacking strategies.

even in first match of the tour that extra batsman saved India's bacon, see you can also think in this way having six batsmen plus Dhoni India can put so much pressure on opposing team by scoring big in first innings if they bat well they cannot lose match. if sehwag fires india will have big scores and ample time to bowl opposition out with four bowlers if we go thru history of test cricket, it is pressure of the big scores which makes other team lose rather the actual bowling itself. last match in kolkatta is prime example of Batting winning the test for they scored so many runs in their first innings SA had no choice but just bat to draw the match even with three bowlers and pressure of that score. You cant fault the think tank what are chances of sixth batsman scoring 100 or making positive impact on match versus munaf or amit mishra making impact with ball .Batting will win hands down.whether that sixth batsman is Yuvraj is up for debate.

[The Outsider]

I understood the implication. Still, I think the value in adding the 5th bowler is not JUST in getting that man to take 2 or 3 wickets. It is also about freshening up your main bowlers. That is the whole name of the game. And why would you want to assume that Munaf is the only one who can be picked? Why not Amit Mishra? One cannot have 3 spinners? If not in SL then how many other places will you employ such strategies? Also this all rounder thing is getting out of hand. When will we ever realize that M.S.Dhoni is our all rounder. He is the closest thing we have to Adam Gilchrist. So that no longer is a valid excuse for not having attacking strategies.

Part timers like Sehwag and Yuvraj can also keep the bowlers fresh, if that's why you are plumping for a 5th bowler. Sehwag is more than handy in a 5th bowler role and regularly picks up wickets as well. When Kumble got injured in the Adelaide test, Sehwag bowled 20 overs with good control. Later that year, he picked up a five wicket haul bowling 40 overs in an innings against Australia at Delhi. Dhoni is yet to prove himself at the level of a top order test batsman outside India. And keep in mind, even with Gilchrist in the side and a very strong batting line up, Australia never went in with 5 bowlers - yes not even when McGrath and Warne were not playing. In fact, no team in the history of cricket has played 5 bowlers on a consistent basis unless one of them is an all rounder.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Somebody like Sehwag would be a perfect 5th bowler in SL. this is a guy that took a 5 wicket haul against australia.

[gaurav92]

Sehwag is a very useful part timer, he can bowl long spells and more often than not, he turns out to be the partnership breaker.I don't believe in the 5 bowler theory because we have always been traditionally, batting loaded and we always trust our batsmen to do the job along with the spinners, OTOH i don't think 5th bowler was needed here especially if you are going to take Munaf Patel.Its better to go with an extra batmen in such case rather than depending on Munaf to do the job.