Print

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

[time2frenzy]

My call wud be to drop VS and bring GG as an opener instead. RU shud be at #3. MT shud be drafted in favor of VS cos he can fill up the fifth bowler option. As far as I remember, he started his career as a leg spinner who later graduated as a batsman. There's no harm in trying out this option.

[Cover Point]

am pretty sure another 20 odd runs would have made a big dirrerence coz it would have taken the initial asking rate higher and sometimes if that is the case it can get to the team batting second.and i agree with 8 batsmen in ur team and that too in a 29 over match a score of 195 and that too with wickets in hand was just not good enough.someone in the top order should have done what sj did (rs did his bit but someone else had to score 20-30 odd in few balls)

I dont think Jayasuriya when was batting, cared what the asking rate was. He went at it and brought the rate down. If we had another 20 runs ... he would have still played the same and with similar results. 

[LosingNow]

Where are the pictures, Nima?

[dlee1]

disagree coverpoint..firstly any additional runs are welcome by any team and one can never predict how much even a single run can make a difference in the overall result and here we r talking about 20 odd runs.psychologicaly it does make a diff as to what the asking rate is even to batsmen like sj as it does play on one's mind.plus even if had batted like that and got out to  the same number of runs even then the asking rate would have been higher for the batsmen coming later(than it was now) .
i certainly feel that india prob got the calculations wrong..they should have aimed and got much higher than this given that we batted so deep and we didnt really slog early.whatever anyone says the plain truth is that we could have got more runs but just didnt ..like i said maye we thought t was enough.and the other reason that rain came and d/l got into play well thats plain excuse..captain or the team should be completely aware that the weather can intervene and coz this pob..i have read reports about dhoni complainnig abouth the weather being the cause of pain which i feel is sour grapes..he should be mature enough to say that we didnt get enough rather than blame the weather

[inoc]

this match ended up being a 29/21 match.

india with 8 batsman playing a 29 over match lost it here -

overs 9 to 15
25 runs in seven overs is criminal in the situation. RS wasted most of the balls but GG being the senior partner should have initiated the run scoring rather than be happy at getting a single and getting off strike.

harsh criticism? yes.

a sofa critic with the advantage of hind sight can safely conclude the above.

[poondu]

this match ended up being a 29/21 match.

india with 8 batsman playing a 29 over match lost it here -

overs 9 to 15
25 runs in seven overs is criminal in the situation. RS wasted most of the balls but GG being the senior partner should have initiated the run scoring rather than be happy at getting a single and getting off strike.

harsh criticism? yes.

a sofa critic with the advantage of hind sight can safely conclude the above.

spot on.. Poor innings from RS considering that it was a 29 overs match.

[dlee1]

inoc agreed that its easy to criticize specially after the match but one must admit that there is not much difference between 29 and 21 overs..its still a pretty shortened game and one went into it with 8 batsmen which should have prompted us ot score faster.also we should have known better that rain could intervene and it could lead ot a more shortened game therby asking us to score even more.so i feel criticism is warranted and i feel that dhoini should grow up and admit to this rather than blaming it on the weather.u have to admit and be humble in defeat which is a sign of a good team

[dlee1]

i didnt really calculate what rs did in those overs but if thats what he did then must say it was a poor effeort nonwithstanding what his final score was and he could have upped the rate earlier.

[WicketView]

I don't know if our batting order is deep for an ODI, but it was too deep for 29 overs. For a 20-30 over match, we should definitely have 5 bowlers, for a 50 over match I will go with 4.

Also, if we were to have such a deep lineup, I think they should have started slogging earlier.

Not that end justifies the means.. given that the game was shortened, I do not think an additional 20-30 runs would have mattered, yesterday.

Well, there is no doubt that we got the short end due to it getting shortened. But I think that could have had an effect. Either way, I agree with your sentiments about ends not justifying the means.

[keep-it-cool]

It is actually difficult to figure out how SL would have gone had it been a 29 over game or how India would have gone had it been a 21 over game when they batted respectively. I thought 195 in 29 overs was a good score ...although I admit that the scoring could have been a bit faster in the middle overs. However, at the end, it was good enough. The move down to 21 overs really killed it .. especially with the Jayasuriya blitz.

Yesterday it was a) the shortening of the match and b) the bowling that really lost us the match. The batting did enough overall to win .. although it could have done even better.

[WicketView]

It is actually difficult to figure out how SL would have gone had it been a 29 over game or how India would have gone had it been a 21 over game when they batted respectively. I thought 195 in 29 overs was a good score ...although I admit that the scoring could have been a bit faster in the middle overs. However, at the end, it was good enough. The move down to 21 overs really killed it .. especially with the Jayasuriya blitz.

Yesterday it was a) the shortening of the match and b) the bowling that really lost us the match. The batting did enough overall to win .. although it could have done even better.

I would put your last statement differently ... the batting did enough overall, and if it missed something (debatable), it was a decision to go for it. I would not blame the decision, but I am trying to differentiate between not getting the runs because the batting was not upto it, and deciding on a strategy that did not push for it.

[keep-it-cool]

It is actually difficult to figure out how SL would have gone had it been a 29 over game or how India would have gone had it been a 21 over game when they batted respectively. I thought 195 in 29 overs was a good score ...although I admit that the scoring could have been a bit faster in the middle overs. However, at the end, it was good enough. The move down to 21 overs really killed it .. especially with the Jayasuriya blitz.

Yesterday it was a) the shortening of the match and b) the bowling that really lost us the match. The batting did enough overall to win .. although it could have done even better.

I would put your last statement differently ... the batting did enough overall, and if it missed something (debatable), it was a decision to go for it. I would not blame the decision, but I am trying to differentiate between not getting the runs because the batting was not upto it, and deciding on a strategy that did not push for it.

I agree on that .. especially if you are playing an extra batsman in a shortened match, it makes sense to go for it right through.

The only reason I can come up for not going hammer and tongs earlier is actually from what Dhoni mentioned earlier ... he had said that in a game where at any point the rain may come down and shorten it further, how many wickets you have lost may also make a difference .. for instance, yesterday, the rain came down after the Indian innings closed .. so, it did not make a difference. But had the rain come down after 25 overs, then the extent to which the target would be bumped up would also depend on how many wickets India had lost at that point .. so, it made more sense to go full throttle towards the end of the innings rather than right throughout. I think if this were a 30-30 match, without any rain issues, the batting would have been a bit different.

But this is all speculation ... at the end of the day the only thing I am completely hung up on is that the team SHOULD NOT have played 6 bats + dhoni + irfan in a 29 over match.

[broadbat]

I am not too much in favour of shifting GG from the No 3 slot at present. Would rather have RU open instead. VS was a big let down for me in the manner he gave his wicket. Such a low percentage shot with the third man out  is not what is expected from a senior player. However the issue with getting VS down the order is complicated by the fact that if he were to exchange with RU then he is pretty much wasted. Any higher and you would have Dhoni going in late. I say drop him and get in a PK or a PC instead. Will get in the additional bowler as KiC seems to advocate and give VS time to reflect on his career in ODI's. Another option YS drops out and VS takes his slot on current form.

[keep-it-cool]

However, the problem with dropping VS is that he is our best part time bowler ... I think SRT's days as bowler are really behind us ... he will still deliver in the odd match, but he's really rather inconsistent now. But, yes, VS is fast going the Slater way ... good in tests, sucks in ODIs.

[broadbat]

the team SHOULD NOT have played 6 bats + dhoni + irfan in a 29 over match.

If you compare it with our T20 WC  team the only difference is that we have SRT in place of JS. That it will weaken it so much we did not know.

[keep-it-cool]

the team SHOULD NOT have played 6 bats + dhoni + irfan in a 29 over match.

If you compare it with our T20 WC  team the only difference is that we have SRT in place of JS. That it will weaken it so much we did not know.

Well, JS as bowler > VS+SRT+YS as bowler

And RU as batsman > JS as batsman ... only if the former gets to bat!

Although JS is not the ideal fifth bowler I would have wanted .. here or in the T20 WC

[gouravk]

Well, JS as bowler > VS+SRT+YS as bowler

WHAT ?

[keep-it-cool]

Well, JS as bowler > VS+SRT+YS as bowler

WHAT ?

in T20s

[gouravk]

his bowling is the crappiest crap i have ever seen !!!

[keep-it-cool]

except that in a shortened match even your non regulars are bound to go for as many if not more .. especially SRT whose bowling has fallen off big time

and that is not the only consideration right ... with a fifth bowler, the likes of VS and SRT can act as insurance in case someone like SS or IS are taken to the cleaners ... if they themselves have a quota to fill, this option is not there at all and one has to pray that each and every one of our regular bowlers bowl well .. that level of consistency is still some way off for our bowling attack.

[gouravk]

my take on this is that the shorter the match you need to pick more wicket-taking bowlers. not JSes. I would have liked to see PC being played in the last couple of games anyway.

[keep-it-cool]

my take on this is that the shorter the match you need to pick more wicket-taking bowlers. not JSes. I would have liked to see PC being played in the last couple of games anyway.

of course. i hope JS has played his last match for india.

however, if no one else is available, i'd rather play a JS in a 20 over match than the sixth batsman

[gouravk]

agreed. RU is being utterly wasted. Not quite fair on him.

[OldPal]

My call wud be to drop VS and bring GG as an opener instead. RU shud be at #3. MT shud be drafted in favor of VS cos he can fill up the fifth bowler option. As far as I remember, he started his career as a leg spinner who later graduated as a batsman. There's no harm in trying out this option.

If you want to drop VS and get GG up the order , instead of drafting MT , I would prefer to draft PC or PK (as bowling allrounder) .

[OldPal]

this match ended up being a 29/21 match.

india with 8 batsman playing a 29 over match lost it here -

overs 9 to 15
25 runs in seven overs is criminal in the situation. RS wasted most of the balls but GG being the senior partner should have initiated the run scoring rather than be happy at getting a single and getting off strike.

harsh criticism? yes.

a sofa critic with the advantage of hind sight can safely conclude the above.

I share same feelings. Both should not have played defensively. One must score.

[OldPal]

his bowling is the crappiest crap i have ever seen !!!

One more gem ..

[OldPal]

Overall I think we ahve to agree that this batting order did not that that top/middle order collapse that we have seen in prev matches with 4-5 wickets down at about 100 runs, And the way RS batted , he is capable of avoiding such collapses .

[Nima]

Where are the pictures, Nima?

How do I post the pictures?

[LosingNow]

by uploading  to the pictures area or by creating a web album like TI

[Nima]

posted a few in cv gallery, more to follow when i get time to upload

[LosingNow]

Thanks.. good ones from the practice match