Indian test cricket from depths of despair to Bright sunshine from Dhoni to Virat the journey , compare

[moniker]

It's not about going with 5 out and out specialist bowlers each and every time you take the field. 4 bowlers are enough if we have someone to chip in now and then and provide well needed rest to the other bowlers.

We used to have the likes of Sehwag, Ganguly and Tendulkar as excellent part time options to play the role of the 5th bowler. All we have right now is the crappy off spin of Vijay or the laughable medium pace of Kohli.

Looking at the options that we have, Kohli's decision to go with 5 specialist bowlers makes a lot of sense. Until a dependable all rounder is unearthed this approach is the best we can work with for now.

 

[rkt.india]

On 7/26/2016 at 6:46 PM, moniker said:

Gilchrist was their all rounder. They didn't need a bowling all rounder when they had their keeper coming in at 7, striking at 82 with an average of 47.

but that is even more remarkable that they had someone like Gilchrist at 7 and they still mostly played with 4 bowlers. They had the luxury of Gilchrist who could have easily batted at 6 and instead play a 5th bowler but they didn't. My argument is if your top 4 bowlers arent good enough, your fifth bowlers isn't going to make much of a difference. If the 5th bowler so good, he would have already been playing as your top 4 bowlers.

[Ankit_sharma03]

3 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

but that is even more remarkable that they had someone like Gilchrist at 7 and they still mostly played with 4 bowlers. They had the luxury of Gilchrist who could have easily batted at 6 and instead play a 5th bowler but they didn't. My argument is if your top 4 bowlers arent good enough, your fifth bowlers isn't going to make much of a difference. If the 5th bowler so good, he would have already been playing as your top 4 bowlers.

The idea of 5th bowler is to give rest to ur main bowlers, We all know what happened when extended spells were given to shami n zaheer in Sa and Again with bhuvi in Eng. If we want bowler who bowl quick to play they cant be bowling long long spells. Australia had a bit of luxury with clarke, Steve, Mark as well but before that their bowlers were so good that they didnt needed those 5th bowler to come in. 

 

We cant have someone like Kohli, vijay bowling as 5th bowler giving a lot of runs n changing the whole game in few over. Thats where someone like binny did a good job in SL, he came bowled a good line and kept the pressure on and chipped away with crucial wkts. Yes that 5th bowler and Saha is making that batting look week but thats where we need to find better Wk batsman n A batsman who could bowl decent 10-12 overs at 6, rather changing the attacking attitude we have in our bowling. 

 

 

[Lannister]

When we are going with 3 spinners there's no need for a 5th bowler. But 3-4 fast bowlers are must when playing in overseas conditions. In Aus and SA, I would go with a combination of 4+1, and where as in Eng 3+1 plus a Binny kind of bowler will do. 

[Mosher]

Dhoni's captaincy in tests during the last few years has been detrimental to Indian cricket especially to our fast bowlers. No denying that. But this topic has been done to death on ICF. Need to move on. Kohli is the right man to lead India and has had a good start to his test captaincy. He will face tougher challenges ahead but he has shown the hunger to win and that is very refreshing to see as a test cricket fan.

[express bowling]

2 hours ago, rkt.india said:

but that is even more remarkable that they had someone like Gilchrist at 7 and they still mostly played with 4 bowlers. They had the luxury of Gilchrist who could have easily batted at 6 and instead play a 5th bowler but they didn't. My argument is if your top 4 bowlers arent good enough, your fifth bowlers isn't going to make much of a difference. If the 5th bowler so good, he would have already been playing as your top 4 bowlers.

The purpose of the 5th bowler is to allow your top bowlers to stay fresh and bowl with full effort in situations where the seamers are expected to bowl a lot of overs. He is not expected to succeed when the top 4 have failed. 5 bowlers could also be required when pace bowlers are expected to be effective in the first innings and spinners in the 2nd.

 

The Australian team of the late '90s and early  '00s  had a very strong  bowling attack and, in more cases than not,  they did not have to bowl lots and lots of overs when the seamers were expected to bowl.  Mediocre or weak bowling attacks like ours,  more often than not,  have to send down lots of overs and the risk of bowling with less intensity arises.  The amount of cricket being played, after the introduction of the IPL and t20, is also way more than what the Aussie team of that era had to contend with. The current Aussie team is playing Mitchell Marsh, an average seamer, as the 5th bowler and he is no great batsman either.

[rkt.india]

53 minutes ago, express bowling said:

The purpose of the 5th bowler is to allow your top bowlers to stay fresh and bowl with full effort in situations where the seamers are expected to bowl a lot of overs. He is not expected to succeed when the top 4 have failed. 5 bowlers could also be required when pace bowlers are expected to be effective in the first innings and spinners in the 2nd.

 

The Australian team of the late '90s and early  '00s  had a very strong  bowling attack and, in more cases than not,  they did not have to bowl lots and lots of overs when the seamers were expected to bowl.  Mediocre or weak bowling attacks like ours,  more often than not,  have to send down lots of overs and the risk of bowling with less intensity arises.  The amount of cricket being played, after the introduction of the IPL and t20, is also way more than what the Aussie team of that era had to contend with. The current Aussie team is playing Mitchell Marsh, an average seamer, as the 5th bowler and he is no great batsman either.

You are bowling a lot of overs means you are not going to do well whether those overs are bowled by 4 bowlers or 5 bowlers, result wont change. 

[express bowling]

42 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

You are bowling a lot of overs means you are not going to do well whether those overs are bowled by 4 bowlers or 5 bowlers, result wont change. 

There is still a difference between the opposition scoring 300 to 350 and scoring 450 to 600.

 

Against weaker oppositions it may mean getting them out within 250.   if Umesh were left out in this match, as was the original plan. WI would have scored much more in the first innings.

 

The best options are obviously finding more potent bowlers and finding proper all-rounders ....but that won't happen overnight.

Edited July 28, 2016 by express bowling

[gakgupta]

   Maybe respect cricketing history and commonsense?  

 

History shows 6 batsmen are the feasible number.

 

if your top 4 is not good enough to take 20 wickets, that certainly  implies you are not a country that can take 20 wickets regularly .

let me end it there.

 

hence rest of the points are moot.

 

Most of the countries now a days play one all-rounder......no wonder we see more results as coMpared to earlier days

Mitchel marsh -- Australia

Ben Stokes - England

Shakib - Bangladesh

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

[velu]

7 minutes ago, gakgupta said:

Most of the countries now a days play one all-rounder......no wonder we see more results as coMpared to earlier days

Mitchel marsh -- Australia

Ben Stokes - England

Shakib - Bangladesh

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Jadeja - India 

 

[putrevus]

On 7/25/2016 at 2:35 PM, Viper said:

Did they win the ADELAIDE MATCH at the end of Day ?

 

What is this looking for wins or Draw crap

 

Everyone plays the bloody game to win at the end of day better team takes over

Losing while going for win is far better than just looking for draw. You need to prepare to lose to win some matches that is what captaincy is all about, going for win is a mindset which only a positive captain can provide to the team.

 

Aussies are the best example they play every match to win even risking a loss that is how you develop winning culture. Aussies started that way back in 1986 tied test.

[Texan]

On 7/28/2016 at 3:52 AM, rkt.india said:

You are bowling a lot of overs means you are not going to do well whether those overs are bowled by 4 bowlers or 5 bowlers, result wont change. 

India bowled 168.2 consecutive overs in the first Test against WI and won by an innings. Amen.

[rkt.india]

3 minutes ago, Texan said:

India bowled 168.2 consecutive overs in the first Test against WI and won by an innings. Amen.

those arnt a lot of overs two innings combined. not even 90 overs per innings. 90s overs are not a lot of overs. If you get teams out in 90 overs, it means you are not letting them score over 300 and are probably dismissing them around 250-300 runs.

Edited August 1, 2016 by rkt.india

[Texan]

Just now, rkt.india said:

those arnt a lot of overs two innings combined. not even 90 overs per innings. 90s overs are not a lot of overs.

Then what is lot of overs? 300 overs???

 

They were bowled consecutive, no break in between. With 4 bowlers, workload would have been 40-45 overs each. That is too much for fast bowlers. There itself Dhoni would have not enforced follow-on considering bowlers are tired.

[MCcricket]

Shami is bowling well, hope he is used as a strike Bowler n load is shared as we have a long season ahead.

 

Positives we have seen so far, Ashwin looks a different bowler under Kohli n Kumble abroad n obviously was hampered by Dhonis defensive captaincy n love for Jadeja over him also giving him longer spells n attacking fields comparatively

Rahul was given a chance n shone whereas under Dhoni who knows Jadeja would have come in n Pujara would have opened n Rahul warming the bench like Dhonis style never change squad.

Shami n bowlers  have bowled markedly better under Virat n his confidence in them whereas Dhoni would've ridiculed his weak attack n bench

Edited August 1, 2016 by MCcricket

[rkt.india]

6 minutes ago, Texan said:

Then what is lot of overs? 300 overs???

 

They were bowled consecutive, no break in between. With 4 bowlers, workload would have been 40-45 overs each. That is too much for fast bowlers. There itself Dhoni would have not enforced follow-on considering bowlers are tired.

yes, 168 overs over two innings are not considered a lot of overs. On England, SA, Aus tours we have bowled 150 overs an innings. Remember, this is a weak West Indian batting. 

[Texan]

6 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

yes, 168 overs over two innings are not considered a lot of overs. On England, SA, Aus tours we have bowled 150 overs an innings. Remember, this is a weak West Indian batting. 

How does it matter whether it is two innings or one when there is no break in between for batting? As far as workload is considered, it is bowling those overs consecutive whether it is two innings or one and being effective in every spell.

[MCcricket]

2 minutes ago, Texan said:

How does it matter whether it is two innings or one when there is no break in between for batting? As far as workload is considered, it is bowling those overs consecutive whether it is two innings or one and being effective in every spell.

It does make a huge difference when u R forcing a follow on n u have 5 bowlers instead of 4 as effectively one is bowling to get 20 wkts in a single inning then

[rkt.india]

7 minutes ago, Texan said:

How does it matter whether it is two innings or one when there is no break in between for batting? As far as workload is considered, it is bowling those overs consecutive whether it is two innings or one and being effective in every spell.

you wont have same situation in every test. It can work against a weak WI side.

[Texan]

1 minute ago, rkt.india said:

you wont have same situation in every test. It can work against a weak WI side.

And when you do encounter this situation, you won't enforce the follow-on because of tired bowlers and eventually might end up even drawing a Test, that should have been won.

 

By the way, in the Test just prior to that that we played in, India bowler 143.1 overs in one innings and still won.