Raghav_12 Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 As long as a batsman doesn't play against team's interest i am fine. Even when Sachin got 200 he scored last 13 runs in his last 10 balls by taking singles. Dhoni was going ballistic. Sachin didn't waste balls (like dot balls) even though he didn't hit fours. There are several instances players have got a little bogged down. This is not one of those occasions. He slowed down for a substantial amount of period. Almost 15 overs. If anything Kohli paced the innings beautifully by not having so many dots in a row. I know you not gonna answer question in direct way. Batsman would never know whether partcular thing would go against team's interest or not. It will be known only in hindsight. Do you recall how costly was Sehwag's extravagant shot which he played in Melbourne,2003 batting at 195? One can very well say that he was going for personal glory, jeopardising team's interest in process. And exactly that happened. India lost that test match despite such a wonderful start. Anyways, you not gonna admit that all criticism after Bangla match was OTT, even if you are convinced. So carry on.
Raghav_12 Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 So it is absolutely wise to compare how they move from 90 to 100 but not strike rate? At the end of the day Kohli did not cause any run rate drop. But Tendulkar was the center piece of why India dropped from a run rate above 5 to below 5. My analysis was qualitative only. Kohli was slower than Sachin in their 90's in a match which was played at much faster pace and Kolhi was much fatster on either side of that passage of play. You must be some math genius to say that moving down from SR of 110 to 62.5 doesn't impact team's run rate.
vvvslaxman Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 My analysis was qualitative only. Kohli was slower than Sachin in their 90's in a match which was played at much faster pace and Kolhi was much fatster on either side of that passage of play. You must be some math genius to say that moving down from SR of 110 to 62.5 doesn't impact team's run rate. Difference is.. when exactly they got to 90. Kohli was on 90 at 23.3 overs Tendulkar was on 90 at 38.4 overs inside power play. When the power play started Tendulkar was 87. To move from 87 to 90 inside power play he needed 7 balls. There is ocean of difference between two contexts.
Raghav_12 Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Difference is.. when exactly they got to 90. Kohli was on 90 at 23.3 overs Tendulkar was on 90 at 38.4 overs inside power play. When the power play started Tendulkar was 87. To move from 87 to 90 inside power play he needed 7 balls. There is ocean of difference between two contexts. Answer one question clearly. Did Kohli slow down in his 90's or not? Whether he and India could have afforder that slowing down in different discussion altogether.
akshayxyz Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 As long as a batsman doesn't play against team's interest i am fine. Even when Sachin got 200 he scored last 13 runs in his last 10 balls by taking singles. Dhoni was going ballistic. Sachin didn't waste balls (like dot balls) even though he didn't hit fours. There are several instances players have got a little bogged down. This is not one of those occasions. He slowed down for a substantial amount of period. Almost 15 overs. If anything Kohli paced the innings beautifully by not having so many dots in a row. This has been done to death. Dhoni did not give him strike, he was getting to play random deliveries here and there, you can't expect to hit boundaries like that.
vvvslaxman Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Answer one question clearly. Did Kohli slow down in his 90's or not? Whether he and India could have afforder that slowing down in different discussion altogether. Discussion is not slowing down in the 90s or not.. There are so many times Tenu discussion is how much time needed to get from 80s to 100s not just 90s.. His slowing down started way before 90s.. Maiden over he played out was when he was on 83. That is why Tendulkar's innings is under the pump. Tendulkar took 15 balls to reach 100 against SA during his 200. Nobody questioned that. why? Because it was well before 30th over.. Acceleration didn't even begin. You are just trying to get tendulkar off the hook on a technical filter deliberately ignoring the entire context of the match.
vvvslaxman Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 This has been done to death. Dhoni did not give him strike, he was getting to play random deliveries here and there, you can't expect to hit boundaries like that. Please we are not cricket illiterates. A guy who had absolutely murdered that bowling upto a point can't hit random deliveries all of a sudden? he needs 6 deliveries in a row ?
Raghav_12 Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Discussion is not slowing down in the 90s or not.. Discussion was about slowing down in 90's only. There is absolute no doubt about that. There are so many times Tenu discussion is how much time needed to get from 80s to 100s not just 90s.. His slowing down started way before 90s.. Maiden over he played out was when he was on 83. That is why Tendulkar's innings is under the pump. Tendulkar took 15 balls to reach 100 against SA during his 200. Nobody questioned that. why? Because it was well before 30th over.. Acceleration didn't even begin. If you think that he slowed before 90 but raised his strike rate after 90, then conclusion should be that he was playing for his 90, not for his 100. You are just trying to get tendulkar off the hook on a technical filter deliberately ignoring the entire context of the match. I am just trying to highlight the fact that if you over-scrutinize somebody, you'll start finding faults in things which would go completely un-noticed if done by others.
vvvslaxman Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Discussion was about slowing down in 90's only. There is absolute no doubt about that. If you think that he slowed before 90 but raised his strike rate after 90, then conclusion should be that he was playing for his 90, not for his 100. I am just trying to highlight the fact that if you over-scrutinize somebody, you'll start finding faults in things which would go completely un-noticed if done by others. NO. Flat out no.. because my major criticism was over a passage of play.. not just 90s..it was quiet a long passage.. India needed a bit of acceleration with 9 wickets in hand. He was just pottering around.. and playing unnaturally .. dropping the ball and going for nonexisting singles. He was overcautions throughout the phase until 100.. After 100 immediately boom boom 2 boundaries. Tendulkar's strike rate was not exactly great even before 30 overs. But that is understandable as India needed a bit of consolidation. But after 30 overs India needed a bit of momentum. He got stuck in a hole and pushed the run rate below 5 around 39th over mark.
vvvslaxman Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 I am just trying to highlight the fact that if you over-scrutinize somebody, you'll start finding faults in things which would go completely un-noticed if done by others. I know using filters you can bring down anybody. But that is not the case here. We are only using because you still refuse to accept that there was slowness on his part. Trying to invent reasons that are not there. Trying to justify it by comparing other innings .
akshayxyz Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Please we are not cricket illiterates. A guy who had absolutely murdered that bowling upto a point can't hit random deliveries all of a sudden? he needs 6 deliveries in a row ? Good that you figured it out. Now use the same logic on Kohli's knock. Someone who is going at a strike rate of 120 something, suddenly went down to 62 for 5 overs!!!, least he could have done was rotate the strike and maintain SR of 90-100.
vvvslaxman Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Good that you figured it out. Now use the same logic on Kohli's knock. Someone who is going at a strike rate of 120 something, suddenly went down to 62 for 5 overs!!!, least he could have done was rotate the strike and maintain SR of 90-100. His strike rate was still above 100.. he had 6 dot balls in that phase. they didn't come one after other. mostly evenly spaced. India's run rate was not affected anyway because of that. India's run rate was consistently above 6. They had loads of time to do a catch up job even if he had taken 4 or 5 extra deliveries. But in Tendulkar's case not many overs left.. there were only 7 left when he actually started hitting. Virat had about 25 overs to make up.
akshayxyz Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 His strike rate was still above 100.. he had 6 dot balls in that phase. they didn't come one after other. mostly evenly spaced. India's run rate was not affected anyway because of that. India's run rate was consistently above 6. They had loads of time to do a catch up job even if he had taken 4 or 5 extra deliveries. But in Tendulkar's case not many overs left.. there were only 7 left when he actually started hitting. Virat had about 25 overs to make up. So you do agree he slowed down? Now just tell us what could have been the reason? Other than the desire to secure the personal milestone (100). And who gives that guarantee that he will stay until the end? IIRC some run out chances were missed, when he was batting with Rohit.
vvvslaxman Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 So you do agree he slowed down? Now just tell us what could have been the reason? Other than the desire to secure the personal milestone (100). And who gives that guarantee that he will stay until the end? IIRC some run out chances were missed, when he was batting with Rohit. You are saying Tendulkar played slow because if he gets out no one can save his team?
vvvslaxman Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 So you do agree he slowed down? Now just tell us what could have been the reason? Other than the desire to secure the personal milestone (100). And who gives that guarantee that he will stay until the end? IIRC some run out chances were missed, when he was batting with Rohit. If at all he had slowed down probably 3 or 4 balls.. Infact even after his 100 he was going at the same rate picking singles as both of them were waiting for power play. But in Tendulkar's case we thought he was waiting for power play that is why he was playing slow.. But by the time power play ended he was still only on 95.
zen Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 reading some of the posts makes me wonder why I ever bothered debating with some of these srt fanatics/trolls :hysterical:
vvvslaxman Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 reading some of the posts makes me wonder why I ever bothered debating with some of these srt fanatics/trolls :hysterical: it is hard to convince them when they refuse to accept the freaking obvious. still trying. It was such a painful march towards 100.Probably the worst in his career.
yoda Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 LOL@Bhkatha brigade, still arguing about why Kohli wasn't blasted for also slowing down when their beloved bhagahavan was blasted for his momentous 100x100. :hahaha:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now