Kohli's use of pacers on Day 2 was the difference

[Trichromatic]

10 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

We had advantage by winning the toss and batting first but we did not take that. 

Similarly we had advantage of world best bowler in bowling friedly condition and captain refused to take that.

 

How many times fit Steyn or any ranked 1 bowler had bowled 4 overs in first 60 overs of a match? Any other example in history of cricket.

 

190-6 has happened many times.

[Cricketics]

14 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Similarly we had advantage of world best bowler in bowling friedly condition and captain refused to take that.

 

How many times fit Steyn or any ranked 1 bowler had bowled 4 overs in first 60 overs of a match? Any other example in history of cricket.

 

190-6 has happened many times.

Thats mentioned. Why you repeating same thing. Kohli should have bowled Jadeja.

 

But that doesn't mean if adeja would have bowled more, we would have taken the lead. Yes, he was underbowled.

 

Part of the reason we gave lead to Australia was that we got bowled out for 180 and did not take advantage of batting first as a team. We should have put at least 275 in the first innings 

[Trichromatic]

1 hour ago, Cricketics said:

Thats mentioned. Why you repeating same thing. Kohli should have bowled Jadeja.

 

But that doesn't mean if adeja would have bowled more, we would have taken the lead. Yes, he was underbowled.

 

Part of the reason we gave lead to Australia was that we got bowled out for 180 and did not take advantage of batting first as a team. We should have put at least 275 in the first innings 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-south-africa-2015-16/engine/match/903603.html

 

India bowled out for 201 and took the lead of 17 in first inning. Low score didn't stop India from taking lead against better batting line up. 

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-south-africa-2015-16/engine/match/903607.html

 

India bowled out for 215 and took lead of 136.

 

We didn't  take advantage of batting first against a inferiorspin bowling line up, but nothing stopped us from taking the lead. Only difference between those matches and 2nd test is that Jadeja bowled more.

 

It was a blunder which could have cost us game. Kohli's captaincy was huge negative in this match. Ashwin and Jadeja's brilliance somehow negated the damage caused by that.

 

I still don't think there any similar incident in history of cricket when best bowler in the world wasn't allowed to bowl for first 60 overs on a helpful pitch.

[Cricketics]

2 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

 

I still don't think there any similar incident in history of cricket when best bowler in the world wasn't allowed to bowl for first 60 overs on a helpful pitch.

Way to exaggerate your case. He came in to bowl in 37th, over and not after two sessions like you mention 60th over.

 

And that is because other bowlers applied lot of pressure and it looked like pacer or Ashwin could get wicket any time. Hence Kohli backed them.

 

Yes Jadeja should have bowled few in middle like other bowlers and not come so late,  but you are making it look bigger.

 

 

You made Kohli look so bad and are showing how much you hate Kohli that even though people accepted that Kohli under bowlled Jadeja, you are on it and now are lying and telling people that Kohli did not bowl Jadeja for two sessions that is 60 overs

 

 

How about you watch cricket instead of talking Negative about Kohli all day. That way you won't miss when Jadeja was bowling. You were too busy typing and creating Anti Kohli threads that you forgot to see that Jadeja came to bowl before two sessions.

 

Watch the game next time. 

[Cricketics]

2 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

Kohli's captaincy was huge negative in this match. Ashwin and Jadeja's brilliance somehow negated the damage caused by that.

Really, so he should not be mentioned any time? Every expert out there has mentioned how good he was and you seem to be so mad about Jadeja not being used that you calling every move of his as bad. 

 

You want a different captain? Who should captain India then?  Tell me. 

[Shunya]

I think both sides are exaggerating now. Kohli fans saying he did something miraculous which is just fanboyism. He did not do anything special and has been below par in this series. The Team performed very well to come back in this Test and win.

On the other hand, Anti-kohli fans saying underbowling Jadeja is such a huge mistake that he should be held responsible is completely out of line. Yes he tried something different by bowling majority overs from 3 out of his 4 bowlers. He could have balanced their spells in a better way but its not that a big deal as it is being made out now. He is the best captain we have at the moment and anybody denying it is just delusional. Unnecessary debate yaaar, just massaging the ego of fans and Antifans.

[Cricketics]

7 minutes ago, 0zero said:

I think both sides are exaggerating now. Kohli fans saying he did something miraculous which is just fanboyism. He did not do anything special and has been below par in this series. The Team performed very well to come back in this Test and win.

On the other hand, Anti-kohli fans saying underbowling Jadeja is such a huge mistake that he should be held responsible is completely out of line. Yes he tried something different by bowling majority overs from 3 out of his 4 bowlers. He could have balanced their spells in a better way but its not that a big deal as it is being made out now. He is the best captain we have at the moment and anybody denying it is just delusional. Unnecessary debate yaaar, just massaging the ego of fans and Antifans.

I think it is more the case where this thread is meant to speak to thise peoole who were  exaggerating a lot about his poor captaincy all first 2 days.

 

A captain is as good as his team and hence the OP recognizes that it was good captaincy but nothing crazy great but not crazy bad as he was being slated.

 

 

As you can see team's victory humble many and that is what it did many here.

 

Anyways, captaincy overall is overated most times when a result go in favor or not in favor, like pretty much what you mean in your post.

[BeautifulGame]

 

I A captain is as good as his team and hence the OP recognizes that it was good captaincy but nothing crazy great but not crazy bad as he was being slated.

 

 

Yeah the point it was bad captaincy and crazy bad which nearly cost us the game .

 

 

Jadeja had bowled just 4 overs in 62 overs on a helpful wicket were he eventually took 6 wickets.

 

 

Can't think of a single instance like this ever happening before.That stupid which could have cost us the test.

 

 

[CG]

 

 

 

Its a slow wicket everyone scored at at slow rate 

 

In first innings we scored even slower rate.If anything that day ,awful usage of Jadeja nearly cost us the game and gave Aussies 87 run lead.Huge advantage on a wicket like this.

 

We won because of that incredible partnership between Rahane and Pujara .Incredible 120 run partnership when we were down and out.

 

If anything that made the difference it was that partnership.

 

Because bowling seamers instead of Jadeja was a mistake.Ishat barely bowled decent and hardly looked threatening on day 2.

 

We were simply lucky to get away with that.Not because of some great seam bowling.

India runrate 1st innings-2.65

Aus-2.25

 

India 2nd nnings-2.85

 

1st day pitch was damp and spinners had help 2 and 3rd were better for batting.Still we kept them below 3.Ishant too did bowl well and could have easily got 2 wickets. Jadeja benefitted from pressure created .Ashwin was overbowled due to Lyon performance and Aussie Left-handers.That's was the mistake.

[CG]

if anything 2nd inning clearly showed that it was a mistake.

 

Had Kohli used same tactics again, we would have again ended up 190-6 in 100 overs and only thing was left to appreciate was pacers' effort in 2nd inning.

2nd innings Is whole lot different it's almost impossible to chase 188 on such track .

[rkt.india]

11 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

if anything 2nd inning clearly showed that it was a mistake.

 

Had Kohli used same tactics again, we would have again ended up 190-6 in 100 overs and only thing was left to appreciate was pacers' effort in 2nd inning.

how did it show it? How many wickets Jaddu picked in 2nd innings? People are really overrating Jaddu's wickets in Ist innings. None of the wicket was really due to ball did something or pitch doing much instead bad shots and pressure built up from both ends by drying up the runs. If we had taken our chances and had reviewed that Marsh dismissal, we would not even be having this debate right now. There was no problem in captaincy because pacers were looking threatening and they created chances and Kohli was hesitating to bring Jaddu against left handers because he is no Herath and has a history of bottling against left handers like Starc did in the first game. One two such overs against Jaddu by likes of Warner and Renshaw and the match was gone there and then. All pressure would have been released. Kohli's first priority was to use variable of pitch by bowling pacers and also keep the runs down. Only issue for me was keep bowling Ashwin who looked completely ineffective but even that is understandable as he was economical and there were left handers batting.

[Cricketics]

13 hours ago, BeautifulGame said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah the point it was bad captaincy and crazy bad which nearly cost us the game .

 

 

 

 

Jadeja had bowled just 4 overs in 62 overs on a helpful wicket were he eventually took 6 wickets.

 

 

 

 

Can't think of a single instance like this ever happening before.That stupid which could have cost us the test.

 

 

You are saying as if Jadeja would have  taken all 10 wickets in those overs. He should have bowled more but seamers were troubling and looked like taking eicket every time. 

[BeautifulGame]

You are saying as if Jadeja would have  taken all 10 wickets in those overs. He should have bowled more but seamers were troubling and looked like taking eicket every time. 

 

No I am saying Jadeja would have taken the 6 wickets much earlier and we would have restricted Aussies without such a big lead like we did in the SA series.

[Cricketics]

2 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said:

 

No I am saying Jadeja would have taken the 6 wickets much earlier

That's assumption. Game doesn't work like that.

[rkt.india]

13 hours ago, BeautifulGame said:

 

No I am saying Jadeja would have taken the 6 wickets much earlier and we would have restricted Aussies without such a big lead like we did in the SA series.

Warner would have thrashed Jaddu out of the attack.

[BeautifulGame]

Warner would have thrashed Jaddu out of the attack.

 

No he wouldn't have.

[rkt.india]

Just now, BeautifulGame said:

 

No he wouldn't have.

yes, like Starc did in the first game, scoring 26 of his 12 balls.

[fineleg]

On 3/7/2017 at 1:38 AM, Cricketics said:

I just came back on ICf after few weeks and noticed too much unnecessary criticism for Kohli earlier for using seamers on Day 2.

 

Can ICF pls stop criciticising Dilli captain :)

[BeautifulGame]

yes, like Starc did in the first game, scoring 26 of his 12 balls.

 

No wouldn't have and got out like Renshaw and Smith .

 

And Warner got out very early on day 2

[Lord]

Him leaving the straight deliveries from the two spinners was a masterstroke imo

 

Gave them false confidence which we later exploited