***Official*** India's Tour of Australia 2020/21 - General discussion

[OverratedSanity]

You should get behind my Jadeja as opener plan then

Hold up lemme get some more ganja

 

[Shri]

Pant at 4? Wtf shri

the guy has a fc triple hundred and doesn't **** his pants at the sight of short balls

we could do a lot worse

 

[honestbharani]

You guys are giving up hope way too easily. If the team do not let the lollapse get to their heads, we are still in this series. We have won more sessions than we have lost, we just lost a session so poorly that it cost us the game.


Mayank
Rahul
Pujara
Vihari
Rahane
Pant
Jaddu
Ash
Saini/Siraj
Umesh
Bumrah


We are missing our #2 and #3 fast bowlers and a first choice opener and our #1 batsman. And I still wont rule out us giving Australia a run for their money next test and in the entire series, even after yesterday.

 

[aussie tragic]

You guys are giving up hope way too easily. If the team do not let the lollapse get to their heads, we are still in this series. We have won more sessions than we have lost, we just lost a session so poorly that it cost us the game.

Mayank
Rahul
Pujara
Vihari
Rahane
Pant
Jaddu
Ash
Saini/Siraj
Umesh
Bumrah

We are missing our #2 and #3 fast bowlers and a first choice opener and our #1 batsman. And I still wont rule us giving Australia a run for their money next test and in the entire series, even after yesterday.

36

 

[Daemon]

We have won more sessions than we have lost, we just lost a session so poorly that it cost us the game.

This is true. We managed to tie 2 sessions today as well, lets see how the 3rd one goes.

 

[stephen]

36

you forgot the lfmao

 

[Spark]

We have won more sessions than we have lost, we just lost a session so poorly that it cost us the game.

In all seriousness, is this not how most Tests are won or lost? It's not necessarily about winning every session first and foremost but avoiding the one or two really, really bad sessions where you lose complete control of the game, usually when batting.

 

[honestbharani]

In all seriousness, is this not how most Tests are won or lost? It's not necessarily about winning every session first and foremost but avoiding the one or two really, really bad sessions where you lose complete control of the game, usually when batting.

It is, but there is a difference between a side that is completely outclassed, like say how we were in 2011-12 across a test match and how we lost this test. It usually means while something did go wrong triggering a house of cards collapse, there are enough things done right to show this side can still win games against the same opposition. Of course they have to play better but better in this case, means be at their best for longer, unlike in 2011-12, where it was obvious that we could have had all 11 players at their peak and still lost.

 

[Spark]

It is, but there is a difference between a side that is completely outclassed, like say how we were in 2011-12 across a test match and how we lost this test. It usually means while something did go wrong triggering a house of cards collapse, there are enough things done right to show this side can still win games against the same opposition. Of course they have to play better but better in this case, means be at their best for longer, unlike in 2011-12, where it was obvious that we could have had all 11 players at their peak and still lost.

Oh yeah, like I keep saying, the smartest thing for India to do is to go "well, that was ****ing awful, let us never speak of that again" and move on. Rebuilding confidence >>>>>> fixing whatever minor technical deficiencies led to the dismissals (except Shaw, who really needs to put in some serious remedial work to get to Test standard as an opener). But nevertheless, the most basic task for a team is not to be at their best for longer, but to avoid being at their worst ever if at all possible.

Weirdly, this game reminded me so much of nothing than a lot of Australian efforts in England between 2009 and 2019; the team would put together a few sessions and indeed a few days of solid cricket together and be highly competitive in the game, then throw it all away in a session. First and foremost, that sort of thing has to be avoided, especially away from home.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh yeah, like I keep saying, the smartest thing for India to do is to go "well, that was ****ing awful, let us never speak of that again" and move on. Rebuilding confidence >>>>>> fixing whatever minor technical deficiencies led to the dismissals (except Shaw, who really needs to put in some serious remedial work to get to Test standard as an opener). But nevertheless, the most basic task for a team is not to be at their best for longer, but to avoid being at their worst ever if at all possible.

Weirdly, this game reminded me so much of nothing than a lot of Australian efforts in England between 2009 and 2019; the team would put together a few sessions and indeed a few days of solid cricket together and be highly competitive in the game, then throw it all away in a session. First and foremost, that sort of thing has to be avoided, especially away from home.

That is just another similarity between both India and Australia then, isn't it? India spent entirety of 2018 doing that, before finally correcting it in Australia, of all places.

I think the NZ tour was the worst we have had since Virat became captain, really. And even there, we were close with a first innings lead in one of the tests before doing a cheaper version of yesterday's lollapse.

 

[Spark]

That is just another similarity between both India and Australia then, isn't it? India spent entirety of 2018 doing that, before finally correcting it in Australia, of all places.

I think the NZ tour was the worst we have had since Virat became captain, really. And even there, we were close with a first innings lead in one of the tests before doing a cheaper version of yesterday's lollapse.

Yeah the similarities between this current India team and Lehmann/Clarke-era Australia are actually pretty strong; both teams that looked strong on paper but consistently managed to be less than the sum of their parts away from home due to a tendency to throw away competitive positions with abject and otherwise inexplicably poor batting efforts. And like with Lehmann-Clarke Australia, one suspects that the problem starts from the top with both weird selections undermining the team before it steps onto the field and a misguided overall philosophy and plan as to how they should approach their cricket outside of home conditions (while I think he was basically just speaking the first thing that came to his mind rather than being in any sort of mental state to analyse the day's events dispassionately, I think Kohli blaming yesterday on "a lack of intent" is revealing as to how he, and by extension team management, thinks they should play and reminds me a lot of Clarke's "natural game"-isms). Although once again I don't think it's fair to blame that in this particular instance, even if the broader pattern is a concerning one.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah the similarities between this current India team and Lehmann/Clarke-era Australia are actually pretty strong; both teams that looked strong on paper but consistently managed to be less than the sum of their parts away from home due to a tendency to throw away competitive positions with abject and otherwise inexplicably poor batting efforts. And like with Lehmann-Clarke Australia, one suspects that the problem starts from the top with both weird selections undermining the team before it steps onto the field and a misguided overall philosophy and plan as to how they should approach their cricket outside of home conditions (while I think he was basically just speaking the first thing that came to his mind rather than being in any sort of mental state to analyse the day's events dispassionately, I think Kohli blaming yesterday on "a lack of intent" is revealing as to how he, and by extension team management, thinks they should play and reminds me a lot of Clarke's "natural game"-isms). Although once again I don't think it's fair to blame that in this particular instance, even if the broader pattern is a concerning one.

I honestly dont think Australia are that different now away from home than India are. And funnily enough, even our LO sides seem to have the same question marks - like the #4 slot, the spinner etc, top 3 hogging the strike etc.

 

[Flem274*]

i don't think #intent is the issue - if anything someone having a swing at metronome bowlers to hit them off their length and corridor isn't a terrible idea because india did just cop it ball after ball in ridiculous areas.

their two most recent away series showed reasonable batting plans (dig in) but they're just undone by bounce + movement and good plans like dragging kohli wide to make him chase it or set him up for the surprise straight ball and forcing pujara to play straight down the ground.

they're probably the most studied batting unit in the world and they play a huge amount of A cricket, so any wonderkids like shaw are scouted and known about before they play against senior sides. indias batting has been well planned for by their opponents and they don't have an answer yet.

 

[Spark]

I honestly dont think Australia are that different now away from home than India are. And funnily enough, even our LO sides seem to have the same question marks - like the #4 slot, the spinner etc, top 3 hogging the strike etc.

We honestly have no real idea because this team has only played one away series at full strength under Langer, but that series definitely showed a significant alteration in approach and mentality compared to sides from the previous decade. But the real test will obviously be the next time they play in the subcontinent; I don't necessarily expect us to win those series but being more competitive would be a damn good start.

 

[stephen]

The thing about #intent isn't that it's wrong, it's that it's not nuanced enough.

When you're a batter and the runs have dried up, it's important that you can wrest some momentum back from the bowling side. But the way to do that is not to try and tee off against the next ball you face "because #intent". What you have to do (and against the Australian bowling yesterday it was almost impossible) is figure out somewhere to score safely. Even if it's just a single. You then focus on scoring that way. You're not trying to hit the bowlers off their game, you're trying to change the momentum of the innings. Singles are as good as fours for doing that. Singles let you get off the strike and scuttle bowling plans against you.

Now applying that to Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood - most batters were getting a bouncer every over or two. So maybe focus on getting something down to fine leg for a single whenever they bowl one. It doesn't have to be pretty, it does have to be safe and result in some runs being scored. And you know that Starc is going to get his length wrong at least once every couple of overs, so consider playing an on drive with the swing to pick up runs there. All of a sudden you have two scoring shots that can safely get you off the strike.

Plans are just as important for batsmen as they are for bowlers. The Indian batsmen in the 36 AO looked like they had no plans. Part of that was good bowling, but a big part of that was poor discipline.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The problem with #intent is that it means anything Kohli wants it to. The word's been used after every match India loses, in a variety of contexts all with different meanings . A genius one-word-fits-all answer to any question asked about why the team underperformed.

 

[Spark]

The problem with #intent is that it means anything Kohli wants it to be. The word's been used after every match India loses, in a variety of contexts all with different meanings . A genius one-word-fits-all answer to any question asked about why the team underperformed.

Yeah stephen is spot on about the importance of changing the momentum of the innings and it's something i've come to believe it's really important, but I think Kohli really was just saying the first thing that came to his head there without really thinking through what he meant by it. You can't blame him for that really; doing a post match interview like that would be a pretty horrible experience.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Still relevant

How is intent the key? What does that even mean? It's BS speak used by motivational speakers, captains and coaches to sound like they know what they're talking about when they're actually saying nothing at all.

John Wright showed intent when he batted an entire day and only scored 50 runs. His intention was to not get out.

Jesse Ryder showed intent when he missed a morning team practice. His intention was to sleep off his hangover.

I showed intent when I scratched my balls last night while watching telly. My intention was to relieve my itchy balls.

 

[Burner]

This time it's really baffling because India played with the same approach in the first innings. Pujara took something like 160 balls for his 43. If anything, had Kohli used the same approach he wouldn't have had been caught nicking off. I watched the whole of his innings in the first innings and he didn't play any cover drives at all through the whole 180 balls he played.

I understand why he thought he had to attack, though. It just didn't come off.

'Intent' as a word has lost all meaning when it comes from Kohli.

 

[Spark]

Still relevant

It's a good post. Still, though, the basic point that you aren't just batting mindlessly but you should have some concrete idea of what you're trying to achieve -- how you're going to try and score, what risks are reasonable to take and not reasonable to take, how you're going to counter the likely ways the bowlers are going to target you -- is entirely correct. Even if the answers to those questions you come up with aren't optimal, having an idea of what you're going to do, and sticking to it, is a massive improvement over the alternative. Optimisation is less important than clarity of thought, but I guess "clarity of thought" and "knowing what you're doing" doesn't sound good in sports psychologist lingo as "intent".

It actually goes back to the quick singles discussion the other day too. If you can demonstrate that you can still score runs with little risk (well, other than comedy run outs), then the bowlers will have to try something else to encourage you to take risks, and the "something else" they come up with almost certainly be less effective than what they originally had in mind for a whole range of reasons.