***Official*** South Africa in India

[ret]

Im obviously not keen on the composition.

However, if this is the way to go the line-up has to be lengthened.

That would mean Pathan doing what he has in the past and 'doing a Hall' and opening.

That would allow Dhoni to move to a more natural postion at 7 and have a specialist batsman at 6.

This lengthens the lineup as 3 quick wickets still means that there is quality to come.

Its not ideal, but if this is the team selected it is the best way to deal with the issue of completely frontloading the batting and reduce the risk of collapses.

there is no point in opening with a Pathan, who bats in the lower down .... if the top 5 had set things up, he would have been in much later and may be knocked off few runs .... the reason he didn't do well was probably he came in earlier then he should have and instead of identifying that problem, you are suggesting he should have opened, i.e. take him out of the game from batting in a few overs!!!!

thats why it's the top 5 who have to make sure that they play out enough overs so that those batting down don't come in any earlier than they should .... you can't blame the ones batting down the order, if the top 5 don't set things up and make them come in when the top bowlers are bowling in favorable conditions .... thats why they say, in tests give the Ist session to the bowlers duh

 

[Arjun]

Im obviously not keen on the composition.

However, if this is the way to go the line-up has to be lengthened.

That would mean Pathan doing what he has in the past and 'doing a Hall' and opening.

That would allow Dhoni to move to a more natural postion at 7 and have a specialist batsman at 6.

This lengthens the lineup as 3 quick wickets still means that there is quality to come.

Its not ideal, but if this is the team selected it is the best way to deal with the issue of completely frontloading the batting and reduce the risk of collapses.

Pathan doing a Hall may be an option when there are no capable options of opening the innings.

And there's no point complaining that five batsmen is not enough, when all five fail so miserably, collectively. It's still as good as a match lost.

You can have seven batsmen, and a bowling attack of Yusuf Pathan, Sehwag, Irfan Pathan and Sanjay Bangar, but when your top five are dismissed for next-to-duck, it won't help.

 

[honestbharani]

This is the skill of selection. Finding the right balance. Anyone with eyes knew that India was off balance for this Test.

You don't need 6 batsmen in these conditions, esp. with Sachin out injured. Kaif or Yuvraj are not exactly the best players of pace and swing either..... I would back Kaif more than Yuvraj in this instance but honestly, in this pitch, if these guys couldn't get the job done, not much could have been expected from Yuvraj or Kaif or anyone else.


Time has come for the likes of Jaffar, Dhoni and Ganguly to show that they can cut it in difficult conditions. Dhoni's batting form in tests has been rather bad since the England tour, flat track knocks against tired bowlers in the middle order against Pakistan notwithstanding... And even though he has improved immeasurably as a keeper, his batting is very much a cause for concern. Maybe he is mentally a bit fatigued as well with all the cricket.


Jaffar just does not look like an all conditions player, to me. He seems to be the type who will get you 150 on a good batting track in decent time but also leave us 20/1 or so when the going gets a little tough. Admittedly, again, neither Gambhir or Karthik suggest they are better alternatives, although Karthik seems to have slightly better technique for such conditions...... Maybe it is time to recall Chopra... We can either play the same guy for all conditions (Chopra or maybe someone else) and accept the fact that whoever it is replacing Jaffar perhaps won't have the same runscoring ability on a flat track as he does OR we must continue with Jaffar and accept that we will probably be 20/1 if the conditions are aiding the bowlers a little bit. I don't see him improving his technique much at this stage of his career...


And Ganguly has to take a call now... He seemed to have turned a bit of a corner given the way he played in RSA and a few innings in England under tough conditions. Admittedly, he had quite a bit of luck go his way in both tours but that is how he plays. One got the feeling that he was at least getting better and was looking in better shape to tackle the swing and seam at decent pace in these conditions than earlier. But he seems to be back to his FTB days again......

 

[adharcric]

No. Every partnership that has batsmen is very valuable. Its tough to ask 5 guys to do it all. Strength in depth is key.

There are many examples of a team being in the **** and a guy at 6 or 7 has got them out of trouble as they are a good player and the team has depth. Only having 5 bats means that once you are in trouble there is no way out.

That is gambling cricket. No plan B

Completely agree.

 

[Goughy]

Got to say that picking and blaming 5 is IMO the wrong process that had been repeatedly shown. But fair enough we will agree to differ. Saying 7 will fail when 5 fail makes no sense to me but hey! Cricket is all about partnerships. Playing 7 gives you a greater chance of having 1 good parnership than 5. That potential of 1 partnership is the difference between respectability and collapse.

Lengthening the line-up makes a big difference in terms of who bats where and how quickly the opposition can get into the tail.

However, Ill leave it at that. Agree to differ.

 

[adharcric]

Jaffer must really be on the verge of being dropped now. Right now, I'd say bring in Chopra for Kanpur, otherwise Gambhir. Hell, even Karthik had done enough to get a continued run as an opener. Ganguly is starting to worry me and Dhoni really needs a good knock in testing conditions. Hope Ishant can return soon, RP looks so so bad.

 

[Manee]

You're starting to? I agree with what you're saying, but it has truly disgusted me how overrated his performances were in Australia. He received near-universal praise from all quarters...for taking 14 wickets at 39 whilst conceeding well over 4 runs an over. That would normally be the mark of a mediocre performance, not a praise-worthy one. Apparently, though, because his name is RP Singh and maybe even because he's Indian (more a comment on how pumped-up Indian seamers are than anything else), he can do no wrong.

I think that the was a tad harsh. I have held the judgement since the first Test, but it is always good to wait before airing your (royal 'you', not you specifically) premature opinions.

FWIW, I consider RP Singh to be the left-arm equivalent of James Anderson, insofar as that he is massively overhyped, somewhat overrated, can swing the ball, overly adventurous in his pursuit of swing, erratic and expensive (the two don't always have to be mutually exclusive) and utter cannon fodder when the ball refuses to move (as his battle with Symonds in Sydney showed). He, like Anderson, is also utterly inadequate most of the time.

Good call. I see the similarities. However, Anderson has the extra yard of pace which means that he can get on top of teams whereas RP Singh seems to just pick up wickets. It is hard to explain, but the lack of consistency is a massive problem for both. Unfortunately, bowling in domestic cricket will merely dishearten RP Singh and make him slow down so that he can bowl 25 overs a day on the flat pitches.

BTW, even if you are an express bowler, going for 4+ RPO isn't a good look. Just ask Brett Lee. He once did on a regular basis.

Interestingly, Brett Lee only went for over five runs per over in one year which only consisted one match. Interesting further how he is seen as expensive, just going for about 3.50 runs per over - just shows how expensive four runs per over is for a medium/fast bowler in Test matches.

Indian fans, do you think that the BCCI should persevere with the greentops in domestic cricket in which teams are often skittled out for under-150 and medium pacers who are seen as subpar come out on top?

 

[masterblaster]

You're starting to? I agree with what you're saying, but it has truly disgusted me how overrated his performances were in Australia. He received near-universal praise from all quarters...for taking 14 wickets at 39 whilst conceeding well over 4 runs an over. That would normally be the mark of a mediocre performance, not a praise-worthy one. Apparently, though, because his name is RP Singh and maybe even because he's Indian (more a comment on how pumped-up Indian seamers are than anything else), he can do no wrong. Geoff Boycott said that he even liked him, FFS.

This is in direct contrast, to say Mitchell Johnson, who has received a lukewarm-at-best reception for his performances against India despite being at least respectable most of the time (in the Perth second-innings, he was very poor and he was missing something for much of Sydney). He took 16 wickets at 33; a fair reflection of this.

Let me go through RP Singh's spells in Australia:

Melbourne 2007 - Bowled well initially without much luck, but lost any wicket-taking threat as soon as the shine disappeared.

Sydney 2007 - Bowled well to take 4 wickets quickly, but he bowled utter dross to Symonds/Hogg/Lee (full balls followed by short balls - not intelligent bowling) and didn't much improve in the second innings.

Perth 2007 - He bowled better, but at least some of his wickets could be attributed to dumb shots or poor decisions (Hussey twice) and his economy rate, as you pointed out, was also ridiculous. He also relied a fair bit on the tail to take wickets - more than Johnson did in Melbourne, even. To give him credit, though, his 30 was annoying.

Adelaide 2007 - Not bowling here helped him, contrary to whatever Michael Slater or whoever it was said about him being a big force because of his so-called 'reverse swing'.

FWIW, I consider RP Singh to be the left-arm equivalent of James Anderson, insofar as that he is massively overhyped, somewhat overrated, can swing the ball, overly adventurous in his pursuit of swing, erratic and expensive (the two don't always have to be mutually exclusive) and utter cannon fodder when the ball refuses to move (as his battle with Symonds in Sydney showed). He, like Anderson, is also utterly inadequate most of the time.

Interesting tidbit: Do you know that his Test economy rate (4.06 as of a short while ago), is around as expensive as Fidel Edwards' is?

PS: He was also given 8.5/10 for his performance by Cricinfo, while Mitchell Johnson was given a 6. Figure that one out. This may prove what I've been saying about him all along...

BTW, even if you are an express bowler, going for 4+ RPO isn't a good look. Just ask Brett Lee. He once did on a regular basis.

Being an Indian fan, it saddens me to say this but that's a fair assessment. He did bowl well in Australia and better than that average of 39 suggests, but he's got two things going against him. He seems to be a little weak mentally like most Indian fast bowlers and as we've found out, when there's no swing he's got little to rely on.

 

[ret]

Got to say that picking and blaming 5 is IMO the wrong process that had been repeatedly shown. But fair enough we will agree to differ. Saying 7 will fail when 5 fail makes no sense to me but hey! Cricket is all about partnerships. Playing 7 gives you a greater chance of having 1 good parnership than 5. That potential of 1 partnership is the difference between respectability and collapse.

Lengthening the line-up makes a big difference in terms of who bats where and how quickly the opposition can get into the tail.

However, Ill leave it at that. Agree to differ.

what should have Ind done, brought in Kaif and UV in place of Dhoni [WK] & Pathan [bowling all-rounder] so that theoretically they would have a strong batting line up, with Dravid or someone else doing the Wkeeping duties lol

to have a partnership, you have to stay at the wicket .... to make ppl stay at the wkt, you have to give the first session to the bowlers, to give the first session to the bowlers you should have quality top 5 .... thats how you solve a problem

 

[Manee]

Jaffer must really be on the verge of being dropped now. Right now, I'd say bring in Chopra for Kanpur, otherwise Gambhir. Hell, even Karthik had done enough to get a continued run as an opener. Ganguly is starting to worry me and Dhoni really needs a good knock in testing conditions. Hope Ishant can return soon, RP looks so so bad.

It is a bit of 'I told you so' about Jaffer. Even after his second double century, I assured people to be weary of Jaffer's deficiencies on seaming pitches outside the off stump.

 

[Arjun]

Got to say that picking and blaming 5 is IMO the wrong process that had been repeatedly shown. But fair enough we will agree to differ. Saying 7 will fail when 5 fail makes no sense to me but hey! Cricket is all about partnerships. Playing 7 gives you a greater chance of having 1 good parnership than 5. That potential of 1 partnership is the difference between respectability and collapse.

Lengthening the line-up makes a big difference in terms of who bats where and how quickly the opposition can get into the tail.

However, Ill leave it at that. Agree to differ.

Looking at that situation, it looks fine when there's a partnership with seven, but it falls flat when the opposition bat and score twice or thrice as much, and declare. It can multiply, when the batting side, coming in second, gets rolled over cheaply.

While any team needs a longer batting lineup, this team in particular needs more bowling power. Their weaknesses in their four-prong bowling attack have often caused a few defeats because they've conceded way too many runs once for their batsmen (six, seven or eight, how many ever) to score twice in the match. Irfan has scored more than a few runs, but none of the batsmen cut it as bowlers, and that's been tough.

We'd like to see your solution to this.

 

[masterblaster]

Indian fans, do you think that the BCCI should persevere with the greentops in domestic cricket in which teams are often skittled out for under-150 and medium pacers who are seen as subpar come out on top?

It'll seperate the best from the average batsmen certainly. The cream always rises to the top, and it'll be fairly indicative in the domestic circuit anyway which batsmen are most likely to cope with International Cricket and the difficult conditions encountered on away tours of England, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia.

It'll also eliminate all these greater than 50 batting averages that even mediocre batsmen have in Indian domestic cricket. Not only that, it'll encourage more people in India to take up fast bowling as a career option. Perservere I say, in the long run it'll be good for us.

 

[Arjun]

You don't need 6 batsmen in these conditions, esp. with Sachin out injured. Kaif or Yuvraj are not exactly the best players of pace and swing either..... I would back Kaif more than Yuvraj in this instance but honestly, in this pitch, if these guys couldn't get the job done, not much could have been expected from Yuvraj or Kaif or anyone else.

Actually, Sachin would make a better Test opener than Jaffer, and so would Ganguly, but neither choosing to do so has left them stuck with Jaffer. Yuvraj has a massive on-the-day factor, and can score double hundreds, or even a hundred in a tight spot, or match-winning 50's, but when it's not his day, he's no good. Kaif is consistent, but the best he can do isn't going to inspire any confidence.

Time has come for the likes of Jaffar, Dhoni and Ganguly to show that they can cut it in difficult conditions. Dhoni's batting form in tests has been rather bad since the England tour, flat track knocks against tired bowlers in the middle order against Pakistan notwithstanding... And even though he has improved immeasurably as a keeper, his batting is very much a cause for concern. Maybe he is mentally a bit fatigued as well with all the cricket.

He's one good knock away from returning to form. Yes, he's more a flat-track bully, but when flat tracks are the order of the day, he's not a bad choice. In fact, he's a must-pick over several flat-track princes we've seen play for India who have no clue of what to do on such pitches.

Jaffar just does not look like an all conditions player, to me. He seems to be the type who will get you 150 on a good batting track in decent time but also leave us 20/1 or so when the going gets a little tough. Admittedly, again, neither Gambhir or Karthik suggest they are better alternatives, although Karthik seems to have slightly better technique for such conditions...... Maybe it is time to recall Chopra... We can either play the same guy for all conditions (Chopra or maybe someone else) and accept the fact that whoever it is replacing Jaffar perhaps won't have the same runscoring ability on a flat track as he does OR we must continue with Jaffar and accept that we will probably be 20/1 if the conditions are aiding the bowlers a little bit. I don't see him improving his technique much at this stage of his career...

They are stuck with Jaffer, if they wish to have good starts. If they had to drop him, it should have been after that England series in 2005 or at least South Africa. His technique isn't perfect, but not laughable at all. No doubt we have better options to open in Gambhir and Chopra and even Tendulkar, but the revolving door needs a few tamper-proof locks and possibly even some cement.

And Ganguly has to take a call now... He seemed to have turned a bit of a corner given the way he played in RSA and a few innings in England under tough conditions. Admittedly, he had quite a bit of luck go his way in both tours but that is how he plays. One got the feeling that he was at least getting better and was looking in better shape to tackle the swing and seam at decent pace in these conditions than earlier. But he seems to be back to his FTB days again......

Flat Track Bully is an overstatement- he's a flat track prince! He doesn't even take risks anymore, and tries to bat out too many sessions without scoring much. Laxman, though, is a far bigger concern. Big scores are few and far between, and he's looked shaky at five or six, whatever position he's got- in fact, he's looked weak with the tail. But all of them are your best batsmen, and so much better than the next best options, so you've got to stay with them- after all, you can take more selection risks with all of them together.

 

[Goughy]

Looking at that situation, it looks fine when there's a partnership with seven, but it falls flat when the opposition bat and score twice or thrice as much, and declare. It can multiply, when the batting side, coming in second, gets rolled over cheaply.

While any team needs a longer batting lineup, this team in particular needs more bowling power. Their weaknesses in their four-prong bowling attack have often caused a few defeats because they've conceded way too many runs once for their batsmen (six, seven or eight, how many ever) to score twice in the match. Irfan has scored more than a few runs, but none of the batsmen cut it as bowlers, and that's been tough.

We'd like to see your solution to this.

There are only 90 overs to bowl in a day. 5 bowlers + Ganguly and Sehwag is excessive. Anytime the 5th bowler bowls they are taking overs away from the best bowlers and overs away from the fill-in bowlers as they are selected anyway and you may as well use the bonus bolwing they provide for free.

You can never have enough batting as everyone bats and each partnership can make a huge difference. Playing 5 bowlers is usually a case of lack of quality and hoping that trying different options will make up for the lack of quality. There are only enough overs in a day for 4 bowlers and a couple of fill in guys. Anytime 5 bowlers are used there will always be at least 1 that is underutilised and given you are always risking a collapse by weakening the batting its not like there will be big targets to defend and lots of bowling needed.

Selecters need faith. They need to use their judgement to pick the 4 bowlers that they think will do the best job. Playing 5 is showing uncertainty and will often result in a passenger.

A batsman (or good wk/bat) at 7 is infinitely more valuable than an average 5th bowler.

 

[Arjun]

It'll seperate the best from the average batsmen certainly. The cream always rises to the top, and it'll be fairly indicative in the domestic circuit anyway which batsmen are most likely to cope with International Cricket and the difficult conditions encountered on away tours of England, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia.

It'll also eliminate all these greater than 50 batting averages that even mediocre batsmen have in Indian domestic cricket. Not only that, it'll encourage more people in India to take up fast bowling as a career option. Perservere I say, in the long run it'll be good for us.

I'd say, let there be more greentops. Hopefully then we'll see three seamers regularly on Indian pitches.

 

[Manee]

I believe that Ganguly has shown himself as a capable fifth bowler recently too.

 

[Manee]

I'd say, let there be more greentops. Hopefully then we'll see three seamers regularly on Indian pitches.

The flip side is that we will get 70mph seam bowlers (e.g Bhattia) succeeding to take wickets and perhaps the truely talented bowlers will not show themselves. However, when looking to find the cream of batsman, it will be the best thing to do.

 

[DaRick]

I think that the was a tad harsh. I have held the judgement since the first Test, but it is always good to wait before airing your (royal 'you', not you specifically) premature opinions.

Yeah, perhaps it was. I apologise. Perhaps a symbol would've been better.

Good call. I see the similarities. However, Anderson has the extra yard of pace which means that he can get on top of teams whereas RP Singh seems to just pick up wickets. It is hard to explain, but the lack of consistency is a massive problem for both. Unfortunately, bowling in domestic cricket will merely dishearten RP Singh and make him slow down so that he can bowl 25 overs a day on the flat pitches.

Thanks. AFAIK, Anderson, unfortunately, really only has that extra yard of pace when he's got some rhythm behind him. He seemed no faster than RP Singh during the Ashes 2006/07, for instance.

Interestingly, Brett Lee only went for over five runs per over in one year which only consisted one match. Interesting further how he is seen as expensive, just going for about 3.50 runs per over - just shows how expensive four runs per over is for a medium/fast bowler in Test matches.

Lately he's been going for much less, obviously. In 2005, it was about 3.69 at the maximum. But, while you're right, I was talking about on a match-by-match basis. He regularly went for 4+ RPO during his loooonnnng form slump (2001-2005).

 

[Arjun]

There are only 90 overs to bowl in a day. 5 bowlers + Ganguly and Sehwag is excessive. Anytime the 5th bowler bowls they are taking overs away from the best bowlers and overs away from the fill-in bowlers as they are selected anyway and you may as well use the bonus bolwing they provide for free.

You can never have enough batting as everyone bats and each partnership can make a huge difference. Playing 5 bowlers is usually a case of lack of quality and hoping that trying different options will make up for the lack of quality. There are only enough overs in a day for 4 bowlers and a couple of fill in guys. Anytime 5 bowlers are used there will always be at least 1 that is underutilised and given you are always risking a collapse by weakening the batting its not like there will be big targets to defend and lots of bowling needed.

Selecters need faith. They need to use their judgement to pick the 4 bowlers that they think will do the best job. Playing 5 is showing uncertainty and will often result in a passenger.

A batsman (or good wk/bat) at 7 is infinitely more valuable than an average 5th bowler.

Ganguly and Sehwag are nothing, and never last more than an over or two- we saw that in the last Test. That's why they need five bowlers. With ninety overs a day, you'd expect them to share eighteen overs each. Without that extra bowler, each bowler would get at least four extra overs- often dead overs. That fifth bowler would have made a difference. Every extra wicket counts, and that' worth more than the thirty-or-so runs that the extra batsman scores, which is never enough for India.

In this Indian team, there's absolutely no lack of quality in batting, but there is in bowling. That's why the bowling needs to be bolstered. There are never enough overs in a day for four bowlers, when they can't get the team out in the 90 overs.

You talk about one that's under-utilised, but when conditions don't favour the bowlers, that won't happen. The under-utilised bowler may be injured, sick or out of form, so there's another one to fall back on. If it happens to a four-man bowling attack, as in Chennai, it's a disaster.

Selectors need to show more faith in their bowlers by picking five, rather than picking four for Mission Impossible, and then turning the revolving door of destruction. The only way this door can be locked is by opening a fifth bowling option.

 

[pasag]

Am with Goughy here, the Indian batting lineup looks too shallow and especially with Tendulkar out and an out of form Dhoni, it's not the best move. It is correct that an extra batsman probably wouldn't have made much of a difference here, but in general this is a pretty poor squad structure and not one I would want to see if I was an Indian fan.