0.83%It was 4% half an hour back. So might be something like 0.83% now.
yesAm I the only one that still thinks it's very much game on with these 2 at the crease?
You are not alone. There are 1000s in the stadium there giving it an impression as if India is thumping it.Am I the only one that still thinks it's very much game on with these 2 at the crease?
Thank you for this brilliant post. Was exactly what I was referring to by asking about Raydu. I remember referring to terrible foresight and planning by the Indian team when they toured SAF last January and picked Sharma over another proper batsmen. The issue wasn't Sharma, the issue was the though process behind it. Shastri and his think tank seem to not have a proper place in plan.honestly, no idea. He was in pretty poor form in the leadup. But if Rayudu isn't the answer, then why did he get 3 years worth of JAMODIs in our middle order, when that time could have been spent grooming a better prospect? The Indian management will sometimes stubbornly stick with out of form players on the basis that they trust them to do the job and produce results eventually. But Rayudu was dropped on the eve of the tournament they were meant to be preparing him for. Whether or not Rayudu would have saved India today doesn't take away from the fact that it was really poor player management.
Similarly Pant has only batted at 4 in ODIs one time until this tournament. That's crazy. Pandya has only really started batting up the order this WC too. He was groomed to be a finisher at 6/7, but today he's sent in to guide a tricky chase ahead of MSD. You do not decide who takes on such crucial roles in your batting order once the tournament has started - the players for these roles should have been identified years ago and given sufficient time to grow into the role.
It's just not the way to go about things, and fittingly it's come back to bite them when it matters.
That shouldn't even be a question. It's a WC semi final, you get nothing from coming close. If you even have a 0.000001% of winning it you take every risk you need to allow it to happen. The only reason you would "bat it 50" here would be playing for your average.do we prefer India just bat out 50 here, or get bowled out showing #intent?
Against Aus in 2015 MSD just batted out the 50.
I'd rather they go for it here and look to pull off the impossible. No NRR to protect, and the quicker they're bowled out the quicker we're put out of our misery.
Previously unsaid sentence in all of historyThank you for this brilliant post. Was exactly what I was referring to by asking about Raydu. I remember referring to terrible foresight and planning by the Indian team when they toured SAF last January and picked Sharma over another proper batsmen. The issue wasn't Sharma, the issue was the though process behind it. Shastri and his think tank seem to not have a proper place in plan.