India the only team to play 6 frontline bowlers?

[beautifulgame]

you are the stupid ignoramus here..where did you get the highly stupid idea that extra bowlers necessarily mean extra strength?

 

how can an inferior bowler mean extra strength? is there any logic here????

 

I only speak from solid experience.dont even try

Another stupid rambling post.Dont bother

[express bowling]

@ youngindia

 

Why do you feel the need to insult other posters every time you post  ?

 

Just because someone else does not have the same opinion as you do, does not mean that he is stupid.

 

Gives points to support your argument.

 

 

[youngindia]

28 minutes ago, express bowling said:

In ODIs and T20s....there is a limitation on the number of overs one can bowl.

 

10 overs out of 50 in ODIs and  4  overs out of 20 in T20s.

 

Atleast 5 bowlers become mandatory for that purpose.

 

It is childish to assume that only 4 bowlers would do in  ODIs and T20s.

 

that's not what I said.

 

read carefully.

 

I said the best 4 bowlers define your average levels or peak level for a reasonably strong side.

 

your weaker bowlers only operate under this level.they don't make a difference to overall levels.

 

for example if a average bowling  capacity is 16 wickets per test match, your average will reflect that.

 

though in individual matches there  could variance like 11 or 13 or 15 or 17...but your average will be reflected in a reliable sample over a period of time

 

whether I am willing to play 4 or 5 bowler in a matchin an ODI or t20, I am willing to play both ways .

 

 

The 5th bowler going for runs is a probability but not a certainty...this is the same question that was posed to me before the 2003 WC and I

gave the same answer...

 

I said it is not all  a bad idea for a batting power to deploy its strongest strength -batting...we reached the finals as well won a WC in 2011!

 

its never a bad idea to stick to your strongest suit.

 

I am willing to try both ways...I would like to see the results

 

In tests, its ofcourse for specialists.

 

As I said already, numbers are a bad factor for bowlers , I.e beyond the best bowlers...In bowling penetration is the quality one should look for.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by youngindia
edt

[youngindia]

 Allrounder should not be thought as a panacea for all evils..

 

it does not necessarily equal winning matches.

 

Its important to see what Matchwinning qualities are brought to the table.

 

 

With kallis,pollock and klusener, SA should won around 2 WCs then and be the undisputed no 1 ...but their batting was too weak and their depth in bowling was not too great..

 

The brilliance of specialists both bowlers and batsmen matters much more.  

 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by youngindia
edt

[rkt.india]

31 minutes ago, express bowling said:

1/5 th of the total quota of overs by bits and pieces bowlers don't work in modern LOIs.

 

There was a time in the '80s and '90s when these bowlers could be hidden in the middle overs when batsmen did not try to score that many and did not have the modern bats to score runs without taking too many risks.

 

Batters these days can afford to go for big shots even in the middle overs with the super bats they have.

 

The only answer is a couple of good all-rounders in LOIs.

 

 

not talking about ODIs. 5 bowlers are needed in LOIs but not 6.

[express bowling]

10 minutes ago, youngindia said:

that's not what I said.

 

read carefully.

 

I said the best 4 bowlers define your average levels or peak level for a reasonably strong side.

 

your weaker bowlers only operate under this level.they don't make a difference to overall levels.

 

for example if a average bowling  capacity is 16 wickets per test match, your average will reflect that.

 

though in individual matches there  could variance like 11 or 13 or 15 or 17...but your average will be reflected in a reliable sample over a period of time

 

whether I am willing to play 4 or 5 bowler in a matchin an ODI or t20, I am willing to play both ways .

 

 

The 5th bowler going for runs is a probability but not a certainty...this is the same question that was posed to me before the 2003 WC and I

gave the same answer...

 

I said it is not all  a bad idea for a batting power to deploy its strongest strength -batting...we reached the finals as well won a WC in 2011!

 

its never a bad idea to stick to your strongest suit.

 

I am willing to try both ways...I would like to see the results

 

In tests, its ofcourse for specialists.

 

As I said already, numbers are a bad factor for bowlers , I.e beyond the best bowlers...In bowling penetration is the quality one should look for.

 

 

 

This point of 4 bowlers or 5 bowlers is more a point of debate in test matches.

 

As  I  have discussed with you before, a specific type of pitch might require 5 bowlers....the type of pitch which aids pacers in the first 2 or 3 days and aids spinners in the last 2 days with almost no help for pacers. We often get these pitches nowadays. It was not so frequent, even 10 years back, as outside Asia teams used to keep a lot of grass on the pitch and it used to hold out better even on day 5.

 

This type of pitch basically means 3 potent bowlers for the first 3 days and 2 other potent bowlers for the next 2 days.

 

Regarding ODIs and T20s.... the probability of the 5th bowler, if he is weak,  going for runs has become much higher in the last few years because of 2 reasons (a) the improved quality of bats using which hitting big shots taking less risk has become much easier  (b) After the introduction of T20s, the propensity and the self-belief of the batsmen to hit all the time and score at a high rate has increased.

 

The best solution, IMHO, is finding atleast one proper all-rounder for ODIs and T20s.  Without that, teams will be at a disadvantage in modern limited over games.

 

No harm in trying both ways in low-importance bilateral series though but finding one LOI level all-rounder is not as difficult as a test level all-rounder. 

[express bowling]

10 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

not talking about ODIs. 5 bowlers are needed in LOIs but not 6.

Yes...6 bowlers are way over the top 

[youngindia]

30 minutes ago, express bowling said:

31 minutes ago, express bowling said:

@ youngindia

 

Why do you feel the need to insult other posters every time you post  ?

 

Just because someone else does not have the same opinion as you do, does not mean that he is stupid.

 

Gives points to support your argument.

 

 

Why don't you apply the same standard to the post  which called ""stupid assumption"" without any rational basis?

 

I only replied to the post accordingly..I am not so generous to get insulted by strategic incompetents.sorry

 

first of all talking about evidence ,remember when cricketers and posters who lap those unsubstantiated opinions say 5 bowlers are needed for 20 wickets, they are talkin without evidence.so its the other way around.

 

I maybe  critical of posts that are unsubstantiated or lacks proper depth in thinking...to be fair most people will fail in opinions at a strategic

level. but the problem is there are too many subpar  posts that are "shouting'' rather than any  backup in logic or evidence.

 

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[express bowling]

12 minutes ago, youngindia said:

 

Why don't you apply the same standard to the post  which called ""stupid assumption"" without any rational basis?

 

I only replied to the post accordingly..I am not so generous to get insulted by strategic incompetents.sorry

 

first of all talking about evidence ,remember when cricketers and posters who lap those unsubstantiated opinions say 5 bowlers are needed for 20 wickets, they are talkin without evidence.so its the other way around.

 

I maybe  critical of posts that are unsubstantiated or lacks proper depth in thinking...to be fair most people will fail in opinions at a strategic

level. but the problem is there are too many subpar  posts that are "shouting'' rather than any  backup in logic or evidence.

 

 

 

I was not talking about that post only.

 

I and others have had the same experience with you even when I have been polite.

 

If you were a common troll. I would not have said a thing ...but you obviously try to get some valid points across and it becomes a better read  and a better quality debate without the insults...that is the only reason I am pointing this out.

 

I would like to read your points without the " noise ".

 

p.s -  All of us are rude to the obvious trolls though.

Edited August 29, 2016 by express bowling

[Lannister]

I believe it must be Kumble's idea to go with 6 bowlers. It was not an important match, so little bit of experiment will give you an idea which bowlers are best suited for this format. We did manage to successfully hold them off for a low score though. 

[beautifulgame]

not talking about ODIs. 5 bowlers are needed in LOIs but not 6.

No one has said 6 bowlers are needed though.

The point I was obviously making was as a one off playing six bowlers yesterday was a l gamble with some logic becoz of the way our bowlers got hammered and the weak west indies bowling attack .

And clearly it worked yesterday with 6th bowler Mishra working.

This is neither something I said is needed or to be done regularly.Just a one off gamble worth taking more so with the lack of all rounders in the squad apart from the useless Binny.

As for 5th bowler not making an impact that's just nonsense .He may needed to be an all rounder to find the balance but 5 bowlers are essential in limited over cricket .

Yuvi our 5th bowler was leading wicket taker (or 2nd?)in 2011 wc and Jadeja won golden ball 2014 CT.

[velu]

I believe it must be Kumble's idea to go with 6 bowlers. It was not an important match, so little bit of experiment will give you an idea which bowlers are best suited for this format. We did manage to successfully hold them off for a low score though. 

All the bowlers were tested in this format before..

This is a joke.. Its like playing 8 - 1 - 1 in football .. Pointless

[beautifulgame]

All the bowlers were tested in this format before..

This is a joke.. Its like playing 8 - 1 - 1 in football .. Pointless

Portugal just won the Euros basically playing 8-1-1 lol

[express bowling]

4 hours ago, youngindia said:

 Allrounder should not be thought as a panacea for all evils..

 

it does not necessarily equal winning matches.

 

Its important to see what Matchwinning qualities are brought to the table.

 

 

With kallis,pollock and klusener, SA should won around 2 WCs then and be the undisputed no 1 ...but their batting was too weak and their depth in bowling was not too great..

 

The brilliance of specialists both bowlers and batsmen matters much more.  

 

 

I agree with the bold parts.

 

An all-rounder should be able to make it to the team either as a pure bowler or as a pure batsman.  Bits and pieces cricketers, like Binny playing in a test match, make no sense.

 

It is the easiest to find a batting all-rounder for T20s.  This is because, the lower-middle order requires atleast 2 batsmen who can hit big shots from the word go and bat at a high SR of 150 +.  Their role is not to last long, because they usually come with only 3 or 4 overs left and they have to play 10 to 15 deliveries most of the time and score 15 to 30 runs or more.  If they can bowl some decent overs in addition to that, it is a plus.

 

It is more difficult to find all-rounders in  ODIs  but there too, lower-middle order big hitters are required and one batting all-rounder is possible to find.

 

It is obviously the most difficult in test matches. Someone like Ashwin, who makes it to the team as our best spinner, and has improved his batting, is the kind of all-rounder that works in tests.

 

Kallis and Pollock made it to the team as a pure batsman and a pure bowler. Klusener was a very impressive ODI batsman too who averaged 41 at a very high SR for his time.  South Africa's problem was lack of mental strength and not team composition. 

 

Another important factor to be considered is.....whether you have a  6th specialist batsman who adds value to the team by his presence  OR   is he  there because a 6th batsman is being played ?    Someone like a Rohit Sharma playing outside India in test matches, adds very little value and a reasonable batting all-rounder will be better. If, on the other hand, the 6th batsman is someone like a Lokesh Rahul, then there is a lot of merit in choosing the extra specialist batsman.

 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2016 by express bowling

[Lannister]

47 minutes ago, velu said:

All the bowlers were tested in this format before..

This is a joke.. Its like playing 8 - 1 - 1 in football .. Pointless

Its irrelevant what your team combination is in this format. Most of the times the lower order batsmen won't even get a chance to bat. 

[express bowling]

11 minutes ago, Lannister said:

Its irrelevant what your team combination is in this format. Most of the times the lower order batsmen won't even get a chance to bat. 

The lower-order big hitters should be used as floaters as far as batting position goes...that is they will come in to bat with 5 or 4 overs left,  if a wicket falls...whether that position is no.4 or no.7.

[Lannister]

34 minutes ago, express bowling said:

The lower-order big hitters should be used as floaters as far as batting position goes...that is they will come in to bat with 5 or 4 overs left,  if a wicket falls...whether that position is no.4 or no.7.

What I wanna see is, if we are going with 6 bowlers, why not allow those bowlers to open our batting as well. That way we can get that batting depth. Shami, Yadav or even Mishra are more than capable to smash 'em by fully utilizing fielding restrictions of Powerplays. 

[Vilander]

the crazy thing is Jaddu/Ashiwn/Mishra and BK are better batsmen than Binny, so if the 3rd,4th,5th,6th bowler is a better batsman than the 6th batsman  then you can go with 6 bowlers yes.

[G_B_]

I think people need to calm down a bit. MSD thought it was such a batting deck than even 5 batters were more than enough.

 

Probably played the pitch rather than 6 bowlers being an actual thing. Have to admit that the gamble worked. It was a good bowling performance despite some poor shot from the windies.

[velu]

Its irrelevant what your team combination is in this format. Most of the times the lower order batsmen won't even get a chance to bat. 

Windies won the t20 wc bcoz of lower order hitting..

What I wanna see is, if we are going with 6 bowlers, why not allow those bowlers to open our batting as well. That way we can get that batting depth. Shami, Yadav or even Mishra are more than capable to smash 'em by fully utilizing fielding restrictions of Powerplays. 

Not sure whether you are sarcastic or serious