rkt.india Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 ^ Depends - number of dot balls can balance it out. Batsmen who can hit sixes can make up for the dot balls they take to settle down.
saneindian Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 This post is madness. One' date=' there is little to no proof that this is a long term trend. Two, [b']in what way can the absence of sixes link to winning most matches but not progressing in a tournament. How do sixes have anything to do with that? Unless you try to connect it with net run rate but that is a tenuous connection indeed. Nowhere did I refer to the connection between lack of 6s and our performances! My response was specifically to your post saying Does anyone care that we beat Pakistan and South Africa? Do results not matter anymore? Does one defeat mean a team is useless? 4/5 or whatever that number maybe is useless if you do not progress to the knock outs. Simple as that.
msb1991 Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Sixes increases scoring rate and then will ultimately help in better RR. Blimey. If you just look on the next line, I suggested that that is a most tenuous connection indeed!
msb1991 Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Nowhere did I refer to the connection between lack of 6s and our performances! My response was specifically to your post saying 4/5 or whatever that number maybe is useless if you do not progress to the knock outs. Simple as that. Okay. What is this connecting the lack of 6s to? How can you fundamentally disconnect the act of winning matches with the process of going through to the next round.
Executioner Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 7 sixes only? Watson alone scored the same number of sixes against India! :headshake:
Lord Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 if not sixes,strikes surely are relevant,the best we had was Ashwin at 133,not good enough.its the batting that failed in this WC,bowling was decent considering talent they had
msb1991 Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 if not sixes' date='strikes surely are relevant,the best we had was Ashwin at 133,not good enough.its [b']the batting that failed in this WC,bowling was decent considering talent they had The batting failed in just one game. What can be said is that we lacked a player who could score very quickly and turn a game - perhaps a Yusuf Pathan type. I'd say this was mainly a result of Sehwag being out of form.
Lord Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 The batting failed in just one game. What can be said is that we lacked a player who could score very quickly and turn a game - perhaps a Yusuf Pathan type. I'd say this was mainly a result of Sehwag being out of form. no the general approach of batsmen was cautious as compared to others.the likes of Gambhir,Yuvraj,Dhoni,Raina,can all be the kind of bowlers u mentioned,but the fearless approach needed wasnt there
Texy Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 It's cut off time! Good luck everyone who participated!
Ultimate_Game Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 6s are being a bit over-blown here. Egland hit more 6s against us but lost the match by a whopping 90 runs. The reason we didn't do well was our lack of cricketing smarts. We deviated from our 7-4 game-plan against Aussies and paid the price. Even then we had a chance to extend the game a bit longer but we didn't even complete the quota of our best bowler in the game (Zaheer) to make Aus bat longer. Then against SA we had a chance to post a decent score of 165-170 but we never showed any urgency.
Laaloo Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 The batting failed in just one game. What can be said is that we lacked a player who could score very quickly and turn a game - perhaps a Yusuf Pathan type. I'd say this was mainly a result of Sehwag being out of form. If even Sehwag was in form, it wouldn't make that much of a difference as far as hitting sixes go. What is his best innings in a International T20? I have hardly seen him play innings in the class of Gayle/Watson. Our two main reason was Yuvi not fully fit and Raina out of form.
Clarke Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 The openers sucked and our best six hitter, Raina should have batted ahead of the likes of Rohit & Yuvraj i.e. if the idea was to launch a blitzkrieg.
Crookbond Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 India lacked hits and runners http://www.wisdenindia.com/cricket-blog/india-lacked-hits-runners/29338 India’s exit from the World Twenty20 has spawned two very different perspectives. One view suggests that the best four teams are in the semifinal, and that India have no cause for complaint. The other camp has the rain between innings during the Australia game as the foundation of its hard-luck story. As ever, the truth lies somewhere in the vast expanse of grey between the two positions. It’s hard to argue with any conviction that the best sides have made it. West Indies may have been one of the pre-tournament favourites, but they won just one Super Eights game, against England. The increment to the win column came after a Super Over success against New Zealand. Only England and South Africa had a worse net run-rate. The ICC’s own rankings reflect this. Both India and West Indies came into the tournament with 111 points. India were fifth and West Indies sixth. At the completion of the Super Eights, India had risen to second place with 120 points. West Indies were stuck on 111 and had dropped to seventh. Ultimately, though, West Indies made the most of the draw that they got. And that draw, to be brutally honest, was a joke. A team being seeded before a tournament begins is natural, and it happens in every sport. But the idea of pre-seeding determining further progress in the competition is atrocious. As a result, the four teams that topped their first round groups were pooled together in Group 2, while those that didn’t win a single game against a major side in the first round contested Group 1. In effect, the table-toppers were penalised for winning. Some suggested that points could be carried over to the Super Eights. But in the current format, they can’t. Had all the teams been in one Super Eights pool as in the 2007 World Cup, that would have made sense. But once you split it into two groups, points can’t be taken forward. That effectively reduces the first round game between the two qualifiers to a dead rubber. A global competition can really do without those. But griping about the draw or net run-rates won’t take Indian cricket very far. Even if they had made the semis, it would only have papered over what are fairly significant cracks. This was a team heavily dependent on three or four individuals, with the others showing signs of declining form, fitness or both. Just contemplate the margin that India had to win by against South Africa – 31 runs. If you break that down, it’s roughly 15 runs saved in the field, and 15 more scampered between wickets. India’s fielding, as ever, was a mixed bag. Unlike some other teams, they’re usually safe catchers. It’s covering ground that they have trouble with. While Andre Russell was making jaws drop by leaping like Nureyev to convert a certain six into a two, most of the Indians were either escorting the ball to the rope, or diving clumsily over it. Compared to the sprightly side that fielded so exceptionally at the inaugural World Twenty20 in 2007, this was Lags Eleven. The running between wickets was as poor. Time after time, someone like Virat Kohli would hustle through for the first run and turn around to find that his partner was not remotely interested in a second. In the Pakistan game alone, there were four or five such instances. In a group decided by wafer-thin margins, such laziness cost India dearly. There was also a noticeable lack of oomph in the batting. Rotation of strike is important, but Twenty20 is also about the big hits, those Chris Gayle specials that endanger pedestrians outside the venue. Against India, Shane Watson whacked seven sixes, as many as India managed in three games. Pakistan finished the Super Eights with 11. Australia had 18. When India won in 2007, their sixes tally for the Super Eights was 19, with Yuvraj contributing seven during a virtuoso performance against England. In the semifinal against Australia, they walloped 10 more, with Yuvraj accounting for five. Without pace, either on the ball or in their feet, India’s gameplan was always going to be limited. Given how they lost hitting power as well, the only surprise was that they got as far as they did.
mr cricket Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 India got screwed over by the stupid super 8 format. I mean all the group stage toppers in the same group, how ridiculous is that? Today's match proves how lucky Lankans were. They were handed an easy group. And now Pakistan are destroying them in semis.
Texy Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Live Bet: Pak to lose I say Pak will have a batting collapse & lose You say Pak will win Odds: 1:2 max bet: 5 milz cut off time: before 1st ov gets bowled in the 2nd innings
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