***Official*** India in England

[silentstriker]

Lets look at his wickets... padding up to a ball that didn't happen to spin and a tailender playing a horrible shot when he's supposed to be playing for a draw.

Padding up to a ball that didn't spin means he was deceived...why shouldn't that wicket matter? The arm ball is a perfectly legitimate wicket tacking delivery that's used by every single spinner.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Lets look at his wickets... padding up to a ball that didn't happen to spin and a tailender playing a horrible shot when he's supposed to be playing for a draw.

How is that any different to Warnes slider? How many wickets will he need to get with the one that goes straight on before you finally admit its good bowling?

So by your logic all Warnes wickets with the slider are lucky and involve no skill?

 

[Nishant]

Padding up to a ball that didn't spin means he was deceived...why shouldn't that wicket matter? The arm ball is a perfectly legitimate wicket tacking delivery that's used by every single spinner.

agree...i thought that was a pretty good delivery TBH...correct me if im wrong, but i actually thought that was planned against sachin and it payed off.

 

[Raghav]

I am just sitting to write a Match Analysis for the first time in my life ...and thats gonna be here within 5 min

 

[Nishant]

I am just sitting to write a Match Analysis for the first time in my life ...and thats gonna be here within 5 min

good luck!

 

[Raghav]

My View

CRICKET, like life, is all about seizing opportunities. The Indians were presented with a fair chance in the opening Test at Lord's, but failed to utilise it. England, on the other hand, made the most of their opportunities and all but forced a win.

The Indians may have got away this time but they need to urgently deal with some issues.

One of the chief problems as I see it is the opening combination. While both Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Kaarthick are fine players, I am afraid I am not too happy with Kaarthick as a first choice full-time opener.

Back in the seventies and eighties, Indians pushed the likes of Dilip Sardesai to open, but I would like to think the ones who were promoted had the requisite technique to play the new ball in all conditions.

While young Kaarthick may have started well in South Africa and did a fine job in the second innings at Lord's, his skills lie elsewhere in the order.

Also, we need a permanent solution, not stop-gaps. It is something the Indian selectors need to look into - perhaps they need to look for batsmen with right techniques and then be patient with them.

For the famed middle order too it was a golden chance missed.

The collective experience of Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman is something most teams would love to have, but they all disappointed. I certainly expected more from them as they have all been to England before and knew what to expect. Hopefully, they will rectify their mistakes in the remaining two Tests, like the bowlers did after a bad first day.

A good team is one which learns and the manner in which Indian seamers, led by RP Singh and Zaheer Khan, came back on the second day was heartening.

They hit the right line and length and the conditions did the rest.

It's that simple, really. But just as I thought Zaheer and Singh had done enough to get India back on track despite conceding a very handy lead, came the Kevin Pietersen knock. Once he decided to attack the Indian bowling, there was no stopping him.

It is his wizardly combined with athletic power that puts him on a high pedestal. Perhaps it is too early to say he is the next Tendulkar but he certainly does celebrate his successes somewhat differently to the great Indian. This sort of aggressive celebration, a new trend, is good to watch, but there's always another side to it - failures become harder to digest as expectations of further such celebrations go up.

To the Indians I would like to suggest they put the first Test and the great escape behind, keep their heads up and get on with their game. A little more application from the batsmen would no doubt help.

 

[Nishant]

Agree with that TBH...good analysis....especially the last paragraph...a true and fair point.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Lets look at his wickets... padding up to a ball that didn't happen to spin and a tailender playing a horrible shot when he's supposed to be playing for a draw.

Other than the odd edge he didn't create anything in 34 overs on a pitch with a bit in it for everyone.

As to the second paragraph, I didn't watch much of the game bar highlights, but I do remember him turning one square to Dhoni on the last day, and I still have no idea how it missed.

 

[Nishant]

As to the second paragraph, I didn't watch much of the game bar highlights, but I do remember him turning one square to Dhoni on the last day, and I still have no idea how it missed.

yh..i remember that...very close indeed...but ah well!

 

[Raghav]

Agree with that TBH...good analysis....especially the last paragraph...a true and fair point.

Thanks Nishant!

 

[leepayne]

You make a good point about India's openers, Wasim Jaffer and Dinesh Karthik are both decent batsmen but their techniques don't complement each other like an opening partnership should.

There is a connection between this situation and that of Pakistan's - they changed their openers an awful lot last year. India, although they should change their openers, should aim for some consistency and not change it as much as Pakistan did.

 

[open365]

I don't see how it's anything to do with them not complementing eachother, they just aren't very good as individual batsman, no matter who is at the other end.

 

[leepayne]

I don't see how it's anything to do with them not complementing eachother, they just aren't very good as individual batsman, no matter who is at the other end.

I do think they are good batsmen. Wasim Jaffer can defend through the new ball and then play his shots and make big scores, while Dinesh Karthik has controlled attacking flair. Those two techniques don't gel together though.

 

[Manee]

I don't see how it's anything to do with them not complementing eachother, they just aren't very good as individual batsman, no matter who is at the other end.

Lee does have a point. Aakash Chopra and Sehwag were two batsman who complemented each other superbly, Sehwag would attack the bowlers while Aakash Chopra would stay in, with no pressure to score and the job to take the shine off the new ball and survive through the dangerous McGrath opening spell, while Karthik and Jaffer are both defensive to start with and so the pressure builds. The two put on fifty partnerships lasting anywhere from 10 to 20 overs and the middle order could start off against a not brand new ball. The middle order tended to bat superbly when Chopra and Sehwag were at the top of the order and it was no coincidence either.

Chopra/Sehwag occured between 2003 and 2004 and look how it helped the middle order. This proves just how important the opening pair are to the upper middle order's performance too.

Dravid

                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0
2003 (29y 355d)        5   10   2   803 233  222   92  100.37   2   3   0
2004 (30y 355d)       12   18   3   946 270  160   91*  63.06   2   4   3

Sachin Tendulkar

2003 (29y 252d)        5    9   0   153  55   44   37   17.00   0   1   2
2004 (30y 252d)       10   15   5   915 248* 241* 194*  91.50   3   2   0

Sourav Ganguly

2003 (30y 177d)        4    7   1   393 144  100*  73   65.50   2   1   0
2004 (31y 177d)        8    9   0   408  88   77   71   45.33   0   4   0

 

[open365]

Load of crap imo, the opening partnerships are crap because they only average around 30, meaning it's rare that they both fire and put on a good opening stand.

 

[open365]

Chopra/Sehwag occured between 2003 and 2004 and look how it helped the middle order. This proves just how important the opening pair are to the upper middle order's performance too.

A good opening parternership does help, but that opening partnership was only good because of Sehwag's sublime form.

And those stats do nothing except to show the decline in Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly in recent years.

 

[Manee]

Load of crap imo, the opening partnerships are crap because they only average around 30, meaning it's rare that they both fire and put on a good opening stand.

The parntership only averages 30 because they are both defensive and the pressure builds.

 

[open365]

No, it only averages 30 because they're not very good.

 

[leepayne]

No, it only averages 30 because they're not very good.

Dinesh Kathik has a big future ahead of him in the Indian team for me. Wasim Jaffer maybe not so much, but he can still play. So there's no basis to say that they aren't very good, or won't be very good in a year or so.

Manee made a great point, you need one attacking and one defensive batsman to open. The attacking one would go after the new ball and take the shine off it, relieving the pressure off the defensive one so when he's comfortable, he can come out of his shell and play his shots.

Karthik and Jaffer are predominantly uncomfortable against the new ball, and so are both defensive, putting pressure on themselves leading to irrational shots and cheap wickets. That's why the openers average only 30 together.

 

[open365]

No, that's a load of crap, they both have very poor test records, and hence when they bat together, the results are poor, simnple as.