Print

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

[keep-it-cool]

Lessons to be learnt from ODI 6

3) The toss does not matter in matches on these pitches. Neither does batting first or second.

Just one point I wish to clarify Kic, losing the toss did not matter but had India won and put England in only to chase 317, then it would have been a totally different ball game.

I am sorry, I did not quite understand what you are trying to say.

My point is that it really does not matter who wins the toss on these pitches. Or which side bats first and which side bats second. The toss factor and these issues are over analysed and over estimated - simply because the toss is an event in itself. If anything, in an early morning start, there should be some assistance (if only for 5-6 overs) for the team bowling first.

imo, BB has a point...When a captain wins the toss and puts the opposition in , the idea is to get early wickets and restrict them to a lower score.And if RD has won the toss, elected to field and then given away the kind of runs we did, it is bound to be even more demoralizing than the 51 runs in 3 overs.

I am sorry .. I disagree that the difficulty level in chasing 317 (if India wins the toss and puts the batsmen in) > 317 (if India lost the toss and had to field first)

These guys are professional cricketers and they should be able to close out what happened in the first innings and look at the target in isolation. Especially when you have 3 batsmen with over 300 ODIs each in your midst.

This is really wierd logic, to say the least.

If that be the case, we should be able to restrict all opposition to less than 250 given that we have captains and former captains who have played over 1000 games between them and bowlers who have been there and done that...

And on the logic front..well...no comments

Not really. None of our captains / former captains is a great bowler .. to be able to restrict opposition batsmen to under 250 all the time. So, again, I do not quite understand what you are trying to say here.

Moreover, we are talking about a state of mind here .. If after playing for over 300+ ODIs each, if things such as a team scoring 317 after you put them in v/s a team scoring 317 after electing to bat themselves make you chase the same score differently, there is something wrong.

Let me re-articluate....Given that there are 3 captains / former cptains , they understand what it takes to restrict a team to under 300...they could not do it....

Understanding what to do and having the resources to do the same are two different things. This is an ability issue.

ZK and AA have played enough games to know what it takes to bowl at the death / last few overs...AA leaked runs...

AA has a lot of experience - yes. Unfortunately, his experience lies in gifiing free runs .. which he, with all his vast experience, continues to do without any difficulty - whatever the situation. And to think that at one point I was actually convinced that he has turned the corner!!

Anyway, coming to the main issue .. the way this can be put in context of our debate is - ZK and AA are confident that they can get the batsmen out for 250 runs if India wins the toss and bowls first. That confidence should not change if England wins the toss and asks India to bowl first. Similar to how if India can chase 317 batting second - they should be able to chase that target irrespective of whether they opted to field first or were asked to field first.

So..irrespective of being professional cricketers, there is an element of pressure that does come in....
And we have seen that happen in the past too... IP had a hat-trick against Pakistan.... and our inability to finish off the late middle order ended up in India losing the match..... And a hat-trick by HS against Australia pushed us to a victory.... Different teams, different situations, different results..... And a majority of the  players against Australia and  Pakistan were the same...

All the instances you have given relate to ability ... bowling ability, batting ability etc.

We are talking about state of mind here. Completely different. Not being able to chase 317 is different ... I can even understand the difference between putting up 317 while batting first and putting up 317 while chasing ... but to say that chasing 317 (if a captain has put the opposition in) is different from chasing 317 (if the opposition has elected to bat) is, I repeat, silly.

[broadbat]

Lessons to be learnt from ODI 6

3) The toss does not matter in matches on these pitches. Neither does batting first or second.

Just one point I wish to clarify Kic, losing the toss did not matter but had India won and put England in only to chase 317, then it would have been a totally different ball game.

I am sorry, I did not quite understand what you are trying to say.

My point is that it really does not matter who wins the toss on these pitches. Or which side bats first and which side bats second. The toss factor and these issues are over analysed and over estimated - simply because the toss is an event in itself. If anything, in an early morning start, there should be some assistance (if only for 5-6 overs) for the team bowling first.

Very simple Kic, would a Captain given a choice prefer to defend 317 or chase it down. I would assume the former. So when a team is put in it is with the assumption that it would be a reasonable score. 316 is a very good score and I can assure you that 8 out of 10 chases with 317 as the target will end in failure.

[keep-it-cool]

Lessons to be learnt from ODI 6

3) The toss does not matter in matches on these pitches. Neither does batting first or second.

Just one point I wish to clarify Kic, losing the toss did not matter but had India won and put England in only to chase 317, then it would have been a totally different ball game.

I am sorry, I did not quite understand what you are trying to say.

My point is that it really does not matter who wins the toss on these pitches. Or which side bats first and which side bats second. The toss factor and these issues are over analysed and over estimated - simply because the toss is an event in itself. If anything, in an early morning start, there should be some assistance (if only for 5-6 overs) for the team bowling first.

Very simple Kic, would a Captain given a choice prefer to defend 317 or chase it down. I would assume the former. So when a team is put in it is with the assumption that it would be a reasonable score. 316 is a very good score and I can assure you that 8 out of 10 chases with 317 as the target will end in failure.

I dont think in England, on the pitches we have seen, 317 is difficult to chase. And, even if it is difficult to chase, it should be the same level of difficulty whether the captain has put the opposition in or the opposition has chosen to bat.

On reasonable score, I think by the day the definition of a reasonable score is changing. RU's statements - "when I realised that we need "ONLY" 12 runs in the last over I knew we would win" or "MSD and I decided that if we get to 20-25 runs required in the last two overs, it would be "EASY" - indicate that this mindset change has already started.

[gouravk]

Well it is certainly not easy to chase 317, on any pitch.

[OldPal]

Very simple Kic, would a Captain given a choice prefer to defend 317 or chase it down. I would assume the former. So when a team is put in it is with the assumption that it would be a reasonable score. 316 is a very good score and I can assure you that 8 out of 10 chases with 317 as the target will end in failure.

I agree chasing  a 300+ total is always a difficult task, and it is no pressure to score 300 + while batting first then chasing.
Having said that: I believe most of the 300 + score that have come during chasing have been a result of the target set.
Once you have few chips down in start, you tend to play little bit cautiously to give a defending total to oppositon e.g had natwest 2002 finals (If india batted first ) with 5 down one would not have hoped for a 300 + score.
While batting second - Team bats with a 300 + mentality : though this adds little bit pressure to go for shots consistently, but also indicates any thing under 300 is useless. SRT and SG started knowing we are chasing 300. In the middle we did lose the track little bit.
It is difficult to predict if india was batting first we may have scored 300 + .
But if you look at the history 300+ scores have been chased quite few times and narrowly lost as well . This is only with batting with a mindset of 300+ runs .

[keep-it-cool]

The big difference that Aussies have brought about is that they bat the same way irrespective of whether they are chasing 220 or 300 or setting a target. And, I see no reason why India cannot do the same. If we have a lot of inexperienced batsmen in the line up, it is a different issue. But, we have 3 players with over 300 ODIs experience and YS, who has also been around for a long time. They should be able to go beyond issues such as whether we are batting first or second. That is where experience should count.

[arjun]

The big difference that Aussies have brought about is that they bat the same way irrespective of whether they are chasing 220 or 300 or setting a target. And, I see no reason why India cannot do the same. If we have a lot of inexperienced batsmen in the line up, it is a different issue. But, we have 3 players with over 300 ODIs experience and YS, who has also been around for a long time. They should be able to go beyond issues such as whether we are batting first or second. That is where experience should count.

The big difference is that the Aussies top order can afford to play aggressively because they know the lower order can take care of any early damage. Our top order does not have that security. In the Oval Match, the opening partnership scored almost half of the runs required, seven wickets fell to get the other half.

[arjun]

Very simple Kic, would a Captain given a choice prefer to defend 317 or chase it down. I would assume the former. So when a team is put in it is with the assumption that it would be a reasonable score. 316 is a very good score and I can assure you that 8 out of 10 chases with 317 as the target will end in failure.

I agree chasing  a 300+ total is always a difficult task, and it is no pressure to score 300 + while batting first then chasing.
Having said that: I believe most of the 300 + score that have come during chasing have been a result of the target set.
Once you have few chips down in start, you tend to play little bit cautiously to give a defending total to oppositon e.g had natwest 2002 finals (If india batted first ) with 5 down one would not have hoped for a 300 + score.
While batting second - Team bats with a 300 + mentality : though this adds little bit pressure to go for shots consistently, but also indicates any thing under 300 is useless. SRT and SG started knowing we are chasing 300. In the middle we did lose the track little bit.
It is difficult to predict if india was batting first we may have scored 300 + .
But if you look at the history 300+ scores have been chased quite few times and narrowly lost as well . This is only with batting with a mindset of 300+ runs .

But the reverse is also true! If we bat first and score sub 300 runs, then the opposition also would not come in to bat with 300+ mentality!

The question actually is what would any team prefer - defend 300+ runs, or chase it? I think the answer is a no brainer.

[keep-it-cool]

The question actually is what would any team prefer - defend 300+ runs, or chase it? I think the answer is a no brainer.

Agreed.

But, the point being debated was ... assume a team has to chase 301.

Now, do you think it makes a difference if the opposition scored 300 after winning the toss and electing the toss as compared to if the opposition scored 300 after being put in by the captain winning the toss?

Will the same score become more difficult to chase in the second scenario?

I see no reason why it should be so. Especially at the international level and with players who have played the game for over 10-15 years.

[arjun]

The question actually is what would any team prefer - defend 300+ runs, or chase it? I think the answer is a no brainer.

Agreed.

But, the point being debated was ... assume a team has to chase 301.

Now, do you think it makes a difference if the opposition scored 300 after winning the toss and electing the toss as compared to if the opposition scored 300 after being put in by the captain winning the toss?

Will the same score become more difficult to chase in the second scenario?

I see no reason why it should be so. Especially at the international level and with players who have played the game for over 10-15 years.

No it will not become more difficult. Having said that, I would question any captain's intelligence if he wins the toss and puts the opposition in to bat on a 300+ track.

[keep-it-cool]

The question actually is what would any team prefer - defend 300+ runs, or chase it? I think the answer is a no brainer.

Agreed.

But, the point being debated was ... assume a team has to chase 301.

Now, do you think it makes a difference if the opposition scored 300 after winning the toss and electing the toss as compared to if the opposition scored 300 after being put in by the captain winning the toss?

Will the same score become more difficult to chase in the second scenario?

I see no reason why it should be so. Especially at the international level and with players who have played the game for over 10-15 years.

No it will not become more difficult. Having said that, I would question any captain's intelligence if he wins the toss and puts the opposition in to bat on a 300+ track.

That is a different debate altogether.

Having said that, you would probably have kept questioning Ranatunga's intelligence throughout WC'96.

A 300+ track today is as common as a 250+ track in those days.

[arjun]

The question actually is what would any team prefer - defend 300+ runs, or chase it? I think the answer is a no brainer.

Agreed.

But, the point being debated was ... assume a team has to chase 301.

Now, do you think it makes a difference if the opposition scored 300 after winning the toss and electing the toss as compared to if the opposition scored 300 after being put in by the captain winning the toss?

Will the same score become more difficult to chase in the second scenario?

I see no reason why it should be so. Especially at the international level and with players who have played the game for over 10-15 years.

No it will not become more difficult. Having said that, I would question any captain's intelligence if he wins the toss and puts the opposition in to bat on a 300+ track.

That is a different debate altogether.

Having said that, you would probably have kept questioning Ranatunga's intelligence throughout WC'96.

A 300+ track today is as common as a 250+ track in those days.

What about Ranatunga and WC96? Srilanka won toss twice in that tournament, and elected to field first - once in Delhi against India, and then against Australia in the final in Lahore. Delhi - it was an overcast condition, so a logical decision. By the time the team came to Lahore for the final, they had won almost all their games chasing, so again it was a logical decision. What I meant was in a flat 300 track, the natural instinct for any captain, if he wins the toss, would be to bat.

[kban1]

kic:

Frankly yesterday there were way too few instances of 3-2 and 2-1 anyways. Even so at least on 2 of those calls by you I disagreed because I did not see where you were coming from. To me, given the English fielding (not the same as Indian fielding) and the capabilities of the Indian batsmen as runners (I am not talking about their judgment or willingness to run), those runs were not on.

I am sorry, Kban, I disagree with this line of reasoning (the section in bold) to arrive at a conclusion that not too many 3s became 2s or 2s became 1s. And, I am not talking specifically about yesterday's match here.

It is precisely becaus of the inferior capabilities that 3s are becoming 2s and 2s are becoming 1s. I dont think anyone is really questioning the Indian batsmen's commitment / willingness to run for their runs. But, increasingly, they are making strokes that would usually yield 2s into 1s and usually yield 3s into 2s.

Even if this is because of their capabilities (or lack thereof), it is a problem. How can lack of capabilities be an excuse?

Here is the clarification

1) Even with the Aussie standard, there were not too many 3-2 and 2-1 down conversions in that particular match.

2) However, the ones that were there-- were more a function of our runner's inability (combined with English fielding standards vs Indian fielding) rather than unwillingness to run - aka attitude, thereby making these runs very risky or non existent.

This is a weakness - no disagreement there. But my commentswere in the context of my original post which was to show how misperceptions arose amongst those not watching the game and relied on comments made in chat / match thread by members watching the game.

Describing such occasions as "easy" singles missed or as continued down conversion without further amplification  -- either due to the "tongue in cheek" nature of the comment or due to an unrealistic assessment of the ability of the resources (batsmen -runners) at hand tends to provide a skewed impression to those following chat and without the benfit of live images as a point of reference.

Which then results in these people getting a skewed impression and using that impression to constantly criticize our players for being "maharathis", "selfish", "playing for money / no pride", "unwilling / reluctant / callous" etc etc.

And this was the whole crux of my argument --the mis shaping of perceptions amongst those following chat as opposed to watching -- I have noticed over several days the over eagerness of some to jump on the "bash the players bandwagon" based on anything that fits their preconceived notions (a lot of those exist post our WC debacle).

[justforkix]

No, during the incident you refer to, I do not recall anyone blaming SG for not running the single. And neither does KIC who was also in the chat. Anyways, FYI, I said ANYONE, which means all who were active in the chat during this incident.....

I have to disagree here. The comments about running of SG did not come immediately and neither was I pointing a finger at you for such comments -- I do not believe you made those comments. They came before and later on -- the point of illustrating with this example was to show how perceptions are formed.

No. I did not think that you were pointing a finger at me for this. If you were not refering to folks blaming SG for not running a single to the ball after SG's 6 of Broad, then I misunderstood your original post. Anyways, I did not notice anyone blaming SG for not running a single for this and looks like KIC also didn't notice this.

The ball was not hit straight to mid-off and mid-off was near the edge of circle. So, there was every chance of the single and another one for the midfield. So, I have no doubts on my judgement

I never said the ball was hit straight to mid off - in my original post I had mentioned mid off dived to make the stop, which shows exactly that. I said Mid off was inside the circle -- yes edge of the circle is included therein. I just did not see 2 runs there because the midfield only took the ball a few feet away. Either way, neither of us are going to convince each other on this --this is a difference of opinion.

No. I never said you did. I used these phrases - "not hit straight to mid-off" and "mid-off near edge of circle" to show that a single was definitely on and missed for the shot itself. The misfield should have made it a 2 and not a 1.

Frankly yesterday there were way too few instances of 3-2 and 2-1 anyways. Even so at least on 2 of those calls by you I disagreed because I did not see where you were coming from. To me, given the English fielding (not the same as Indian fielding) and the capabilities of the Indian batsmen as runners (I am not talking about their judgment or willingness to run), those runs were not on.

Have to just disagree. To me, it is a matter of difference in perception than any preconceived notions.

And I have noticed that in the past too --hence my references meant to show that you are expecting people like SG and RD to run like the Poms or Aussies which they are simply not physically able to do (not talking about judgment and willingness). Also, there are times when I have felt that you downplay the risk inherent in some of these risky singles --calling them easy just presents a wrong picture.

No. I don't expect RD and SG to run like hares. But I will point out and criticize if any player is running poorly or fielding poorly. If they can't run/field well, they can get out. Unlike many, I don't think our cupboard is bare at all. Give the same number of chances continuously to any of the deserving candidiates from 1st class cricket and they will perform.

Regarding downplaying risk, perhaps I may have done it a few times in the past, but not in the chat during ODI-6. I was quite serious while counting the missed runs.

Perhaps so but when many people are already preconceived one way -- especially post WC anti maharathi fervor running high, I believe anything critical is lapped up ever so eagerly and thats where my frustration stemmed from. Thats why my feeling was a little more balanced description (as opposed to tongue in cheek) of the happenings presents lesser opportunities for misperceptions.

What to do. I am like that wonly 

[justforkix]

Last but not the least - "Show no intent to run well but can actually run"

There are a precious few who fall into this category. Vensgarkar did for a short while according to Malcom Marshall (see 'Mashall Arts'). They never showed intent to run well .... but were very effective in running away from the bowler.

HEHEHE 

[kban1]

No. I never said you did. I used these phrases - "not hit straight to mid-off" and "mid-off near edge of circle" to show that a single was definitely on and missed for the shot itself. The misfield should have made it a 2 and not a 1.

Difference in perception - we have to disagree.

Have to just disagree. To me, it is a matter of difference in perception than any preconceived notions.

No. I don't expect RD and SG to run like hares. But I will point out and criticize if any player is running poorly or fielding poorly. If they can't run/field well, they can get out. Unlike many, I don't think our cupboard is bare at all. Give the same number of chances continuously to any of the deserving candidiates from 1st class cricket and they will perform.

Regarding downplaying risk, perhaps I may have done it a few times in the past, but not in the chat during ODI-6. I was quite serious while counting the missed runs.

Fair enough - difference in perceptions. I would still account for capabilities of the batsmen in question rather than hold them to the "ideal world" standard.

With regards to our cupboard being bare -- I believe other than Kaif the others are untested and it would be too much of a shock to get them in en masse.  I agree that they might succeed given a long enough rope and there was opportunity to do so, which was squandered under the GC regime by indulging in "experimentation without a plan". So you cannot blame the present for opportunities lost out in the past.

For the future you already know where I stand -- there is scope for 3 slots  in any future ODI to try out new players -- currently we are trying out GG/KKD/RU for 2 of these 3. The third can be found out by resting / rotating one of SG/SRT/RD and if required the 4th can be too by resting another. The point is that since we went into this series with the full squad, this is hardly the time to do that with the series hanging in balance.

Anyways, this is topic for a different discussion.

[justforkix]

1) Even with the Aussie standard, there were not too many 3-2 and 2-1 down conversions in that particular match.

Sure.

This is a weakness - no disagreement there. But my commentswere in the context of my original post which was to show how misperceptions arose amongst those not watching the game and relied on comments made in chat / match thread by members watching the game.

Describing such occasions as "easy" singles missed or as continued down conversion without further amplification  -- either due to the "tongue in cheek" nature of the comment or due to an unrealistic assessment of the ability of the resources (batsmen -runners) at hand tends to provide a skewed impression to those following chat and without the benfit of live images as a point of reference.

Again, you feel my assessments are unrealistic. I feel your assessments are just conservative. I don't see where the question of "misconception" comes in here for the chat reader.....

[justforkix]

Fair enough - difference in perceptions. I would still account for capabilities of the batsmen in question rather than hold them to the "ideal world" standard.

To conclude, have to say that I do too. I do not expect the same running speed with SG/SRT/RD as with a YS/MSD.

For the future you already know where I stand -- there is scope for 3 slots  in any future ODI to try out new players -- currently we are trying out GG/KKD/RU for 2 of these 3. The third can be found out by resting / rotating one of SG/SRT/RD and if required the 4th can be too by resting another. The point is that since we went into this series with the full squad, this is hardly the time to do that with the series hanging in balance.

My thoughts are more radical. Revamp the ODI team and set the minimum bar for fielding and running to be high. We will suck in the near future but will succeed in the long run. Drop all X, Y, Z for poor fielding/running irrespective of their names. Sadly, this will never happen and we will continue to stay in the "middle muddle" of the ODI rankings.

[kban1]

Again, you feel my assessments are unrealistic. I feel your assessments are just conservative. I don't see where the question of "misconception" comes in here for the chat reader.....

Unrealistic not as an absoute, unrealistic contextually --

As in

1) perhaps sometimes not taking into account the physical limitations of our players
2) and how without proper amplification, it is easy for chat viewers to misconstrue the comment to be a reflection of the attitude of our batsmen given the prevailing attitude (post WC) of blaming our players and castigating them for all and sundry.

The objective is not to point fingers at you or anyone else and hold you (them) responsible for shaping conceptions --let me make that clear.

The objective is to show how these comments do affect perceptions.

And hopefully provide other members (including those who are jumping to conclusions w/o watching) a frame of reference to show that it is dangerous to jump to conclusions w/o watching the match and just basing their impressions on comments because such comemnts could be contextually unrealistic  -- for example "aggressive assessment by jfk" or even "conservative assessment by kban1".

[kban1]

My thoughts are more radical. Revamp the ODI team and set the minimum bar for fielding and running to be high. We will suck in the near future but will succeed in the long run. Drop all X, Y, Z for poor fielding/running irrespective of their names. Sadly, this will never happen and we will continue to stay in the "middle muddle" of the ODI rankings.

Let us assume we do this - drop SG and RD on the batting side.

And on the bowing side drop Munaf and RP (are there any others I am missing ?)

On the batting side, how long will it take to find a replacement and more importantly will we actually find batsmen of the same class. Wouldn't doing that leave us as part of the muddled middle forever ?

[justforkix]

1) perhaps sometimes not taking into account the physical limitations of our players
2) and how without proper amplification, it is easy for chat viewers to misconstrue the comment to be a reflection of the attitude of our batsmen given the prevailing attitude (post WC) of blaming our players and castigating them for all and sundry.

The objective is to show how these comments do affect perceptions.

And hopefully provide other members (including those who are jumping to conclusions w/o watching) a frame of reference to show that it is dangerous to jump to conclusions w/o watching the match and just basing their impressions on comments because such comemnts could be contextually unrealistic  -- for example "aggressive assessment by jfk" or even "conservative assessment by kban1".

This is true for any qualitative comment/post on thread/chat on any DG - for e.g., running, fielding or captaincy moves/decisions. Anyways, IMO, almost all members use their discretion in judging a fellow member's qualitative comments in chat/DG rather than just blindly believing what they post. So, to me, what you have brought up is a moot point.

[kban1]

This is true for any qualitative comment/post on thread/chat on any DG - for e.g., running, fielding or captaincy moves/decisions. Anyways, IMO, almost all members use their discretion in judging a fellow member's qualitative comments in chat/DG rather than just blindly believing what they post. So, to me, what you have brought up is a moot point.

Well, I do not think its a moot point at all.

When we are discussing things on the DG, we are expressing opinions on issues, most of which usually is predicated on significant subjective evaluation - eg talent, captaincy, team composition, plans for the future.

As opposed to a match chat where the scope of such subjective evaluation is or should be significantly restricted to what is happening on the field. Which by itself makes comments on such events a lot more pertinent from the reader's POV because no one would describe a french cut for 4 as a beautiful cover drive for 4.

Given that basic constraint, the description of match events is more likely to be construed and interpreted as more of an absolute devoid of interpretive latitude.

And that is exactly why a contextually unrealistic assessment -- whether in the form of humor (much difficult to convey in written form to people without the benefit of an alternative point of reference to help them determine sarcasm / exaggeration vs reality), a tongue in cheek comment, or one based on an ideal scenario of how the player should play (as opposed to what he is capable of doing) are far more prone to being interpreted as examples of player unwillingness / attitude problems / selfishness / playing for his spot or money et al.

This is especially true in light of the WC debacle and the wide spread player blame game and baiting that has gone on since then whereby preconceived notions of the chat reader about a player are only further reinforced by such contextually unrealistic assessments and the next thing we have is thread after thread of venom spewing, ironically or perhaps appropriately by those who have not watched the match but are relying on comments made in chat / match threads.

This is not an observation made on the basis of one match, it is an observation based on a few months of watching this phenomenon --in fact you can see the seeds of it in the chat itself where member A logs on from work, asks member B for a description or listens to member B's comments and then starts spewing off utter rubbish in the chat itself to be further continued on the DG post match completion. And god help us if India loses the match -- the intensity of such vitriol increases by a factor of 100.

So the point I am making is extremely valid. If we need to have proper analysis of a match at hand rather than analyzing past predilections or tendencies of players, comments need to be made that reflect the true situation (read a certain level of amplification) and more importantly, people reading such comments need to be much more cognizant that their self referent bias regarding their own preconceived notions about certain players notwithstanding, analyzing cricket is perhaps a little more than spewing unsubstantiated venom or indulging in unrealistic rants asking for players' heads on a platter.

I have discussed my contentions in significant detail over several posts in this thread. I really do not know how better to explain my POV -- the point of my posts has been to point out a phenomenon that I have observed (over a few months, not one match mind you) rather than point fingers.

If you still feel that its a moot point, so be it. I strongly and vehemently disagree. Thats where I have to end this particular discussion.

[OldPal]

now Pitamah will rest ..
Arjun can you please form a bed from all your Teers in the quiver !!!

Everybody be ready for the chat tomorrow ...

[justforkix]

When we are discussing things on the DG, we are expressing opinions on issues, most of which usually is predicated on significant subjective evaluation - eg talent, captaincy, team composition, plans for the future.

As opposed to a match chat where the scope of such subjective evaluation is or should be significantly restricted to what is happening on the field. Which by itself makes comments on such events a lot more pertinent from the reader's POV because no one would describe a french cut for 4 as a beautiful cover drive for 4.

Given that basic constraint, the description of match events is more likely to be construed and interpreted as more of an absolute devoid of interpretive latitude.

Yes. I do agree, but also believe that the members we have here in this DG are very well capable of making this distinction w.r.t. what is written on chat vs. what is said in a thread.

And that is exactly why a contextually unrealistic assessment -- whether in the form of humor (much difficult to convey in written form to people without the benefit of an alternative point of reference to help them determine sarcasm / exaggeration vs reality), a tongue in cheek comment, or one based on an ideal scenario of how the player should play (as opposed to what he is capable of doing) are far more prone to being interpreted as examples of player unwillingness / attitude problems / selfishness / playing for his spot or money et al.

Yes, but again, what may seem unrealistic to you, may not be because of any of the above reasons given by you. It may simply be due to the fact that the other person have formed a different opinion from yours based on observing the same set of events live on TV.

This is especially true in light of the WC debacle and the wide spread player blame game and baiting that has gone on since then whereby preconceived notions of the chat reader about a player are only further reinforced by such contextually unrealistic assessments and the next thing we have is thread after thread of venom spewing, ironically or perhaps appropriately by those who have not watched the match but are relying on comments made in chat / match threads.

This is not an observation made on the basis of one match, it is an observation based on a few months of watching this phenomenon --in fact you can see the seeds of it in the chat itself where member A logs on from work, asks member B for a description or listens to member B's comments and then starts spewing off utter rubbish in the chat itself to be further continued on the DG post match completion. And god help us if India loses the match -- the intensity of such vitriol increases by a factor of 100.

So the point I am making is extremely valid. If we need to have proper analysis of a match at hand rather than analyzing past predilections or tendencies of players, comments need to be made that reflect the true situation (read a certain level of amplification) and more importantly, people reading such comments need to be much more cognizant that their self referent bias regarding their own preconceived notions about certain players notwithstanding, analyzing cricket is perhaps a little more than spewing unsubstantiated venom or indulging in unrealistic rants asking for players' heads on a platter.

If you still feel that its a moot point, so be it. I strongly and vehemently disagree. Thats where I have to end this particular discussion.

Yes. I still feel it is a moot point and also that you are exaggerating a bit here. But then, we would like to leave it at that. I don't either of us can add anything constructive here anymore w.r.t. this discussion.

[justforkix]

As I have pointed out in earlier threads, without response,i may add, from the original proponent/proponents, the theory that this deficient DPG and for that matter the SR (which lead to unacceptable RRR as the alleged cause of defeats) only contributed to a minority of the defeats.(one of eight ).
It was more likely that a total batting failure lead to these defeats.

No. I don't believe one player can be the reason for a win or lose a game of cricket - it is a team game. But in a ODI, a batter can contribute to a team's defeat or make the win more difficult by failing or scoring slower than the match needs. A bowler can contribute to a team's defeat or make a win more difficult by not taking wickets and/or being too expensive w.r.t. match needs. I will elaborate in the other thread where you originally asked this question.

[keep-it-cool]

My thoughts are more radical. Revamp the ODI team and set the minimum bar for fielding and running to be high. We will suck in the near future but will succeed in the long run. Drop all X, Y, Z for poor fielding/running irrespective of their names. Sadly, this will never happen and we will continue to stay in the "middle muddle" of the ODI rankings.

Let us assume we do this - drop SG and RD on the batting side.

And on the bowing side drop Munaf and RP (are there any others I am missing ?)

On the batting side, how long will it take to find a replacement and more importantly will we actually find batsmen of the same class. Wouldn't doing that leave us as part of the muddled middle forever ?

We dont have to find batsmen of the same class. It will just open up the opportunities for the ones already within the team. It will give someone else the license to go at the top of the order and do the same "holding / sheet anchor" job that SG is currently doing, but with the likelihood of a few more runs through better running between the wickets. Or, maybe that slot will be taken up by someone like VS, who may not score at an average of 55 but at an average of 35 .. at a SR of 100+ .. thus giving more time to batsmen in the middle order to get their eye in.

In any case, it is not as if we are winning everything (or even most of the games) in sight that it will make a big difference.

But, I agree with JFK ... get a minimum standard in as far as fielding / athleticism is concerned except for absolute matchwinners (a la Murali, Bond, Warne, Mcgrath). I think only SRT qualifies to be in that bracket for ODIs. That will also ensure that fielding standards of the existing good fielders do not drop .. as they seem to have in the England series.

[LosingNow]

Why is this thread still active.. we had a ODI 7 after ODI 6

--

In any case, it is not as if we are winning everything (or even most of the games) in sight that it will make a big difference.

Correct... the worry about TINA was that we will lose if we don't play the maharathis...and we are losing with (or without) the maharathis .. as predicted by most of us (including yours truly).. so what additional data do we need to act?   

[keep-it-cool]

Why is this thread still active.. we had a ODI 7 after ODI 6

--

In any case, it is not as if we are winning everything (or even most of the games) in sight that it will make a big difference.

Correct... the worry about TINA was that we will lose if we don't play the maharathis...and we are losing with (or without) the maharathis .. as predicted by most of us (including yours truly).. so what additional data do we need to act?  

green light from the sponsors required

[LosingNow]

Why is this thread still active.. we had a ODI 7 after ODI 6

--

In any case, it is not as if we are winning everything (or even most of the games) in sight that it will make a big difference.

Correct... the worry about TINA was that we will lose if we don't play the maharathis...and we are losing with (or without) the maharathis .. as predicted by most of us (including yours truly).. so what additional data do we need to act?   

green light from the sponsors required

Eggjacktly.. how long are the contract terms for SRT/RD/SG with their marketing companies?

[keep-it-cool]

Why is this thread still active.. we had a ODI 7 after ODI 6

--

In any case, it is not as if we are winning everything (or even most of the games) in sight that it will make a big difference.

Correct... the worry about TINA was that we will lose if we don't play the maharathis...and we are losing with (or without) the maharathis .. as predicted by most of us (including yours truly).. so what additional data do we need to act?  

green light from the sponsors required

Eggjacktly.. how long are the contract terms for SRT/RD/SG with their marketing companies?

it doesnt have to be that .. or even an overt condition ... even the team sponsors, television companies may pay less to the board in case the *stars* are not in the team.

[keep-it-cool]

My thoughts are more radical. Revamp the ODI team and set the minimum bar for fielding and running to be high. We will suck in the near future but will succeed in the long run. Drop all X, Y, Z for poor fielding/running irrespective of their names. Sadly, this will never happen and we will continue to stay in the "middle muddle" of the ODI rankings.

Let us assume we do this - drop SG and RD on the batting side.

And on the bowing side drop Munaf and RP (are there any others I am missing ?)

On the batting side, how long will it take to find a replacement and more importantly will we actually find batsmen of the same class. Wouldn't doing that leave us as part of the muddled middle forever ?

Was just going through this thread that the spider brought up ... interesting ... we actually did this in Australia! And, the results are not so bad at all!

[OldPal]

After going through the thread again, I am amazed at Kban's patience.