*Official* 2nd Test at the MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai, 13 - 17 Feb 2021

[Teja.]

Choking Rahane on the leg side will the death of him. Good bowling by England.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Can see Rohit doing something stupid now that his scoring has been cut down for a few overs.

 

[Burgey]

Who’s the pommie commentator saying it’s a revolution in cricket learning for a bloke like Bess who’s just been dropped to be sitting there talking to the team spin bowling coach while watching the game?

This is terrible. So ****ing cringeworthy. Their commentary is as bad as ours, just in different ways.

 

[Deleted member 38150]

finally a good shot from rahane..should give him some confidence

 

[Teja.]

Can see Rohit doing something stupid now that his scoring has been cut down for a few overs.

He bats like he is holding his piss till he gets a boundary every over he is on strike.

 

[Teja.]

The footwork, the balance, the stride forward, the impact. Rahane.

 

[Burgey]

Shot of the day there from the stoner

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes but you don’t ignore all of the most recent away runs when picking a side at home.

It's not a normal situation though. My posts were:
* admittedly (and repeatedly) half-serious
* talking about a a very weird niche scenario

I was basically (half-seriously) challenging what you just presented as an axiom, in situations where players have long careers of performing a long away ahead of the mean away but below the mean at home.

What do you do when this goes beyond a weird quirk and develops into something that's unlikely to be caused by variance? History suggests - just ignore it and pick them anyway. But maybe there's a better way (or maybe not). Teams do it with bowlers all the time.

Some people have suggested Rahane should just be straight up dropped (D R O P P E D. dropped.) and I think this is insane. Even if we were to guess that some HTB would average more averall if he played all the games Rahane did, India's away games are much more likely to be close to the point where this matters, so Rahane would still be the better pick. But what if this player could play at home and Rahane could play away? There could be numerous pitfalls to this -- waivierng selectors who'd be tempted to reverse the policy about after Rahane won India away series or this other player averaged 140 at home; deterioration of Rahane's game after long stretches of not playing Tests at all; stunted development and potential waste of the other batsman's talents -- but if these could be avoided or mitigated then the benefits would be obvious.

You challenged my original post which was realistically more cricket-philosophical than specifically about Rahane by questioning the idea that Rahane has been disappointing at home, and when I pointed out when he was still below the mean in the period you questioned you made it even more Rahane-specific by bringing in away performances. Regardless of anything else, they don't challenge the premise of my post. If anything they support it. It feels like you're letting your knee jerk to the defence of your favourite batsman a bit too much tbh.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

ok

 

[Daemon]

It's not a normal situation though. My posts were:
* admittedly (and repeatedly) half-serious
* talking about a a very weird niche scenario

I was basically (half-seriously) challenging what you just presented as an axiom, in situations where players have long careers of performing a long away ahead of the mean away but below the mean at home.

What do you do when this goes beyond a weird quirk and develops into something that's unlikely to be caused by variance? History suggests - just ignore it and pick them anyway. But maybe there's a better way (or maybe not). Teams do it with bowlers all the time.

Some people have suggested Rahane should just be straight up dropped (D R O P P E D. dropped.) and I think this is insane. Even if we were to guess that some HTB would average more averall if he played all the games Rahane did, India's away games are much more likely to be close to the point where this matters, so Rahane would still be the better pick. But what if this player could play at home and Rahane could play away? There could be numerous pitfalls to this -- waivierng selectors who'd be tempted to reverse the policy about after Rahane won India away series or this other player averaged 140 at home; deterioration of Rahane's game after long stretches of not playing Tests at all; stunted development and potential waste of the other batsman's talents -- but if these could be avoided or mitigated then the benefits would be obvious.

You challenged my original post which was realistically more cricket-philosophical than specifically about Rahane by questioning the idea that Rahane has been disappointing at home, and when I pointed out when he was still below the mean in the period you questioned you made it even more Rahane-specific by bringing in away performances. Regardless of anything else, they don't challenge the premise of my post. If anything they support it. It feels like you're letting your knee jerk to the defence of your favourite batsman a bit too much tbh.

ok

 

[Teja.]

It's not a normal situation though. My posts were:
* admittedly (and repeatedly) half-serious
* talking about a a very weird niche scenario

I was basically (half-seriously) challenging what you just presented as an axiom, in situations where players have long careers of performing a long away ahead of the mean away but below the mean at home.

What do you do when this goes beyond a weird quirk and develops into something that's unlikely to be caused by variance? History suggests - just ignore it and pick them anyway. But maybe there's a better way (or maybe not). Teams do it with bowlers all the time.

Some people have suggested Rahane should just be straight up dropped (D R O P P E D. dropped.) and I think this is insane. Even if we were to guess that some HTB would average more averall if he played all the games Rahane did, India's away games are much more likely to be close to the point where this matters, so Rahane would still be the better pick. But what if this player could play at home and Rahane could play away? There could be numerous pitfalls to this -- waivierng selectors who'd be tempted to reverse the policy about after Rahane won India away series or this other player averaged 140 at home; deterioration of Rahane's game after long stretches of not playing Tests at all; stunted development and potential waste of the other batsman's talents -- but if these could be avoided or mitigated then the benefits would be obvious.

You challenged my original post which was realistically more cricket-philosophical than specifically about Rahane by questioning the idea that Rahane has been disappointing at home, and when I pointed out when he was still below the mean in the period you questioned you made it even more Rahane-specific by bringing in away performances. Regardless of anything else, they don't challenge the premise of my post. If anything they support it. It feels like you're letting your knee jerk to the defence of your favourite batsman a bit too much tbh.

Yes, I agree that horses for courses is at least a theoretically effective way to pick not just bowlers but batsman. I wouldn't have minded if Rahane is dropped for home tests in 2017 and picked again for the SA tests in 2018. I just made the point that he was very successful in his recent home tests so the joke example that you brought up to make your philosophical point doesn't quite work.

I actually agree with the broader point that you are making and fair cop, I was a bit sensitive in replying to you considering other people actually want Rahane dropped.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sunny trying to make the batsmen out to be the oppressed class.

 

[Daemon]

Foakes looks pretty good behind the wickets so far.

Keeps well too

 

[Niall]

Who’s the pommie commentator saying it’s a revolution in cricket learning for a bloke like Bess who’s just been dropped to be sitting there talking to the team spin bowling coach while watching the game?

This is terrible. So ****ing cringeworthy. Their commentary is as bad as ours, just in different ways.

Nothing and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is worse than Shane Warne on commentary.

Right now we are living in a pandemic where everyone is stressed and Australia thought what everyone needed was Shane Warne was to do his banter for 4 tests.

Oh and casually accuse an Indian player of match fixing lets not forget.

 

[mackembhoy]

Who’s the pommie commentator saying it’s a revolution in cricket learning for a bloke like Bess who’s just been dropped to be sitting there talking to the team spin bowling coach while watching the game?

This is terrible. So ****ing cringeworthy. Their commentary is as bad as ours, just in different ways.

Butchers on now so unsure if it was him. Nick Knight is the other one.

 

[Prince EWS]

Assuming his home and away averages didn't change, if Rohit had been dismissed as many times at home as he has away he'd average 55.85 in Test cricket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

What the **** rohit

 

[Burgey]

Wtf is Sharma doing here

 

[cnerd123]

Rohit literally trying to throw this 100 away. WTF was that paddle sweep

 

[Burgey]

Nothing and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is worse than Shane Warne on commentary.

Right now we are living in a pandemic where everyone is stressed and Australia thought what everyone needed was Shane Warne was to do his banter for 4 tests.

Oh and casually accuse an Indian player of match fixing lets not forget.

Ok