Sachin: "I told Harbhajan that I believed he could bat"

[Anakin]

Yea.. you got no other refuge have you ? A no.11 against the pace of Lee and Johnson' date=' for 5 balls every over... Sure, sound tactics indeed ![/quote']Oh I have plenty of refuge and the results speak for themselves. All you have got is how YOU can not understand.

[suraj]

Wish he has told the same thing to Yuvraj and Dhoni

Now that will be really helpful

[Guest Hiten.]

- No mention of him batting for his average. :P

lmfao :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[kumble_rocks]

Nothing, absolutely nothing can justify Sachin handing over the strike to Ishant in the first ball of EVERY over. I can understand him trusting Bhajji and to an extent RPS, but rotating the strike with a 19 year old no.11 playing his 3rd test match is absurd. It is worthwhile to note that hardly anyone was raising their decibels beyond whispering levels when Sachin was rotating the strike with Bhajji or RPS, but posters were justifiably up in arms when he did the same with Ishant. And the comment he is using to cover his tactics, is just absolute nonsense. So, why dont we tell an opening batsman he can bowl and ask him to bowl all the time ? The first pre-requisite for reposing faith in a tail-ender is his batting talent, and by all the looks of it, Ishant looked as though he could get out ANY time. And another gem from the master, Yes, that is correct, but even the dumbest person on the planet will know that Ponting bought in the field for the last 2 balls of every over if Sachin was on strike. How hard could it be to try to go over the top ? Yet, Sachin didnt attempt a SINGLE adventurous shot in his partnership with both RPS and Ishant. And worse still, a tail-ender on strike not only means he has a chance to score, but the opposition has a chance to get him out as well. Either Sachin has all of a sudden discovered an unknown method of batting with the tail, or all the tactics of batsman like Chanderpaul, Misbah-ul-Haq, who batted so beautifully with the tail by farming the strike, were totally wrong. Take your own pick. The blunt truth is that, Sachin wanted to remain not-out, as he has tried to do on almost all of his 100s in the recent past, even if it means defying cricketing logic. He got away this time because by some rare piece of fortune both RPS and Ishant survived, otherwise, I wonder what sort of explanation he would have given. Who knows, maybe he would have just told the truth - " I wanted to remain not-out and boost my average".

Post of the day !:two_thumbs_up:

[Ram]

Oh I have plenty of refuge and the results speak for themselves. All you have got is how YOU can not understand.

Results ? :hysterical: As i said, they must have changed the contents of the "batting with tail-enders" part of the batting manual... Oh, how i wish either of RPS or Ishant were bowled neck and crop off the first ball they faced from lee ( which could have very well happened, and you know it)... Lets see you guys talking about results then !:haha: And what about Sachin playing out a maiden from Hogg, with only one wicket left ? How can you justify that " result" ?

[Bumper]

Good post MM. Yes, he is statistic conscious. But so what ? SRT did the job yesterday, didnt he ? Look at the overall results. 180 runs with the tail (last 3 wickets) is pretty darn good. We cannot expect Indian batsmen to think like Aussies, we are poles apart as personalities.

[Anakin]

Results ? :hysterical: As i said, they must have changed the contents of the "batting with tail-enders" part of the batting manual... Oh, how i wish either of RPS or Ishant were bowled neck and crop off the first ball they faced from lee ( which could have very well happened, and you know it)... Lets see you guys talking about results then !:haha: And what about Sachin playing out a maiden from Hogg, with only one wicket left ? How can you justify that " result" ?

Again probably missed how he was disappointed trying to cart the last ball for runs. You can have the greatest batsman get bowled first ball, he took calculated risk, like SW who was famous for batting with the tail, guided the tail and it worked. End of story. Laugh all you want, the result was 180 runs, and by your method it wouldn't be more than 30-40 runs. So yeah, it's indeed laughable.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Ram]

Good post MM. Yes' date=' he is statistic conscious. But so what ? SRT did the job yesterday, didnt he ? Look at the overall results. 1[b']80 runs with the tail (last 3 wickets) is pretty darn good. We cannot expect Indian batsmen to think like Aussies, we are poles apart as personalities.

Bumps, you know, as well as i do, that on some other day, the same ishant sharma would have been bowled first ball by either Lee or Johnson. Results cannot be used to justify tactics, when it is so blatantly obvious that they were wrong. Besides, Sachin is seeming to suggest as though he actually transferred the responsibility to score runs on his partners coz the field was up for them ? What kind of thinking is that ? If he cant back himself, someone who has more 25,000 runs in international cricket, to score runs in a spread field, how the hell did he think a player with Zero, yes ZERO runs in international cricket till then could be backed to score against Lee, Johnson, Clark and Hogg ? And this gets even worse the more i see it. The selfish stat hound actually played out a maiden against Hogg, when only Ishant was left at other end. What sort of example is he setting within the team ? If i were either RPS or Ishant, i would have been perplexed on why in this world Sachin was turning over the strike to me first ball of every over, and not nodding vigorously in agreement of his tactics, as they were seen on T.V

[Bumper]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/329030.html

But when Laxman did the same it didnt work. Some days, these strategies come off, some days they dont. SRT did take the initiative when Kumble was around. I saw him get to 82 from 50 quickly. I think he may have gotten a bit more secure about Bhajji, seeing the way he batted. But with RPS & Ishant, it was a fluke.

[Ram]

Again probably missed how he was disappointed trying to cart the last ball for runs. You can have the greatest batsman get bowled first ball' date=' he took calculated risk, like SW who was famous for batting with the tail, guided the tail and it worked. End of story.[/quote'] Correction, that wasnt a calculated risk, but a useless, selfish strategy to remain not-out. And Steve Waugh turned over the strike because the batsman on the other end were good enough, not novices like Ishant, who was a 19 year old number eleven playing his 3rd test match. And trying to cart the last ball ? When was that ? Of course, you must also remember how diligently he defended the first 5 balls i suppose ?

Laugh all you want' date=' the result was 180 runs, and by your method it wouldn't be more than 30-40 runs. So yeah, it's indeed laughable.[/quote'] As i said, all you have to say are just 2 words - Steve Waugh and 180 runs. And even that is wrong. His partnership with Harbhajan made sense. We all know what Bhajji is capable of, he has international 50s to his name. So please, take off 123 runs from that 180.

[kumble_rocks]

But when Laxman did the same it didnt work. Some days, these strategies come off, some days they dont. SRT did take the initiative when Kumble was around. I saw him get to 82 from 50 quickly. I think he may have gotten a bit more secure about Bhajji, seeing the way he batted. But with RPS & Ishant, it was a fluke.

And I see that some of the same posters defending their god here , blasting Laxman that day in a similar thread . Talk about double standards ... No excuse for taking singles repeatedly on the first and second ball of Lee's over when you have untested rookie No 11 batsmen. And no excuse for Laxman's batting with the tail either .

[Ram]

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."

What bull-crap logic is that ? Here you have someone who has cumulatively scored over 25,000 runs in international cricket, the highest by anyone, EVER and he has basically given up the responsibility to score some runs to someone who has, till then, scored ZERO runs in cricket ? Good try Sachin, but sorry, go try to sell your stories with some other dumber people if you can.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[kumble_rocks]

Not me KR ... if you are implying that ... I even put up stats to prove that SRW was not the pioneer of this "Bat with Tail" theory .... :D

Not you , Saar !:teeth_smile:

[fineleg]

Nothing, absolutely nothing can justify Sachin handing over the strike to Ishant in the first ball of EVERY over. I can understand him trusting Bhajji and to an extent RPS, but rotating the strike with a 19 year old no.11 playing his 3rd test match is absurd. It is worthwhile to note that hardly anyone was raising their decibels beyond whispering levels when Sachin was rotating the strike with Bhajji or RPS, but posters were justifiably up in arms when he did the same with Ishant. And the comment he is using to cover his tactics, is just absolute nonsense. So, why dont we tell an opening batsman he can bowl and ask him to bowl all the time ? The first pre-requisite for reposing faith in a tail-ender is his batting talent, and by all the looks of it, Ishant looked as though he could get out ANY time. And another gem from the master, Yes, that is correct, but even the dumbest person on the planet will know that Ponting bought in the field for the last 2 balls of every over if Sachin was on strike. How hard could it be to try to go over the top ? Yet, Sachin didnt attempt a SINGLE adventurous shot in his partnership with both RPS and Ishant. And worse still, a tail-ender on strike not only means he has a chance to score, but the opposition has a chance to get him out as well. Either Sachin has all of a sudden discovered an unknown method of batting with the tail, or all the tactics of batsman like Chanderpaul, Misbah-ul-Haq, who batted so beautifully with the tail by farming the strike, were totally wrong. Take your own pick. The blunt truth is that, Sachin wanted to remain not-out, as he has tried to do on almost all of his 100s in the recent past, even if it means defying cricketing logic. He got away this time because by some rare piece of fortune both RPS and Ishant survived, otherwise, I wonder what sort of explanation he would have given. Who knows, maybe he would have just told the truth - " I wanted to remain not-out and boost my average".

MM, Brilliant post. You certainly are one of the MVPs. I know how much you adore SRT, but when he did a selfish act, you call it that. This is what is super about you. Looking at the act, and not at who did it. I've seen you do the same (generally) abt posts too. Criticizing a post on its merit, and not looking at the userid who made the post.

[Anakin]

Not you ' date=' Saar !:teeth_smile:[/quote'] I did and rightly so. I asked you this before too, show me even one single attempted boundary by Laxman during that innings, there lies a HUGE difference when you compare these two innings. @MM, there is no point arguing with you. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's selfish, it's as simple as that. Also you don't seem to get the simple thing that just shielding the tail would never get 180+ runs, because if SRT and tailenders played like your idea, I'd say about 100 of those runs had to be taken by SRT as singles and the majority of the rest by boundaries again by SRT. I didn't have time before to break this simple concept to you but thought it was clear when I said max of 30-40 runs would be gettable by your idea. Anyways, keep on saying the same stupid selfish mantra (NB: the mantra was called stupid, lol).

[Ram]

MM, Brilliant post. You certainly are one of the MVPs. I know how much you adore SRT, but when he did a selfish act, you call it that. This is what is super about you. Looking at the act, and not at who did it. I've seen you do the same (generally) abt posts too. Criticizing a post on its merit, and not looking at the userid who made the post.

Thanks for the praise, but i certainly think i am not *that* good. Of course, I will openly say that i feel a need to maintain a standard with my posts, with respect to dignity of respecting other posters, and also posting stuff that lives up to minimum benchmarks of intelligence.

[Ram]

I did and rightly so. I asked you this before too, show me even one single attempted boundary by Laxman during that innings, there lies a HUGE difference when you compare these two innings. @MM, there is no point arguing with you. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's selfish, it's as simple as that.

Dude, I am not stupid enough to make blanker accusations without having any backing for them. For every point that i have made against him, I have supported it with facts and opinions that conform with reasonable levels of cricketing logic. You are free to ignore them, but if you chose to engage me in a debate, please back your points with solid arguments. If i slowly realize that i have been wrong and you were right, i shall accept my mistake and withdraw all my allegations. So far, i havent got any such arguments from your side. Merely stating the same thing over and over again, does not mean it is true.