Unfair to say when you saw how much seam movement NZ extracted off the deck. I don't see NZ doing much better if things were flipped around and it's not fair to call it inexcusable to collapse vs difficult bowling and conditions. People greatly overestimate how much batters can handle these sorts of situation IMO.My point moreso, maybe not well made, is that I don't question for a second that we had the better of the conditions. I, however, think a more resilient, backs to the wall Indian side should have made more of the predicament they found themselves in. 46 all out was woeful. 150 was game on and eminently achievable.
But they clearly often do. 46 is an outlier, not the norm. Hence the criticism coming India's way.People greatly overestimate how much batters can handle these sorts of situation IMO.
That is more on luck than anything inherently problematic with Indian batting. Both teams managed a similar amount of false shots in this game, but one side got 20 wickets and the other didn't. Most of the time teams end up 30-3 before rebuilding when the ball is older.But they clearly often do. 46 is an outlier, not the norm. Hence the criticism coming India's way.
Nah, the dismissals of Rohit, Sarfaraz, Rahul and Jadeja were all pretty dire. Yeah batting was hard, but not 46 all out. Not even 146 all out hard.Unfair to say when you saw how much seam movement NZ extracted off the deck. I don't see NZ doing much better if things were flipped around and it's not fair to call it inexcusable to collapse vs difficult bowling and conditions. People greatly overestimate how much batters can handle these sorts of situation IMO.
Don't disagree on the bad shots, but disagree entirely on conditions being difficult. 46 is just a matter of luck, not some deficiency on display.Nah, the dismissals of Rohit, Sarfaraz, Rahul and Jadeja were all pretty dire. Yeah batting was hard, but not 46 all out. Not even 146 all out hard.
Batting is inherently high variance and prone to "**** happens" in that way but when so many of the dismissals are that bad it's not all luck.Don't disagree on the bad shots, but disagree entirely on conditions being difficult. 46 is just a matter of luck, not some deficiency on display.
46 is just a matter of luck, not some deficiency on display.
Is this genuine?46 is just a matter of luck, not some deficiency on display.
Batting is inherently high variance and prone to "**** happens" in that way but when so many of the dismissals are that bad it's not all luck.
India have a good batting line up but they batted very poorly.
I don't think it's a matter of bad technique though, more like being forced into making poor choices by the bowling. There's no real guarantee that doing a Pujara imitation would've helped in that situation. This doesn't excuse their mistakes though, it's more for understanding why they made them.
That's a good one.
Yeah it wasn't poor technique, it was just poor batting on the day.I don't think it's a matter of bad technique though, more like being forced into making poor choices by the bowling. There's no real guarantee that doing a Pujara imitation would've helped in that situation. This doesn't excuse their mistakes though, it's more for understanding why they made them.
But if people want to memeshit then fine by me, it's still a historic beating.
Plus India also collapsed to 2nd (and 3rd) new ball in 2nd innings. The problems are glaring. Hope Rohit realises that and doesn't make such mistakes at the toss again.Batting is inherently high variance and prone to "**** happens" in that way but when so many of the dismissals are that bad it's not all luck.
India have a good batting line up but they batted very poorly.
How unlike you.I'm gonna memeshit