*Official* India Tour of Australia 2018/19

[Spark]

Well when Michael Hussey and Adam Gilchrist are behind you in the lineup, maybe, just maybe, your team strategy might change?

i mean, dravid was batting above tendulkar, ganguly, laxman

 

[Prince EWS]

Nope, coming from a planet that Ian Chappell, Viv Richards, Kim Hughes, Ricky Ponting batted 3 for their country

Imagine thinking those blokes were good batsmen because of their strike rates and not because they scored lots of runs.

Or indeed imagine thinking Ian Chappell or Kim Hughes were better than Pujara.

Something something Bash Brothers something something.

 

[silentstriker]

i mean, dravid was batting above tendulkar, ganguly, laxman

But you had Sehwag as an opener, and his opposite tended to be a revolving door, so India still needed someone like Dravid to bat around.

 

[Spark]

But you had Sehwag as an opener, and his opposite tended to be a revolving door, so India still needed someone like Dravid to bat around.

sure, just saying that solid but slow #3s are hardly a new thing

if not for pujara, australia would have won in 2017 and would be well on the way to winning here. too slow tho

 

[OverratedSanity]

But you had Sehwag as an opener, and his opposite tended to be a revolving door, so India still needed someone like Dravid to bat around.

Dravid was perfect even before sehwag debuted

 

[silentstriker]

sure, just saying that solid but slow #3s are hardly a new thing

Yeah absolutely. I mean of course ideally you'd want someone capable of playing either way. But this Pujara innings is vital for his team, not in spite of, but because of the time he has spent at the crease. To imply otherwise just shows a lack of appreciation and understanding of Test cricket, this Indian team, and the match and series situation that is going on right now.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Is it Ian Chappell who's spread this myth about how a number 3 absolutely needs to be an attacking batsman? It's so dumb.

 

[Spark]

Yeah absolutely. I mean of course ideally you'd want someone capable of playing either way. But this Pujara innings is vital for his team, not in spite of, but because of the time he has spent at the crease. To imply otherwise just shows a lack of appreciation and understanding of Test cricket, this Indian team, and the match and series situation that is going on right now.

but but bash brothers

 

[aussie tragic]

Imagine thinking those blokes were good batsmen because of their strike rates and not because they scored lots of runs.

Or indeed imagine thinking Ian Chappell or Kim Hughes were better than Pujara.

Something something Bash Brothers something something.

Lol, at least it got the thread moving, it was slower than Pujara'a batting

And yes, I think Chappell and Hughes were much better than Pujara

 

[Anil]

what the **** is kohli doing?

 

[Spark]

Is it Ian Chappell who's spread this myth about how a number 3 absolutely needs to be an attacking batsman? It's so dumb.

i believe so yeah. but it doesn't even work in an australian context; david boon was hardly a dasher

 

[silentstriker]

Is it Ian Chappell who's spread this myth about how a number 3 absolutely needs to be an attacking batsman? It's so dumb.

Ian Chappell: Why Pujara is India's ideal No. 3

 

[Spark]

Lol, at least it got the thread moving, it was slower than Pujara'a batting

And yes, I think Chappell and Hughes were much better than Pujara

your thoughts are dumb and bad, then

 

[trundler]

An attacking 4 (Kohli) and defensive #3 (ChePu) isn't different at all from the opposite combo.

 

[trundler]

That was some wtf running

 

[Spark]

An attacking 4 (Kohli) and defensive #3 (ChePu) isn't different at all from the opposite combo.

it doesn't even matter much if they're "attacking" or "defensive". their main job is to score runs in all conditions by whatever method works best for them. to pretend otherwise is delusional #intent garbage.

 

[silentstriker]

Lol, at least it got the thread moving, it was slower than Pujara'a batting

And yes, I think Chappell and Hughes were much better than Pujara

Seriously? Much better? Hughes averaged 37 with 9 centuries in 67 matches. Pujara averages about 50 with 17 centuries in the same number of matches...

It's a different era and all that and if you prefer one over the other, fair play to you. I'm not going to argue. But much better? Come on.

Unless you're talking about ODIs, in which case yeah - Pujara has played 5 ODIs.

 

[Prince EWS]

Is it Ian Chappell who's spread this myth about how a number 3 absolutely needs to be an attacking batsman? It's so dumb.

I came to enjoy Chappell's commentary by the end on Nine, possibly only by comparison to the other Nine guys because he actually watched and researched overseas cricket, but three recurring themes of his commentary almost seemed to me as if he was trying to indirectly big himself up.

1. "The best batsman in the team should bat #3" -- because he batted #3, and he likes to think he was the best batsman in his team
2. "A #3 should look to bat with intent and take on the bowlers" -- because he did that, and if others from other teams/eras didn't then they weren't true number #3s and therefore not the best batsmen in their side (see point #1), reducing his competition
3. Good captaincy is massively undervalued and can have an even bigger influence on the fortunes of a team than we already credit it with -- because he was a captain for a period, and he likes to think his team would've only won half as often if someone else was during that period

If you took on all his cricketing philosophies you couldn't help but come to the conclusion that Ian Chappell was one of the best cricketers of all time. What an amazing coincidence.

 

[trundler]

it doesn't even matter much if they're "attacking" or "defensive". their main job is to score runs in all conditions by whatever method works best for them. to pretend otherwise is delusional #intent garbage.

Sure but ideally you'd want both kinds of batsmen to put the opposition under all sorts of pressure by tiring the bowlers AND keeping the scoreboard ticking, making the bowlers question themselves etc

 

[Spark]

Sure but ideally you'd want both kinds of batsmen to put the opposition under all sorts of pressure by tiring the bowlers AND keeping the scoreboard ticking, making the bowlers question themselves etc

yeah pujara does that though. he's not chris tavare, he's merely circumspect at the start of his innings