***Official India in New Zealand***

[biased indian]

Why not? We don't want to have batsmen who average 35 in the middle order, when a bunch of young lings like Pujara, and Badri are waiting in the wings for a chance.

come on man this guy played 100 test for nothing ...if he has couple of bad series i am ready to wait ..didn't he score double recently...there is lot difference in a opposing team mind set when a new guy walks out to bat at 3 down and laxman ...if he is in decent form i am ready to give him some more run its not that he is getting out for low score all the time

 

[Evermind]

Haha, your right, should have been 505 plus or minus

and rightly corrected, making it easier for Evermind

but he has already agreed on 495

Yes, 495 was already very generous, so let's stick to that.

Can't believe neither noticed that it wasn't right though.

 

[Zinzan]

but he has already agreed on 495

Meh, either way to be honest. I did say halfway, but miscalculated

 

[Zinzan]

Yes, 495 was already very generous, so let's stick to that.

Righto

Can't believe neither noticed that it wasn't right though.

Reckon, gave myself an uppercut

 

[Precambrian]

come on man this guy played 100 test for nothing ...if he has couple of bad series i am ready to wait ..didn't he score double recently...there is lot difference in a opposing team mind set when a new guy walks out to bat at 3 down and laxman ...if he is in decent form i am ready to give him some more run its not that he is getting out for low score all the time

He might have scored truckloads of runs and played so many test matches. But he can be in the team only as long as he can contribute consistently. If people are already prepared to retain him in the team despite a failure, that sends out all the wrong signals to the ones waiting.

 

[Jono]

Laxman's position in the team must surely be under question if he doesn't score in this series.

So like every series he's played in his career.

 

[SJS]

He also has the habit of exposing tail-enders to too many balls in an over when India are trying to prevent the fall of wickets..

Thats absolutely true. In fact if I was the Indian captain, I would have at least warned him on that account and dropped him if he did not change. He is atrocious in this respect-will take a single of the first ball and expose the tailender to the entire over. He will also take a single of the last ball played by the tailender and leave the entire over to him.

I doubt he would do that if he was himself in the 90's. For me this is inexcusable. Surprisingly the media which finds faults with seniors even when none exist, hasn't latched on to this.

 

[Evermind]

Thats absolutely true. In fact if I was the Indian captain, I would have at least warned him on that account and dropped him if he did not change. He is atrocious in this respect-will take a single of the first ball and expose the tailender to the entire over. He will also take a single of the last ball played by the tailender and leave the entire over to him.

I doubt he would do that if he was himself in the 90's. For me this is inexcusable. Surprisingly the media which finds faults with seniors even when none exist, hasn't latched on to this.

Might be related to the fact that he's such a poor runner between the wickets.

For the #5 batsman, the last thing you want is inability to scrap.

 

[Precambrian]

Thats absolutely true. In fact if I was the Indian captain, I would have at least warned him on that account and dropped him if he did not change. He is atrocious in this respect-will take a single of the first ball and expose the tailender to the entire over. He will also take a single of the last ball played by the tailender and leave the entire over to him.

I doubt he would do that if he was himself in the 90's. For me this is inexcusable. Surprisingly the media which finds faults with seniors even when none exist, hasn't latched on to this.

I disagree. He has every right to protect his wicket, and he should not take the blame for the fact that the tailender is hapless. Had he batted up the order, and consequently had lesser opportunities to bat with the tailenders, would such a criticism rise? No. So Laxman is unfairly lambasted just because he happens to bat more often with tailenders because of his batting position, and tries to take runs whenever possible.

 

[Evermind]

I disagree. He has every right to protect his wicket, and he should not take the blame for the fact that the tailender is hapless. Had he batted up the order, and consequently had lesser opportunities to bat with the tailenders, would such a criticism rise? No. So Laxman is unfairly lambasted just because he happens to bat more often with tailenders because of his batting position, and tries to take runs whenever possible.

The batsman should adjust to the team, and not the other way 'round. There is no excuse for not controlling strike if you're sent in to bat at #5. It's no good for your team - not a matter of "taking the blame" but simply a practical issue of scoring runs. Tailenders are hapless the world over - you know this for a fact and adjust your game accordingly. They shouldn't take the blame for the fact that a batsman is unable to do his job of not exposing them to the bowlers.

 

[Jono]

And for the record, Ganguly and Sachin did/do the same thing.

 

[SJS]

Dravid was slow but he played a very good innings. He wasn't looking shaky and uncertain as he has looked for last year and a half. He just refused to rotate the strike. He hit 12 boundaries in 138 deliveries which is very good. The problem is, he ran only 18 runs from the other 126 deliveries.

He played the strokes he was allowed to which is basically square of the wicket since Kiwis inexplicably bowled short and made very use of decent conditions. The fact that all three Indian batsmen (who fell to bowlers) were out playing forward while all but 2-3 boundaries were hit in front of the wicket shows how poorly Kiwis bowled.

Dravid got out because of his recently acquired habit of plonking his left foot right across outside the off stump and even outside the line of the delivery. This resulted in his pad being in the way as the bat came down. The reflex action made him move the left leg (from the knee) towards the left (legside) thereby creating a gap between bat and pad where none existed. He seemed shocked that the ball went through bat and pad without touching either since he put the toe of the bat right next to his foot. I hope he looks at the replay and sees what happened and stops this "over-covering' of the ball when playing forward. Or he should just watch the videos of Sachin's forward defensive strokes today-they were absolutely copybook.

 

[SJS]

The catch dropped off Sachin's miscued pulll was certainly not easy as is made out by some. It would have been an astonishing catch had it been taken.

Vettori was very disappointing as captain. Ridiculous to take the new ball exactly when due and then not give an attacking field to the bowlers. The sweeper at cover point boundary for the new ball was a crazy position to have.

It appears that the breeze was blowing in exactly the opposite direction to what you might think it was from the way he allocated ends to his new ball bowlers. Of course, one could not tell the direction of the wind watching on TV but I suppose the commentators who mentioned it knew.

This New Zealand side seems intimidated by the Indians. I may be wrong but one does get that impression. I suspect with Fleming as skipper India would have had a tougher time.

 

[Precambrian]

The batsman should adjust to the team, and not the other way 'round. There is no excuse for not controlling strike if you're sent in to bat at #5. It's no good for your team - not a matter of "taking the blame" but simply a practical issue of scoring runs. Tailenders are hapless the world over - you know this for a fact and adjust your game accordingly. They shouldn't take the blame for the fact that a batsman is unable to do his job of not exposing them to the bowlers.

How effective can be a batsman if he himself is not sure that he is not going to last the over?

And your notion of tailenders hopeless worldwide is a statement which is made totally random. Consider how many tailenders are making 50s and even 100s : Vettori, Taylor, Kumble have all made 100s and Harbhajan, Steyn, Zaheer, Johnson, etc have made 50s. So it is an eroding perception that tailenders cannot take care of themselves nowadays.

So what should the No.6 batsman do? Realisically two things:

1. Never miss a scoring opportunity.
2. Put faith in your partner, because that is the base of any partnerships.

Laxman did exactly those two. Imagine if he did not place enough faith on his partner, and hogged the strike all by himself, taking only singles off the last ball, he survives like that for say 10 overs, and add what? 10 runs. The other scenario would be taking singles when they are on offer, say twice in an over, and assuming tailender is able to put some bat to ball, he scores another run every two overs. The result if they bat together would be 25 runs every 10 overs.

So it is a big myth that "protection" of tailenders is a job every No.6 batsman has to perform. A certain Steven Waugh made tons throwing out that myth out of the window. Unless the tailender is Munaf Patel or Chris Martin, two glorious exceptions than rule, I don't think batsmen be least bothered not to rotate strike.

 

[Evermind]

How effective can be a batsman if he himself is not sure that he is not going to last the over?

Then he has far bigger problems than the issue of protecting tailenders. If an international test batsman is unsure about lasting another over, he shouldn't be playing in the first place. His job is to last the overs, FFS, what're you talking about?

And your notion of tailenders hopeless worldwide is a statement which is made totally random. Consider how many tailenders are making 50s and even 100s : Vettori, Taylor, Kumble have all made 100s and Harbhajan, Steyn, Zaheer, Johnson, etc have made 50s. So it is an eroding perception that tailenders cannot take care of themselves nowadays.

Obviously I'm not talking about the Johnsons and the Vettoris but the McGraths, the Walshes, the Ishants. Thought that was understood. No batsman who has scored a century can be called a "tailender".

So what should the No.6 batsman do? Realisically two things:

1. Never miss a scoring opportunity.
2. Put faith in your partner, because that is the base of any partnerships.

Laxman did exactly those two. Imagine if he did not place enough faith on his partner, and hogged the strike all by himself, taking only singles off the last ball, he survives like that for say 10 overs, and add what? 10 runs. The other scenario would be taking singles when they are on offer, say twice in an over, and assuming tailender is able to put some bat to ball, he scores another run every two overs. The result if they bat together would be 25 runs every 10 overs.

So it is a big myth that "protection" of tailenders is a job every No.6 batsman has to perform. A certain Steven Waugh made tons throwing out that myth out of the window. Unless the tailender is Munaf Patel or Chris Martin, two glorious exceptions than rule, I don't think batsmen be least bothered not to rotate strike.

Really rather irrelevant to the issue. If your partner is wobbly and afraid, you cannot afford to put faith in him, and you can afford to miss scoring opportunities.

10 runs off 10 overs? You can't score a single boundary in those 10 overs? Astounding.

Take a boundary every two overs, and score 1 off the last ball. Your RR is 3.0.

 

[Precambrian]

Then he has far bigger problems than the issue of protecting tailenders. If an international test batsman is unsure about lasting another over, he shouldn't be playing in the first place. His job is to last the overs, FFS, what're you talking about?



Obviously I'm not talking about the Johnsons and the Vettoris but the McGraths, the Walshes, the Ishants. Thought that was understood. No batsman who has scored a century can be called a "tailender".



Really rather irrelevant to the issue. If your partner is wobbly and afraid, you cannot afford to put faith in him, and you can afford to miss scoring opportunities.

10 runs off 10 overs? You can't score a single boundary in those 10 overs? Astounding.

Take a boundary every two overs, and score 1 off the last ball. Your RR is 3.0.

1. A test batsman expects himself to last till the end of the innings. However, he cannot be sure of doing that. It is the same thing as wanting to live till 90, but is as controllable as death.

2. Who is not wobbly, atleast to start his innings in test cricket? And if you are talking about boundaries, the same can be applied to the second scenario also, a boundary (or two, considering the "tailender" is also getting equal opportunity) every two overs, conservatively taken as 6 runs every two overs, would add another 30 runs to the scenario.

Tell me one good example of a tailender-batsman partnership and I can show you the tailender having faced a very good percentage of deliveries of the total partnership.

 

[Precambrian]

When did the NZ-Ind series become part of a 5+ teams tournament? Crapinfo?

 

[biased indian]

He might have scored truckloads of runs and played so many test matches. But he can be in the team only as long as he can contribute consistently. If people are already prepared to retain him in the team despite a failure, that sends out all the wrong signals to the ones waiting.

hmm if we follow that principle Indian team would have said good bye to tendulkar dravid and laxman long time ago

 

[99*]

You are indeed an optimist.

Still, I'm optimistic about our batting second time round too. Expect Guptill, Flynn and Taylor to all get runs this time round.

I don't know. India haven't looked at their best so far and two quick wickets tommorow/today (depending on when I get this post out) exposes the tail.

 

[Precambrian]

hmm if we follow that principle Indian team would have said good bye to tendulkar dravid and laxman long time ago

Still believe Dravid did not deserve the long run he got. He was very mediocre the last couple of years, and any other good team, he wouldnt have lasted so long.

Laxman has never had a lean patch like Dravid.

Tendulkar? Must be kidding.