Tony Blade
U19 Cricketer
Link isnt working
-
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*** India in Pakistan
- Thread starter Pratters
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Not really, because Pathan and Kumble would have played regardless... The fifth bowler chosen was most likely RP Singh, and he has three wickets.adharcric said:
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
It is not comparable to the first test first of all. You are the one who is comparing performances based on a day of the match. If comparing scores is to be done - Pakistan batted much better in the first test and were better than 379/4. So India is doing better in that regard 'by your logic'.marc71178 said:
Second you haven't assessed what the score could be with 4 bowlers, you haven't seen India bat again even if the team has to be justified on match situations - I dont see why necessarily it has to be compared that way because it can well be a case of the other team playing better and deserving their position more to do with their performances. I mean if Australia wins or Bangladesh loses, we can still have point of views on team composition being right or wrong. Why you are trying to question my being in favour of the composition gicing the logic of a day's performance I cannot fathom.
If match situations have to be compared, how pathetic would India's position be with Pathan and 3 other people playing and Zaheer/RP excluded right now?!
You are averse to playing a 5th bowler and I have stated what I feel is a better option in conditions India do not fancy themselves to take 20 wickets because of their bowling linup. I know which I'd rather have as well.
Last edited:
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
WHY FIVE BOWLERS AT FAISALABAD ?
India's decision to go in with 5 bowlers needs to be seen a bit dispassionately and purely on cricketing merits. It wont make everyone agree or disagree with the decision but the thinking of the management behind the decision wont look as warped/illogical/biased OR inevitable as it is made out by some to be. It is none of these. It is just what they felt should be done based on how they read the strengths of their team and how these need to be harnessed to fit in with the objectives for the series and conditions for the game.
Background and ground conditions :
Last game showed up the Indian batting to be as solid as it is ever going to be possible with just two batsmen getting a hit. The bowling on other hand looked decidedly weak (on the dead track of course). Same held true for the opponents. The conclusion would be, logically, that if one of the two departments, batting or bowling, needed to be strengthened (assuming another batting track), it had to be the latter.
So. With the last game in mind, they could have opted
- either for with the same team (pointing to similar results)
- or tried to strengthen the bowling thinking even a slightly weakened batting would be adequate on a batting track.
Fair enough. So what what could they possibly take into consideration.
Objectives :
Try to make a bid for this test to take a lead in the series rather wait for the third which is more likely to be in conditions helpful to home team. Doesn’t mean they would do it but 5 bowlers would surely make it that little bit more likely than four. The fact that the third seamer took three wickets might be cited but that’s not the point I am trying to make.
I would not be surprised if Pakistan are opting for an opposite strategy of drawing this game and making an all out bid in the third test and that Naved is being protested from another onslaught on a batsmen’s paradise and will be back as joint spearhead at Karachi
Negative Impact
It leaves the team a batsman short which means you are leaning on your batting line up to provide insurance against too low a score. Is that a gamble ? Yes it’s a bit of a gamble to the extent any aggressive/positive strategy is always going to be but under the conditions is it a massive gamble...doesn’t appear so. Lets see how ..
Who to leave out.
If Dravid had failed in the opening slot at Lahore we would have probably seen a regular opener back at the top in which case they would have had to drop BOTH Ganguly and Yuvraj. Its possible they may have considered THAT to be a tad more adventurous than what they have done now. Because it would mean not just being one batsman short but having an opener either struggling to stay in the team (Gambhir) or one too tense because it may be his last chance to make a comeback into the team (Jaffer). I suspect they would have thought much harder in that case and may not, just may not, have done what they have done now.
Is it too big a gamble having Dhoni at 6 and Pathan at 7 ?
No one can really tell what Dhoni abd Pathan will end up as their individual scores in this innings or what Ganguly would have got had he played. Many will have the pleasure of jumping up with "I told you so's" after this innings/test is over but the captain has to decide without that advantage and subsequent events may or may not justify that decision. If it always did, we wouldn’t qualify a calculated risk by adding the word 'calculated' before it.
So what’s the calculation ? Is Pathan an all rounder or batsman enough to replace Ganguly ? Perhaps not but can we look at recent history. Here is how Dhoni, Pathan and Ganguly have performed in the last 5 test matches (prior to this series.
PLAYER.....RUNS.....AVERAGE.....50+.....100+......Highest
Ganguly.......204............29.1...........0..... ....1............101
Dhoni..........149.............37.3...........1... ......0.............51
Pathan.........286............40.9...........3.... .....0.............93
If instead of last 5 tests we took the entire year 2005, the figures of Pathan and Ganguly would be :-
Ganguly.......249.............24.9..........0..... ....1.............101
Pathan.........350.............31.8.........4..... .....0..............93
The figures are there before us. Do they prove that Dhoni and Patah are better batsmen than Ganguly, of course not. Do they show there is some merit in the gamble taken by the team management, I would think so.
Will it pay off ?
Who knows? If only those decisions were taken that paid off, very few decisions would be taken in this world and no one would like to become a decision maker
What else could have been done ?
Now comes the vexing/emotional question of Saurav Ganguly. Having done so much wrong, compromised so much, been the laughing stock of all right thinking people in the world, all because we wanted to treat a former Indian captain (and the most successful one ever) should we have faltered at the penultimate stage ? Should we not have gone through the Ganguly-swansong/treat him with dignity bit and done it without compromising the teams interests too greatly ?
I think there WAS a window. I would not advise it normally but having done so much for this one cause, we might have considered including Ganguly at the cost of Yuvraj. Not fair to Yuvraj but he could have been talked to and circumstances explained. People understand when a former senior cricketer is being allowed a dignified end to his career. Yuvraj would have understood if it was handled right. On this track, where we feel the batting is strong enough to weather replacing Ganguly with a bowler, we could have though a smaller step of replacing Yuvraj with Ganguly could also have been sustained.
It was a window, albeit a small one, which might have been considered for all we know. For if the third test wicket is a bowler friendly one as is being talked of, we may go back to four bowlers and Yuvraj would have missed only one test even if Ganguly was included in that game too.
But its done and we need to get on with the game.
It is really sad what has happened, that’s why if this was a possibility, I felt he should not have gone on tour. If it happened in India, he would fly back to Kolkata and be with his family. Now his dejected countenance will haunt his fellow dressing room mates and lets accept it, this is awkward for all concerned. I wish it could have been avoided.
India's decision to go in with 5 bowlers needs to be seen a bit dispassionately and purely on cricketing merits. It wont make everyone agree or disagree with the decision but the thinking of the management behind the decision wont look as warped/illogical/biased OR inevitable as it is made out by some to be. It is none of these. It is just what they felt should be done based on how they read the strengths of their team and how these need to be harnessed to fit in with the objectives for the series and conditions for the game.
Background and ground conditions :
Last game showed up the Indian batting to be as solid as it is ever going to be possible with just two batsmen getting a hit. The bowling on other hand looked decidedly weak (on the dead track of course). Same held true for the opponents. The conclusion would be, logically, that if one of the two departments, batting or bowling, needed to be strengthened (assuming another batting track), it had to be the latter.
So. With the last game in mind, they could have opted
- either for with the same team (pointing to similar results)
- or tried to strengthen the bowling thinking even a slightly weakened batting would be adequate on a batting track.
Fair enough. So what what could they possibly take into consideration.
Objectives :
Try to make a bid for this test to take a lead in the series rather wait for the third which is more likely to be in conditions helpful to home team. Doesn’t mean they would do it but 5 bowlers would surely make it that little bit more likely than four. The fact that the third seamer took three wickets might be cited but that’s not the point I am trying to make.
I would not be surprised if Pakistan are opting for an opposite strategy of drawing this game and making an all out bid in the third test and that Naved is being protested from another onslaught on a batsmen’s paradise and will be back as joint spearhead at Karachi
Negative Impact
It leaves the team a batsman short which means you are leaning on your batting line up to provide insurance against too low a score. Is that a gamble ? Yes it’s a bit of a gamble to the extent any aggressive/positive strategy is always going to be but under the conditions is it a massive gamble...doesn’t appear so. Lets see how ..
Who to leave out.
If Dravid had failed in the opening slot at Lahore we would have probably seen a regular opener back at the top in which case they would have had to drop BOTH Ganguly and Yuvraj. Its possible they may have considered THAT to be a tad more adventurous than what they have done now. Because it would mean not just being one batsman short but having an opener either struggling to stay in the team (Gambhir) or one too tense because it may be his last chance to make a comeback into the team (Jaffer). I suspect they would have thought much harder in that case and may not, just may not, have done what they have done now.
Is it too big a gamble having Dhoni at 6 and Pathan at 7 ?
No one can really tell what Dhoni abd Pathan will end up as their individual scores in this innings or what Ganguly would have got had he played. Many will have the pleasure of jumping up with "I told you so's" after this innings/test is over but the captain has to decide without that advantage and subsequent events may or may not justify that decision. If it always did, we wouldn’t qualify a calculated risk by adding the word 'calculated' before it.
So what’s the calculation ? Is Pathan an all rounder or batsman enough to replace Ganguly ? Perhaps not but can we look at recent history. Here is how Dhoni, Pathan and Ganguly have performed in the last 5 test matches (prior to this series.
PLAYER.....RUNS.....AVERAGE.....50+.....100+......Highest
Ganguly.......204............29.1...........0..... ....1............101
Dhoni..........149.............37.3...........1... ......0.............51
Pathan.........286............40.9...........3.... .....0.............93
If instead of last 5 tests we took the entire year 2005, the figures of Pathan and Ganguly would be :-
Ganguly.......249.............24.9..........0..... ....1.............101
Pathan.........350.............31.8.........4..... .....0..............93
The figures are there before us. Do they prove that Dhoni and Patah are better batsmen than Ganguly, of course not. Do they show there is some merit in the gamble taken by the team management, I would think so.
Will it pay off ?
Who knows? If only those decisions were taken that paid off, very few decisions would be taken in this world and no one would like to become a decision maker
What else could have been done ?
Now comes the vexing/emotional question of Saurav Ganguly. Having done so much wrong, compromised so much, been the laughing stock of all right thinking people in the world, all because we wanted to treat a former Indian captain (and the most successful one ever) should we have faltered at the penultimate stage ? Should we not have gone through the Ganguly-swansong/treat him with dignity bit and done it without compromising the teams interests too greatly ?
I think there WAS a window. I would not advise it normally but having done so much for this one cause, we might have considered including Ganguly at the cost of Yuvraj. Not fair to Yuvraj but he could have been talked to and circumstances explained. People understand when a former senior cricketer is being allowed a dignified end to his career. Yuvraj would have understood if it was handled right. On this track, where we feel the batting is strong enough to weather replacing Ganguly with a bowler, we could have though a smaller step of replacing Yuvraj with Ganguly could also have been sustained.
It was a window, albeit a small one, which might have been considered for all we know. For if the third test wicket is a bowler friendly one as is being talked of, we may go back to four bowlers and Yuvraj would have missed only one test even if Ganguly was included in that game too.
But its done and we need to get on with the game.
It is really sad what has happened, that’s why if this was a possibility, I felt he should not have gone on tour. If it happened in India, he would fly back to Kolkata and be with his family. Now his dejected countenance will haunt his fellow dressing room mates and lets accept it, this is awkward for all concerned. I wish it could have been avoided.
Last edited:
Tony Blade
U19 Cricketer
Inzi retired hurt..lets hope its not serious
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Sure but if a decision was made, as I think should have been done, like Australia did with Steve Waugh, then fighting for a place is ruled out.pug said:
I feel, and have written before, that Ganguly, should have been allowed a swansong and told so and then treated with dignity and played right through. But no comebacks in this case.
People like Pollock and even Tendulkar do continue as players after a stint as captain but they did not go out as captains with the kind of bitterness associated with Ganguly. This situation was fraught with awkward moments from day one. I suspect because Ganguly did not believe he would ACTUALLY lose his place. He made things too awkward to allow a return to the team as a player.
You dont take your fights to the public domain, have team members taking sides unless you are prepared that a defeat in this kind of a "war" is PERMANENT.
After this kind of a situation it was what we say in India "Ek mayaan mein ek hi talwar reh sakti hai" (Only one sword can remain in a scabbard). One of the two would have had to quit. When you take things to such a stage, you have to be prepared for that eventuality too.
