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

[thevortex]

How many think that we need 7 batsmen on this track?

[thevortex]

Are people going to try to tell me that going with 4 bowlers and 7 batsman is the right way to go about on this featherbed of a track? If you cannot trust batsmen of the calibre of Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman on such a track - why have them pray? Do they need further insurance in the form of Raina or Yuvraj? That is utterly senseless. Oh and people talking about how an extra bowler is not going to make a difference - I reiterate. It is not just about that bowler picking up wickets. It is also about the ability to intelligently rotate. Give your main wicket taking bowlers more opportunities to freshen themselves and attack with renewed vigour. And no, your part timers may not be able to do that. That is not their role. Giving yourself more opportunities to pick up wickets is attacking cricket. Aggressve leadership. Giving yourself the fall back insurance of the 7th batsman is defensive cricket. Completely conservative and defensive leadership. Sadly the latter sums up Dhoni and Kirsten's partnership.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

yeah, munaf patel is going to rip through the sri lankan batting lineup.

[thevortex]

Please read my post carefully. It is not about Munaf ripping through the batting lineup at all. If he can give us 6 extra overs up top with the new ball, that is going to help. Because Ishant/Mithun can come back sooner for their second spells. And so much more. In the process if he even picks up one wicket or creates pressure, that should do it. And in any case, are we saying that we - the ones with 4 celebrated batsmen in our ranks - need extra batsmen and not extra bowlers; considering our puny bowling lineup?

[Manny_Pacquiao]

sri lanka themselves are going with 7-4, and they know these conditions better than anyone else. face it, there is no other combination for playing in the subcontinent. its not about the number of bowlers or the number of batsmen you have anyways. 4 competent bowlers with some decent captaincy can get the job done 9 times out of 10. but when your bowlers are harmless then it doesnt matter whether you have 4 or 5 of them. i highly doubt that munaf would have contributed anything had he played.

[Lord]

the thing is the 5th bowler cant bat.we really dont want Bhajji batting at 7.if Irfan was in the squad,then i'd have agreed with u

[thevortex]

sri lanka themselves are going with 7-4, and they know these conditions better than anyone else. face it, there is no other combination for playing in the subcontinent. its not about the number of bowlers or the number of batsmen you have anyways. 4 competent bowlers with some decent captaincy can get the job done 9 times out of 10. but when your bowlers are harmless then it doesnt matter whether you have 4 or 5 of them. i highly doubt that munaf would have contributed anything had he played.

Wrong. They are going with Mathews - who successfully opened the bowling against us. Yes they have that liberty. And yes we dont have a bowling/batting all rounder. But we have a keeping all rounder and we have to make best use of that. We have to consider him as a specialist batsman. And do better by our bowling. Otherwise we can never play attacking cricket.

[thevortex]

The 5th bowler NEED not bat. We have Dhoni as a specialist keeper who can bat. And that should be enough. Harbhajan is a more than decent No.7/8 batsman. We have to take what we get.

[Mr. Wicket]

Wrong. They are going with Mathews - who successfully opened the bowling against us. Yes they have that liberty.

LOL! Mathooze is a glorified all rounder. Very good batsman, but he averages less than a wicket a game in first class or test cricket, and the averages of 40+ (f/c) and 60+ (test) with ball aren't much of a testament to being an all rounder. Solid batsman who can turn his arm over, but nothing that separates him that much from other batsmen who bowl in the Indian team like Sehwag. Sri Lanka still have 7 players who can bat solidly (Mathews' strength in ALL forms of cricket is his batting), four bowling specialists and then guys like Dilshan and Mathews who turn their arms over. Suggesting we play Munaf as a fifth bowler is nothing like what they're doing.

[thevortex]

It may not be what they are doing. But you will agree, Mr. Wicket, that they are not the ones who have to win this game. They are already 1-0. Not that they are not trying to win it. But would you describe India's strategies as aggressive? By any stretch of imagination? On such a featherbed of a track - would you select an extra bowler or an extra batsman?

[kabira]

How many think that we need 7 batsmen on this track?

I was thinking we may need 9 of them to save the game.

[Sooda]

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

It is less, but the 5th bowler should be an allrounder... who do you suggest comes in? A proper 5th bowler or an all rouunder (one of the Pathans or Jadeja ) Id love to see Irfan play test cricket but the reality is he would suffer on a pitch like this, he does not have the consistency in line and length. Having an out and out 5 th bowler would help yes... but would it not weaken our batting quite a lot? They hardly covered themselves in glory in the first test and MSD is not a good enough test bat to be the 6th batsman. Enough pressure on the guy anyway. If at least all 5 of our bowlers could SORT OF chip in ok with the bat, we'd be ok to play 5. But I guess Mishra can bat a bit and Bhajji is useful, the pacemen are not really though...! Not exactly Gillespie's in the obduracy stakes, the last test was a one off and we cannot expect too much from our tail.

[thevortex]

I was thinking we may need 9 of them to save the game.

Precisely, Kabira. We are fighting a losing battle in trying to stockpile on batting. We cant just keep on piling gunny sacks at our bunker and wait for the next missile to miss us. Sooner or later it is going to explode and the bunker is going to collapse. Mixing attack with defense is what is going to produce results.

[thevortex]

It is less, but the 5th bowler should be an allrounder... who do you suggest comes in? A proper 5th bowler or an all rouunder (one of the Pathans or Jadeja ) Id love to see Irfan play test cricket but the reality is he would suffer on a pitch like this, he does not have the consistency in line and length. Having an out and out 5 th bowler would help yes... but would it not weaken our batting quite a lot? They hardly covered themselves in glory in the first test and MSD is not a good enough test bat to be the 6th batsman. Enough pressure on the guy anyway. If at least all 5 of our bowlers could SORT OF chip in ok with the bat, we'd be ok to play 5. But I guess Mishra can bat a bit and Bhajji is useful, the pacemen are not really though...! Not exactly Gillespie's in the obduracy stakes, the last test was a one off and we cannot expect too much from our tail.

I would say - put more pressure on them. Lets think about this - can you think of a more powerful batting lineup than the one we have in this entire planet? For my money, no! Then what is the problem in asking it to deliver? It is high time really. Past is in the past. And remember we are not going to have this brilliant middle order for too long. It is time that we make use of it. Productive use of it. If Dhoni is not to be considered a No.6 batsman even in Sri Lanka - then what we doing with him? The stakes are too high in today's cricket to have specialist keepers anyway. Anyway I dont think he is too bad as a No.6. Especially not in subcontinental conditions.

[The Outsider]

Oh man! The same rants about the fifth bowler! Picking more garbage is not going to help in taking wickets! Why can't rest be provided by the fifth bowler? Why do Harbhajan and Ojha need rest? And it's not that Ishant and Mithun were in any blistering form that they would have done better after more 'rest'! Dhoni as a sixth batsman? He is the wicket keeper, he is also the captain and now you want to play him as a top order batsman? Gilchrist, who was twice the batsman that Dhoni will ever be and never captained regularly, was never played as a specialist batsman! But Dhoni should because he should also solve world hunger and energy crisis when he gets some spare time! What are Dhoni's credentials to be a specialist batsman? Averages 20 in Australia, South Africa, West Indies, and Sri Lanka. How can someone who has failed till date in 4 out of 8 countries have credentials to play as a specialist batsman? An absolutely ridiculous and deluded idea it is to think that having more bowlers helps. What would help is Ishant not getting teams off to flying starts, Harbhajan getting a wicket or two, Ojha not being as crap as he inherently is, and bowlers bowling consistently to a field. The fifth bowler is going to deliver the same trash, just with a different flavor.

[Mr. Wicket]

Thanks prof for that blast of common sense. On a pitch like this, a fifth bowler would add little - at best perhaps an extra wicket, but most likely nothing that would change the course of the game. We'd just be facing a gigantic total of runs to stay in the game with one fewer batsman, and more pressure on the other bats.

[thevortex]

Oh man! The same rants about the fifth bowler! Picking more garbage is not going to help in taking wickets! Why can't rest be provided by the fifth bowler? Why do Harbhajan and Ojha need rest? And it's not that Ishant and Mithun were in any blistering form that they would have done better after more 'rest'! Dhoni as a sixth batsman? He is the wicket keeper, he is also the captain and now you want to play him as a top order batsman? Gilchrist, who was twice the batsman that Dhoni will ever be and never captained regularly, was never played as a specialist batsman! But Dhoni should because he should also solve world hunger and energy crisis when he gets some spare time! What are Dhoni's credentials to be a specialist batsman? Averages 20 in Australia, South Africa, West Indies, and Sri Lanka. How can someone who has failed till date in 4 out of 8 countries have credentials to play as a specialist batsman? An absolutely ridiculous and deluded idea it is to think that having more bowlers helps. What would help is Ishant not getting teams off to flying starts, Harbhajan getting a wicket or two, Ojha not being as crap as he inherently is, and bowlers bowling consistently to a field. The fifth bowler is going to deliver the same trash, just with a different flavor.

That is Dhoni's role - like it or not! He has to come into the side as a wicket keeper batsman. Nothing other than that. It so happens that he is the captain. That does not mean that he can get into the team by just being a wicket keeper. No, sir!!! Not a chance. With Gilchrist the equation was different. Here we dont have a Ponting or a Waugh or anybody to have an alternative for Dhoni. You talk about using part time bowlers to relieve our frontline bowlers. Do you see Dhoni doing that? If you had watched the action I am sure you would not be saying this. It is not like I am asking for the side to stock up on 7 bowlers the way they are doing with batsmen! 5 bowlers are a must for this side - this bowling side. It has little in the way of class and lesser in the way of experience. Are you going to thorougly expose your attack to the opposition thereby granting them not just confidence but also extremely important batting form? A 5th bowler can help keep your main bowlers relaxed and pick up a wicket or two. Both Munaf and Mishra possess the capability to do that. It takes some vision to think differently. And the basic underlying point still is this - on a featherbed of a wicket where batting is almost a somnolent activity, would you have 7 batsmen? Does it not make more sense to arm yourself in the suit you would be more challenged? Not even cricket sense. Just common sense.

Thanks prof for that blast of common sense. On a pitch like this, a fifth bowler would add little - at best perhaps an extra wicket, but most likely nothing that would change the course of the game. We'd just be facing a gigantic total of runs to stay in the game with one fewer batsman, and more pressure on the other bats.

That one wicket could mean the difference of even 200 runs!!! Will you still look at that one wicket askance?! About the batsmen - do you really think that if 600 runs are scored, it is going to matter whether we go with 6 batsmen or 7? All that extra batsman is holding out for is a draw. And that is exactly what is wrong with Dhoni's and Kirsten's thought process. Safety first approach. Perhaps a Bangladesh or even a West Indies can be excused for thinking that way. Not the world's No.1 Test team. Surely not!!!

[Mr. Wicket]

And that is exactly what is wrong with Dhoni's and Kirsten's thought process. Safety first approach. Perhaps a Bangladesh or even a West Indies can be excused for thinking that way. Not the world's No.1 Test team. Surely not!!!

Your statement is unfounded. Back in the 70s and 80s, the World's No. 1 Test Team for a long time went with four bowlers, six batsmen and a wicketkeeper. In the late 90s/early 2000s, the World's No. 1 Test Team also took the same approach. Heck, when Australia beat Sri Lanka in three straight tests in Sri Lanka in 2004, they played four bowlers, five batsmen, a keeper and Andrew Symonds - no fifth bowler. Heck, when they played two spinners, they still went in with Gilchrist at 7 and a 2+2 attack.

About the batsmen - do you really think that if 600 runs are scored, it is going to matter whether we go with 6 batsmen or 7? All that extra batsman is holding out for is a draw.

Yes: Look at previous matches like the Chennai test against England where that last batsman has made a crucial difference. Outsider has expanded on this point with a lot more detail and eloquence, I suggest you see his previous post on this.

[thevortex]

Your statement is unfounded. Back in the 70s and 80s, the World's No. 1 Test Team for a long time went with four bowlers, six batsmen and a wicketkeeper. In the late 90s/early 2000s, the World's No. 1 Test Team also took the same approach. Heck, when Australia beat Sri Lanka in three straight tests in Sri Lanka in 2004, they played four bowlers, five batsmen, a keeper and Andrew Symonds - no fifth bowler. Heck, when they played two spinners, they still went in with Gilchrist at 7 and a 2+2 attack.

Ah, if you invoke that era, Mr. Wicket, I have to duly point out your mountainous overestimation of the current Indian attack. Do we even have to go deeper into that?

Yes: Look at previous matches like the Chennai test against England where that last batsman has made a crucial difference. Outsider has expanded on this point with a lot more detail and eloquence, I suggest you see his previous post on this.

Mr. Wicket - I had responded to that same point with my rebuttal. How many matches have you given the 5 bowler scheme a chance? Only if you give it some chance, can it succeed or fail. Instead you keep doing the same defensive thing over and over again, you are bound to have a few good examples to show. I have gone ahead and also said that it is not we need 5 bowlers on every tour and on every surface or even every occasion. This team cannot do with 4 bowlers. If we play against Bangladesh, they are going to rack up more than 400 easily against this attack. Thats how bad it is. And it does NOT matter where this attack plays. The result is going to be the same. Flat track, seaming wicket or spinning one. This attack simply does not have it in it to shine. And that is precisely why we have to add some padding. Choke out runs. Think in an Ashley-Giles-esque fashion if need be. Reduce ourselves to bare basics. This attack no longer can think about getting wickets and attacking. That is a self inflicted situation. Very much.

[Fontaine]

About the batsmen - do you really think that if 600 runs are scored, it is going to matter whether we go with 6 batsmen or 7? All that extra batsman is holding out for is a draw.

Do you really think that if 600 runs are scored it is going to matter whether we go with 4 bowlers or 5?

And that is exactly what is wrong with Dhoni's and Kirsten's thought process. Safety first approach. Perhaps a Bangladesh or even a West Indies can be excused for thinking that way. Not the world's No.1 Test team. Surely not!!!

There's NOTHING safe about an approach where you're bowling completely inexperienced and untested bowlers like Ojha/Mithun and an out form Ishant. It's called having no other choice.