donkey Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 It's easy to say in hindsight that it was all a part of the strategy. Here's something that happened. i) IS had to play out 3 balls. He did but he played and missed a one showing some vulnerability. Then SRT takes a single off the 2nd ball of the next over. IS survives 3 balls and then edges one that falls short of the 1st slip. Another sign of vulnerability. Cricinfo commentator suggests that IS is looking really vulnerable out there. But, SRT decides to show faith in IS. Ok accepted he knows more about IS's batting. ii) SRT takes a single of the first ball this time. IS takes a single of the 2nd ball. Now it's the fifth ball of the over and the fielders come inside the circle. Isn't this the time to score a 4 (or at least try and score a boundary?) SRT already knows that he is gonna take a single of the first ball next over and IS will anyway have to bat 5 balls. So, why not go for a 4 now? Don't slog but show some intent. iii) Now IS has hit some 4s against Lee and Clark. So he has got some "confidence". Hogg comes on. Now, SRT decides that IS isn't good enough to play against Hogg so refuses a single. So, why not attack Hogg? Don't go for a six, but couldn't he try to hit a sweep instead of defending 5 balls in a row? There was a chance one such shot could fetch him a couple or a 4. SRT was bullheaded on not falling to Aussies' plan. are you suggesting sachin should have just assumed Ishant would get out the next ball and deny himself all those scoring opportunities...sachin was playing his natural game and concentrating on holding up one end up while wickets kept fallin on the other ending...being 7/8/9 wickets down doesnt imply allout slog....someone still needs to play sensible cricket due to sachin's genius in cricket....we had 3 tailenders who played some aggresive cricket and showed their worth with bat...instead of sachin alone doing all the hardwork of slogging and saving his wicket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zubinpepsi Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 He ran hard, both for himself and his partners. He trusted the tailenders, a tactic which Brett Lee was to later term "brilliant". Bowling to a great batsman is bad enough, knowing he trusts his allies more so. He refused to farm the strike and saw his tactic pay off with Nos. 9, 10 and 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zubinpepsi Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 from the GOD himself Harbhajan joined Tendulkar after a mini-collapse, when India lost four wickets for 52 runs in 14.5 overs. "I had to re-think the strategy as we lost four wickets in that period. We had to plan little different. One big partnership was important." The striking feature of this innings was Tendulkar's decision to trust the tailenders, even if it was No. 11 Ishant Sharma, who's previous 13 first-class innings had produced just 15 runs. "It was our strategy," he said. "For me there was just one fielder at gully saving one otherwise all were virtually on the boundary line or half-way down. To try something stupid and get out would have been unwise. "I thought if runs had come earlier with Harbhajan and RP Singh, the same strategy should be applied. Ishant scored some important 23-24 runs. What eventually matters is the partnership and not who takes the initiative. We had these calculations going our way." now STFU all u mugs who r having a go at him....he knows his cricket much much better than u all.. so give it a rest... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hiten. Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Are you effing kidding me ? Seriously, do you ever stop criticizing players ? This is too god damn much man..seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hiten. Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 PS: This thread shows that you are here to hate. You have stooped ur level :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebb Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 ^^ I think it's pretty incredible too. He gets blasted for what he did, he'd get blasted if he went out by taking a risky shot. He would be called selfish if he didn't give the tailenders a go. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. ...I still like you, Sachin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hiten. Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Finey is criticizing a player 1) who helped india gain a VALUABLE lead of 69 (with help of bhajji). 2) Didn't play careless strokes like RD, VVS, SG (one of the top performers of this game) and UV, DHONI (big disappointment of this game, YET AGAIN) It is beyond me that how can you still find a reason to criticize/hate SRT. This shows it to me that you have absolutely no cricketing knowledge whatsoever or you are being too naive. Didn't hogg take much of the strike in Hogg-Symonds partnership? What does that tell you ? - It means Symonds trusted Hogg to build a partnership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hiten. Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Here's a quote for you by SRT "I always believed that Harbhajan could get some runs," Tendulkar said. "I told him that this was the time to prove himself and his ability. He put his head down and did a fantastic job. I also told him not to stop playing his shots because the field was in for him and spread for me. He batted fabulously. "The fielders were either half-way or at the fence for me, so there was no point playing a rash shot, when the field came up for the lower order batsmen there were gaps for them to score runs." .... I seriously hate this kind of nonsensical threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zubinpepsi Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Finey is criticizing a player 1) who helped india gain a VALUABLE lead of 69 (with help of bhajji). 2) Didn't play careless strokes like RD, VVS, SG (one of the top performers of this game) and UV, DHONI (big disappointment of this game, YET AGAIN) It is beyond me that how can you still find a reason to criticize/hate SRT. This shows it to me that you have absolutely no cricketing knowledge whatsoever or you are being too naive. Didn't hogg take much of the strike in Hogg-Symonds partnership? What does that tell you ? - It means Symonds trusted Hogg to build a partnership. BB, u dont get the point.. its plainly attention seeking....and it was successful having made the thread gone to 4 pages.. if op has criticised others, it wudnt have gone this far... u jus have to do things differently to b in the limelight be it downrite stupidity or utmost intelligence.. doesnt matter.. when there is no substance getting into the 1st category is the wisest thing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hiten. Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 BB, u dont get the point.. its plainly attention seeking....and it was successful having made the thread gone to 4 pages.. if op has criticised others, it wudnt have gone this far... u jus have to do things differently to b in the limelight be it downrite stupidity or utmost intelligence.. doesnt matter.. when there is no substance getting into the 1st category is the wisest thing.. you've summed it up :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SachDan Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 BB, u dont get the point.. its plainly attention seeking....and it was successful having made the thread gone to 4 pages.. if op has criticised others, it wudnt have gone this far... u jus have to do things differently to b in the limelight be it downrite stupidity or utmost intelligence.. doesnt matter.. when there is no substance getting into the 1st category is the wisest thing.. I second that opinion :two_thumbs_up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
putrevus Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 The point was not when Bhajji was batting , it was when no 11 was batting he could farmed little more strike than what he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 "It was a little different this time because in 2007 I missed a lot of hundreds and I didn't want that to continue," he said referring to his string of dismissals in the nineties, including three on 99. "I wanted to move on and the beginning of the new year is extremely important. It came at the right time so I am happy about that.The guy has an eager eye on his personal stats/milestones and there is nothing wrong with that as long as the team's needs are also met which we all can agree was definitely the case here. If he wanted to stay not out to boost his average after taking the team past the opponent's total when it looked unlikely early on, no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Name one cricketer who wouldnt want to get to a 100 or not think about it when he is in 90s ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Name one cricketer who wouldnt want to get to a 100 or not think about it when he is in 90s ... think about it all you want. just don't make it as the biggest thing to overcome in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tendulkar Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 And the most stupid thread award goes to fineleg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
living Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I was a littled puzzled in the beginning, but understood very quickly what was happening. I suppose you'll understand these things well too after watching cricket for few more years. :two_thumbs_up: good post. Honestly finey, I was thinking along the same lines as you for the first 2-3 overs but then it became kind of obvious - and like I stated earlier bottom line is the plan worked. Whether he did it for his average or to piss you off, it doesn't matter coz in the end the team benefited. Now since I'm a GOD fan, I'll even go ahead and state that GOD knew that his actions would create this kind of reaction even then he unselfishly sacrificed his selfless image for the benefit of the team :giggle: ok ok j/k ... just let it be man. Nothing can be proved for or against you. All that we can say is that his actions benefited our team:yay: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HariSampath Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Name one cricketer who wouldnt want to get to a 100 or not think about it when he is in 90s ... Sachin Tendulkar....going by his record in 2007 :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaiN_KiLLeR Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 Todays innings was one of the most perfect displays of test match batting i have ever seen. Tendulkar is not what he used to be when it comes to hitting bowlers out of the park. Had he tried to slog he would have probably got himself out and we would not have had a lead of 70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddhu Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I know, enough has been said on this thread so far. But I remember Sachin's 169 against SA. He was batting with Dodda Ganesh, who was as bad with the bat as a tail-ender can be. More so he was like Courtney Walsh dancing around the pitch (and not Sreesanth type dance). Sachin started attacking and got out after 12-16 runs... The point is, yes he did score fast but also did get out. The points most people are trying to make 1) Field was spread for Sachin to the extent that he could have gotten out by attacking and we would have ended with a 10 run lead and not 69. 2) From what we have seen, RPS/IS are no Courtney Walsh, they can hold their bat if need be (more like in the Kumble mold) and Sachin must have known that they are no mug with the bat, and thats why allowed them to take the strike. 3) This ensured two things, we frustrated Aussies a little more and spent a little more time on the field ensuring that we will definitely not loose and may have a chance to go for win if we can bundle them out cheaply tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts