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

[zen]

Zak picks up another .... In tests, you have to make the most during the "windows"

[thevortex]

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.

Here is the thing. We are ready to grant that an additional batsman will add something but an additional bowler wont! How do we come to that conclusion?!

[Gunner_Mania]

Here is the thing. We are ready to grant that an additional batsman will add something but an additional bowler wont! How do we come to that conclusion?!

because we don't have the bowlers who will add something. P.S - I've no idea what the debate is about, coz I havent been through the thread. This response is just based on the last 2 post:--D

[thevortex]

because we don't have the bowlers who will add something. P.S - I've no idea what the debate is about, coz I havent been through the thread. This response is just based on the last 2 post:--D

I dont know. Would you say Sreesanth would not have added anything?

[Chandan]

Here is the thing. We are ready to grant that an additional batsman will add something but an additional bowler wont! How do we come to that conclusion?!

Do you still stick to your views Vortex? What would have happened had we gone with 5 bat, 5 bowl and a keeper formula in this match? Would we have even gone past 300?

[saneindian]

With 5 bowlers, Aussies still would have scored 350+ or perhaps more as Ojha would not have so many overs and Sreesanth would as usual given his quota of runs. But without that number 6 batsman, we could well have been behind by 200+ by the end of the day today. Playing the 5th bowlers would only mean adding one more passenger, as it is, out of the 4 we play, at best 2 or sometimes 3 of them do well with the 4th one looking harmless.

[Sooda]

Will the thread is cocerned with subcont featherbeds, not in better bolwing conditions overseas. Similarly it is not a viable option against a good attack like the Aussies' We can only have a 5th bowler if he can bat a bit at least, right now there is no one who fits that bill...

[f.b.m]

The 5 bowler theory might have some sort of credence if that 5th bowler was actually any good. In that case, there are 4 bowlers who are good. If they are good, they can take 20 wickets. In that case, why bring in a 5th bowler? :punter:

[gaurav92]

Here is the thing. We are ready to grant that an additional batsman will add something but an additional bowler wont! How do we come to that conclusion?!

So Sreesanth would have been a good bowler, but one of the spinners would have been underbowled, probably Ojha, so in all fairness, i don't think Aussie would have scored anything under 400 had we gone with 3 pacers, but had we left out Raina, we would have been in deep trouble, tottering at 300 a.o.So we definitely need an extra batsman on these tracks. When was the last time when we saw 3+2 combination and we won that game (except an all rounder).

[thevortex]

Do you still stick to your views Vortex? What would have happened had we gone with 5 bat' date=' 5 bowl and a keeper formula in this match? Would we have even gone past 300?[/quote'] Yes, Chandan. I see nothing which makes me change my views. By the way, for those interested, India did play only with 5 batsmen in this match. Laxman did not fulfill his role. So what you people say about scoring only 200 odd with 5 batsmen is just not true. Another small thing - you cant expect for the captain to use the same strategies with 5 bowlers as he is with 4. Rotation should be frequent. Change would be the name of the game. The batsmen should not be allowed to settle. Lastly, with three seamers, the team could actually help the spinners out by not having them bowl in the 10th over of the first session of the first day! I know I said 'lastly', but could not resist. If 4 bowlers cannot get 20 wickets, then 5 would not - seems to be the logic some of you use. So why apply this rule only one way? If 5 batsmen plus a keeper/batsman cannot get you to a good platform, then what would that extra batsman do?!

[thevortex]

So Sreesanth would have been a good bowler, but one of the spinners would have been underbowled, probably Ojha, so in all fairness, i don't think Aussie would have scored anything under 400 had we gone with 3 pacers, but had we left out Raina, we would have been in deep trouble, tottering at 300 a.o.So we definitely need an extra batsman on these tracks. When was the last time when we saw 3+2 combination and we won that game (except an all rounder).

I think I have mentioned this before. We dont have statistics or records to back up this strategy because we have rarely gone for this! About underbowling - well, the captain cannot be using the same strategies when he has more weapons in his arsenal. Add Sehwag to this list and you can be sure that we have a very good attack for all sorts of surfaces and we would not be shortchanged if we lose the toss and bowl first. And like I have said in my previous post - India did play with only 5 batsmen in this innings :).