Print

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

[kban1]

amit_c:

I have no problem with Sachin grafting a bit at the beginning, if it helps him find his rhythm as the
game progresses. It did happen yesterday after the first 40 odd runs, and after Lee/Bracken were
off the attack. His wear and tear is clearly showing, though (and justifiably so) - the timing/reflex is
pretty scratchy these days; and he looks hopelessly out of sorts against seriously good bowling.
My suspicion is that Sachin's approach would work only when we are batting first.

Yes, you are right --if he plays like he did in this match, this method will only succed when we are batting first. But his recent innings' against SA and Eng where he played solidly and with higher SR's leads me to believe this match might be more an aberration than norm. Its true he is getting old but I do not believe the drop off in ability is as drastic as we saw today.

On the matter of RPS scoring at a better rate then Sachin, I suggest the poster take a look at
Sachin and Dravid negotiate really quick swing bowling over their careers . True cricketing treat !
I will truly miss Sachin and Dravid's batting when they are gone.

Yes agree. And I would add to that list VVS and SG (in his latest avatar, post comeback)

Rumours afloat that Dravid will call it ODI-quits after this series. Anyone think Sachin/Ganguly
may join him ?

I hope not. Dravid is still valuable to this team, simply because this team has only 3 players who can play top class bowling under tough conditions, and Dravid is at the top of the short list. Having said that, I think the time is at hand to rotate the seniors to allow for a smooth transition by giving the juniors opportunities to establish themselves with the seniors providing the guiding hand because the seniors have at most 1-2 years ahead of them.

[amit_c]

On the matter of RPS scoring at a better rate then Sachin, I suggest the poster take a look at
Sachin and Dravid negotiate really quick swing bowling over their careers . True cricketing treat !
I will truly miss Sachin and Dravid's batting when they are gone.

Yes agree. And I would add to that list VVS and SG (in his latest avatar, post comeback)

Rumours afloat that Dravid will call it ODI-quits after this series. Anyone think Sachin/Ganguly
may join him ?

I hope not. Dravid is still valuable to this team, simply because this team has only 3 players who can play top class bowling under tough conditions, and Dravid is at the top of the short list. Having said that, I think the time is at hand to rotate the seniors to allow for a smooth transition by giving the juniors opportunities to establish themselves with the seniors providing the guiding hand because the seniors have at most 1-2 years ahead of them.

Dravid just looks somewhat exhausted. I have the deepest respect for his batting skills, but can completely
imagine him signing off suddenly from ODIs, much like he relinquished captaincy. He'll probably keep it a low-key
affair.

About batting - VVS and Sourav have been superb batsmen, no doubt. I personally have enjoyed watching
Sachin and Dravid more, especially if we integrate over their entire career. Sourav has been a brilliant 1-day
batsman, and VVS had this ridiculous purple patch where he was averaging 70 in test matches. However,
Sachin and Dravid have provided the complete batting package that I will sorely miss. Indian batting-wise,
Tendulkar owned the last half of the 90's; Dravid, the 21st century. This is obviously a personal take.

btw, since I am in a mood to reminisce, anyone remember the Akram delivery that got Dravid in Chennai
99 ?

[kban1]

btw, since I am in a mood to reminisce, anyone remember the Akram delivery that got Dravid in Chennai
99 ?

Yes, what a ball -- bowled and caught behind off the same delivery.

And set Dravid up beautifully too -- the inswinger 2 balls earlier almost had him lbw (actually was lbw and not given), next ball another inswinger which Dravid defended followed by the killer outswinger -- classic dismantling of a class batsman.

[pipsqueak]

as expected, only one OPENING ACT gets discussed on the DG - very focused people, we are. 

[keep-it-cool]

SRT showed his version of Indian magic today. Lulled everyone into believing that the pitch is extremely difficult to bat on.

Unfortunately, Gilly and Hayden do not believe in magic.

Even when YS,MSD,RU batted there was hardly any visible difficulities ...
But those are Maharathi's and not Sarthi's. They do what ordinary players can't !

well in first 15 odd overs ball did move a lot. There was a lot of swing and i would blame SRT too much. Though he should have tried to hit little more after these bowlers were gone. BTW wth punter didnt bowl Lee's overs? And i think conditions in North India are very different for first couple of hours specially when its a 9AM start.

I dont think it was as difficult as is being made out. And, SRT struggled throughout his innings - not just in the first few overs.

Disagree with you on that. The way ball was moving and we would/should have folded quite easily. How many of the next in line batsmen are good against swinging ball? And while SRT kept strgulling against low bounce and swing(some was still there till quite late) he socred many in his last 80 balls then first 40-45.

I am willing to bet any amount that the pitch would have looked totally different had the Aussie openers been batting in the morning. It even looked different when SG was batting vis-a-vis when SRT was batting.

While I am not in favour of using one innings to decide whether SRT is finished / SG is back with a bang etc, let us just admit that SRT was poor yesterday (poorer at the beginning of his innings) instead of conjuring up all kinds of excuses for his discomfort. It is not everyday that SRT top scores in a winning Indian team's total and does not get the man of the match - says something.

[keep-it-cool]

I didn't watch the game today, but to me, it seems like SG and SRT went overboard with their caution approach today. I hope they drop the ball and start taking those quick singles in the coming games. IMO, looks like the 20-run last over and 6 of the last ball finally made the difference. We can't bank on this happening every game. Anyways, the formula of preserving wickets and make a dash in the end seems to be working - our last 3-4 ODI wins + 20-20 wins.

I think the only thing that made a difference was the 31 wides ... that is virtually unknown from the Aussie side. The tardy bowling at the death is not a surprise - Aussies have often been taken to the cleaners (i agree we dont do this often, but still) at the death.

[keep-it-cool]

2. What happened to all of you who laughed at Murali Kartik? I know. You all laughed one game too early  Grin But since I was complaining abut the colonel, credit to DBV for playing him. I think Kartik gets more rap than he deserves and he is more or less in the same league as Pawar in bowling, a better fielder and a better bat.

KoP, chalk one up to dumb luck. there is no way the selectors followed Kartik in Lancashire. they likely looked at the scoresheets and said "AH look at his average and strike rate, we must pick him."

Well, Dhoni claims he asked for a left arm spinner ... so, that narrowed down the list, I guess.

[keep-it-cool]

I didn't watch the game today, but to me, it seems like SG and SRT went overboard with their caution approach today. I hope they drop the ball and start taking those quick singles in the coming games. IMO, looks like the 20-run last over and 6 of the last ball finally made the difference. We can't bank on this happening every game. Anyways, the formula of preserving wickets and make a dash in the end seems to be working - our last 3-4 ODI wins + 20-20 wins.

I watched the Indian batting ....I don't think so. It was more a case of unable to play than being cautious. In fact some of the silly looking shots were an attempt to accelerate. In between the 10-15th over, SG made a few attempts to pressurize the bowler by a few (I think) premeditated shots, with reasonable success.

SG had no option but to go for those shots because SRT had gone to sleep at the other end. In fact, while the opening partnership did its bit, I think it is the wides that helped ease the pressure off the rest who followed (especially Yuvraj) .. when SG got out, India's score read a healthy 90/1 in 20 overs ... but 20 of that came in wides. 70/1 in 20 looks completely different and I dont think that would have given Yuvi as much comfort that he can take his time.

[keep-it-cool]

as expected, only one OPENING ACT gets discussed on the DG - very focused people, we are. 

Good idea .. lets talk about the other OPENING ACT ... Gilly and Hayden putting on 37 in 5 overs (only two wides and no Shastri involvement there) and providing the momentum to the chase.

Incidentally, Gilly is fast becoming Sehwagesque in his batting. I wonder how long the Aussies would keep him in the ODI squad, with Haddin breathing down his neck.

[pipsqueak]

as expected, only one OPENING ACT gets discussed on the DG - very focused people, we are. 

Good idea .. lets talk about the other OPENING ACT ... Gilly and Hayden putting on 37 in 5 overs (only two wides and no Shastri involvement there) and providing the momentum to the chase.

Incidentally, Gilly is fast becoming Sehwagesque in his batting. I wonder how long the Aussies would keep him in the ODI squad, with Haddin breathing down his neck.

no shastri involvment but surely, ZK and RPS had a role to play?

[keep-it-cool]

as expected, only one OPENING ACT gets discussed on the DG - very focused people, we are. 

Good idea .. lets talk about the other OPENING ACT ... Gilly and Hayden putting on 37 in 5 overs (only two wides and no Shastri involvement there) and providing the momentum to the chase.

Incidentally, Gilly is fast becoming Sehwagesque in his batting. I wonder how long the Aussies would keep him in the ODI squad, with Haddin breathing down his neck.

no shastri involvment but surely, ZK and RPS had a role to play?

well, i would say that they were made to play those roles! frankly, hayden is scary when he walks down the pitch.

[pipsqueak]

as expected, only one OPENING ACT gets discussed on the DG - very focused people, we are. 

Good idea .. lets talk about the other OPENING ACT ... Gilly and Hayden putting on 37 in 5 overs (only two wides and no Shastri involvement there) and providing the momentum to the chase.

Incidentally, Gilly is fast becoming Sehwagesque in his batting. I wonder how long the Aussies would keep him in the ODI squad, with Haddin breathing down his neck.

no shastri involvment but surely, ZK and RPS had a role to play?

well, i would say that they were made to play those roles!

.....they were forced into bowling a lot of HIT ME balls? interesting!

[keep-it-cool]

as expected, only one OPENING ACT gets discussed on the DG - very focused people, we are. 

Good idea .. lets talk about the other OPENING ACT ... Gilly and Hayden putting on 37 in 5 overs (only two wides and no Shastri involvement there) and providing the momentum to the chase.

Incidentally, Gilly is fast becoming Sehwagesque in his batting. I wonder how long the Aussies would keep him in the ODI squad, with Haddin breathing down his neck.

no shastri involvment but surely, ZK and RPS had a role to play?

well, i would say that they were made to play those roles!

.....they were forced into bowling a lot of HIT ME balls? interesting!

just like SG was forced into trying too many silly shots early on yesterday! Pressure can do many things to good bowlers .. and these were Zak and RPS

[justforkix]

Incidentally, Gilly is fast becoming Sehwagesque in his batting. I wonder how long the Aussies would keep him in the ODI squad, with Haddin breathing down his neck.

He's still their best WK (dunno abt Haddin, but Gilly still takes blinders). But there are strong soundbytes that Gilly will quit ODIs after VB series this season.

[keep-it-cool]

Incidentally, Gilly is fast becoming Sehwagesque in his batting. I wonder how long the Aussies would keep him in the ODI squad, with Haddin breathing down his neck.

He's still their best WK (dunno abt Haddin, but Gilly still takes blinders). But there are strong soundbytes that Gilly will quit ODIs after VB series this season.

I think that is what he will do. And, if he does not, he will get a nudge similar to the one that Waugh got.

Well, nothing to say that Haddin is not a good keeper. Anyway, being a better keeper did not really help Healy when Gilly came along.

[broadbat]

                         Jeers to Cheers at Chandigarh
Chandigarh is the first planned city in India and it looks every inch of what such a city is supposed to be. The planners however seem to have been more technically inclined than creative, because they apparently forgot to give names to various parts of their creation and thus we had a match at a place called the Sector 16 Stadium.
Dhoni hit a boundary of the penultimate ball of the Indian innings with a rasping straight drive that singed the turf on its way and then followed up with a show of strength by depositing the last Bracken delivery over the ropes for a straight six. At that point no one knew that he had won the match for India, because if they had, every Indian fan would have enjoyed the Australian innings instead of having to sit through the agony of a last over thriller.
It all began with Dhoni winning the toss and electing to bat on a wicket where he honestly would have liked to have a bowl first. Memories of Cochin, two spinners in the side and not wanting to play to the Aussie strength made him decide otherwise.
The ‘friends for ever’ duo of Tendulkar and Ganguly were back together at the top and after the first powerplay you would be forgiven for thinking that it was Ganguly and Mr. Extras that were putting on the opening partnership. The umpires it seemed had come to this match with their forefingers glued to their palm because there was enough to suggest that Tendulkar rightly belonged in the pavilion and not in the middle. But the wheels of fortune were slowly turning and in a single innings he seemed to have made up for all the wrong decisions he had copped in his lifetime. That it was a personal war of attrition for him is evident by the fact that his first hit to the fence came on the 43rd delivery that he faced.
Meanwhile Ganguly and Extras continued on their merry way and when Tendulkar did displace Extras they had forged yet another 50 partnership. It ended on 91 when Ganguly offered the Aussies some ‘hope’ in the form of an edge to Gilchrist.
That fact that the pitch at that point was still not the easiest to bat on was reinforced when Yuvraj who had come in at three could not quite crank up the run rate at a pace that he is capable off. However there were partnerships being built and the Roo’s never got the clutch of wickets that they normally do to leave opponents in disarray.
Dhoni promoted himself with the fall of Yuvarj and when Tendulkar ran himself out just when he seemed to be getting into his groove, the overs were running out and India were still a fair way away from a safe score.
Dravid did not stay long enough to let anyone judge his form but he appears to have departed at the right time because it was time for the Robin to fly. Uthappa was the one who took on the attack in T20 style and inspired Dhoni to that rousing finish. He bats with incredible audacity and if he can keep doing it should augur well for the future.
Ponting did not quite seem to get his act together and fact that he chose Bracken to bowl at the death or more importantly he left Lee under bowled with 3 overs left in his quota, is debatable.
The Aussies are at their most vulnerable while chasing large totals and at present seems to be the only chink in their armor. The fact that very few sides manage big totals against them leaves this facet of their game not tested very often. Their batsmen do not seem to hold their nerve in close finishes and expectedly end up short.
This is another game to suggest that the days of games being decided in the first 15 or 20 overs is being phased out, with the results now hinging on how teams manage their end game.
The Indian spinners did a wonderful job and Pathan is keeping his dream comeback going with the ball. While Zaheer in the final analysis did bowl a good last over it may have been more to do with the inability of the batsmen at the crease and the match situation than the bowling. He has been very expensive will be lucky to hold his place for the next one.
The Indian’s are not out of the hole as yet, but have certainly arrested their slide. The business end of the work will begin at Vadodara.

[arjun]

A very well written and balanced match report. Thanks Broadbat.

[LosingNow]

Of course, we need good opening partnerships to score big

Thank you. This is the point some of us have emphasized for a long time. This is cricketing sense -- you build a strong foundation and with wickets in hand, we accelerate towards the end. Every captain in the world and every team believes that, which is exactly why a total at the end of 30 overs is expected to be doubled in the last 20 overs (Asuming wickets are kept in hand).

...and you are right we were lucky that SRT survived ..because what SRT did y'day and the amount of luck he had..even RPS would have given us that partnership.

SRT played poorly but lets cut out the hyperbole - RPS would have done zilch and despite SRT's scratchiest of  innings, with the morning conditions, the ball swinging, and Lee bowling at 150 kph, I doubt any of the others (barring a seasoned player of swing like RD) would have done anything different.
 

My point is the partnership was more luck than skill.. and let's not use this partnership to further the notion that the maharathis' opening partnership won us the game (which is what will happen when some # crunching guy(s) looking at this innings 1 month from now will say ..look great average, great SR etc etc

Unfortunately, it is you who has conflated the issues here.

SRT playing scratchily and being dismissed 2+ times before the actual umpire giving out has nothing to do with the value of the partnership. Yes, the partnership was luck because SRT should have been dismissed.

That has nothing to do with the concept of partnership leading to foundations that set the platform for the final total. And I can assure you that had SRT been dismissed by the umpire calling correctly, the young brigade (including Yuvi) would have been scattered like a pack of cards in a wind -- 8 times out of 10. I have seen enough of these guys to know their abilities against the swinging ball.

as far as the scorecard being misinterpreted, contrary to your opinion, its the people arguing against the value of foundations built by our maharathis who are more likely to remonstrate a month from now rather than those who you identify. In fact forget a month from now, even today you have a pack of people pouring vitriol and typing roobish all across the DG, half of whom did not even watch the game with the majority of the other half probably not even understanding the game -- as Vick said on another thread, its a difficult game to understand !!

Postscript:

RU and MSD saved the day.. with 134/1 in 30 overs, 202/2 in 40, 235/3 in 45 and 291/4 in 50.. the game was won in the last 5 overs during which MSD 16(8 balls), RU 30(18) and RD 8(4) were the contributors. Wish MSD had sent RU ahead of RD at  end of over 42 [we scored 5, 5, 4 runs in 43rd, 44th and 45th overs respectively with RD scoring 5(9) and MSD 6(9) ] we would have crossed 300!

I noticed with curiosity your above post and the timeframe you chose to show the innings progression scores --

the fact is 134/1 in 30 was after Yuvi and to a much lesser extent SRT had been tied down by the bowlers post the SG dismissal. your post makes it appear as if the 30th over was the epoch wrt innings RPO up until that point.

here is the actual progression
15 -68/0   (4.53)
20 -91/1   (4.62) - sg dismissed, SRT (18/61), YS (0/0)
25 -112/1  (4.48)                     SRT (42/80), YS (5/11)
30 -134/1  (4.46)                     SRT (47/89), YS (16/32)

For all his poor play, since the fall of SG's wicket till the end of the 30th over, SRT scored 29 runs in 28 balls, thats a SR of 103.6.

Since the fall of SG's wicket until the time SRT was dismissed, SRT scored 61 runs in 58 balls, at a SR of 105.2.

So, please do not tell me that the win was only possible due to MSD and RU. It was possible because everyone contributed and yes, it could have been better (despite the conditions at the start of the innings) had SRT not been in wretched touch at the beginning of the Indian innings, but seriously, how many times have you seen him this out of sorts throughout his career ?

Three points, Kban.

1. Nobody ever disputes or has disputed that GOOD opening partnerships are needed in any game (2020, ODIs, Tests). The key is GOOD. In 2020, it is surviving 5-6 overs with a RR of 6-7..in ODIs, it is at a min getting 75+ runs in 14-15 overs .. in tests , it is surviving a session with 80+ runs on board. Hopefully, we agree on that.

2. The argument has been have SRT/SG (the maharathis) been providing such GOOD partnerships to us AND are they the ONLY players capable of providing that. My answer to the first part is not really - only 4 out of 11 ODIs since the WC (not counting yesterday's, for reasons below) they have opened have ended up with such partnerships. My answer to the second is "I dont know because we have not tried enough"..because in the 15 ODIs played since WC against non-ireland/scotland teams.. we have tried a non-SRT/SG opening PS only 2 times - that too in BD where VS/GG opened. We tried GG in opening role in all the 4 other matches.. and he scored 100 against BD and didn't do much against Australia in the Kochi and Hyd ODIs. This is where we appear to disagree..  I will keep insisting that "we have to try new talent" specially in the post-WC scenario because not only these guys are not delivering but they are blocking us from trying those who can potentially deliver. You will keep throwing SRT/SG's occasional partnerships to show "see the value of opening PS" (which we dont disagree on) and TINA(which we appear to disagree on). It is in this context, I posted the post above.. please do not use this innings as Exhibit A to support TINA. This opening partnership (primarily due to SRT) despite the final result does not support a case for persisting with SRT/SG as openers.
3. Now for some fun.. a) If RPS got 3 let offs and had to just "swing and miss", mis-hit gimme balls and generally scratch around without worrying about scoring.. I guarantee you he would have scored 18/47 by end of 15 overs in a total of 68! SRT in those 15 overs was looking worse than tail-enders and it was not the conditions. He improved later is a different matter altogether.. which of course RPS would not have..because that is when SRT's skills came into display. b) While you say that 8 out of 10 times the y'sters would have collapsed.. I say NOT (as long as we are speculating). I happen to have a higher (maybe over-optimistic) confidence on their resilience!
--
I am genuinely curious about one thing. How does rotating seniors help? I mean this is not some service industry job, where there is knowledge transfer involved from one group to their successors and hence overlap is needed. If at all, they are there for the security (in case the newbies fail), why don't they bat lower..so that they can rescue the team with all their experience, when necessary.

[justforkix]

Well Said LN (Bah !! WN sounds weird )

[arjun]

I am curious. Is there any recent instance where SG, SRT or both have failed, and yet our new age warriors have taken India to victory? I really would like to know.

[arjun]

While at it, I would also like to know their SRs in such situations.

[LosingNow]

I am curious. Is there any recent instance where SG, SRT or both have failed, and yet our new age warriors have taken India to victory? I really would like to know.

Cant have it both ways.. opening ps leads to success, when opening ps fails we typically lose. Also, the job of rescuing is not youngsters', it belongs to the experienced.

Give the youngsters a long run in the opening slot..and then decide...whether they are capable or not.

Having said that.. Chandigarh can be called an instance where despite the SLOW opening ps ..the "new age warriors" (wow!) MSD, RU took us to healthy total ..and therefore, victory!

[arjun]

I am curious. Is there any recent instance where SG, SRT or both have failed, and yet our new age warriors have taken India to victory? I really would like to know.

Cant have it both ways.. opening ps leads to success, when opening ps fails we typically lose. Also, the job of rescuing is not youngsters', it belongs to the experienced.

Give the youngsters a long run in the opening slot..and then decide...whether they are capable or not.

Having said that.. Chandigarh can be called an instance where despite the SLOW opening ps ..the "new age warriors" (wow!) MSD, RU took us to healthy total ..and therefore, victory!

That's what I say too : can't have it both ways. If  you have to almost exclusively depend on your opening batsmen to win matches, you cannot deride them for being 'slow'. And what is this about youngsters and experienced? If the openers fail from time to time, it is the job of the middle order to repair the damage and build winnable totals. Are they doing it? Aussies, Brits, Kiwis, Srilankans, Pakis - all of them have that kind of middle order which we don't. that is why our openers tend to be cautious.

Youngsters will given a run in the opening slot when they will earn it. There are no free lunches.

[gouravk]

I agree arjun. The one thing we must ensure we do not give the opposition a guaranteed early wicket which is what we were doing in the games at Kochi and Hyderabad by putting His Uselessness at the top. (Btw, Im going to honorably refer to Gambhir as "His Uselessness" from here on)

[justforkix]

I am curious. Is there any recent instance where SG, SRT or both have failed, and yet our new age warriors have taken India to victory? I really would like to know.

While at it, I would also like to know their SRs in such situations.

Who are these "new age warriors" ?!? Only RU/GG ? Or MSD also ? Or Yuvi also ?

[gouravk]

His Uselessness a Warrior !! Haha !! 

[arjun]

I am curious. Is there any recent instance where SG, SRT or both have failed, and yet our new age warriors have taken India to victory? I really would like to know.

While at it, I would also like to know their SRs in such situations.

Who are these "new age warriors" ?!? Only RU/GG ? Or MSD also ? Or Yuvi also ?

All of them. Including " his uselessness"!

[kban1]

1. Nobody ever disputes or has disputed that GOOD opening partnerships are needed in any game (2020, ODIs, Tests). The key is GOOD. In 2020, it is surviving 5-6 overs with a RR of 6-7..in ODIs, it is at a min getting 75+ runs in 14-15 overs .. in tests , it is surviving a session with 80+ runs on board. Hopefully, we agree on that.

I believe we can agree that 75 in 15 overs is a good start in ODI's. Having said that, match conditions vary and it would be fool hardy to set that as a minimum benchmark irrespective of conditions.

2. The argument has been have SRT/SG (the maharathis) been providing such GOOD partnerships to us AND are they the ONLY players capable of providing that. My answer to the first part is not really - only 4 out of 11 ODIs since the WC (not counting yesterday's, for reasons below) they have opened have ended up with such partnerships.

My answer to the second is "I dont know because we have not tried enough"..because in the 15 ODIs played since WC against non-ireland/scotland teams.. we have tried a non-SRT/SG opening PS only 2 times - that too in BD where VS/GG opened. We tried GG in opening role in all the 4 other matches.. and he scored 100 against BD and didn't do much against Australia in the Kochi and Hyd ODIs. This is where we appear to disagree.

I believe the argument has been that SRT/SG are the viable option that we have given current resources. And that is because of TINA -- its a TINA that arises from the inability of the alternatives to handle good bowling first up.

Let us look at the opening candidates here --

VS -- I have no issues with him, his problem is one of mental concentration (can be rectified) and he is out of the current reckoning. In any case he is a tested commodity, and hardly any of the new comers.

GG -- He pleases me with his gumption and strokes but has not yet developed a way to rise above his technical deficiencies. Look, everyone has shortcomings but an experienced player tries to minimize the risky play in tougher conditions and tries to embark on shots once he is set -- GG has consistently not been aware of this mental adjustment. Having said that, I was very impressed with his innings in the 20/20 and I believe he deserves a longer run

RU - Impressive, has the shots, good fielder, running between the wickets, and a great eye -- all of which to be balanced against a fatal tendency to overcommit on the front foot leading to either short balls exposing him or balls with movement getting him lbw as he tries to play across the body. He is 21, has enough time to rectify that error but till he does, my contention is that let him play in the middle order rather than expose him on top.

Who else have I missed as a prospective opener ?

I will keep insisting that "we have to try new talent" specially in the post-WC scenario because not only these guys are not delivering but they are blocking us from trying those who can potentially deliver. You will keep throwing SRT/SG's occasional partnerships to show "see the value of opening PS" (which we dont disagree on) and TINA(which we appear to disagree on).

I do not disagree with you or anyone at all in terms of trying out new players.

I do disagree that the current firm of SRT/SG are not delivering -- delivering has to be based on comparing to what the alternatives are offering. In this case the alternatives are offering very little as evidenced by the early fall of wickets consistently, which makes the 40% success rate of the existing firm more than satisfactory.

As far as blocking the path, why should they block the path if you have a reasonable alternative ? Tiwari, Badri, Rohit are all middle order players.

How many chances have been provided to GG over a period of 4 years since 2003 (I believe there were numerous opportunities that Inoc showed in one post) ? In spite of that, I have said play him consistently for 7-10 ODI's at a stretch (rotate SG/SRT) to accomplish this -- give him the opportunity of a fair long run to show that he belongs. Now if the captain decides to sit him out after 2 failures, then it is the team managements shortsightedness and it is unfair to blame this on observers who see the success of the established pair, especially since the same observers are not claiming that the established pair is untouchable. The observers are claiming that it is unfair to castigate the established pair using standards which the possible replacements are not meeting themselves --this is the crucial difference.

As far as RU is concerned, again the same applies in terms of chances. He has had far fewer chances than GG, deserves a consistent run of 10 ODI's. My personal take about his non suitability as an opener at this stage of his developmental process notwithstanding, play him as an opener by all means by rotating one of the established guys.

My only request is dont play 2 unknowns at the same time at the top of the order -- simply because the openers job is a tough one and a reasonably specialized one even in ODI's. Failure on both sides here dooms the team in many ways. This is also the premise of the general principle of rotation -- you have an experienced hand to take care of issues should things go wrong.

And this is the basic difference between you and me -- you believe in mass and wholesale change, I believe in staggered change to enable a proper transition.

It is in this context, I posted the post above.. please do not use this innings as Exhibit A to support TINA. This opening partnership (primarily due to SRT) despite the final result does not support a case for persisting with SRT/SG as openers.

No, I did not use it either. But its also a little premature to make a case against the established players based on a singular instance of freakishly bad display by SRT (first 1/3 of his innings)

3. Now for some fun..

a) If RPS got 3 let offs and had to just "swing and miss", mis-hit gimme balls and generally scratch around without worrying about scoring.. I guarantee you he would have scored 18/47 by end of 15 overs in a total of 68! SRT in those 15 overs was looking worse than tail-enders and it was not the conditions. He improved later is a different matter altogether.. which of course RPS would not have..because that is when SRT's skills came into display.

b) While you say that 8 out of 10 times the y'sters would have collapsed.. I say NOT (as long as we are speculating). I happen to have a higher (maybe over-optimistic) confidence on their resilience!

a) RPS would not have lasted that long with or without lives, not in those conditions and that bowling.
b) Perhaps its a difference of perception or judgment -- I have not seen anyone in the young brigade with the skills approximating the 3M's when it comes to playing tough bowling under helpful conditions.

-- I am genuinely curious about one thing. How does rotating seniors help? I mean this is not some service industry job, where there is knowledge transfer involved from one group to their successors and hence overlap is needed. If at all, they are there for the security (in case the newbies fail), why don't they bat lower..so that they can rescue the team with all their experience, when necessary.

Contrary to your definition, it does. Just like in any job, you learn things - approach to the game, skills, pacing, reading the game, understanding when to take risks and when not to, not to mention considerable feedback about how to tackle the conditions, bowling et al.

If none of this were true, you would not see bowlers like Akram and Waqar develop under Imran or Imran under Sarfraj for that matter. Neither would you have seen mid pitch conferences betwen batsmen that often -- not all of those are involved in chit-chat, banter, or inquiring about each others spouses  . There is a transfer of knowledge that goes on, its subtle but it happens all the time. Thats the reason for having seniors along with juniors --its the maturation process of the juniors needed for an effective transition.

As for why seniors dont play down the order, there is also something called maximizing your opportunities to win given the constraints of also preparing for the future.

All the good intentions of "I would rather us lose 20 in the short run so that in the future we have a vibrant winning team" ignores ground realities on 2 major counts:

1) Count One -- the exigencies of competitive sports being played to win and the demands of the target audience without whom the game does not exist.

2) Count 2 - even ignoring count 1, this losing in the short run theory is seriously compromised because for every developmental cycle to be successful, you need a helping / guiding hand to enable it to happen. Failure is a good teacher (essentially your theory when it comes to youngsters) is only valid if you can identify the lessons that need to be learnt from such failures. And in that context, my question is who will impart such lessons ?

Even the Aussies -- the biggest example quoted in terms of both the pitfalls resultant from a sudden mass exodus of established players in 1983-4 and their subsequent rise -- had one strong figure guiding them in the team -- Allan Border, and an extraordinary figure outside the playing team - SImpson. Not to mention that their system (even back then) was more developed than ours.

And in any developmental process, the development is not accomplished by playing your resources at positions ill suited to the needs of the team, which is exactly what playing the seniors at 6, 7, and 8 would accomplish. Brian Lara tried that with spectacular failures. No team tries development at the cost of minimizing strengths and maximizing opportunities to lose -- there is a negative effect that consistent losing has on the pysche of a team --grooming youngsters through the failure route can have serious repercussions  -- its what is called in sports Pysch terms as the effect of "not knowing how to win".

Besides, when in any meritocracy are able people replaced wholesale with the untried without any sort of transition period to allow for transference of skills ? Do you do it in your business ? is it done in any sports whatsoever by choice ? Has it been done by Australia ? By England ?

[gouravk]

I think we sometimes lay too much emphasis on the start. What matters more is what we end up with. Yeah, I know well-begun is half-done. A team might start off 60/0 in 15 overs and end up being 300/4. Another team might be 100/3 in 15 overs and end up at 300 all out. Both are equivalent. Both might be viable strategies depending on team composition, nature of the wicket etc. So IMO it is upto the team to chalk out a strategy to attain the desired end result. If it involves going slow at the start so be it. Of course it does not mean that one should be allowed to get away with refusing to pick up quick singles. Nor is one allowed to fail consistently in the name of going for one's shots early.

[Jai]

Wow, that's the longest post I've seen from God. Bhagwan se bharosa hi uthne laga hai.

[arjun]

I think we sometimes lay too much emphasis on the start. What matters more is what we end up with. Yeah, I know well-begun is half-done. A team might start off 60/0 in 15 overs and end up being 300/4. Another team might be 100/3 in 15 overs and end up at 300 all out. Both are equivalent. Both might be viable strategies depending on team composition, nature of the wicket etc. So IMO it is upto the team to chalk out a strategy to attain the desired end result. If it involves going slow at the start so be it. Of course it does not mean that one should be allowed to get away with refusing to pick up quick singles. Nor is one allowed to fail consistently in the name of going for one's shots early.

Very well put, Gaurav.

[LosingNow]

1. Nobody ever disputes or has disputed that GOOD opening partnerships are needed in any game (2020, ODIs, Tests). The key is GOOD. In 2020, it is surviving 5-6 overs with a RR of 6-7..in ODIs, it is at a min getting 75+ runs in 14-15 overs .. in tests , it is surviving a session with 80+ runs on board. Hopefully, we agree on that.

I believe we can agree that 75 in 15 overs is a good start in ODI's. Having said that, match conditions vary and it would be fool hardy to set that as a minimum benchmark irrespective of conditions.

2. The argument has been have SRT/SG (the maharathis) been providing such GOOD partnerships to us AND are they the ONLY players capable of providing that. My answer to the first part is not really - only 4 out of 11 ODIs since the WC (not counting yesterday's, for reasons below) they have opened have ended up with such partnerships.

My answer to the second is "I dont know because we have not tried enough"..because in the 15 ODIs played since WC against non-ireland/scotland teams.. we have tried a non-SRT/SG opening PS only 2 times - that too in BD where VS/GG opened. We tried GG in opening role in all the 4 other matches.. and he scored 100 against BD and didn't do much against Australia in the Kochi and Hyd ODIs. This is where we appear to disagree.

I believe the argument has been that SRT/SG are the viable option that we have given current resources. And that is because of TINA -- its a TINA that arises from the inability of the alternatives to handle good bowling first up.

Let us look at the opening candidates here --

VS -- I have no issues with him, his problem is one of mental concentration (can be rectified) and he is out of the current reckoning. In any case he is a tested commodity, and hardly any of the new comers.

GG -- He pleases me with his gumption and strokes but has not yet developed a way to rise above his technical deficiencies. Look, everyone has shortcomings but an experienced player tries to minimize the risky play in tougher conditions and tries to embark on shots once he is set -- GG has consistently not been aware of this mental adjustment. Having said that, I was very impressed with his innings in the 20/20 and I believe he deserves a longer run

RU - Impressive, has the shots, good fielder, running between the wickets, and a great eye -- all of which to be balanced against a fatal tendency to overcommit on the front foot leading to either short balls exposing him or balls with movement getting him lbw as he tries to play across the body. He is 21, has enough time to rectify that error but till he does, my contention is that let him play in the middle order rather than expose him on top.

Who else have I missed as a prospective opener ?

I will keep insisting that "we have to try new talent" specially in the post-WC scenario because not only these guys are not delivering but they are blocking us from trying those who can potentially deliver. You will keep throwing SRT/SG's occasional partnerships to show "see the value of opening PS" (which we dont disagree on) and TINA(which we appear to disagree on).

I do not disagree with you or anyone at all in terms of trying out new players.

I do disagree that the current firm of SRT/SG are not delivering -- delivering has to be based on comparing to what the alternatives are offering. In this case the alternatives are offering very little as evidenced by the early fall of wickets consistently, which makes the 40% success rate of the existing firm more than satisfactory.

As far as blocking the path, why should they block the path if you have a reasonable alternative ? Tiwari, Badri, Rohit are all middle order players.

How many chances have been provided to GG over a period of 4 years since 2003 (I believe there were numerous opportunities that Inoc showed in one post) ? In spite of that, I have said play him consistently for 7-10 ODI's at a stretch (rotate SG/SRT) to accomplish this -- give him the opportunity of a fair long run to show that he belongs. Now if the captain decides to sit him out after 2 failures, then it is the team managements shortsightedness and it is unfair to blame this on observers who see the success of the established pair, especially since the same observers are not claiming that the established pair is untouchable. The observers are claiming that it is unfair to castigate the established pair using standards which the possible replacements are not meeting themselves --this is the crucial difference.

As far as RU is concerned, again the same applies in terms of chances. He has had far fewer chances than GG, deserves a consistent run of 10 ODI's. My personal take about his non suitability as an opener at this stage of his developmental process notwithstanding, play him as an opener by all means by rotating one of the established guys.

My only request is dont play 2 unknowns at the same time at the top of the order -- simply because the openers job is a tough one and a reasonably specialized one even in ODI's. Failure on both sides here dooms the team in many ways. This is also the premise of the general principle of rotation -- you have an experienced hand to take care of issues should things go wrong.

And this is the basic difference between you and me -- you believe in mass and wholesale change, I believe in staggered change to enable a proper transition.

It is in this context, I posted the post above.. please do not use this innings as Exhibit A to support TINA. This opening partnership (primarily due to SRT) despite the final result does not support a case for persisting with SRT/SG as openers.

No, I did not use it either. But its also a little premature to make a case against the established players based on a singular instance of freakishly bad display by SRT (first 1/3 of his innings)

3. Now for some fun..

a) If RPS got 3 let offs and had to just "swing and miss", mis-hit gimme balls and generally scratch around without worrying about scoring.. I guarantee you he would have scored 18/47 by end of 15 overs in a total of 68! SRT in those 15 overs was looking worse than tail-enders and it was not the conditions. He improved later is a different matter altogether.. which of course RPS would not have..because that is when SRT's skills came into display.

b) While you say that 8 out of 10 times the y'sters would have collapsed.. I say NOT (as long as we are speculating). I happen to have a higher (maybe over-optimistic) confidence on their resilience!

a) RPS would not have lasted that long with or without lives, not in those conditions and that bowling.
b) Perhaps its a difference of perception or judgment -- I have not seen anyone in the young brigade with the skills approximating the 3M's when it comes to playing tough bowling under helpful conditions.

-- I am genuinely curious about one thing. How does rotating seniors help? I mean this is not some service industry job, where there is knowledge transfer involved from one group to their successors and hence overlap is needed. If at all, they are there for the security (in case the newbies fail), why don't they bat lower..so that they can rescue the team with all their experience, when necessary.

Contrary to your definition, it does. Just like in any job, you learn things - approach to the game, skills, pacing, reading the game, understanding when to take risks and when not to, not to mention considerable feedback about how to tackle the conditions, bowling et al.

If none of this were true, you would not see bowlers like Akram and Waqar develop under Imran or Imran under Sarfraj for that matter. Neither would you have seen mid pitch conferences betwen batsmen that often -- not all of those are involved in chit-chat, banter, or inquiring about each others spouses  . There is a transfer of knowledge that goes on, its subtle but it happens all the time. Thats the reason for having seniors along with juniors --its the maturation process of the juniors needed for an effective transition.

As for why seniors dont play down the order, there is also something called maximizing your opportunities to win given the constraints of also preparing for the future.

All the good intentions of "I would rather us lose 20 in the short run so that in the future we have a vibrant winning team" ignores ground realities on 2 major counts:

1) Count One -- the exigencies of competitive sports being played to win and the demands of the target audience without whom the game does not exist.

2) Count 2 - even ignoring count 1, this losing in the short run theory is seriously compromised because for every developmental cycle to be successful, you need a helping / guiding hand to enable it to happen. Failure is a good teacher (essentially your theory when it comes to youngsters) is only valid if you can identify the lessons that need to be learnt from such failures. And in that context, my question is who will impart such lessons ?

Even the Aussies -- the biggest example quoted in terms of both the pitfalls resultant from a sudden mass exodus of established players in 1983-4 and their subsequent rise -- had one strong figure guiding them in the team -- Allan Border, and an extraordinary figure outside the playing team - SImpson. Not to mention that their system (even back then) was more developed than ours.

And in any developmental process, the development is not accomplished by playing your resources at positions ill suited to the needs of the team, which is exactly what playing the seniors at 6, 7, and 8 would accomplish. Brian Lara tried that with spectacular failures. No team tries development at the cost of minimizing strengths and maximizing opportunities to lose -- there is a negative effect that consistent losing has on the pysche of a team --grooming youngsters through the failure route can have serious repercussions  -- its what is called in sports Pysch terms as the effect of "not knowing how to win".

Besides, when in any meritocracy are able people replaced wholesale with the untried without any sort of transition period to allow for transference of skills ? Do you do it in your business ? is it done in any sports whatsoever by choice ? Has it been done by Australia ? By England ?

The long and short of your arguments are

a) there is a transfer of skills involved from Seniors to Juniors. I disagree to a large extent that this needs to happen by the presence of the seniors on the field. If there is any benefit they impart by being the "guiding light" - they can do that in the dressing room…or they can become coaches.

b) we need to win in the short-term ..because of the demands of various constituencies. Well, the results are there for us to see.. we are not winning in the short term, are we.. and it was predicted and is predictable.

Finally, your q re: would you do this in your business .. the answer is depends. If I have an initiative that has failed spectacularly or required a different direction to be successful in future... and had a definite event which either signified the end of a phase or start of something fresh.. I would (and I have) started with a clean slate. Sometimes, cleaning the house is the best way to move forward and give something the best chance to succeed. The cost of carrying the baggage of the past can far outweigh the benefits of bringing fresh thinking/attitude/skills.

Also, as you are aware certain sports businesses (specially the season-driven professional leagues in the US) have a defined start and stop to their performance period. It is not uncommon for teams to go with a fresh team and do a purge between seasons.. and the idea typically is that they will have 1-2 seasons of low to mediocre performance ..with the hope that they will have a better future.

I think ODI cricket, with the 4 year World Cup cycle, is quite comparable to this approach. Most teams look to build themselves towards the next world cup. If anything, most of the radical changes - captaincy, coaches, key player retirements/purges - happen in the immediate aftermath of WC. It is in this context, I have insisted that the purge (of the seniors, irrespective of their performance - plainly, because they do not fit into the long term plans) should have come immediately after the WC. Yes, the cost would have been a relatively mediocre performance by the team of newcomers (which BTW would not have been different from how the team with experienced people is doing) ..but sometimes you have to change direction radically to move forward!

Sustained risk-aversion is guaranteed to yield middling, mediocre results in the long run.

[kban1]

The long and short of your arguments are

a) there is a transfer of skills involved from Seniors to Juniors. I disagree to a large extent that this needs to happen by the presence of the seniors on the field. If there is any benefit they impart by being the "guiding light" - they can do that in the dressing room…or they can become coaches.

Quite different from onfiled and off field --the difference between book knowledge and practical experience or theory and the lab. So I disagree that all of this happens in a vacuum and is effective off field

b) we need to win in the short-term ..because of the demands of various constituencies. Well, the results are there for us to see.. we are not winning in the short term, are we.. and it was predicted and is predictable.

No, you misunderstood --the demands of the constituency are not mine.

My only concern is the habit that winning breeds and the habit that losing breeds (remember the after effects of Sharjah). And in that context a loss can be constructive or destructive -- certain losses build you in teaching you what to do and improve upon in order to bridge the gap. Certain losses are blowouts --they teach you nothing, they rupture you mentally and crush your spirit. The former is instructive, the latter is just a loss, maybe more negative.

Finally, your q re: would you do this in your business .. the answer is depends. If I have an initiative that has failed spectacularly or required a different direction to be successful in future... and had a definite event which either signified the end of a phase or start of something fresh.. I would (and I have) started with a clean slate. Sometimes, cleaning the house is the best way to move forward and give something the best chance to succeed. The cost of carrying the baggage of the past can far outweigh the benefits of bringing fresh thinking/attitude/skills.

Also, as you are aware certain sports businesses (specially the season-driven professional leagues in the US) have a defined start and stop to their performance period. It is not uncommon for teams to go with a fresh team and do a purge between seasons.. and the idea typically is that they will have 1-2 seasons of low to mediocre performance ..with the hope that they will have a better future.

I think ODI cricket, with the 4 year World Cup cycle, is quite comparable to this approach. Most teams look to build themselves towards the next world cup. If anything, most of the radical changes - captaincy, coaches, key player retirements/purges - happen in the immediate aftermath of WC. It is in this context, I have insisted that the purge (of the seniors, irrespective of their performance - plainly, because they do not fit into the long term plans) should have come immediately after the WC. Yes, the cost would have been a relatively mediocre performance by the team of newcomers (which BTW would not have been different from how the team with experienced people is doing) ..but sometimes you have to change direction radically to move forward!

This is essentially a difference of opinion. You see in the new crop enough that you deem as ingredients for self sufficency.

I see potential but not enough yet to handle the self sufficency test, especially in harder conditions and tough opposition. In that case, house cleaning doesnt yield a clean slate, it yields an empty slate.

Sustained risk-aversion is guaranteed to yield middling, mediocre results in the long run.

And aggressive risk taking would yield you the same as well.

As always its a basic difference of perspective on what you see in the current state of affairs -- you see a project failing spectacularly due to wrong inpits, I see failure that does not necessitate throwing out the baby along with the bathwater.