Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[WicketView]

Thanks!

WV

I watched the match. the wicket was a belter and we were actually lucky to restrict them to 280+. at a time 325+ looked distinctly likely. England batted well but scoring 78 runs in the last 10 with 8 wickets in hand was poor. we were lucky in that respect.

the problem with the rose bowl lights are that they are too low. they were supposed to be insufficient but the wattage has been increased of late - so too dim may not have been a factor. the too low still is a factor i believe. if you remember that Mohali has low lights (flight restrictions i believe) and they have virtually a circle of lights rather than four posters. unless something similar to mohali is done in southampton the problem will persist. there is however a problem with circle lights at a low level - they are into to eyes of the fielders when taking catches but i guess we have to look after the batsmen.

But was it bad enough to explain the inability to score? If so, we should be hearing more about it. If not, I am still trying to understand why our batsmen with the sole exception of KKD were unable to score.

RD made another cardinal mistake. he saw clouds (maybe remembering the 11/3) didnt want to bat first on a wicket which was going to be a belter. numerous interviews with local players and others indicated that we should have batted first.

Fair enough. But is it a venue where the toss decides everything then (assuming you do the right thing )?

[inoc]

Thanks!

WV

I watched the match. the wicket was a belter and we were actually lucky to restrict them to 280+. at a time 325+ looked distinctly likely. England batted well but scoring 78 runs in the last 10 with 8 wickets in hand was poor. we were lucky in that respect.

the problem with the rose bowl lights are that they are too low. they were supposed to be insufficient but the wattage has been increased of late - so too dim may not have been a factor. the too low still is a factor i believe. if you remember that Mohali has low lights (flight restrictions i believe) and they have virtually a circle of lights rather than four posters. unless something similar to mohali is done in southampton the problem will persist. there is however a problem with circle lights at a low level - they are into to eyes of the fielders when taking catches but i guess we have to look after the batsmen.

But was it bad enough to explain the inability to score? If so, we should be hearing more about it. If not, I am still trying to understand why our batsmen with the sole exception of KKD were unable to score.

RD made another cardinal mistake. he saw clouds (maybe remembering the 11/3) didnt want to bat first on a wicket which was going to be a belter. numerous interviews with local players and others indicated that we should have batted first.

Fair enough. But is it a venue where the toss decides everything then (assuming you do the right thing )?

WV

Only one out of ten matches are won after the opponents score more than 280 odd. in answer to the first part of the post thats what was supposed to happen. pressure of runs does that 9 times out of ten. you can blame the batsmen but reality is that even in modern day cricket you dont easily chase 280. the english bowlers bowled well, their tails up after a couple of quick wickets and the ask became too much.

usually so. you win the toss you bat. thats the unfortunate record RD chose to ignore.

[atticus]

As long as the standards are same for everybody, it should be OK - what creates challenges is standards varying based on who is one's favorite or hated player.

Of course.

I think that Dravid was in his rights to play slow to keep things stable at one end just as SG did in that match.  I wish that both of them could have played more attacking games - but we take what we get - at least they maintained one side.

And I think both were wrong in playing slow. Dravid, because we were chasing. There is no way we could win by playing slow. What difference does it make if we lost by 100 or 150 runs? SG, because of his slow batting after 25 overs.

[LosingNow]

while RD is no way responsible for this loss, i do think there is a difference between CHASING a target and SETTING a target. RD and Dhoni played out nearly 20 overs for 68 runs(Dhoni being the main culprit, eating up 10 overs for 19 runs) - what was the intent?

To stay there and bat out the overs..and hope for a draw

[inoc]

As long as the standards are same for everybody, it should be OK - what creates challenges is standards varying based on who is one's favorite or hated player.

Of course.

I think that Dravid was in his rights to play slow to keep things stable at one end just as SG did in that match.  I wish that both of them could have played more attacking games - but we take what we get - at least they maintained one side.

And I think both were wrong in playing slow. Dravid, because we were chasing. There is no way we could win by playing slow. What difference does it make if we lost by 100 or 150 runs? SG, because of his slow batting after 25 overs.

are we talking in general or about a specific match ( with regards to the bolded portion)

[justforkix]

On a belter, the bowlers did well to restrict Eng to under 300...all it needed was some application from the top order...

And yet again, we have made a heroes out of ordinary bowlers....

But...Keep the faith.....

I disagree. Whether the pitch is a belter or not cannot be determined by the end score. Indian bowlers lacked penetration ... we did very well in the opening overs, but could not pick wickets. After that, it was inevitable - the score they piled up. Take the practice ODI for instance - a score that could have been 340 odd was pegged back by at least 50 runs because India picked wickets at regular intervals in the middle.

Of course, batsmen have to cop most of the blame. But, bowlers have to take a fair share of the blame.

i think our inability to take wickets worked in our favour today - else, KP may have batted many more overs. we were lucky to have cook around for so long.

This is precisely applicable to india as well, when our maharathies in general play at the top half of inngs, and waste a valuable time and opportunity. Leave little scope for later players like MSD, KKD, YS to exploit conditions. By not taking their wkts the opponents improve their position in match as the maharathies are practically harmless these days which we fail to understand. 

YAA  HAA  HAA  HAA  HAA

 

Yuvraj came in at 11.1 overs. He had 38.5 overs still to bat. Not enough time for him to build his own inning at his own pace, eh? He lasted 4 balls, scoring 0 runs.

Dhoni came in at 11.5 overs. He had 38.1 overs still to bat. Not enough time for him to build his own inning at his own pace, eh? He lasted 60 balls, scoring 19 runs. Imagine that... 19 runs scored in 10 overs by MSD. So much for waste a valuable time and opportunity by top order!!

Karthik came in at 30.3 overs. He had 19.3 overs still to bat. He remained not out, appreciably scoring 44 runs in 45 balls. Didn't do much wrong.

So, what else could YS and MSD have done differently? If YS or MSD or ABC or XYZ can't bat under pressure, they absolutely don't deserve a place in the team.

 

[achutank]

in all we sucked from ball 1 to ball 600

no arguments there, lets move on to game 2 with no changes in the squad else we will have to change the entire team 

[pipsqueak]

in all we sucked from ball 1 to ball 600

no arguments there, lets move on to game 2 with no changes in the squad else we will have to change the entire team 

599 balls, to be precise. we took ONE wicket, how can you forget that!

[atticus]

As long as the standards are same for everybody, it should be OK - what creates challenges is standards varying based on who is one's favorite or hated player.

Of course.

I think that Dravid was in his rights to play slow to keep things stable at one end just as SG did in that match.  I wish that both of them could have played more attacking games - but we take what we get - at least they maintained one side.

And I think both were wrong in playing slow. Dravid, because we were chasing. There is no way we could win by playing slow. What difference does it make if we lost by 100 or 150 runs? SG, because of his slow batting after 25 overs.

are we talking in general or about a specific match ( with regards to the bolded portion)

That particular match, of course.