5 bowler theory in Sc.

[gaurav92]

This was a good team we fielded. We should stick to the same team with Rahul making way for Vijay in the next test. 6+5 is a good combination to win matches.

[vvvslaxman]

This was a highly winnable match . India dominated the match until y day afternoon. It is the ineptness and stupid selection.

[X-Factor]

SC or no SC, selecting 5 bowlers is a foolish ploy. You will lose a lot more matches if you continue with this so called 'aggressive' strategy. Either get an allrounder or a specialist batsman.

[Cricketics]

Honestly, I am fine with this fast bowler theory when playing in Subcontinent, but somehow we have to fit in Pujara. He could have been really handy in this fourth innings. This is where we messed it up big time which we did not realize in the first innings as Dhawan and Kohli had built big p'ship. Whether for Rahul or Rohit, it does not matter, Pujara has to play the remaining two test matches. I would keep the same bowling combination.

[zen]

There are two aspects to a theory - on paper and practical .... To win tests, you need to pick 20 wkts consistently so playing 5 bowlers (considering the bowling options) show that you are not just going out there to draw games However, to ensure its success, a team needs 3 to 4 in-form batsmen + a WK who can bat (and Saha has the potential to bat well) and/or a good bowling all-rounder .... and coming to the bowlers, you need 4 decent bowler + and as I said ideally 1 bowling all-rounder A team is playing 5 bowlers because either the conditions are good for batting and/or your bowling line up is not that potent. If you had Marshall, Holding, Garner, and Warne in your line up, why would you need 5 bowlers? Coming back to this test, it appeared that Ind only had 2 batsmen in Dhawan and Kohli. Saha contributed nicely. However, Vijay and Pujara were probably missed .... And of the 5 bowlers, Bhajji did not bowl well in helpful conditions Ind had a great first innings with both the bat and the bowl, and an extremely poor 2nd innings where it allowed Chandimal to get a big 100 and then fired a blank when batting the 2nd time. The team needed to be more consistent. To be more consistent, a team simply needs more quality players in the 11. Even if Ind had played 7 batsmen, it could still have lost

[HippoSucks]

If 5 bowlers are to be used, there have to be at least 3 fast bowlers. Running 3 spinners is not a good idea because if the pitch is conducive to spin or if the opposition is weak against spin, then 2 spinners will still be enough. Most of the time the third spinner will end up being under-bowled anyway and won't create any impact. The general trend is that our batting won't fail so spectacularly in the subcontinent most of the time, so we can afford to have 5 bowlers at least in the SC.

[Tarak9999]

Pathetic n defensive captancy by virat

[HippoSucks]

Pathetic n defensive captancy by virat

Why is using 5 bowlers a defensive tactic?

[kosingh]

Pathetic n defensive captancy by virat

LOL what?

[Marut]

If 5 bowlers are to be used, there have to be at least 3 fast bowlers. Running 3 spinners is not a good idea because if the pitch is conducive to spin or if the opposition is weak against spin, then 2 spinners will still be enough. Most of the time the third spinner will end up being under-bowled anyway and won't create any impact. The general trend is that our batting won't fail so spectacularly in the subcontinent most of the time, so we can afford to have 5 bowlers at least in the SC.

Lankans are traditionally good players of spin. So unless we had three bowlers like Ashwin it is pointless to play three spinners. In SC, four main bowlers is usually enough - two pacemen and two spinners. Most teams don't have that quality third spinner so they could easily play a batsman for that third spinner and use a part time bowler.

[The Realist]

Theory: 5 bowlers. Reality: 2 actual bowlers, 2 eternal passengers, 1 novice. Result: Will always lose more than win.