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

[The Outsider]

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.

Yes, a wicketkeeper/batsman. You are suggesting to play him as a specialist batsman despite the fact that he averages 20 in 4 out of 8 countries. A wicketkeeper/batsman's role is to score valuable runs after the main batsmen have done their job, dig the team out of the occasional hole, build some partnerships with the tail on occasions. He does that job extremely well. That does not qualify him to play as a specialist batsman of whom you expect to be able to pace the innings, get through tough periods with a new ball, play exceptional innings on a turning track etc. Put it this way. The only batting line ups where Dhoni would make it as a specialist batsmen would be Bangladesh, Pakistan, New Zealand and perhaps the West Indies.

With Gilchrist the equation was different. Here we dont have a Ponting or a Waugh or anybody to have an alternative for Dhoni.

Well, if we don't have an alternate to captaincy that does not mean we put everything on Dhoni's shoulder, even the role of a specialist batsman, something he has not shown himself to be capable of. How you can expect your wicketkeeper who spends 2 days behind the stumps in heat and humidity in the first innings to fill the role of a specialist batsman is beyond me!

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.

I watched only 2-3 hours live, but I'll take your word that Dhoni did not use his part time options well. Fine then. Criticize his captaincy for not making the best use of the resources rather than plumping to add another dead weight in the side in place of a batsman who can on average give you 80-100 runs in a test match.

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?

And a fifth bowler will add class and experience to the side? How?

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.

Were our bowlers not fresh and relaxed in their first spells? Aren't our spinners supposed to put in at least these many overs in a day? Can't you even expect 15 overs each from your fast bowlers during the day which is all they bowled? Our bowlers bowled crap because they bowled crap, not because they were tired.

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.

A fifth bowler was never going to cut down the Sri Lankan score significantly. Sri Lanka are probably going to declare anyways. And after that batting is not going to remain a somnolent activity. There is going to be pressure of a huge score, bowlers will get more assistance from the pitch etc. You'll need every single bit out of your extra batsman to avoid the follow on, which is the only realistic chance we were to have of saving the match regardless the extra bowler.

[Chandan]

I don't think we have even 4 test bowlers right now, after the injuries, forget about having the 5th one.

[thevortex]

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

The thing though is that if things go well, with the 5th bowler, they may not end up getting 600 runs. How is that for a bonus? :) Lets forget the selection and injuries which are out of our control. Given the playing 14, would we still opt to hobble the already toothless attack? I know i would not.

[thevortex]

Yes, a wicketkeeper/batsman. You are suggesting to play him as a specialist batsman despite the fact that he averages 20 in 4 out of 8 countries. A wicketkeeper/batsman's role is to score valuable runs after the main batsmen have done their job, dig the team out of the occasional hole, build some partnerships with the tail on occasions. He does that job extremely well. That does not qualify him to play as a specialist batsman of whom you expect to be able to pace the innings, get through tough periods with a new ball, play exceptional innings on a turning track etc. Put it this way. The only batting line ups where Dhoni would make it as a specialist batsmen would be Bangladesh, Pakistan, New Zealand and perhaps the West Indies.

Outsider - let me put one thing clearly here. I am not a fan of Dhoni the batsman. However, that does not and should not take anything away from a modern cricket team's plan of having a player who is a wicket keeper but also a capable batsman. So Dhoni has to be a wicket keeper batsman. If you know of other probables who do that role better in our country, be my guest and let me know. We need them. And Dhoni can captain the team only after he has solidified his post as player.

Well, if we don't have an alternate to captaincy that does not mean we put everything on Dhoni's shoulder, even the role of a specialist batsman, something he has not shown himself to be capable of. How you can expect your wicketkeeper who spends 2 days behind the stumps in heat and humidity in the first innings to fill the role of a specialist batsman is beyond me!

Specialist batsman? All he needs to do is act as our wicket keeper batsman. In effect our one and only all rounder. That is what the team needs and that is what Dhoni is there to provide. Where is the unfairness in all this? As a fielder, an opener spends 2 days out there - even at forward short leg or silly point. But he is required to go out there, don pads and be out there to face chin music in the next 5 minutes (after the opposition is out). Life is like that. Fair or unfair is all a point of perspective. Even a state of mind. What is reality stays that way.

I watched only 2-3 hours live, but I'll take your word that Dhoni did not use his part time options well. Fine then. Criticize his captaincy for not making the best use of the resources rather than plumping to add another dead weight in the side in place of a batsman who can on average give you 80-100 runs in a test match.

I am criticizing not just his captaincy but his whole approach. And I will have to add Kirsten to that list as well. The duo are not doing what the world's No.1 Test team ought to do. And I am not sure how you assume that the debutant Raina will not score a pair but about 100 runs but you conveniently assume that both Mishra as well as Munaf will be utter failures. I dont see any fairness in that assumption. Correct me if I am wrong.

And a fifth bowler will add class and experience to the side? How?

The fifth bowler will add teeth to an almost empty mouth and help it grab prey better. If not crunch it outright, maybe even play a reptilian waiting game. Even constrict it - for runs, for patience. Anything. An extra weapon never hurts. More on this in closing.

Were our bowlers not fresh and relaxed in their first spells? Aren't our spinners supposed to put in at least these many overs in a day? Can't you even expect 15 overs each from your fast bowlers during the day which is all they bowled? Our bowlers bowled crap because they bowled crap, not because they were tired.

No, our spinners are not expected to put in these many overs on the first day of a Test match. If that is required, then dont expect them to be anywhere near effective. Our bowlers were utterly dominated. And with Dhoni's mismanagement of part time bowlers - as also the fact that he did not have another specialist bowler - the specialist bowlers simply had no go but to keep plugging away - no matter how many boundaries get taken off them. It was all a farce today. One big farce.

A fifth bowler was never going to cut down the Sri Lankan score significantly. Sri Lanka are probably going to declare anyways. And after that batting is not going to remain a somnolent activity. There is going to be pressure of a huge score, bowlers will get more assistance from the pitch etc. You'll need every single bit out of your extra batsman to avoid the follow on, which is the only realistic chance we were to have of saving the match regardless the extra bowler.

Let me sum this up this way. India was given a choice before this match. The battle ground was not going to be a testing one in and of itself. They were asked about whether they wanted an extra weapon which could potentially hurt the opponent faster and make them fall down sooner. And they were also asked whether they wanted an extra shield which will take a couple more hits from their opponent. India chose the latter. And that is where we are at. Winning a match is all about defeating the opponent. The waiting game is more often than not a losing game. With this weak a bowling attack the only way the batsmen can pull this in for us is if one of these supremely talented batsmen bring out a special innings of the like that Wisden would like to write about a decade later. Would you call that a reliable strategy? Even a strategy? Individual brilliance can only be celebrated. Not expected. Certainly not demanded. [Note how you talk about avoiding a follow-on. We have given up even the pretense of breaking the opponent down. We are thinking about how to escape being crushed. That is exactly what I am talking about. Our cricket team needs a sea-change. Not in terms of skills or personnel. Just the approach. ]

[thevortex]

Thanks mods for branching this out separately.

[yoda]

If 5 is better than 4, why not 6? Like someone said, we don't have decent 4 bowlers, what's the point of adding another dead weight? Between 4 regular and 1 or 2 part timers, there should be enuf breathing room and rest. Only reason you would add a 5th bowler is if you have 5 great/really good ones that are suited for the pitch and your bats are all in prime form that you need the extra bowling resource to apply pressure to get a result.

[The Outsider]

Outsider - let me put one thing clearly here. I am not a fan of Dhoni the batsman. However, that does not and should not take anything away from a modern cricket team's plan of having a player who is a wicket keeper but also a capable batsman. So Dhoni has to be a wicket keeper batsman. If you know of other probables who do that role better in our country, be my guest and let me know. We need them. And Dhoni can captain the team only after he has solidified his post as player.

He is a wicketkeeper-batsman, plays as such, and does a good job of it. But wicketkeeper-batsmen do not bat in the top 6. Top 6 is for specialist batsmen. If one of them is able to bowl, great. Or a wicketkeeper batsman can bat in the top 6, if there is a strong number 7, a genuine all rounder like Kapil Dev. Harbhajan, Mithun, Ishant, Ojha, and Munaf. It's insane to go in with that kind of numbers 7-11. Opposition gets you 5 wickets down and they can get you all out for another 30-40 runs on most days. Absolutely nuts to have that kind of a batting line up, more so that you are now missing Gambhir.

Specialist batsman? All he needs to do is act as our wicket keeper batsman. In effect our one and only all rounder. That is what the team needs and that is what Dhoni is there to provide. Where is the unfairness in all this?

As stated above wicketkeeper-batsmen do not bat in the top 6, except in certain circumstances which are not applicable to India. Even as accomplished batsman as Gilchrist did not bat in the top 6 on a regular basis. Those are specialist batting positions. If someone is playing there, he is expected to fill the role of a specialist batsman.

As a fielder, an opener spends 2 days out there - even at forward short leg or silly point. But he is required to go out there, don pads and be out there to face chin music in the next 5 minutes (after the opposition is out). Life is like that. Fair or unfair is all a point of perspective. Even a state of mind. What is reality stays that way.

Tell me how many wicketkeeper batsmen doubling up as captains have batted in the top 6 in the history of cricket? There is unfair and then their is lunatic to keep piling on more and more on your good players, just because your bowlers can't put two deliveries in the same spot in a row.

And I am not sure how you assume that the debutant Raina will not score a pair but about 100 runs but you conveniently assume that both Mishra as well as Munaf will be utter failures. I dont see any fairness in that assumption. Correct me if I am wrong.

I am not assuming Raina will give 80-100 runs, but that's the baseline expectations from a specialist batsman. If he fails to fulfill the expectation, he will be dropped for someone who can give those 80-100 runs.

The fifth bowler will add teeth to an almost empty mouth and help it grab prey better. If not crunch it outright, maybe even play a reptilian waiting game. Even constrict it - for runs, for patience. Anything. An extra weapon never hurts. More on this in closing.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: I am sorry, but I really couldn't stop myself from laughing at the notion of Munaf adding teeth to the attack.

No, our spinners are not expected to put in these many overs on the first day of a Test match. If that is required, then dont expect them to be anywhere near effective.

Fine, then don't play 2 spinners. Play 3 fast bowlers, 1 spinner, and in the second innings let Sehwag, Yuvraj, Raina do the role of the second spinner.

Our bowlers were utterly dominated. And with Dhoni's mismanagement of part time bowlers - as also the fact that he did not have another specialist bowler - the specialist bowlers simply had no go but to keep plugging away - no matter how many boundaries get taken off them. It was all a farce today. One big farce.

That's absurd. Our 'specialist' bowlers can't put two deliveries in the same spot and you blame the captain! Do you remember how Dhoni had brought in the field when Sangakkara was approaching his hundred in the last match? Ishant was promptly delivering him, 'hit me' balls on the leg stump. Did you see how despite having a strong off side field Ishant was feeding Dilshan on the pads yesterday? Did you see how Harbhajan has been playing darts in the series? The lesser said about Ojha the better. He does not even look like a bowler who could pick up club level wickets if there are no over restrictions. And all you can do is blame Dhoni! If the bowlers had bowled to their fields, had consistently hit the right lines and length, and even after that we had not taken wickets the criticism of Dhoni would have been justified. At the moment it's just finding a scapegoat. When it's not field placing it's about playing a fifth bowler. A very shallow analysis.

[thevortex]

He is a wicketkeeper-batsman' date= plays as such, and does a good job of it. But wicketkeeper-batsmen do not bat in the top 6. Top 6 is for specialist batsmen. If one of them is able to bowl, great. Or a wicketkeeper batsman can bat in the top 6, if there is a strong number 7, a genuine all rounder like Kapil Dev. Harbhajan, Mithun, Ishant, Ojha, and Munaf. It's insane to go in with that kind of numbers 7-11. Opposition gets you 5 wickets down and they can get you all out for another 30-40 runs on most days. Absolutely nuts to have that kind of a batting line up, more so that you are now missing Gambhir.

As stated above wicketkeeper-batsmen do not bat in the top 6, except in certain circumstances which are not applicable to India. Even as accomplished batsman as Gilchrist did not bat in the top 6 on a regular basis. Those are specialist batting positions. If someone is playing there, he is expected to fill the role of a specialist batsman.

Pray what are those certain circumstances? Who is talking about on a regular basis? I am talking about the here and now. With all due respect, Outsider, you made the same assumption in another thread when I advocated the 5 bowler theory. You made it out as if I was advising the Indian team to always have 5 bowlers. Far from the truth. With the current team, Dhoni just has to bat in the top 6 and pull his weight as a wicket keeper batsman. And only then as captain. That is the way things are. If it is tough, then so be it. Do you disagree? And no, talk of the missing all rounder is not going to change things one bit. For all intents and purposes, Dhoni is our all rounder. Our keeping all rounder. It is not all that outlandish. At least not as outlandish as South Africa having a fielding all rounder in Jonty Rhodes :).

Tell me how many wicketkeeper batsmen doubling up as captains have batted in the top 6 in the history of cricket? There is unfair and then their is lunatic to keep piling on more and more on your good players, just because your bowlers can't put two deliveries in the same spot in a row.

Andy Flower, Adam Gilchrist, Kumar Sangakkara, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Alec Stewart, Rashid Latif. This is just a rudimentary list that came into my mind. I am by no means good at memory or statistics. So I am sure others can do much better than this. Are they all lunatic??! Excecution of the bowlers is a completely different thing. Leadership is about giving your team a chance to succeed. How good that chance is is the only thing that can define how good the leadership is. Was this attack and strategy giving the team the best chance to attack the Lankan batsmen?

I am not assuming Raina will give 80-100 runs, but that's the baseline expectations from a specialist batsman. If he fails to fulfill the expectation, he will be dropped for someone who can give those 80-100 runs.

Similarly I was simply stating the baseline expectation of the 5th bowler. See you cannot have it both ways. What you state for the extra batsman is the same thing that is applicable in the case of the extra bowler. How about assuming that he gets you 5 wickets per match? Fairness, Outsider :).

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: I am sorry, but I really couldn't stop myself from laughing at the notion of Munaf adding teeth to the attack.

Well - stranger things have happened on the cricket field - dont you agree Outsider? :)

Fine, then don't play 2 spinners. Play 3 fast bowlers, 1 spinner, and in the second innings let Sehwag, Yuvraj, Raina do the role of the second spinner.

Well - as you can see, Dhoni's handling of the part timers leaves too much to desire. And Sri Lanka is not the kind of place where you want 3 seamers. Least of all 3 of OUR seamers :). I am afraid our seamers dont have that ballast in them to blast the opposition out. So overstocking the seam without spin backup is not going to do the trick. On the other hand, if you give yourself chances both ways - seam as well as spin; well then you are not laying yourself open for a reaming the moment the toss is done. No matter what happens, you are still in the game. If your top 5 fall for less than 100 yes, you can kiss the game good bye. And that is, I must say, as it should be.

That's absurd. Our 'specialist' bowlers can't put two deliveries in the same spot and you blame the captain! Do you remember how Dhoni had brought in the field when Sangakkara was approaching his hundred in the last match? Ishant was promptly delivering him, 'hit me' balls on the leg stump. Did you see how despite having a strong off side field Ishant was feeding Dilshan on the pads yesterday? Did you see how Harbhajan has been playing darts in the series? The lesser said about Ojha the better. He does not even look like a bowler who could pick up club level wickets if there are no over restrictions. And all you can do is blame Dhoni! If the bowlers had bowled to their fields, had consistently hit the right lines and length, and even after that we had not taken wickets the criticism of Dhoni would have been justified. At the moment it's just finding a scapegoat. When it's not field placing it's about playing a fifth bowler. A very shallow analysis.

I think I have explained this earlier. Execution and captaincy are not related. I have never related the twain. I think I understand the game a little bit more than even trying to do that. Dhoni's field placings as well as overall leadership have always struck me as verging on the defensive. Now, it is not a question of verging. It is definitely defensive. Lastly, I am sorry, I was not doing an analysis. All I was was stating the obvious.

Surely you are not saying that Gilchrist did not bat at No.6 ever? Does Dhoni fit neatly into your above mentioned list of wicket keeper batsmen? Forget missing Gambhir. He was a walking wicket in the first Test. Yes, Malinga is missing. But still... There is absolutely no use talking about what we do not have. That is the land of fantasies. Coming back to reality - do you have any better option regarding playing at No. 7? I gather not. So, we have no choice but to play Dhoni and consider him our all rounder. Which for all intents and purposes he is. There is no gainsaying that fact. Do you think a team selects its No. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 to help the team score some extra runs? If they do score runs it is a definite bonus. Nobody will deny it. But is that what they are in the team for?

[The Outsider]

Surely you are not saying that Gilchrist did not bat at No.6 ever?

He batted at number 6 only when quick runs were needed and he was promoted. Here is a list of innings of Gilchrist batting at 6 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/5390.html?batting_positionmax1=6;batting_positionmin1=6;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=start;template=results;type=batting;view=innings 14 innings out of 137. Nearly all of them when he was promoted to 6 to get quick runs and not as part of a 5 bowler strategy.

Does Dhoni fit neatly into your above mentioned list of wicket keeper batsmen? Forget missing Gambhir. He was a walking wicket in the first Test. Yes, Malinga is missing. But still...

He does and quite well. So he must bat at 7 - the position where such wicketkeeper/batsmen usually bat. Gambhir got out cheaply in the first test, so that makes Vijay an equivalent replacement for him?

There is absolutely no use talking about what we do not have. That is the land of fantasies. Coming back to reality - do you have any better option regarding playing at No. 7? I gather not. So, we have no choice but to play Dhoni and consider him our all rounder. Which for all intents and purposes he is. There is no gainsaying that fact.

Dhoni is not an all rounder. For him to be an all rounder, he would have to be a good enough batsman to be considered a specialist top 6 batsman. Someone who averages 20 in 4 out of 8 countries and would not make the top 6 of any good batting line up in the world is clearly not a specialist batsman.

Do you think a team selects its No. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 to help the team score some extra runs? If they do score runs it is a definite bonus. Nobody will deny it. But is that what they are in the team for?

Number 7 most definitely yes. Number 7 is usually a wicketkeeper-batsman or an all rounder. It's a critical batting position in the order and it's nothing short of idiotic to think Harbhajan is an adept number 7 batsman.

Pray what are those certain circumstances? Who is talking about on a regular basis? I am talking about the here and now. With all due respect, Outsider, you made the same assumption in another thread when I advocated the 5 bowler theory. You made it out as if I was advising the Indian team to always have 5 bowlers. Far from the truth. With the current team, Dhoni just has to bat in the top 6 and pull his weight as a wicket keeper batsman. And only then as captain. That is the way things are. If it is tough, then so be it. Do you disagree?

I've already explained the circumstances. If India has a genuine all rounder with the batting ability of Kapil Dev or at least Shaun Pollock then, Dhoni can be moved up to number 6. You are asking for us to play 5 bowlers in the subcontinent. That's around 60-70% of our total matches. Pretty regular, by any definition. Pull his weight for what? He is simply not good enough to be a specialist batsman. That's like promoting Harbhajan to bat at number 7 and asking him to pull his weight as an all rounder, something he is clearly incapable of doing.

And no, talk of the missing all rounder is not going to change things one bit. For all intents and purposes, Dhoni is our all rounder. Our keeping all rounder. It is not all that outlandish. At least not as outlandish as South Africa having a fielding all rounder in Jonty Rhodes :).

Dhoni is not an all rounder. He would have qualified as one if he was good enough to hold a batting spot in the top 6 of a good batting line up. He clearly is not as is evidenced by his record in Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and West Indies. Most of his big runs have come when the top order has already done the job. He is yet to play enough good innings on his own to be considered a specialist batsman.

Andy Flower, Adam Gilchrist, Kumar Sangakkara, Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Alec Stewart, Rashid Latif. This is just a rudimentary list that came into my mind. I am by no means good at memory or statistics. So I am sure others can do much better than this. Are they all lunatic??!

Latif was never batted in the top 6, neither did Gilchrist. Sangakkara has not kept wickets for 5-6 years now, so has certainly not batted in the top 6 as a wicketkeeper-batsman and captain. Stewart also played as a specialist batsman when he was captain, not as a wicketkeeper. The only exception is Flower, who happened to play for a minnow country and batted up simply because he was much better than the rest of the batsmen in his side. Now I really won't comment on the lunatic part.

Excecution of the bowlers is a completely different thing. Leadership is about giving your team a chance to succeed. How good that chance is is the only thing that can define how good the leadership is. Was this attack and strategy giving the team the best chance to attack the Lankan batsmen?

I don't think it was the best strategy but it is miles better than the 5th bowler lunacy.

Similarly I was simply stating the baseline expectation of the 5th bowler. See you cannot have it both ways. What you state for the extra batsman is the same thing that is applicable in the case of the extra bowler. How about assuming that he gets you 5 wickets per match? Fairness, Outsider :).

5 wickets per match! :hysterical: Even Marshall did not pick up 5 wickets per match. But anyhow, let me ask you this. Given Raina and Munaf who has the greater probability of delivering? Raina 80-100 runs and Munaf 4-5 wickets?

Well - stranger things have happened on the cricket field - dont you agree Outsider? :)

Sure, I mean if you are going to formulate strategies based on 'stranger things have happened' why not. Play 6 bowlers, I say!

[Manny_Pacquiao]

But anyhow' date=' let me ask you this. Given Raina and Munaf who has the greater probability of delivering? Raina 80-100 runs and Munaf 4-5 wickets?[/quote'] pretty obvious answer. and this ends the debate. check mate B->

[thevortex]

He batted at number 6 only when quick runs were needed and he was promoted. Here is a list of innings of Gilchrist batting at 6 : http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/5390.html?batting_positionmax1=6;batting_positionmin1=6;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=start;template=results;type=batting;view=innings 14 innings out of 137. Nearly all of them when he was promoted to 6 to get quick runs and not as part of a 5 bowler strategy.

Australia never did need 5 bowlers. I have gone through this in another thread. That is because they had 4 phenomenal bowlers. Your comparison on that front is not going to work. And I simply mentioned this point to show that Gilchrist did bat at No.6. And nobody is going to deny that he could not bat at No.6. Or will you contest that point?

He does and quite well. So he must bat at 7 - the position where such wicketkeeper/batsmen usually bat. Gambhir got out cheaply in the first test, so that makes Vijay an equivalent replacement for him?

Not at all. I have never fallen head over heels for Gambhir. As an opener I have not really had the greatest appreciation of his methods. But he is a gritty hard worker. And a team man. It is not about Vijay being equivalent or not.

Dhoni is not an all rounder. For him to be an all rounder, he would have to be a good enough batsman to be considered a specialist top 6 batsman. Someone who averages 20 in 4 out of 8 countries and would not make the top 6 of any good batting line up in the world is clearly not a specialist batsman.

Dhoni IS India's all rounder. India's only all rounder. There is no use denying that. Show me one all rounder out of your list whose average is close to Dhoni's. And no - this partitioning into various countries, lets lay it off for another day and another thread. You already know that we agree about Dhoni's batting capability. However that does not change the fact that for this Indian team he has to bat at No.6 and take up the all rounder's spot. And no, there is not even a hint of a choice regarding this matter.

Number 7 most definitely yes. Number 7 is usually a wicketkeeper-batsman or an all rounder. It's a critical batting position in the order and it's nothing short of idiotic to think Harbhajan is an adept number 7 batsman.

There have been more idiotic decisions - as in going into the first Test match of a tour with one debutant, one out of form pacer, a rookie left arm spinner and a spearhead off spinner who seems to be on the wane. And that is just an example.

I've already explained the circumstances. If India has a genuine all rounder with the batting ability of Kapil Dev or at least Shaun Pollock then, Dhoni can be moved up to number 6. You are asking for us to play 5 bowlers in the subcontinent. That's around 60-70% of our total matches. Pretty regular, by any definition. Pull his weight for what? He is simply not good enough to be a specialist batsman. That's like promoting Harbhajan to bat at number 7 and asking him to pull his weight as an all rounder, something he is clearly incapable of doing.

If 'ifs and buts were pots and pans'......Forget it. We dont have those all rounders. Dhoni is our all rounder.

Dhoni is not an all rounder. He would have qualified as one if he was good enough to hold a batting spot in the top 6 of a good batting line up. He clearly is not as is evidenced by his record in Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and West Indies. Most of his big runs have come when the top order has already done the job. He is yet to play enough good innings on his own to be considered a specialist batsman.

I am sure many would argue about how he is good enough to do the job. Take any of his competitors and compare their averages across various forms of the game. I think Dhoni's statistics stand out. Now you know that we both agree as far as the estimation of Dhoni's batting is concerned. Which brings me back to the pivotal question. Do you think India can afford to look at just a wicket keeper captain? You think an international team at this stage can look beyond a wicket keeper batsman? That is one all rounder every team MUST have. No ifs and buts there.

Latif was never batted in the top 6, neither did Gilchrist. Sangakkara has not kept wickets for 5-6 years now, so has certainly not batted in the top 6 as a wicketkeeper-batsman and captain. Stewart also played as a specialist batsman when he was captain, not as a wicketkeeper. The only exception is Flower, who happened to play for a minnow country and batted up simply because he was much better than the rest of the batsmen in his side. Now I really won't comment on the lunatic part.

Regardless - that list should give you a starting point as to the various people who have indulged in 'lunacy' :).

I don't think it was the best strategy but it is miles better than the 5th bowler lunacy.

See above for what I think was by far the most ludicrous strategy.

5 wickets per match! :hysterical: Even Marshall did not pick up 5 wickets per match. But anyhow, let me ask you this. Given Raina and Munaf who has the greater probability of delivering? Raina 80-100 runs and Munaf 4-5 wickets?

Outsider - I am sorry, you asked for it! Even Bradman did not make 100 runs per match!! :) And there is no saying that Munaf or Mishra will not pick a fiver! If you absolutely deny that you are saying cricket is an entirely predictable game. And that you have read it like the back of your hand! Is that what you are saying?

Sure, I mean if you are going to formulate strategies based on 'stranger things have happened' why not. Play 6 bowlers, I say!

Just like you play 7 batsmen? Am sure you have heard of diminishing returns. That is what is happening with the batting. Lastly I want to emphasize. There is no point in attributing some extraneous meaning to my suggestion of the 5th bowler. I am NOT advocating that India play 5 bowlers always. I am NOT advocating that they play 5 bowlers in the subcontinent. It is always horses for courses. And right now we are short on horse power. If its to choose between this current 4 man attack and some additional bolstering to make this a 5 man attack, then the 5 man attack it has to be. Otherwise, this bowling attack is not an attack. Not by a big margin.

[saneindian]

Are we still debating this? Our bating line up has failed to put up 400+ in the last 15 odd innings in Sri Lanka , the best total is 338. How can we go in with just 5 specialist batsmen when the batting lineup has failed to put on the big scores.

[thevortex]

Are we still debating this? Our bating line up has failed to put up 400+ in the last 15 odd innings in Sri Lanka , the best total is 338. How can we go in with just 5 specialist batsmen when the batting lineup has failed to put on the big scores.

Then put pressure on them! This batting lineup should not be netting us those sorts of scores. In any case, the question is about whether we need 7 batsmen on featherbeds? Or are we better off with 5 bowlers because bowlers are going to have a harder time of it anyway?

[thevortex]

What if we had Munaf Patel and Mishra in this team for this Test in place of Raina and Ojha? Forget hindsight. This is probably what we needed to have gone with in the first place. In my opinion.

[Mr. Wicket]

Outsider - I am sorry' date=' you asked for it! Even Bradman did not make 100 runs per match!! :)[/quote'] We're approaching transparent math of confusing matches and innings.

[saneindian]

What if we had Munaf Patel and Mishra in this team for this Test in place of Raina and Ojha? Forget hindsight. This is probably what we needed to have gone with in the first place. In my opinion.

SL would have scored 700 perhaps in the same number of overs with Mishra bowling a 4 ball every over!! So many better bowling attacks have been subjugated like this on Lankan soil in the past. So lets not jump to colcusion. Its not for nothing that Lankans are the true tigers at home

[Holysmoke]

Doesnt matter what combination we go with. We need QUALITY in bowling. 11 Harbhajans wont get SL out for less than 1000.

[cowboysfan]

to the OP,it doesnt really matter.we wont have made much impact even with zak and sree playing on this pitch.

[thevortex]

We're approaching transparent math of confusing matches and innings.

Nope. We were both talking matches rather than innings, Mr. Wicket.

[Chandan]

Nope. We were both talking matches rather than innings' date=' Mr. Wicket.[/quote'] So Bradman, having an average of 99.94 per inning doesn't score 100 runs in a match? How? As far as I know, every match has two innings, no, unless you win by an inning?