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

[thevortex]

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.

To make it very clear, I am not asking for India to have 5 bowlers all the time. And I am not the greatest fan of Dhoni the batsman. Even then, one has to acknowledge that his Test record today is enviable and that he has to relied upon as a batsman. Especially in Sri Lanka. This match to me was an opportunity to strengthen the bowling attack. Lets talk in that context. About Sehwag - I have said the same thing that Bedi said, albeit some time earlier :). However, Sehwag does not enjoy Dhoni's confidence. And thats a pity. If Sehwag can enjoy the captain's confidence and continues to do well, then my point will be moot.

[The Outsider]

To make it very clear, I am not asking for India to have 5 bowlers all the time. And I am not the greatest fan of Dhoni the batsman. Even then, one has to acknowledge that his Test record today is enviable and that he has to relied upon as a batsman. Especially in Sri Lanka. This match to me was an opportunity to strengthen the bowling attack. Lets talk in that context. About Sehwag - I have said the same thing that Bedi said, albeit some time earlier :). However, Sehwag does not enjoy Dhoni's confidence. And thats a pity. If Sehwag can enjoy the captain's confidence and continues to do well, then my point will be moot.

The match is playing out the perfect scenario for why the 5th bowler is useless, if he cannot bat or is some ordinary trundler. What did our two spinners do in the first innings? When the fast bowlers gave the spinners a chance to dismiss Sri Lanka for around 400-425, completely rested and fresh Harbhajan and Ojha were getting spanked all over by Herath and Malinga. Now the stage is set for using the 6th batsman in one or both innings to save the match. A match we could have easily lost going in with 5 bowlers.

[Lord]

The match is playing out the perfect scenario for why the 5th bowler is useless, if he cannot bat or is some ordinary trundler. What did our two spinners do in the first innings? When the fast bowlers gave the spinners a chance to dismiss Sri Lanka for around 400-425, completely rested and fresh Harbhajan and Ojha were getting spanked all over by Herath and Malinga. Now the stage is set for using the 6th batsman in one or both innings to save the match. A match we could have easily lost going in with 5 bowlers.

i still feel Irfan could hv been a better option than Yuvraj.he can compliment the two fast bowlers n continue the good work they did.also he isnt a bad bat.

[thevortex]

Outsider - we failed in the batting department even with that extra batsman. Does that then make a case for having 7 or 8 specialist batsmen and shortchanging the bowling unit by one more man??! Test cricket is about picking 20 wickets. And to expect the lower middle order in batting to do what the top and middle order cannot do is not the way to go. That is not attacking cricket which the No.1 team in the world is expected to showcase.

[Chandan]

Outsider - we failed in the batting department even with that extra batsman. Does that then make a case for having 7 or 8 specialist batsmen and shortchanging the bowling unit by one more man??! Test cricket is about picking 20 wickets. And to expect the lower middle order in batting to do what the top and middle order cannot do is not the way to go. That is not attacking cricket which the No.1 team in the world is expected to showcase.

Don't agree at all. You are stating this as if 6 bat+4 bowlers formula has never succeeded for us. We have won many many matches with that formula and reached the number 1 ranking in tests. But I'm sure you'll be hard pressed to give the number of wins with your formula. Why just our team, take any team from the history and tell me where your formula has succeeded for sustaineed period.

[thevortex]

Chandan - I have been repeating this many times. I have never said that we ought to go with 5 bowlers in the side all the time. Not at all. This Test was a case in point. In conditions which were more batsmen friendly than bowler friendly and also when we had more batsmen than bowlers in terms of strength. Just common sense combined with some cricketing sense. Just in my opinion.

[rkt.india]

u can say same with bowling as we say to batting...if 4 bowlers cannot do anything, cant take wickets, are u sure 5th will take wickets while we know that our 5th bowler is no better than our 4 bowlers

[thevortex]

u can say same with bowling as we say to batting...if 4 bowlers cannot do anything' date=' cant take wickets, are u sure 5th will take wickets while we know that our 5th bowler is no better than our 4 bowlers[/quote'] My question was more rhetoric than actual, if you see my post. In this match what would you have preferred. An extra bowler or an extra batsman. I am not talking about this with hindsight - given that this match has turned out this way. I would have said the same even if it had turned out differently.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

some of the arguments here defy common sense i would much rather see india maximize the utility they get from their batting by playing a 7 man lineup instead of weakening the side with another bowler. it makes no sense to have the extra bowler when the pitch is good for batting, knowing that the extra bowler wont contribute much. tests in the subcontinent are all about scoring big runs and then building pressure through attrition. so why have the extra bowler, when you are basically reducing your chances of putting up a massive total.

[thevortex]

So, why dont visiting teams treat the matches in the subcontinent that way then? Australians and South Africans still strengthen their bowling lineup and expect their batsmen to contribute to the total on conducive surfaces. That is attacking cricket where the whole point and accent is on picking up 20 wickets.

[The Outsider]

Outsider - we failed in the batting department even with that extra batsman. Does that then make a case for having 7 or 8 specialist batsmen and shortchanging the bowling unit by one more man??! Test cricket is about picking 20 wickets. And to expect the lower middle order in batting to do what the top and middle order cannot do is not the way to go. That is not attacking cricket which the No.1 team in the world is expected to showcase.

You can question the choice of the extra batsman - Yuvraj, but the strategy is still right. After conceding so many runs in the first innings, which would have been pretty much the same if there was a fifth bowler you need extra batting. Even so, the extra batsman almost put India well on course of a draw in the first innings. Another 50-70 runs from the Yuvraj-Dhoni partnership, the follow on would have been averted and match pretty much saved. It's a dumb strategy to play 5 specialist bowlers, specially when the fifth bowler is nothing more than mediocre. And that's the reason no cricket team in history has implemented it on a regular basis.

[Fontaine]

You can question the choice of the extra batsman - Yuvraj, but the strategy is still right. After conceding so many runs in the first innings, which would have been pretty much the same if there was a fifth bowler you need extra batting. Even so, the extra batsman almost put India well on course of a draw in the first innings. Another 50-70 runs from the Yuvraj-Dhoni partnership, the follow on would have been averted and match pretty much saved. It's a dumb strategy to play 5 specialist bowlers, specially when the fifth bowler is nothing more than mediocre. And that's the reason no cricket team in history has implemented it on a regular basis.

I agree. A mediocre extra batsmen > than a mediocre fifth bowler simply because even with a mediocre test batsmen you can still add 40-50 runs in a batting partnership with a regular batsmen taking most of the strike. Whereas a mediocre fifth bowler will hardly ever take a wicket and still concede lots of runs.

[Fontaine]

My question was more rhetoric than actual, if you see my post. In this match what would you have preferred. An extra bowler or an extra batsman. I am not talking about this with hindsight - given that this match has turned out this way. I would have said the same even if it had turned out differently.

Well in this test match we went in two bowlers who bowled like extra bowlers in Bhajji/Ojha. How did that work out for us?

[thevortex]

You know the thing is - Outsider - I am not asking for this strategy to be used on a regular basis! I may have repeated this ad infinitum. But it just seems to me that when the batting is already strong and the bowling is already weak, I would look to strengthen the bowling. And maybe, just maybe, guys, one of those bowlers could look at getting Herath's wicket before he scores 80 massive runs!! If Herath were to have gotten out for less than 10 runs, does it not cut down the complexity for the batting lineup? I just ache and pine for an Indian leader who thinks this way. Lastly I would not call Amit Mishra a mediocre Test bowler. In fact I would rate him as a better bowler to have than Yuvraj is as a batsman against Muralitharan! And I think many might agree.

[someone]

You know the thing is - Outsider - I am not asking for this strategy to be used on a regular basis! I may have repeated this ad infinitum. But it just seems to me that when the batting is already strong and the bowling is already weak, I would look to strengthen the bowling. And maybe, just maybe, guys, one of those bowlers could look at getting Herath's wicket before he scores 80 massive runs!! If Herath were to have gotten out for less than 10 runs, does it not cut down the complexity for the batting lineup? I just ache and pine for an Indian leader who thinks this way. Lastly I would not call Amit Mishra a mediocre Test bowler. In fact I would rate him as a better bowler to have than Yuvraj is as a batsman against Muralitharan! And I think many might agree.

Maybe you should look to the real fact that our batting is not as good as you think and our bowling is not as bad as it is. I mean if these bowlers who are our best performers in domestic games cannot do well in international. So probably it means another bowler will not help much. So I think we should wait for a few matches as again our bowlers is not very bad

[The Outsider]

You know the thing is - Outsider - I am not asking for this strategy to be used on a regular basis! I may have repeated this ad infinitum. But it just seems to me that when the batting is already strong and the bowling is already weak, I would look to strengthen the bowling. And maybe, just maybe, guys, one of those bowlers could look at getting Herath's wicket before he scores 80 massive runs!! If Herath were to have gotten out for less than 10 runs, does it not cut down the complexity for the batting lineup? I just ache and pine for an Indian leader who thinks this way. Lastly I would not call Amit Mishra a mediocre Test bowler. In fact I would rate him as a better bowler to have than Yuvraj is as a batsman against Muralitharan! And I think many might agree.

How does adding a mediocre bowler strengthen the bowling, I have no idea. Even I don't consider Mishra a mediocre bowler and he should have played the test, but not as a fifth bowler rather in place of the mediocre Ojha or unfit Harbhajan. Yes, Ojha is mediocre. Wait, I'm being generous, he is downright crap. Again, you can question the choices of the 6 batsmen chosen or the 4 bowlers chosen, but not the strategy. What did Harbhajan and Ojha bring to the game which Sehwag and Yuvraj could not have if Mishra was played? Nothing.

[thevortex]

How does adding a mediocre bowler strengthen the bowling, I have no idea. Even I don't consider Mishra a mediocre bowler and he should have played the test, but not as a fifth bowler rather in place of the mediocre Ojha or unfit Harbhajan. Yes, Ojha is mediocre. Wait, I'm being generous, he is downright crap. Again, you can question the choices of the 6 batsmen chosen or the 4 bowlers chosen, but not the strategy. What did Harbhajan and Ojha bring to the game which Sehwag and Yuvraj could not have if Mishra was played? Nothing.

Ah, finally we agree:). Ojha is not just crap but I hate this new fangled tradition of wearing long sleeves to mask a doubtful action. Rangana Herath's carrom ball too seems extremely doubtful. It is just in the mindset, Outsider, sometimes. Its like how a player is transformed if captaincy is given to him or if he surrenders the spot. He is the same player but the response that he has to the situation in these two cases is wildly different. So, I would like for our think tank to trust our colossal batting lineup a little bit more. They deserve that much. If not, lets find out and fix that. Sehwag is a fantastic off spinner. But I really do believe that he does not enjoy the confidence of Dhoni. Nowhere near as much as somebody like Yuvraj at any rate. In the bowling department, that is. You never know until you try it. Our bowling line up was totally weakened owing to injuries. In which case what would you want to strengthen further? The bowling right? Or would you further short change it by having just 4 bowlers (one half fit and one debutant along with one rookie and one out of form fast bowler) and stocking up on the batting?

[Sooda]

5 Specialist bowlers is pretty much out of the question as it skews the balance of the side, you can only play a 5th bowler if he bats, i.e if he's an allrounder. No one ever plays 5 bowlers, true, but anytime a nation has had a semi decent allrounder they have tried him out in test cricket. A guy like Watson would not make the Aussie side as a bowler alone. I imagine though if Watto was around 10 years ago the Aussies could have found a place for him. So he dosent need to be a test class bowler as such, just one who is good enough to chip in with a wicket or two and keep things tight- spread the load on a flat wicket as Vortex says. Sadly we dont have anything like that- Irfan would have been ripped to shreds on this wicket (aside from that brief period post-rainfall) and relieved any pressue the frontline bowlers created. Nayyar is a decent bat I think but probably not nearly good enough with ball in hand, The closest we have is bits and pieces guys like Jadeja and Yousuf, and imagine them in test cricket :cantstop:

[thevortex]

You know the thing is - a lot of people sing Dhoni's praises but are not quite happy to consider him as good as a batsman. So if you have 5 specialist batsmen plus Dhoni does it not give us some room to play 5 bowlers on the odd occasions they are needed?

[thevortex]

Nobody thinks that 4 bowlers (that is 4 of our ineffective bowlers) is too less? And we still need 7 batsmen?