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

[zen]

And where did I say that? Follow the logic trail and see for yourself if that is what I implied; Your post; My response; Your response to that post; ??? I never even remotely implied that ONLY BHAJJI did well against South Africa. You said our spinners thrive only when there’s help from the pitch and that is simply not true at all. In fact you hardly classify any of our recent pitches at home as being overtly spin-friendly. The last time such a thing happened, it was in the 3rd test in Chennai(?) in 2008 against South Africa. We were 0-1 down in the series and there was a pressing need to prepare a spin friendly track for the final test. And a spin friendly track is what we got, in addition to loads of criticism from the South African camp for preparing what seemed like a deliberately under-cooked pitch.

ah ha, so you are back to where I said that statements. Why don't you read the post to which you replied that to and then see my reply in conjuction to that. If still things aren't clear then I won't be spoon feeding you :P

At least, its good that you’re conceding that you need to refresh your memory on previous test series, rather than just go by stats. If you do, you’ll find out that despite inceasingly batting friendly conditions, our spinners have done a reasonable job at home in test matches, ably supported by our pacers who have extended a helping hand whenever the conditions allowed them to do so

I already said that our bowlers do well if conditions are helpful to them. The point is to make the most out of our bowlers and not just resonable job when the pitches are not rank turners. On pitches where our spinners struggle when Ind is bowling first, when Ind cannot take much advantage of the new ball because we have played just two seamers when picking up wkts early on is the best chance the pitch offers, besides towards the close of play, etc. On pitches where we have to hope that we bat first to be effective as a bowling unit

I don’t know how you could possibly look at that those fall of wickets and make an automatic implication that things went wrong because we did not have a 3rd seamer. That is an incredibly specific implication obtained from a stat set that is very fuzzy. I am sorry, but this is just a classic case or you picking and choosing stats that you think, supports your case for a 3rd seamer in our test side in home conditions. It’s a bit like a judge already giving his verdict and then going around looking for evidence supporting his case.

The point you missed is that I followed that test and I am using that stat to show that we probably missed the 3rd seamer, who could have played instead of Saha, who was picked as a specialist batsman when he is not one because of our facination with 7+2+2 combination. I am giving my opinion here and using the stats to support it. This is not the first time where you have tried to show that I have formed my opinion based on stats. But even if I did, I don't know why anyone would have any objections against it.

[thevortex]

It’s a bit like a judge already giving his verdict and then going around looking for evidence supporting his case.

I am sorry, but this is ALWAYS the case when people quote statistics. Not some one off. It is a selective perception of reality through a language called statistics :). You can see what you want to see.

[saneindian]

Right now' date= if I look at the Indian combination playing in the sub-continent on pitches that are not rank turners, I have to hope that we bat first. For the number one ranked side, winning the toss and batting first shouldn't be the prime consideration. Our goal should be to have a side that is confident enough to do well whether its bowling or batting first. I see a lot of people(including some of the players) get disheartned as soon as we have to bowl first. This comes from our unshakable faith in our spinners to win us the games. That faith was probably justified in the past but at the moment, I don't think Ind has the best spin attack in the world. Neither is our spin attack significantly better than our seamers. I like it, if the team hopes for the best (batting first) but also prepares for the worst (bowling first). And from what I gather, we pick our team hoping for the best when you should have a team that is prepared for everything that's thrown at it. If I am the captain, then I don't want either me or others in the team to be worried about what happens at the toss. If I win the toss then I carry out my plans, if not then I still carry out my plans (or wreck the opposition's). If I am bowling first, I am looking to knock around 3 wkts in session one, and around the same in the final session. I want to end the first day with 7-8 opposition's wkts. How do I go about executing this plan? Do I pick two spinners, who aren't that good to pick wks up on day 1 type of conditions (in fact very few spinners can be good on the first day so I wouldn't blame them). Do I introduce spin around 13 over mark, when the pacers should be trying to make the most of session one? You also want the pacers to give their best so you don't want to tire them out so you have to rotate them. And then what does the helpless spinners do? They resort to bowling restrictive line and lengths, which is what the other team wants, i.e. lay a foundation w/o losing a lot of wkts on day 1. If it is a rank turner, play 2 or may be 3 spinners! No one is going to stop you from doing that.

Absolutely no truth in that statement! In the last 3 years, we have won 8 tests at home, 5 of them after losing the toss. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/6.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;orderby=won;result=1;spanmax1=10+Sep+2010;spanmin1=10+Sep+2007;spanval1=span;template=results;toss=2;type=team;view=innings 2007-08- Pak series: won 1-0, test was won at Delhi after we lost the toss and bowled out Pakistan for under 250 in the 1st innings. 2008- SA series: Drew 1-1, won the Kanpur test after losing the toss and restricting SA to 265 in the 1st innings (at one stage they were 150-1) 2008-09, Eng series: won 1-0, won the Chennai test after losing the test, and then restricting Eng to 316 in the 1st innings 2009- SL series won 2-0, won 2 test by an innings after losing the toss and restricting the oppsoition to a low total In fact during this period, the only time we have lost a home test after losing the toss is that SA test at Nagpur!!

[zen]

Absolutely no truth in that statement! In the last 3 years, we have won 8 tests at home, 5 of them after losing the toss. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/team/6.html?class=1;filter=advanced;home_or_away=1;orderby=won;result=1;spanmax1=10+Sep+2010;spanmin1=10+Sep+2007;spanval1=span;template=results;toss=2;type=team;view=innings 2007-08- Pak series: won 1-0, test was won at Delhi after we lost the toss and bowled out Pakistan for under 250 in the 1st innings. 2008- SA series: Drew 1-1, won the Kanpur test after losing the toss and restricting SA to 265 in the 1st innings (at one stage they were 150-1) 2008-09, Eng series: won 1-0, won the Chennai test after losing the test, and then restricting Eng to 316 in the 1st innings 2009- SL series won 2-0, won 2 test by an innings after losing the toss and restricting the oppsoition to a low total In fact during this period, the only time we have lost a home test after losing the toss is that SA test at Nagpur!!

^:hysterical: .... It's hilarious that you tried to make a connection b/w what the Indian team probably wants to do (win the toss and bat first) and what it ends up doing after the toss If you want to show that there is no truth in the statement that you picked out from one of my posts, you will have to show what Ind does after winning the toss, i.e. does it bat or bowl often when playing at home :winky: Also the points are being raised wrt having a playing 11 that can do well on normal pitches, and playing 3 seamers on them. From the top of my head, one of the pitches was a rank turner (Kanpur), 2 tests we won based on exceptional performances by Sehwag and our seamers, and one when our batsmen chased down a huge total w/ Sehwag setting it up on day 4 You need to understand the context of the points being made before jumping in and trying to prove someone wrong. But anyways, thanks for giving us the laughs :P

[saneindian]

^:hysterical: .... It's hilarious that you tried to make a connection b/w what the Indian team probably wants to do (win the toss and bat first) and what it ends up doing after the toss If you want to show that there is no truth in the statement that you picked out from one of my posts, you will have to show what Ind does after winning the toss, i.e. does it bat or bowl often when playing at home :winky: Also the points are being raised wrt having a playing 11 that can do well on normal pitches, and playing 3 seamers on them. From the top of my head, one of the pitches was a rank turner (Kanpur), 2 tests we won based on exceptional performances by Sehwag and our seamers, and one when our batsmen chased down a huge total w/ Sehwag setting it up on day 4 You need to understand the context of the points being made before jumping in and trying to prove someone wrong. But anyways, thanks for giving us the laughs :P

Sorry but if you generalise things by making statements like "Right now, if I look at the Indian combination playing in the sub-continent on pitches that are not rank turners, I have to hope that we bat first. For the number one ranked side, winning the toss and batting first shouldn't be the prime consideration. Our goal should be to have a side that is confident enough to do well whether its bowling or batting first. I see a lot of people(including some of the players) get disheartned as soon as we have to bowl first. , after this rest of the post doesnt carry much meaning for me. My reply was to exactly these lines in that post. How many captains in the world bowl first after winning the toss unless the pitch looks to have too much of help for the bowlers (Some like Punter bat first even on green pitches like Sydney and Edgbaston)? Aussies for most part of their dominance aways batted first, doesnt make a lesser side. Or better still, as you are talking about Indian conditions, how many times have you seen a captain(Indian or otherwise) bowl first after winning the toss? So why should an Indian captain have any different thinking just because we are number 1 in the rankings? Lets not pas judgements on how confident/disheartened the players become depending upon the toss! What the Indian team wants to do after winning the toss doesnt matter, what matters is that the players "dont lose heart" after losing the toss. On each of those 5 occassions, the bowlers set up a win for us (Sometimes the pacers and sometimes the spinners, like a good bowling unit).

[zen]

Sorry but if you generalise things by making statements like "Right now' date= if I look at the Indian combination playing in the sub-continent on pitches that are not rank turners, I have to hope that we bat first. For the number one ranked side, winning the toss and batting first shouldn't be the prime consideration. Our goal should be to have a side that is confident enough to do well whether its bowling or batting first. I see a lot of people(including some of the players) get disheartned as soon as we have to bowl first. , after this rest of the post doesnt carry much meaning for me. My reply was to exactly these lines in that post. How many captains in the world bowl first after winning the toss unless the pitch looks to have too much of help for the bowlers (Some like Punter bat first even on green pitches like Sydney and Edgbaston)? Aussies for most part of their dominance aways batted first, doesnt make a lesser side. Or better still, as you are talking about Indian conditions, how many times have you seen a captain(Indian or otherwise) bowl first after winning the toss? So why should an Indian captain have any different thinking just because we are number 1 in the rankings? Lets not pas judgements on how confident/disheartened the players become depending upon the toss! What the Indian team wants to do after winning the toss doesnt matter, what matters is that the players "dont lose heart" after losing the toss. On each of those 5 occassions, the bowlers set up a win for us (Sometimes the pacers and sometimes the spinners, like a good bowling unit).

But the rest of my post does carry a meaning to the point I am making, i.e. on normal pitches, the 2+2 combination is more suited if we bat first. And by saying "which captain would want to bowl first", you are generalizing, and agreeing with the statement in my opening para of that post of mine as from what you said winning the toss and batting first is in fact a prime consideration. :grin: If you point is players don't get disheartened then that's your opinion vs mine's! There is no way the stats you posted would show that some players get/do not get disheartened when having to bowl first on a normal pitch with spinners coming on to bowl early on in the first session of first day When we are bowling first (usually after losing the toss), many fans and some players, I feel, do tend to get disheartened (like in the test against SA at Kol, almost everyone I knew hoped India would bat first). Ofc, I am using the word 'some players', 'many fans', 'right now', etc here so I don't know why are you taking that as a generalization for the whole team! .... And to know why what a team wants to do after winning the toss matters, understand the rest of my post (also that goes against your "how many times a captain has blah blah? Because if you think that you should know why what a team wants to do after winning the toss is imp) As I said before trying to prove someone wrong try to understand the context :winky: .... I can't be bothered to reply to someone, who first in his excitement to prove things wrong hung on to what he thought he could grasp upon and then he tried to grasp on to anything he could to show that he was not that wrong :P

[raar78]

Dhoni lacks temperament big time too.. But I agree, though Kartik may well be a 'better batsman' than Dhoni, application is all that matters..

[cowboysfan]

i think its time to move away from zak in limited overs cricket.its painful watching every tom dick and harry beat the crap out of him in loi cricket.this will probably prolong his test career as well.I wouldnt even include him in the squad for the world cup.

[thevortex]

OK. Time to bump this thread up. Dhoni has again gone in with a squad with which it isv very hard to put up a poor score. But does it have enough to pick 20 wickets? I am going to go out on a limb and say - perhaps not. Personally I would even differ regarding the choice of Ishant. I would have picked Sreesanth. Problem with the squad is - it is not ready if the opposition wins the toss and bats first. What this means is that after the first 10 to 12 overs, India is forced to bring in the spinners on the very first session of the first day of the Test!! That cannot be good..... Can it?

[gaurav92]

OK. Time to bump this thread up. Dhoni has again gone in with a squad with which it isv very hard to put up a poor score. But does it have enough to pick 20 wickets? I am going to go out on a limb and say - perhaps not. Personally I would even differ regarding the choice of Ishant. I would have picked Sreesanth. Problem with the squad is - it is not ready if the opposition wins the toss and bats first. What this means is that after the first 10 to 12 overs, India is forced to bring in the spinners on the very first session of the first day of the Test!! That cannot be good..... Can it?

Even in 3 pacers, one would have had to continue bowling more overs since the third pacer will need someone at the other end.So for me, 2+2 is the ideal combo on such tracks.Its pointless to play 3 seamers on a deck when there is nothing in it for the fast bowlers.On the other hand, there will be some assistance for the spinners as the game progresses. But agree with the point you made about Sreesanth.he was an automatic choice ahead of Pissant, dontknow why he is always ignored over an out of sorts, out of form and toothless Ishant.One must realise that this Ishant is not the one, which we discovered in Aus a few years back.This will cost us the series i reckon :((

[thevortex]

Even in 3 pacers, one would have had to continue bowling more overs since the third pacer will need someone at the other end.So for me, 2+2 is the ideal combo on such tracks.Its pointless to play 3 seamers on a deck when there is nothing in it for the fast bowlers.On the other hand, there will be some assistance for the spinners as the game progresses. But agree with the point you made about Sreesanth.he was an automatic choice ahead of Pissant, dontknow why he is always ignored over an out of sorts, out of form and toothless Ishant.One must realise that this Ishant is not the one, which we discovered in Aus a few years back.This will cost us the series i reckon :((

Nothing in the track for the fast bowlers?! I would not be so sure about that.... Also forget whether or not the track has something in it for the faster bowlers. What is fact is that spinners (especially finger spinners) find it very hard to get any sort of traction on the first day of the Test especially with a very new ball. It is not that I think this is Perth. It is not. Which is why we need more insurance on the bowling front than the batting! I guess I have mentioned this too in some of the past posts in this thread.

[thevortex]

Is something wrong with the track from the end that Ishant is bowling?! Or is this track so bad that the ball does not even get through to the keeper? I suspect that Ishant too is guilty in this case. His first over is absolutely lackadaisical. No pace, no carry and absolutely no movement. And he is still not generating the pace that he used to. As far as I can see, the problems in his action remain.

[gaurav92]

Nothing in the track for the fast bowlers?! I would not be so sure about that.... Also forget whether or not the track has something in it for the faster bowlers. What is fact is that spinners (especially finger spinners) find it very hard to get any sort of traction on the first day of the Test especially with a very new ball. It is not that I think this is Perth. It is not. Which is why we need more insurance on the bowling front than the batting! I guess I have mentioned this too in some of the past posts in this thread.

When we go with 3 seamers, eventually one seamer will be underbowled.What teams normally think is that, Go with batting laden side, so that we are well loaded for any score that the opposition puts up on the board.given the quality of bowlers we have, i don't think even an inclusion of another seamer would make much difference in the runs scored by them.And at the same time, if we lose one batsman, that will make some difference in the score that we make.We may start feeling the heat of the mountain of runs that the opposition have scored, with a batsman less. talking about the day 1, well it will always be tough for spinners with the track being hard, not much cracks and turn in it.So you want an extra pacer who will exploit the earlier hours and use the freshness, and let us suffer in the later stages without many spinners left on day 4,5 ?

[gaurav92]

Is something wrong with the track from the end that Ishant is bowling?! Or is this track so bad that the ball does not even get through to the keeper? I suspect that Ishant too is guilty in this case. His first over is absolutely lackadaisical. No pace, no carry and absolutely no movement. And he is still not generating the pace that he used to. As far as I can see, the problems in his action remain.

The track is dry and there are some cracks.Its not going to have a good bounce and carry as per the pitch report.There is not much for the fast bowlers and this pitch is very unlikely a Typical Mohali Wicket.

[thevortex]

Why are the bowling speeds not being shown?! Surely Test matches deserve speed guns too!

[thevortex]

When we go with 3 seamers, eventually one seamer will be underbowled.What teams normally think is that, Go with batting laden side, so that we are well loaded for any score that the opposition puts up on the board.given the quality of bowlers we have, i don't think even an inclusion of another seamer would make much difference in the runs scored by them.And at the same time, if we lose one batsman, that will make some difference in the score that we make.We may start feeling the heat of the mountain of runs that the opposition have scored, with a batsman less. talking about the day 1, well it will always be tough for spinners with the track being hard, not much cracks and turn in it.So you want an extra pacer who will exploit the earlier hours and use the freshness, and let us suffer in the later stages without many spinners left on day 4,5 ?

Nope. If you had read my earlier posts in this thread, you would note that my call has been to strengthen that aspect of the side which is liable to take a battering. In this case, the bowling. India has gone the other way. It has stocked up on batting. And left the bowling bare. I have never understood this - we assume that the opposition will make a mountain of runs! Then why cannot we assume the same from our champion batsmen? Why look negatively in that case?! Truth is we always end up playing safe cricket rather than attacking cricket. The same is true today as well.

[thevortex]

The track is dry and there are some cracks.Its not going to have a good bounce and carry as per the pitch report.There is not much for the fast bowlers and this pitch is very unlikely a Typical Mohali Wicket.

All that notwithstanding, Ishant's bowling is very disappointing. One only has to see Zaheer bowling to spot the difference.

[thevortex]

Ravi Shastri says - Ishant's fingers are behind the seam! When it is clear that that is not true from the slow motion replays.

[gaurav92]

Nope. If you had read my earlier posts in this thread, you would note that my call has been to strengthen that aspect of the side which is liable to take a battering. In this case, the bowling. India has gone the other way. It has stocked up on batting. And left the bowling bare. I have never understood this - we assume that the opposition will make a mountain of runs! Then why cannot we assume the same from our champion batsmen? Why look negatively in that case?! Truth is we always end up playing safe cricket rather than attacking cricket. The same is true today as well.

But being over ambitious on our bowling, and playing an extra seamer, will make no difference.We will still end up giving almost same amount of runs as one of the bowlers will definitely be underbowled and that will be probably the Third Seamer.So thats why we need to play to our strengths, because any experiments in a small 2 test series can dearly cost us.We can go other way as you are saying, and thinking positively, but on indian conditions, or for that matter any subcontinental conditions.We have never seen any side doing that, and winning. the problem with India is that we don't have a definite allrounder.Aussie have gone with 3+1 combination because they don't have faith in their second spinner, but they enjoy the benefit of Watson, as an all rounder that strengthens their batting line up and also roll his arm over for a few overs to rest the main bowlers.But he isn't a part timer, he is a good bowler.The problem with India is we don't have someone who can bowl as a wicket taker and not just as a part timer.That is why we need to play to our strength - batting.Yes, i agree that its a safe and defensive option, but our bowling options are not worth the gamble.

[zen]

3 seamers +1 spinner for me please, because of the reasons already outlined Summery: 1. 2+2 mostly effective when India bowls 2nd 2. With 3 seamers, Ind can rotate them well, esp early on, and thus increase their effectiveness 3. If a seamer gets injured during the match, we would still have 2 seamers. For spinners, we have backup in guys like Sehwag, who can bowl spin if required 4. After the exit of Kumble, the quality of spinners is not that great so India has to has to look to consolidate one part of their attack and not look for a neither here nor there attack (2+2) which works mostly when you have quality spinners (like Ind had early on) If Ind had to go in with 2+2 then taking a gamble on the leggie could have been a better option .... In the meanwhile, Zak picks up Hussey! Just wondering, how much more effective he would have been if we had Sree in the line up too. With 3 seamers, you can rotate them well, decrease the burden of bowling too many overs in a spell thus keep them fresher with them giving their best for most of their overs :nice: