Print

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

[Cover Point]

I think BLWE did not understand the meaning to 'Tota'.

Tota = sexy chick

In police and army parlance, this term is used for spies. I have seen the usage during the Operation Bluestar days....and beyond.
I must admit though that I haven't heard of Totas being sexy chicks!

Well, you learnt something today. 

Op Bluestar was in Punjab and Punjab is hugely famous for their Totas. Who knows in what context army or police was using this term? 

To be specific, Tota as in a parrot can be used for spies, but pronunciation of Tota as in sexy chick is different. To break it down, the sound of 'T' is same as the sound of 'T' in Tamater (Tomato). Tota (sexy chick) is spoken in that sound.

And the 'ghanta' that CP is referring to, is not a bell..... 

onu keh ki apne ghante nu jeb'ch paa ke rakkhe............warna ki pata koi bajake jaooga!

Now I am very worried. Mere Ghante ko yeh baja ke kya karega? I did not realize ki Ruchir ke hote hue bhi yahan log aisi baatein kare lete hain?

pehle isko tota nahin pata ...ab mera ghanta bajana chahta hai. Hum to ise shaadi shuda sharif aadmi samjhte the...

Kya 'innocence' hai teri! 
Hai!....main sadke jaowan!

To quote Blwe's extremeliciously bestest friend FP ... a New Convert (or a wanna be) has the most zealousness (or something like this).

Similarly Blwe is hell bent on using Punjabi.... lekin bhai .... tumhein humne reject kar diya hai .... Punjabi hone se (lest Ruchir get other ideas)

[WicketView]

I wonder why ppl here support people who cannot look after their fitness ? Who do not care about their performances ? Who have a happy go lucky attitude ? Who treat fielding as a chore ? Who prefer to keep their shirts tucked out and tongues hanging out ? Who prefer to walk on the field several minutes after the rest of the team ? Who prefer to day dream and live in their own sweet world ?

Are you serious ?? Munaf on his better days has more pace, bounce and control over his line than any other
Indian pacer (if you can call them that) I have seen in recent times ! If harnessed properly, he can be
a genuinely threatening option. No amount of shirt-tucking and chest thumping can replace that. Even during
the completely disastrous South Africa tour, I can remember bowling sequences where he would ramp his
pace up to 140-142kph and do subtle length variations, causing all kinds of grief.

At the end of the day, cricketing talent matters. Extremely fit 2-bit allrounders can win a game or two
here and there, but that's about it. Australia seems to understand this better than any other team. Munaf's
fitness related issues are obviously a great concern, but these can be worked on.

This is true ... but how often do his better days come?

[LosingNow]

I wonder why ppl here support people who cannot look after their fitness ? Who do not care about their performances ? Who have a happy go lucky attitude ? Who treat fielding as a chore ? Who prefer to keep their shirts tucked out and tongues hanging out ? Who prefer to walk on the field several minutes after the rest of the team ? Who prefer to day dream and live in their own sweet world ?

Are you serious ?? Munaf on his better days has more pace, bounce and control over his line than any other
Indian pacer (if you can call them that) I have seen in recent times ! If harnessed properly, he can be
a genuinely threatening option. No amount of shirt-tucking and chest thumping can replace that. Even during
the completely disastrous South Africa tour, I can remember bowling sequences where he would ramp his
pace up to 140-142kph and do subtle length variations, causing all kinds of grief.

At the end of the day, cricketing talent matters. Extremely fit 2-bit allrounders can win a game or two
here and there, but that's about it. Australia seems to understand this better than any other team. Munaf's
fitness related issues are obviously a great concern, but these can be worked on.

Amit:
With all due respect.. and even if one can acknowledge that Munaf Patel is the best ODI bowler in the world (forget India)..
Munaf Patel does not belong on the cricketing field for a LOI game. All you had to do was to watch him on the field during the Challengers. He is beyond redemption, imo.

[gouravk]

Munaf Patel has talent I agree. But he has a strong determination not to demonstrate that talent. You cannot argue with that.

[inoc]

Quotable Quotes in this thread alone.

I apologise for the comments – couldnt resist them. Ignore them if you wish.

321, even if 20 runs short, is still a defendable total on any pitch.

...and when the Aussies, i repeat the Aussies, defended 317, it was all SGs fault.

A deficit of 150-170 with 20 overs to go appears chase-able if one has wickets!!

OMG. Pardon me.

@ Nagpur we needed 144 with 20 overs to go with 9 wickets in hand.
Less than the lower figure mentioned. Appears to better the requirements but ofcourse it was SGs fault we couldnt achieve that.
The indian MO cannot be burdened with such a task!!!
Specially when SG has scored a few and has wasted all those balls.
The newrathis in the indian MO cannot be asked to do that kind of thing – it is inhuman.
Ofcourse it is chaseable for any other side.

His (YS) inability to latch on to a Younis hoick after calling for it, with the target still a long way in the distance..... made Ganguly’s effort in the previous game stand out in better light

No comments other than the fact no issue has been made of this while in the case of .....

What I am pointing out is that the RRR kept increasing from 6.4 at the start to 8.2 at the 25 over stage you mention to above 9 around the 40th over. It even went to 11ish sometime around the 45 th over. You can expect to score at 9 for around 10 overs, unless the opponents bowl really really well, and you have wickets in hand and you have good hitters.

In comparison, RRR -

Nagpur                      Mohali

@ start
6.32            6.44

25 overs
7.12            8.24

Ahead so far,

35 overs
7.86            8.93

Still ahead, here we are talking about 9 RPO in the last 15 not 10. In real terms 16 runs ahead with 2 extra wickets.

End of 47th over runs required

37            34

Not much even here but pakistan won and we lost. Indias chase in Nagpur was better in every aspect except the MO failing from the 35th over onwards. SG was out in the 37th over. 
no blame whatsoever should be apportioned to our MO.
 
The reasoning is simple. The aussies bowled much better. Rather than point out the obvious we (some here) choose to mete out the blame to one of the batsman who led us there. Such is life.

As i said at the outset, ignore the comments if you wish, but some of us should realise that they are making the same points that they have vehemently argued against in another scenario albeit not their cup of tea.

[feverpitch]

As i said at the outset, ignore the comments if you wish, but some of us should realise that they are making the same points that they have vehemently argued against in another scenario albeit not their cup of tea.

Facts can go hang! Ever heard of truthiness?

[inoc]

K-I-C

I am replying to you in adjunct to what i have posted above.

We lost largely because we played only 4 frontline bowlers ...india does not have 4 good enough bowlers to allow the luxury of parttimers making uip the 5th bowler.

Our non frontline bowler, SG in this match bowled
9/55
Our frontline bowlers as you call them bowled
10/70
10/65
10/59
9.5/53
Mostly worse but arguably not much difference between frontline bowlers and the part timer.
Full time bowlers ZK/RPS/HS/IP.

My question:

Your choice of the fifth/ frontline bowler? From our selected team.

Fast bowler from the fifteen SS, spinner from the team MK. You not only expect that SS/MK would have done better but you are quite sure they would have won us the match. (I hope those would have been your choice from the 15 selected)

Still think that SS/MK would have made the difference? Opinions differ.

Second, I think Pakistan had a very good start, and only slowed down when initially younis and MoYo slowed it down considerably ...at that stage, we had it won.

In the end – not really

But, what an innings by Younis - he ended up at a SR of over 100 - when he got out, he left a RRR of only around 7-8ish to get, and that too, only for around 6-7 overs.

Incorrect when he got out @45.2 overs the RRR WAS 9.85 not 7-8 ish.

This is precisely what a player who uses up a lot of balls in the beginning needs to do, especially when chasing a large score.

Absolutely correct if he lasts that long.

Even after all of this, the very fact that everyone out there is shocked with the result just shows that India should have won this, even by playing at par cricket.

So why were we so astonished to loose to the Aussies in a similar scenario? must be SG?

Sadly, our bowlers were below par (especially Zaheer) and we had no cover because of the stupid, defensive move to play just 4 bowlers.

Again, sorry for being repetitive, and i agree with you (only because i dont see our combination 5th bowler doing much damage) however in this match the fifth bowler was better than the regular bowler!!! So how can you pin the loss on that respect.

IMO we lost the match because our MO couldnt capitalise on our excellent start and lost us this match. Remember HS played an important innings which we cant depend on everytime. Wihout HS we wouldnt have reached 300. Our MO performance in this match was unacceptable in my view.

Finally a thought - had we followed our usual platform building approach, what would we have ended up with post the collapse in the middle order? That was one thing the team - rather SRT and GG - did right - they built adequate buffer to absorb the shock and still give a competitive total.

You forget what would we achieve (or have for that matter) when the top order scores nothing. On this years experience 200 or threabouts. Whatever the SR. Think about it. With a great platform our MO sucks on most occassions, and they have always sucked when there was no platform. Where does the blame lie – be truthful.

[WicketView]

Very nicely put inoc, but why don't you post it as a thread? We have had enough conversations on this topic to signify a sufficiently interesting topic, have we not?

[justforkix]

I wonder why ppl here support people who cannot look after their fitness ? Who do not care about their performances ? Who have a happy go lucky attitude ? Who treat fielding as a chore ? Who prefer to keep their shirts tucked out and tongues hanging out ? Who prefer to walk on the field several minutes after the rest of the team ? Who prefer to day dream and live in their own sweet world ?

Are you serious ?? Munaf on his better days has more pace, bounce and control over his line than any other
Indian pacer (if you can call them that) I have seen in recent times ! If harnessed properly, he can be
a genuinely threatening option. No amount of shirt-tucking and chest thumping can replace that. Even during
the completely disastrous South Africa tour, I can remember bowling sequences where he would ramp his
pace up to 140-142kph and do subtle length variations, causing all kinds of grief.

At the end of the day, cricketing talent matters. Extremely fit 2-bit allrounders can win a game or two
here and there, but that's about it. Australia seems to understand this better than any other team. Munaf's
fitness related issues are obviously a great concern, but these can be worked on.

With suchg a poor attitude, I doubt if Munaf can work on his fielding. A guy like Munaf will not find a place in any of Aussie 1st division state squads. And Munaf is no McGrath. Even if Munaf = McGrath in bowling, McGrath is 100x better fielder. Munaf should be allowed nowhere near the ODI or T20 squad unless he drastically improves his fielding.

[broadbat]

I read somewhere that ICC were looking at introducing the 'rolling substitution' concept in T20, in which case Munaf can roll in and out very nicely.

[indcric]

This is precisely what a player who uses up a lot of balls in the beginning needs to do, especially when chasing a large score.

Absolutely correct if he lasts that long.

Exactly correct. What was Younis's SR after facing 110 balls? <80, I suppose. Younis is known to be a defensive player, while SG is known to be agressive.

Even after all of this, the very fact that everyone out there is shocked with the result just shows that India should have won this, even by playing at par cricket.

So why were we so astonished to loose to the Aussies in a similar scenario? must be SG?

Sadly, our bowlers were below par (especially Zaheer) and we had no cover because of the stupid, defensive move to play just 4 bowlers.

Again, sorry for being repetitive, and i agree with you (only because i dont see our combination 5th bowler doing much damage) however in this match the fifth bowler was better than the regular bowler!!! So how can you pin the loss on that respect.

IMO we lost the match because our MO couldnt capitalise on our excellent start and lost us this match. Remember HS played an important innings which we cant depend on everytime. Wihout HS we wouldnt have reached 300. Our MO performance in this match was unacceptable in my view.

Absolutely. From next time on, we should try to make 350+ totals, since only then we can defend a score. Soon after 1 year, we can target 400. Most importantly our opening stand should be 100/1 at the end of 25th over. In the remaining 25 overs, MO should score 300 runs. Otherwise, we can declare loudly from the rooftop that our MO sucks. After having such a great opening stand, if MO can't even score at 12 an over, what is the point other than that MO sucks.

Finally a thought - had we followed our usual platform building approach, what would we have ended up with post the collapse in the middle order? That was one thing the team - rather SRT and GG - did right - they built adequate buffer to absorb the shock and still give a competitive total.

You forget what would we achieve (or have for that matter) when the top order scores nothing. On this years experience 200 or threabouts. Whatever the SR. Think about it. With a great platform our MO sucks on most occassions, and they have always sucked when there was no platform. Where does the blame lie – be truthful.

Correct. It is our MO that sucks and still each person in the MO that maintained a 40+ average for the last 3-4 years. YS & Dhoni were wrongly considered as among the world's best ODI finishers for the last 2 years. Cricket analysts all over the world were plain foolish.

[Blwe_torch]

But this is the fact unfortunately..........the middle-order sucks more often than not. I am not sure, what the rest of the world experts are opining. Surely our guys are not the best, if you consider the performance of the last couple of years....or may be a few more.

[Blwe_torch]

Currently, the standard ODI teams are Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. The teams like Pakistan, England and Sri Lanka are very messy. They often play messed up cricket and we in comparisn look better.

[indcric]

For the last 3 years, i.e matches starting since Nov 9 2004. Yes, it is the MO that sucks.

SRT 65   64   5  2391 141* 123  100*  40.52   4  17   4
SG   47   45   3  1530  98   89   88   36.42   0  14   4

I don't think it as worth the effort to bring out VS's & GG's averages during the period, becasue it would be around 33 any ways.

RD    91   87  13  2963 105  104  103*  40.04   3  27   7
YS    85   80  14  2967 121  120  110   44.95   6  16   3
MSD  93   83  20  2720 183* 148  139*  43.17   3  17   5


Somebody pointed out that MOMs are the better indicators of how useful an ODI player is:

MSD - 7 MOM & 1 MOS  -- 1 MOM per 13 matches
YS - 7 MOM & 3 MOS   -- 1 MOM per 12 matches
RD - 6 MOM -- 1 MOM per 15 matches


SG - 1 MOS & 1 MOM -- 1 MOM in 47 matches
SRT - 4 MOM & 2 MOS  -- 1 MOM per 16 matches

Absolutely correct. It is the MO that sucks.

[indcric]

But this is the fact unfortunately..........the middle-order sucks more often than not. I am not sure, what the rest of the world experts are opining. Surely our guys are not the best, if you consider the performance of the last couple of years....or may be a few more.

Fact backed by .....? Blank statements? We don't even need to hear what world experts are saying. Look at the PWC ratings. YS had been among the top 15 for a long time, now he is at 17. Till couple of months back, SRT was out of top 20 for more than 2 years. SG was nowhere in picture. MSD was there in the top 10, sometimes even in top 5. Look at the scorecards & MOM list for the last 3 years.

[indcric]

Currently, the standard ODI teams are Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. The teams like Pakistan, England and Sri Lanka are very messy. They often play messed up cricket and we in comparisn look better.

We are not comparing other teams here. We are comparing MO versus openers in the same team. There is no point comparing with Australian MO, since the whole AUS team plays at a very high level. For example, compare their spinner Brad Hogg (if any thing, he should be the weak link in the Australian setup, we can't compare with their fast bowlers, we can't compare with their batsmen or wicketkeeper) with our spinner Harbhajan Singh (the best ODI spin bowler from the great land which produced so many great spin bowlers). Compare with other teams, our MO is right there with SA or NZ, if not slightly better.

[keep-it-cool]

Inoc, I'll respond in more detail when I am on a proper computer, but a few issues:

A) SG bowled much better than the frontline bowlers ...but that is precisely the problem....we do not have four frontline bowlers who consistently deliver together in the same match. With this attack, I think it is imperative that the likes of SG, SRT, YS et al provide buffer for the odd frontline bowler who is off colour. With SG's quota having been fully used up to make up a regular bowler's quota and SRT, YS, VS not being good enough to bowl with dew around, it left no options. I am sure Dhoni would have loved to get in some overs earlier to allow him some flexibility at the end. As for who I would have chosen, I think SS should anyway play ahead of RPS and Kartik should have played. In fact, even the choice of 4 bowlers was wrong - if anyone, it should be HS who gets the boot.

B) Of course, YK made up his SR because he stayed that long and SG did not because he did not stay that long. Whose fault is it that SG did not stay that long? What kind of a reason / excuse is that? Had YK got out with YS taking that catch, he would have been blamed for hampering Pakistan's chase - and, rightly so. Let us please quit making excuses for poor performances, whoever they may be from.

C) On the astonishment / surprise at the defeat, you eithe did not get my drift or ignored it. We are (or at least I am) astonished that we lost AFTER YK and MoYo combined to take the RRR to a very high level - not right from the position at the beginning of the chase. Similarly, it was NO SURPRISE that India lost at Nagpur AFTER the way SG finished his innings and the poor use of powerplays. Mohali was a miracle brought about by YK/Misbah and, to some extent, Afridi at the end. He rectified a situation he himself created. Unfortunately, our MO could not bring about a similar miracle. I don't think too highly of "strategies" that depend on miracles for victory.
 
D) My bad about the RRR - I did not have cricinfo to refer to. However, do you seriously think that Afridi / Tanvir had the same task at Mohali as RU/MSD had at Nagpur??? If you do, I disagree. Shall elaborate more when I can refer to the cricinfo commentary.

E) How does it matter that our MO may collapse with no platform? While chasing a total, losing by 10 or 20 runs is as bad as losing by 100 runs. The irrefutable fact (posted with examples in another thread) is that India has NEVER EVER won a match chasing over 300, without using the powerplays optimally. If you can show any such example, we can discuss further. Else, you can stay satisfied with great individual records and nostalgic memories of how we came Sooooooo close.

[keep-it-cool]

Indcric, good posts ...currently, india is tuning its strategy in line with how some players are comfortable playing ...rather than tuning how players should play in line with what the ideal strategy is.

[indcric]

I don't think we can put the blame entirely on the bowlers. There were times, when bowlers bowled beautifully and batsmen failed. But the general trend is that we try to compensate the weakness in our bowling & fielding with the batting. How much can batting compensate? Can they score 300+ consistently overseas & 330+ in India?

What is the team management doing? What is the bowling coach doing? Did he think of the fatigue of bowlers after playing so many matches without proper rest? Do we have any backup fast bowlers to play in Pak series or Aus series, if 1 or 2 bowlers break down because of this excessive load?

[broadbat]

The only fast bowler who looked fatigued was ZK and he did not even play the T20 WC. SS has played only the odd game and should be rested. RPS also has not played all the games that India have played. IP is back after a year.

[indcric]

The only fast bowler who looked fatigued was ZK and he did not even play the T20 WC. SS has played only the odd game and should be rested. RPS also has not played all the games that India have played. IP is back after a year.

RPS played 3 out of 3 SA ODIs in Ireland, 1 ODI against Scotland, 5 out of 7 ENG ODIs, T20 WC, 4 out of 7 matches in Aus ODIs and now these 2 Pak ODIs. He missed only 2 ODIs in ENG, 3 in Aus ODIs. So he missed only 5 matches, which is same as ZK missed in T20. He played all the 3 ENG Tests too.

SS is the guy who didn't play any of ENG ODIs and ODIs against SA in Ireland and 3 out of 7 Aus ODIs and the 2 Pak ODIs. So, he doesn't need rest. If any thing, he needs to bowl in some matches before Tests.

I don't think we will play IP on Indian pitches in test matches given his current form, he looked mostly a containing bowler, not a wicket taking bowler since his return. It is too much of a luxury to have him with his diminished batting form & containing bowling. We might go with 4 bowlers, of which 2 will be spinners. If we go with 3rd pacer, it might be RPS.

If any of ZK/SS/RPS breaks down, I think Munaf will be back. But we need at least 4 pace bowlers (3 main, 1 back up) for Aus series. So, if one of these break down, we might even see the great Ajit Agarkar back.

[broadbat]

I hope you did not infer wrongly when I mentioned SS. I meant he should be feeling rested. RPS is only 21 and so should comfortably be able to handle the load. ZK must be given a break. Btw have a look at all the games Brett Lee would have been playing, starting with the T20 by the time the Indians get there.

[indcric]

I hope you did not infer wrongly when I mentioned SS. I meant he should be feeling rested. RPS is only 21 and so should comfortably be able to handle the load. ZK must be given a break. Btw have a look at all the games Brett Lee would have been playing, starting with the T20 by the time the Indians get there.

First thing, we are not that fit physically. Even our 21 year olds like Irfan, Balaji etc broke down. Even VRV broke down. Munaf broke down.

Secondly, Aus follows a rotation policy, so most of their bowlers would be well taken care of. Third, the load among Aus fast bowlers will be shared almost equally, since each of them are wicket taking. Obviously, they have to bowl less overs because they get out the opposition cheaply. Our bowlers have to bowl more overs, since at least one of them will be mediocre in every match, there by the the load will fall on the 2 bowlers. We have to bowl more overs, because Aus will pile up 500+ totals and in Pak test series, they also pile  up 500+ (but the spinners will bowl most overs in India).

[broadbat]

I hope you did not infer wrongly when I mentioned SS. I meant he should be feeling rested. RPS is only 21 and so should comfortably be able to handle the load. ZK must be given a break. Btw have a look at all the games Brett Lee would have been playing, starting with the T20 by the time the Indians get there.

First thing, we are not that fit physically. Even our 21 year olds like Irfan, Balaji etc broke down. Even VRV broke down. Munaf broke down.

Secondly, Aus follows a rotation policy, so most of their bowlers would be well taken care of.

Not that simple. Lee has broken down, so has Johnson and also Tait. But they are fitter than the Indians on that there is no doubt.

[keep-it-cool]

I agree we cannot blame the bowlers entirely ...I blame the attitude ...at the first hint of a pitch that "may" help the bowlers, the team management seeks insurance for our "great" batting line up. Isn't this precisely the situation, where we need our platformers and walls to play their role?? 0r, are they good enough also only for flat tracks?? Instead, we weaken the already weaker part of our game - the bowling!!

Yesterday's game was won by a superlative batting effort by Younis Khan - supported by Misbah and to some extent Afridi - after Butt got them off at a RR of 6. Unfortunately, we made it easier for them by playing 4 (and, that too, not our best 4) bowlers and dropping YK at a crucial time.

[gouravk]

which team goes into an odi game with 8 batsmen ?

[Blwe_torch]

But this is the fact unfortunately..........the middle-order sucks more often than not. I am not sure, what the rest of the world experts are opining. Surely our guys are not the best, if you consider the performance of the last couple of years....or may be a few more.

Fact backed by .....? Blank statements? We don't even need to hear what world experts are saying. Look at the PWC ratings. YS had been among the top 15 for a long time, now he is at 17. Till couple of months back, SRT was out of top 20 for more than 2 years. SG was nowhere in picture. MSD was there in the top 10, sometimes even in top 5. Look at the scorecards & MOM list for the last 3 years.

'
I don't need the stats and the averages.............India has been doing their worst in the ODIs in the last couple of years. In most multi-national ODI tournaments India has been packed off in the prelim rounds itself......including at home. So those averages hardly matter.

When India was better....say abt 4 or 5 years back, SG/SRT/ RD were the top players of any cricket ratings. I am sure, you are aware that SG/SRT are the leading 'Men of the match' winners of India......and India had mostly won those matches( we can refer to one of Ravi's recent threads). When you compare the MOs with the openers also highlight the corresponding match situations..............and you will get a much clearer picture.

[indcric]

But this is the fact unfortunately..........the middle-order sucks more often than not. I am not sure, what the rest of the world experts are opining. Surely our guys are not the best, if you consider the performance of the last couple of years....or may be a few more.

Fact backed by .....? Blank statements? We don't even need to hear what world experts are saying. Look at the PWC ratings. YS had been among the top 15 for a long time, now he is at 17. Till couple of months back, SRT was out of top 20 for more than 2 years. SG was nowhere in picture. MSD was there in the top 10, sometimes even in top 5. Look at the scorecards & MOM list for the last 3 years.

'
I don't need the stats and the averages.............India has been doing their worst in the ODIs in the last couple of years. In most multi-national ODI tournaments India has been packed off in the prelim rounds itself......including at home. So those averages hardly matter.

So.. you talk based on what you remember? All people can do the same. Taking from what they think is right and make some blank statements.

When India was better....say abt 4 or 5 years back, SG/SRT/ RD were the top players of any cricket ratings. I am sure, you are aware that SG/SRT are the leading 'Men of the match' winners of India......and India had mostly won those matches( we can refer to one of Ravi's recent threads).

Fine. That we all know. We won 4 to 5 years back, mostly because SG, SRT & RD.

But that is not what we are discussing here, we are talking about the period, those "last couple of years in which In most multi-national ODI tournaments India has been packed off in the prelim rounds itself......including at home." So, talk about that and try to analyze who is at fault? MO? or the openers?

When you compare the MOs with the openers also highlight the corresponding match situations..............and you will get a much clearer picture.

Exactly. That will give us much clearer picture. Can you please do some work and bring those scorecards & analyze and tell us who is at fault? Or will you continue talking from memory and making blank statements?

Here is my analysis. In recent matches, when we scored 300+ runs, people claimed it was because of our 100/1 stands. Good.
So, when our openers gave us some platform, the MO was able to build a big tower on that and we won those matches.

We lost matches when our openers didn't give us the stand, right? So, when we were at a situation of 50/3 or 60/3, we lost most of those matches. Correct? What was the total team score in those matches? 150? No, it was around 220, 230. So, who scored those remaining 170, 180 runs? Middle Order.

Now, to summarize, we won when both our openers gave us some platform & MO build a good total out of that. We lost when our openers failed, but still our MO made some total and we lost.

SO, whom to blame here? The consitently scoring Middle Order? or the  openers who could not give us consistent stands?

Now, Can you please bring those scorecards & analyze and tell us who is at fault?

[Blwe_torch]

I remember one WC prelim match against the Aussies, in England. India were 80 odd for 4 very soon while chasing a huge Aussie total. The MO....then consisting of Jadeja and Robin Singh then csored happily some 84 and 50 odd runs in a leisurely pace, without any tension at all. Why? The match was already lost by then.
So, the match situation gives a better picture as to who was most effective.
I am sure, we can find some recent examples, if we put in some more time.
The opening phase is very crucial..........it gives the innings a direction and purpose.........the MO has to build on it,..................but the initiative must come from the openers. Also, iin most cases openers bat under more hostile and bowler-friendly conditions.

[kban1]

Quotable Quotes in this thread alone.

I apologise for the comments – couldnt resist them. Ignore them if you wish.

321, even if 20 runs short, is still a defendable total on any pitch.

...and when the Aussies, i repeat the Aussies, defended 317, it was all SGs fault.

A deficit of 150-170 with 20 overs to go appears chase-able if one has wickets!!

OMG. Pardon me.

@ Nagpur we needed 144 with 20 overs to go with 9 wickets in hand.
Less than the lower figure mentioned. Appears to better the requirements but ofcourse it was SGs fault we couldnt achieve that.
The indian MO cannot be burdened with such a task!!!
Specially when SG has scored a few and has wasted all those balls.
The newrathis in the indian MO cannot be asked to do that kind of thing – it is inhuman.
Ofcourse it is chaseable for any other side.

His (YS) inability to latch on to a Younis hoick after calling for it, with the target still a long way in the distance..... made Ganguly’s effort in the previous game stand out in better light

No comments other than the fact no issue has been made of this while in the case of .....

What I am pointing out is that the RRR kept increasing from 6.4 at the start to 8.2 at the 25 over stage you mention to above 9 around the 40th over. It even went to 11ish sometime around the 45 th over. You can expect to score at 9 for around 10 overs, unless the opponents bowl really really well, and you have wickets in hand and you have good hitters.

In comparison, RRR -

Nagpur                      Mohali

@ start
6.32            6.44

25 overs
7.12            8.24

Ahead so far,

35 overs
7.86            8.93

Still ahead, here we are talking about 9 RPO in the last 15 not 10. In real terms 16 runs ahead with 2 extra wickets.

End of 47th over runs required

37            34

Not much even here but pakistan won and we lost. Indias chase in Nagpur was better in every aspect except the MO failing from the 35th over onwards. SG was out in the 37th over. 
no blame whatsoever should be apportioned to our MO.
 
The reasoning is simple. The aussies bowled much better. Rather than point out the obvious we (some here) choose to mete out the blame to one of the batsman who led us there. Such is life.

As i said at the outset, ignore the comments if you wish, but some of us should realise that they are making the same points that they have vehemently argued against in another scenario albeit not their cup of tea.

 

Similar thoughts went through my head when I first read this dissection but was with limited access to the Internet and had neither the time nor the patience to argue the same points again.

Thank you for taking the effort, although it will be wasted as you will be (as you are being right now) bombarded with sarcasm meant to dilute facts, presented with stats since 2004, bolstered by supporting stats about other middle order bats, none of whom are either in the form that earned them their reputations or (in specific cases) have developed into the reliable bats that their potential cries out for -- All of this (and since 2004)  to prove a point about one player and one match in Nagpur that was played in 2007.

[indcric]

Thank you for taking the effort, although it will be wasted as you will be (as you are being right now) bombarded with sarcasm meant to dilute facts, presented with stats since 2004, bolstered by supporting stats about other middle order bats, none of whom are either in the form that earned them their reputations or (in specific cases) have developed into the reliable bats that their potential cries out for -- All of this (and since 2004)  to prove a point about one player and one match in Nagpur that was played in 2007.

Sad but true. All the discussions circle around one player. But not that one player. We attacked all players with sarcasm. If we can remember posts, so many people didn't miss any chance to use sarcasm to attack a captain (not the player) named RD, did they? 

No. This sarcasm is not to prove a point about one player or one match in Nagpur. Since that specific post blasted our MO, I had to use sarcasm to prove a non-fact. If the attempt was not made to show the greatness of a player who is not in form & scoring at a low SR, and at the same time blaming the MO for the top order faults, I would not have made any post attacking that one player. There is nothing wrong in accepting a fact. It is a fact that RD sucked recently in the last few matches. It is a fact that SG was one of the match winners before 2004. It is a fact that SRT is still scoring well in ODIs. It is a fact that our middle order sucked before 2004 and mainly our top order + RD contributed to the wins. There is no shame in accepting those facts.

But I had to use sarcasm, when people are trying to show the greatness of that one player (truly, when he is not in form), by attacking the MO. I would not have used sarcasm, if people say "yes, that particular player is not in the best of form, but he is not doing that bad either, he is still trying the best what he can do". Yes. I accept the fact that there is NO lack of effort from SG. He tried very hard to improve on his fitness, he tried very hard to get back into the team. He is trying his best to adapt to the team needs. There is no shame in accepting that.

Only that he is not in that good form to be called doing great & there by saying our MO sucks.

If any body cares to look at the recent score cards since Challenger Trophy (since that is when we started losing big time) and try to figure out who is at fault, we will know who sucks. As far as I can remember & confirmed by looking at the score cards since WC 2007, except that Nagpur match & the recent Mohali match, we didn't lose a match when our top order scored & our MO sucked. We lost matches, when both top order & MO sucked. We won matches, when both top order & MO succeeded. So, to say that only our MO sucks, is just false. Our whole team sucks & that is why we have been losing matches recently.

[kban1]

The point is nobody has tried to show SG played great --in the match in question.

What has been pointed out (especially in response to a few posts on this thread) is the differing judgmental standards used in comparing Nagpur vs Mohali.

That is not an indictment of the middle order since 2004 or 2005 or 2006. That is also not meant to show that we have lost matches because openers have performed and the MO sucked.

On the other hand, its a specific argument to a specific match and somewhat similar situations, i.e.,

The strategy of blasting from the beginning while chasing a big score
vs
The strategy of building a platform in the beginning and then launching from there while chasing.

Strategy 1 is ideal but Strategy 1 is not working for us because of personnel issues:

a) RD is out of form (and he has since been dropped - I would like to think rested rather than dropped but knowing BCCI, who knows.
b) YS for all his talent has not yet matured to the point of taking a match on his own on a consistent basis (barring a 12 month period between 2005-06, he has regressed temperamantally when setting up a big innings, IMO)
c) Our middle order (in recent times) has failed to do the needful (to win, not get a respectable score) when the top order has failed
d) the lack of middle order versatility / dependability has caused the top order to possibly reign in their risk taking tendencies in favor of a comparatively risk free solid mode
e) Even with SRT's form, he is still not the SRT of before. And the same is true for SG. Dravid who was in good nick is not any longer (and is out of the team as we speak).

Given the above, strategy 2 has been the fall back strategy and it is working ( comparatively -- more than the attempts at strategy 1 which are failing or more than scenarios where the first few wickets are falling rapidly).

While some classify strategy 2 as a miracle strategy, that is a gross exaggeration -- Pakistan has chased 300+ against us successfully 4 times and missed once by the narrowest of margins --all this within the last 2 years. In these 5 instances, 3 were predicated on strategy 1, 2 were predicated on strategy 2, so really its not a miracle strategy at all.

In this background, heaping criticism on Nagpur and praising Mohali is obviously wrong and differential application of logic.

300+ chases are difficult by themselves, at Nagpur we faced a much stronger attack and despite being in a better position (compared to pak at Mohali) we faltered because we did select the wrong batting order and yes, our middle order failed.

Pointing these facts out to bring into focus the unneccesary and harsh criticism directed at 1 guy should not be construed in any way to mean that SG played a great game -- rather, the intent is to show that SG played a decent knock, he tried his best (which wasnt enough as he was dismissed after being set), and that the match was still winnable (tough but winnable) had our batting order been straight and had our MO not stumbled.

I do not think there is anything wrong in pointing out the skewed perspective under which Nagpur is criticized with one person in mind and Mohali is praised as the template for chsing big totals.

[WicketView]

If I may add something here: MSD, YS, RU are masters at aggressive batting. Such dashers tend to have a lower lifetime in a match, simply because aggressive batting is more risky. But, cricket can call for situations where it is not risky aggressive batting that is wanted, but the need to play out a particularly difficult phase. It is switching to such a gear that they have not yet proved themselves at. MSD seems to be trying to get there a lot, (resulting in his fans decrying his percentage cricket tactics).

So, for those of you who are outraged by 'sarcasm' at the middle order, let me ask how many balls these middle order batsmen are expected to survive on the basis of their performances so far? If all our batsmen were such dashers, would our batsmen last 50 overs? When I last tried to work out an answer, I think the answer was no.

So, what is the solution? Well, the ideal solution would be to chuck all the batsmen, and replace them with batsmen who can hit as well as defend. Unfortunately, such batsmen don't seem to be around. So what is the second best solution? Since, we believe that these batsmen have potential and are talented, and are already good at one of the two things we expect them to do, a way would be to complement them by some batsmen who are geared towards the opposite skill set. That way, we could hope for the combination that can still win, while these MO batsmen get a chance to learn how to play the other style against the big boys. Of course this is not as good as the ideal option.

[indcric]

Well, we are missing some key points here and making some assumptions about the implementation of strategy 2.

The strategy 2 as it is being touted, there is nothing wrong in that and this strategy is nothing new. Play out those difficult overs, whether they are first 5 overs or the 5 immediate overs when we lost 2 quick wickets. That is a tried & tested strategy. No body has any qualms about it. Every team (including Aus at times) follows that strategy.

1) The problem people are pointing out is that, even after the difficult first 5 overs or say 10 overs, that one particular player is not slowly increasing the scoring rate. If at all he is increasing his scoring rate, it is only marginal.
2) Only that particular player is playing slow even after playing 80 balls. So, including SRT in his league (and saying openers or top order) just shields that particular player from the argument. Not even Younis Khan or Mohammad Yousuf. Even YS plays slow for his first 30 runs. They played slow in the beginning, but by the time they played 80+ balls, their strike rate was 90+. He is finding it very difficult to force the pace at any stage of his innings, except a six or 2 consecutive 4s now & then. After hitting those six or 2 4s, he loses whatever momentum we gained with that 6 or 2 4s, with the number of dot balls he plays.

It is totally surprising that this same player plays very different in recent Test matches, even in difficult situations. He takes control of the game, when the other players are struggling. I don't understand why this same player can't do the same thing in ODIs. That leads me to a suspicion that he is being over cautious in ODIs, since people are talking about youth for ODIs. Or is it that he is comfortable only at that <70 SR, which looks good in Tests but looks pale in ODIs.

Yes, it is true to certain extent that we are in a peculiar situation that VS is out of form & GG has been mostly useless (I wonder whether he can play solidly & decisively against top bowlers at all. He has been living on the edge for most of his innings. Yes, as Dhoni pointed out he might have had some MOMs, but when I checked I found that they were all against minnows). We might do better, if we look beyond VS & GG for opener slot.

[Cover Point]

Kban, asked you this yesterday but not sure what you said, if u think our MO is poor do you think it makes sense to move SG to the mo and do u think he would be successful  there at scoring at 7 plus an over?

[WicketView]

Well, we are missing some key points here and making some assumptions about the implementation of strategy 2.

The strategy 2 as it is being touted, there is nothing wrong in that and this strategy is nothing new. Play out those difficult overs, whether they are first 5 overs or the 5 immediate overs when we lost 2 quick wickets. That is a tried & tested strategy. No body has any qualms about it. Every team (including Aus at times) follows that strategy.

1) The problem people are pointing out is that, even after the difficult first 5 overs or say 10 overs, that one particular player is not slowly increasing the scoring rate. If at all he is increasing his scoring rate, it is only marginal.
2) Only that particular player is playing slow even after playing 80 balls. So, including SRT just shields that particular player from the argument. Not even Younis Khan or Mohammad Yousuf. Even YS plays slow for his first 30 runs. They played slow in the beginning, but by the time they played 80+ balls, their strike rate was 90+. He is finding it very difficult to force the pace at any stage of his innings, except a six or 2 consecutive 4s now & then. After hitting those six or 2 4s, he loses whatever momentum we gained with that 6 or 2 4s, with the number of dot balls he plays.

It is totally surprising that this same player plays very different in recent Test matches, even in difficult situations. He takes control of the game, when the other players are struggling. I don't understand why this same player can't do the same thing in ODIs. That leads me to a suspicion that he is being over cautious in ODIs, since people are talking about youth for ODIs. Or is it that he is comfortable only at that <70 SR, which looks good in Tests but looks pale in ODIs.

Yes, it is true to certain extent that we are in a peculiar situation that VS is out of form & GG has been mostly useless (I wonder whether he can play solidly & decisively against top bowlers at all. He has been living on the edge for most of his innings. Yes, as Dhoni pointed out he might have had some MOMs, but when I checked I found that they were all against minnows). We might do better, if we look beyond VS & GG for opener slot.

IndCric,

I don't know about the reasons, but I agree with what you said here ... the result seems to be that he will have a approximately 70-80 SR most of the time. Getting an opener beyond the current choices would be a good idea, but here is where I feel things are hard if you stick to N successive matches deal. BTW, that may be a decent SR in Australia, if he can manage a good average.

[indcric]

IndCric,

Are you a Java programmer? Just to know, no other intensions. I am a Java programmer as well.

[Cover Point]

IndCric,

Are you a Java programmer? Just to know, no other intensions. I am a Java programmer as well.

I 'program' on java ....as in watch all programs while sipping java.

does that count?

[kban1]

indcric:

The fact is strategy 2 is nothing new --in fact it is used not only when a wicket falls but also in the opneing part of an innings frequently. I find it curiously amusing and irritating that the focus when discussing this happens to be only one player.

To DBP -- I have shown before on the DG that in innings above 40 (at the time I did the analysis, a month ago), SG's DBP hovers between 48% to 54%, which is perfectly within the acceptable range for an innings of any significant length.

I also find it surprising that the DBP (or alternative terms to get to the same issue) is applied exclusively to one guy in the Indian team, totally ignoring others as also the fact that during the first 15/20 overs, more fielders are inside the circle which prevents the easy single on offer.

back to the nagpur match in question, do look at SG's single taking after he was set / PP were off. Runs were attempted almost every ball, even if singles did not come off the bat, significant number of leg byes were taken. raw statistics sometime need to be parsed as well.

Now to acceleration -- I believe there are 2 points behind this.

Point 1)
When one batsman blazes away, the other batsman usually scores at a brisk but not extremely fast rate --this is pretty well established tactics based on understanding between batsmen. Since SG & SRT have started opening again, part of the comparatively slower going is attributable to this.

Point 2)
SG's acceleration was not an issue post comeback -pre WC as much as it has been an issue post WC. And I believe therein lies a chunk of the answer.

Reinforcement matters. How and what you reinforce has an effect on the outlook of a player and how he adapts to it.

After the WC, there was a slew of abuse, criticism and very downright nasty allegations levelled against SG and SRT. From selfishness to playing for contracts to the worst of them all -conspiring to create groups and destabilize RD. These allegations were fanned by BCCI even as the team management remained mum about exonerating either of these 2 players, resulting in a public media trial of scorn, while the players were gagged by contract.

The BCCI clashed with the selectors and forced the latter to drop SG and SRT for the Bang ODI series as punishment for the WC, even though DBV in an act of defiance, refused to categorize the dropping as such, calling it as resting.

Given the events, this creates insecurity, especially for a player coming back into the team. Add to that the fact that SG was never as assured of his spot as SRT and neither is his stature as great as that of the person deigned as "Demi god" by the BCCI itself.

Insecurity, IMO, has bred to an extent a more risk averse approach -- knowing fully well that his every move from DBP to rotation of strike to his contract with advertisers is under intense and close scrutiny by public and a hostile BCCI, I believe he has taken refuge in the fact that as long as he scores consistently at 45 with a SR of 72-75 as opposed to an average of 36 with a SR of 80 (I am presenting hypothetical numbers here), he would be less under such unfair and scorching scrutiny. The approach calls for eschewing some risks, which I believe he may have done, consciously or unconsciously.

The way out of it is for someone (selectors, team management) to talk to him and explain that he is not under match to match scrutiny and that playing his natural game will not be held against him.

Unfortunately, no one has, even as a slander campaign continues through newspapers and he gets bombarded by mixed messages (the local bengali dailies have been highlighting this issue where SG is being given the impression that 2 failures and he would be dropped by some while some others -selectors included, are saying how can he be dropped after being the 2nd highest run scorer in ODI's in 2007).

Cases in point -- the most recent report about Yuvi and MSD apparently criticizing him in selection meetings followed by MSD's denial. Stories about selectors wanting to drop him followed by some selector telling him he should continue the way he is playing. Add to that the fact that Niranjan Shah "dropped" him from one ODI --in direct contradiction to MSD and selectors' versions.

Confidence or lack thereof is a huge factor in shaping a person's thought process as well as output. And I think SG as far as his spot in the team is concerned is in a mental funk, because he does not have any clue about what the performance standards for him are, and why they are different for him as opposed to others.

Finally, wrt acceleration, let us not forget that SG is not the same SG he was earlier from an ODI perspective.

[kban1]

Kban, asked you this yesterday but not sure what you said, if u think our MO is poor do you think it makes sense to move SG to the mo and do u think he would be successful  there at scoring at 7 plus an over?

If it makes sense for the team (as in if we have players who can do the job he is doing more effectively), sure, move him out to the MO.

if he does not fit the bill in the MO --which means there are others capable of doing the job better than him in the MO too, then he is obviously not deserving of a spot in the playing XI.

Let him be the reserves and when better reserves are found, drop him - thats the name of the game, anyways. if a player does not fit, then no use playing him at the cost of others who are more deserving.