• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* Group A Discussion - Pakistan, West Indies, Australia, India

Naumaan

First Class Debutant
Put it another way. If you're chasing 302 off 300 balls, and someone in the side scores 76 off 103, the rest of the side have to make 226 runs at a strike rate of 115. Big ask. Is that harder or easier than casing 302 at a strike rate of 101? It's debateable. When a batsman hits 76 and it's debateable whether he's helped or hindered his side, he surely shouldn't be in the team.
well for me if dravid wasn't there in the indian side yesterday, they would have bowled out for 200 & i mean that
there was tough period when Afridi was bowling & he somehow survived that
By the way India are Best Side In The World & i can't see them reaching semi's now, really tough from here on
Same hype was created in T20 world cup & why does this is created???? Just to earn money from their people
on the other hand we now have realised that we can't even every game or every tournament so we enjoy victories & accept defeats
by the way Great to see Pakistan doing well, even if some are using money to finish cricket from Pakistan :D:D:D:D:D
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
But where would those 76 runs come from if not for Dravid? India showed in the end it was the wickets in hand which was the problem for them. I think there are alternatives to Dravid but him being in the team is not as bad as you make it out to be. It is not as if others have been stepping up to earn themselves a spot yet. There is a fair argument to drop Rohit Sharma as he has played poorly in his ODI career so far (though I woudn't do it mysef) and Badrinath and Kaif score at the same S/R as Dravid. Then there is Kohli who is just not ready enough right now IMO. It is fair enough that Dravid gets a run, though I would have chosen Badrinath instead. I wouldn't have selected Dravid but he is a proven performer who is arguaby not past it yet. So there are many good reasons for him getting a chance ahead of the Badrinaths and the Kaifs.
I think this is the reason players like Dravid so often retain their places in sides. Scoring 70 off 102 when his side are bowled out gives the impression of a nuggety lone ranger, stubbornly defying the opposition attack when the others collapsed all around him.

I don't really buy it though, it's a cause and effect thing. Collapses in ODI cricket are usually caused by the pressure of a rising required run-rate, which Dravid in turn is responsible for. Dravid's slow batting often forces players to score at or over a run a ball from the moment they arrive at the crease, and the intense pressure of that requirement causes them to get out.

Yesterday is a bit of a borderline case. Had Dravid kept India on top of the run rate, would Gambhir have set off for a risky single? Probably, yes, because Dravid called him through. Would Kohli have tried to hit over the top so early in his innings? Surely not. Would Dhoni have danced down the track to Afridi? Maybe. Would Yusuf Pathan have tried to hit Mohammed Aamer over mid-on after being at the crease for nine balls? We can't know for sure. But the pressure of an ever-rising run rate can't have helped.

There's not really any facts that can determine whether your lone-ranger theory or my putting-pressure-on-the-rest theory is correct. It's just a different way of seeing things. I would, however, direct you to the facts I mentioned earlier in the thread on India with and without Dravid in the side:

Since his 1996 ODI debut, Dravid has played in 259 completed ODIs against the other test nations, Bangladesh excluded, of which India have won 111 and lost 148. India have also played 85 completed matches without Dravid, of which they've won 48 and lost 37. Feel free to analyse that.
 

Naumaan

First Class Debutant
Naumaan, you're one of the better guys around here, don't fall prey to that victim mentality.
well the thing is there are two types of Arguments
One is baseless other is Very visible one
but whatever, Guys here saying that India lost cuz three players didn't play, but then Pakistan won the match, even they didn't play much cricket in Past few years
 

Naumaan

First Class Debutant
I think this is the reason players like Dravid so often retain their places in sides. Scoring 70 off 102 when his side are bowled out gives the impression of a nuggety lone ranger, stubbornly defying the opposition attack when the others collapsed all around him.

I don't really buy it though, it's a cause and effect thing. Collapses in ODI cricket are usually caused by the pressure of a rising required run-rate, which Dravid in turn is responsible for. Dravid's slow batting often forces players to score at or over a run a ball from the moment they arrive at the crease, and the intense pressure of that requirement causes them to get out.

Yesterday is a bit of a borderline case. Had Dravid kept India on top of the run rate, would Gambhir have set off for a risky single? Probably, yes, because Dravid called him through. Would Kohli have tried to hit over the top so early in his innings? Surely not. Would Dhoni have danced down the track to Afridi? Maybe. Would Yusuf Pathan have tried to hit Mohammed Aamer over mid-on after being at the crease for nine balls? We can't know for sure. But the pressure of an ever-rising run rate can't have helped.

There's not really any facts that can determine whether your lone-ranger theory or my putting-pressure-on-the-rest theory is correct. It's just a different way of seeing things. I would, however, direct you to the facts I mentioned earlier in the thread on India with and without Dravid in the side:

Since his 1996 ODI debut, Dravid has played in 259 completed ODIs against the other test nations, Bangladesh excluded, of which India have won 111 and lost 148. India have also played 85 completed matches without Dravid, of which they've won 48 and lost 37. Feel free to analyse that.
if i can comment on your post, then i think for the last game we were saying that till Dravid is in the crease Pakistan will have less chances of winning, cuz our bowling idn't one which stops runs, they take wickets or go for runs
therefore he did really well to hold one end
just wasn't the day where other could stay longer
if india had won, everyone would have been rating his innings as being one of the best
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Yesterday is a bit of a borderline case. Had Dravid kept India on top of the run rate, would Gambhir have set off for a risky single? Probably, yes, because Dravid called him through. Would Kohli have tried to hit over the top so early in his innings? Surely not. Would Dhoni have danced down the track to Afridi? Maybe. Would Yusuf Pathan have tried to hit Mohammed Aamer over mid-on after being at the crease for nine balls? We can't know for sure. But the pressure of an ever-rising run rate can't have helped.
The argument against that is that as you have a player at the other end who is safeguarding one end, the stroke players feel free to play their natural game. Partnerships work in pairs. In the end, the S/R of the partnership has to be good and we usually do see that happening when one player assures a wicket is not lost at one end. Dravid could have perhaps rotated the strike a bit more instead of going for the fours but a S/R of 70 is not criminal as you are giving the team 76 runs for it. As Naumann said, the team would have been all out for 200 had it not been for Dravid. With Dravid there, India had a fair chance to reach the target. Gambhir's run out was bad luck and Gambhir and then Raina almost won it for India.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The argument against that is that as you have a player at the other end who is safeguarding one end, the stroke players feel free to play their natural game.
I think that's fair enough when you're chasing 230 or 250. Dravid's innings meant that the other batsmen combined needed to strike at about 115 runs per hundred balls. There aren't any players in the India side whose natural game involves doing that, so in actual fact, Dravid was forcing them to do something completely outside their natural game.

Partnerships work in pairs. In the end, the S/R of the partnership has to be good and we usually do see that happening when one player assures a wicket is not lost at one end. Dravid could have perhaps rotated the strike a bit more instead of going for the fours but a S/R of 70 is not criminal as you are giving the team 76 runs for it. As Naumann said, the team would have been all out for 200 had it not been for Dravid. With Dravid there, India had a fair chance to reach the target. Gambhir's run out was bad luck and Gambhir and then Raina almost won it for India.
This is another fallacy that ensures players like Dravid retain their place in the side. Dravid isn't "ensuring" a wicket is not lost at his end at all. All he's doing is scoring slowly. There's a notable difference. He almost always gets out anyway, usually to a defensive shot or an attempted nurdle. He averages 39, compared to (say) Yuvraj Singh's 37, so in actual fact he's only very, very slightly less likely to get out than Yuvraj is. Defensive batting gives the illusion of safety, nothing more.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
There seem to be multiple problems shown up, once again, and nothing seems to have been learnt by the Indian team management. To begin with, the pace attack needs a reshuffle, and they need to bowl differently. They're all slow, one-paced and getting nothing out of any pitch, and batsmen are taking advantage of it. Coming at 130-135k, with no 140k-and-over deliveres, this attack looks weak. Lack of pace, coupled with lack of yorkers, has weakened them. It still doesn't make sense when Ishant Sharma, the fastest and most productive bowler, is coming in first-change with a field spread out. We often see him get edges that go for four through thirdman.

The much-maligned seam attack still finihsed with seven wickets, and took several at a rush in the chaotic final overs. Nehra, a subject of jokes, finished with respectable figures. The part-timers, however, are the real weakness. We saw them send down over 11 overs wihtout taking a wicket, and a partnership of 206 runs was scored. That allowed the batsmen to settle in nicely, and they came back to smash the pacers. The Indians lack proper middle-overs bowlers, but Dhoni's choices in that phase don't seem to be a solution, and just highlight the problem. They have to have their best bowlers in the middle-overs so that scoring runs becomes tough and wickets fall, as it happened with the Indian batsmen. Talking of part-timers, while Yusuf did his best in the middle, he could have been used in the final ten overs more.

The bowling failures now give away matches, putting the team in situations where the batting can't rescue them. The batsmen just don't seem to have the striking power or momentum to chase big totals regularly. An array of defensive strokes by Dravid, Kohli's attempt to hit a six to get caught and Yusuf playing a loose shot under pressure of the asking rate are proof of it. They hit straight to the fielders, making things easy for a fielding side even weaker than their own, never testing them- Kohli's shot notwithstanding. Singles were not taken, no innovative shots were played and very few shots could go to the fence, let alone into the stands. And what is the problem with RP Singh, Nehra and Ishant? The three looked totally hopeless with the bat, and now present another area of weakness.

Rahul Dravid's batting has become a subject of debate, and that it happens when he scores 73, suggests he's failed on the day. Too many defensive prods, too few singles taken, two run-outs against the run of play and struggles to lift the ball were the characteristic of that innings. At the end of the day, what did he do? He slowed down the scoring rate and innings lost momentum, yet again. At that strike rate, the team would need six Yusuf Pathans in the lineup, and with the hit-or-miss striker misfiring, they were done in.

All in all, Dhoni said that five bowlers were a luxury, so they went in with four. They were struck easily in that soft spot by an apparently shaky batting side, and couldn't recover. The purpose of strengthening the batting was not fulfilled, because of the weakened bowling. His faith in pace over a proper spinner is also questionable- where is the pace in this attack?
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I think that's fair enough when you're chasing 230 or 250. Dravid's innings meant that the other batsmen combined needed to strike at about 115 runs per hundred balls. There aren't any players in the India side whose natural game involves doing that, so in actual fact, Dravid was forcing them to do something completely outside their natural game....


This is another fallacy that ensures players like Dravid retain their place in the side. Dravid isn't "ensuring" a wicket is not lost at his end at all. All he's doing is scoring slowly. There's a notable difference. He almost always gets out anyway, usually to a defensive shot or an attempted nurdle. He averages 39, compared to (say) Yuvraj Singh's 37, so in actual fact he's only very, very slightly less likely to get out than Yuvraj is. Defensive batting gives the illusion of safety, nothing more.
In partnerships, if you are assured you wont lose a wicket at one end, the other player can feel assured to play his natural game. Playing his natural game, a stroke player can easily average at a S/R of 115 like Gambhir and Raina were showing (they batted aggressively pretty competently, don't remember their S/R).

EDIT - Just checked. Gambhir's S/R - 124, Raina's S/R - 112. So there you are.
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You can never be assured you won't lose a wicket at one end though, that's the point. Dravid nearly always gets out while batting defensively anyway. If he was averaging 50 I'd agree with your point.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
In partnerships, if you are assured you wont lose a wicket at one end, the other player can feel assured to play his natural game. Playing his natural game, a stroke player can easily average at a S/R of 115 like Gambhir and Raina were showing (they batted aggressively pretty competently, don't remember their S/R).

EDIT - Just checked. Gambhir's S/R - 124, Raina's S/R - 112. So there you are.
That doesn't necessarily mean they were playing their natural game. Their career S/Rs would suggest otherwise.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I dunno. A strike rate of 125 is pretty steep by anyone's standards. Particularly if the RRR is just staying the same and not getting any smaller.

I suppose the only way to know is to ask the players whether they like batting in a partnership with Dravid.

Btw, why do you think the team has a success rate so much higher when Dravid is not in the team?
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
What's South Africa's record with Kallis in the team and out of it? Just interested.

(and how do you find this record?)
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Alrighty, South Africa have won 154 and lost 86 matches with Jacques Kallis in the side. Since his debut, they've won 27 and lost 15.

He hasn't missed many, and there's not a great deal of difference there. It does still kinda imply that they wouldn't really miss him if he wasn't there.

There's a few reasons I'm so much more critical of Dravid than I am of Kallis. Firstly, Kallis goes on a lot more, averaging 45 to Dravid's 39. Secondly, it's untrue how much harder batting in ODIs in South Africa is to batting in ODIs in India. Thirdly, South Africa's strength for much of his career has been their bowling, so there's no need to go for 300 and try to win the game with the bat, unlike for India who have tended to be a bit weaker with the ball and need more runs to defend. Fourthly, he's in the team as an all-rounder.

But finally, and most importantly, I just think Kallis already gets enough criticism for it. People call him selfish all the time. He's not a great ODI batsman, and I do feel he can be somewhat overrated in the format at times. But he's an awful lot better than Dravid IMO.

Another interesting comparison would be Ganguly, who has a strike rate and average only marginally ahead of Dravid's. I'm not entirely sure what I make of him.
 
Last edited:

Top