IPL 2020

[sport2793]

Agree with the Dhobi part. The problem also is that India never gave their MO a chance to do anything of note. The way the top order bats, number 4-5 come in the last 10 and are asked to smash it away (which in current ODIs with the way fielding restrictions are, is the hardest point of the innings to speed up).

If they just had a bit more belief and played more normally like England do, I reckon you'd at least give those guys a chance to build some confidence/form.

This really gets at the real problem preventing Indian cricket from becoming the juggernaut it can be in limited overs, mentality. While the Indian players can handle pressure and large crowds fairly well due to the extremely competitive environment, there is too much risk-aversion that is brought upon by the society at large. This contributes to the inability of batsmen to try high-risk 360 shots at international level as there is constant fear that the selectors will replace you with another player if it doesn't come off. Case in point, Pant, who has been horribly managed by the coaching and senior players to the point that it should arguably be a sackable offence for the coaching staff. He would be an absolute superstar in an Australian team as they would back him even if his shots don't always come off.

The problem with bringing in overseas coaches to bring in a fresh perspective is that they don't understand Indian culture and psyche, which is different to anything you will find in the Western world. Quite frankly, I don't know how Indian cricket will fix it, thought that Kohli might be able to bring this in and influence the side positively but he has really mellowed over the last few years, contributing to his rise (and the team's) in test cricket at the expense of limited overs effectiveness.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

People are overreacting a bit in this thread now . India is still a top class team and there is no perfect way of playing the game. MI for example has won the most titles and they generally play with keeping wickets in hand philosophy which has worked really well for them


What really does need to change is the outlook towards T20 cricket. I think a lot of the teams have done this already but unfortunately the commentators etc are old fashioned and still want to think of it as another form of cricket when in reality it's a completely different sport. Prime example is the DC game from yesterday where the commentators kept praising Dhawan all through the DC innings while most fans who understand T20 were going after him for being too slow. Same goes with some commentators putting down matchup stuff or left right combination argument. T20 cricket should be full of analytical input like baseball but most commentators can only just provide basic information like runs needed & balls left

 

[sammsky1]

Would Samson get into the Indian team? I've been waiting for him to reach his potential for years now.

Don’t think he is getting picked right now. This was just a proposed team. And yeah, he hasn’t been great so far in this yards IPL.
Given current form looks like Tewatia for no 6 finishing role!

 

[zing]

People are overreacting a bit in this thread now . India is still a top class team and there is no perfect way of playing the game. MI for example has won the most titles and they generally play with keeping wickets in hand philosophy which has worked really well for them


What really does need to change is the outlook towards T20 cricket. I think a lot of the teams have done this already but unfortunately the commentators etc are old fashioned and still want to think of it as another form of cricket when in reality it's a completely different sport. Prime example is the DC game from yesterday where the commentators kept praising Dhawan all through the DC innings while most fans who understand T20 were going after him for being too slow. Same goes with some commentators putting down matchup stuff or left right combination argument. T20 cricket should be full of analytical input like baseball but most commentators can only just provide basic information like runs needed & balls left

There's not a lot wrong with what India do. For all the crap dished out on strike rates, we lost chasing 200 in the semi-final. England play the way they do because they have extremely high quality, high scoring players in their natural slot. We don't have those. We can't stick Pandya up to 4 just because he scores faster, and pick a dud like Samson at 5. The idea that strike rates in the 120s are irrelevant is inane considering literally 95% of matches that happens in T20 has someone who anchors in that manner. The expected average at a higher strike rate is much lower than at a lower strike rate. Conclusions on whether playing at a higher tempo is beneficial require a lot more sophisticated analysis. A player scoring at 120 in the first 20 balls might end up at 200 in the next 20 resulting in a weighted strike rate that is better than a combination of two players who score at, say, 150 for 40 balls.

I see praise for KKR's narine strategy, but all I see is someone who upsets the batting order. Brian Lara said the same thing - when someone strikes in that manner, the rest of the team bats in a different manner and he prefers Narine at a lower # for that reason, and I agree with him.

Why don't people come on here and knock Kohli for the 90 he made? He was at 120 for the first 30-40 balls. Why don't people knock Pandey for yesterday's knock? They'd have been all out for even less if not for Pandey.

This thread is full of people over-fitting to completed innings that suit their narrative.

It's weird how according to the discourse here, every single team that plays T20 cricket is outdated.

 

[NinjaFletch]

There's not a lot wrong with what India do. For all the crap dished out on strike rates, we lost chasing 200 in the semi-final. England play the way they do because they have extremely high quality, high scoring players in their natural slot. We don't have those. We can't stick Pandya up to 4 just because he scores faster, and pick a dud like Samson at 5. The idea that strike rates in the 120s are irrelevant is inane considering literally 95% of matches that happens in T20 has someone who anchors in that manner. The expected average at a higher strike rate is much lower than at a lower strike rate. Conclusions on whether playing at a higher tempo is beneficial require a lot more sophisticated analysis. A player scoring at 120 in the first 20 balls might end up at 200 in the next 20 resulting in a weighted strike rate that is better than a combination of two players who score at, say, 150 for 40 balls.

I see praise for KKR's narine strategy, but all I see is someone who upsets the batting order. Brian Lara said the same thing - when someone strikes in that manner, the rest of the team bats in a different manner and he prefers Narine at a lower # for that reason, and I agree with him.

Why don't people come on here and knock Kohli for the 90 he made? He was at 120 for the first 30-40 balls. Why don't people knock Pandey for yesterday's knock? They'd have been all out for even less if not for Pandey.

This thread is full of people over-fitting to completed innings that suit their narrative.

It's weird how according to the discourse here, every single team that plays T20 cricket is outdated.

Which you're saying like it's a surprise?

It's a nascent format, currently coached by players who either played before it was a thing or in its early days, obviously strategies are going to evolve and trends are going to change. Not much of a surprise for me that McCullum is the coach of one of the most forward thinking sides.

And we've seen that sophisticated analysis too, which completely supports what posters such as myself have said in this thread (some of it has been posted here too) and we've seen why players who approach the game like Kohli does can be detrimental to teams.

That doesn't mean they always are, but it can mean that you decrie the approach and can suggest that it produces less favourable results than the alternative, but nobody who has ever said that players that play too conservatively at the start and rely entirely on acceleration at the end of the innings always play bad knocks. Just that it's a bad gamble on flat pitches where you can hit comfortably through the line.

Anyway, we're seeing run rates increasing pretty much year on year in T20 cricket, it would be a bad gamble to suggest that trend isn't going to continue. Heck, it took about 40 years for teams to work out they could be more aggressive in ODI cricket.

 

[Moby]

Heck, it took about 40 years for teams to work out they could be more aggressive in ODI cricket.

Just because pitches have been destroyed all over the world at this point to completely favour the batsmen with miniature ground sizes to allow a flurry of 4s and 6s - which is basically to cater the current audience that has been spoilt by the advent of t20 and are only interested in watching runfests doesnt mean teams didn't think of attacking cricket prior to the current era. That's a rubbish argument and there have been plenty of attacking batsmen over the last couple of decades at the very least. Not sure why someone would think teams are making more runs now because they discovered this new tactic that no one never thought of before or some shit like that, when it has to do everything with the absolute crap state of pitches and grounds. Plenty of batsmen scored at a great rate on pitches which weren't absolute roads and allowed bowlers a chance at getting something.

The likes of peak Sachin, Gilchrist, Jayasuriya, Lara etc would be scoring tons every match if they got to play in these conditions, as opposed to the far more balanced ones they did during their careers, and it made the batsmen think twice or wait for the bad deliveries to commit to a shot, not fecking swing their bat six times an over knowing that top edges would go for a six. This whole increase in run rate is a cancer and has taken the entire joy out of the game with these 350 ODIs and 200 T20s, where all you get to see is one dimensional slogging just to cater to the popcorn crowd who have the attention span of a goldfish. A fecking world cup final got decided by counting the number of boundaries hit in the match, and there couldn't be a bigger joke and an insult to literally what the sport is made of. No chance it happens but LOIs would be far more entertaining if they get back some sort of balance to it and allow and even contest as opposed to the current shitshow.

 

[AshRK]

Why don't people come on here and knock Kohli for the 90 he made? He was at 120 for the first 30-40 balls. Why don't people knock Pandey for yesterday's knock? They'd have been all out for even less if not for Pandey.

The difference between Kohli's knock and dhawan is that Kohli even though started slowly finished the innings with a 170 plus strike rate unlike dhawan who even after the 15th over was just trying to get one's and two's. I don't mind batsmen playing safe if the team has lost 2 quick wickets but once you are set and have wickets in hand you need to accelerate. But the problem with both pandey and dhawan is they are not aggressive batters who can suddenly go all gun blazing like Kohli could and hence fans were more pissed at them. Pandey to less an extent but dhawan totally. Had he shown a bit for adventure in his batting after the 16th over atleast Delhi could have reached 180 and probably even won the match.

 

[Moby]

Had he shown a bit for adventure in his batting after the 16th over atleast Delhi could have reached 180 and probably even won the match.

MI could have finished the game around 17th over with the way they played, so it probably wouldn't have still been enough. He could have scored a bit more but his overall innings was understandable after DC got hit by the Pant injury and lost both Pant and Hetmyer and got Carey and Rahane in return, which completely ruined their middle order. Add to that the early wicket of Shaw pretty much meant it was upto Iyer and Dhawan to make the bulk of the runs as there was no one reliable left after them. I think the idea was to have Shaw and Iyer go for attack while Dhawan plays the anchor, had Shaw not gotten out and given them a better start the innings would have gone as planned. Dhawan knew he had to stay till the end to give them any sort of decent total and that's what he pretty much did. As someone said he doesn't have in him to go quicker than he did, but throwing his wicket would have hardly helped as the following cast was a load of crap. Not sure why people were getting their panties in a twist over that knock, it was pretty much what the situation needed. Once DC lost those two in the middle there was very little chance of winning unless all of top 3 fired massively, which they obviously didn't.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Just because pitches have been destroyed all over the world at this point to completely favour the batsmen with miniature ground sizes to allow a flurry of 4s and 6s - which is basically to cater the current audience that has been spoilt by the advent of t20 and are only interested in watching runfests doesnt mean teams didn't think of attacking cricket prior to the current era. That's a rubbish argument and there have been plenty of attacking batsmen over the last couple of decades at the very least. Not sure why someone would think teams are making more runs now because they discovered this new tactic that no one never thought of before or some shit like that, when it has to do everything with the absolute crap state of pitches and grounds. Plenty of batsmen scored at a great rate on pitches which weren't absolute roads and allowed bowlers a chance at getting something.

The likes of peak Sachin, Gilchrist, Jayasuriya, Lara etc would be scoring tons every match if they got to play in these conditions, as opposed to the far more balanced ones they did during their careers, and it made the batsmen think twice or wait for the bad deliveries to commit to a shot, not fecking swing their bat six times an over knowing that top edges would go for a six. This whole increase in run rate is a cancer and has taken the entire joy out of the game with these 350 ODIs and 200 T20s, where all you get to see is one dimensional slogging just to cater to the popcorn crowd who have the attention span of a goldfish. A fecking world cup final got decided by counting the number of boundaries hit in the match, and there couldn't be a bigger joke and an insult to literally what the sport is made of. No chance it happens but LOIs would be far more entertaining if they get back some sort of balance to it and allow and even contest as opposed to the current shitshow.

Nice of you to forget that the WC final in itself was a 240 game and the whole world cup had a great balance between bat & ball

 

[NinjaFletch]

Just because pitches have been destroyed all over the world at this point to completely favour the batsmen with miniature ground sizes to allow a flurry of 4s and 6s - which is basically to cater the current audience that has been spoilt by the advent of t20 and are only interested in watching runfests doesnt mean teams didn't think of attacking cricket prior to the current era. That's a rubbish argument and there have been plenty of attacking batsmen over the last couple of decades at the very least. Not sure why someone would think teams are making more runs now because they discovered this new tactic that no one never thought of before or some shit like that, when it has to do everything with the absolute crap state of pitches and grounds. Plenty of batsmen scored at a great rate on pitches which weren't absolute roads and allowed bowlers a chance at getting something.

The likes of peak Sachin, Gilchrist, Jayasuriya, Lara etc would be scoring tons every match if they got to play in these conditions, as opposed to the far more balanced ones they did during their careers, and it made the batsmen think twice or wait for the bad deliveries to commit to a shot, not fecking swing their bat six times an over knowing that top edges would go for a six. This whole increase in run rate is a cancer and has taken the entire joy out of the game with these 350 ODIs and 200 T20s, where all you get to see is one dimensional slogging just to cater to the popcorn crowd who have the attention span of a goldfish. A fecking world cup final got decided by counting the number of boundaries hit in the match, and there couldn't be a bigger joke and an insult to literally what the sport is made of. No chance it happens but LOIs would be far more entertaining if they get back some sort of balance to it and allow and even contest as opposed to the current shitshow.

Chill out, nobody said pitches weren't flat or your childhood heroes were shit, but if you can't see the differences between ODIs prior to T20s and now beyond that you're deliberately blinding yourself to reality.

 

[Moby]

Chill out, nobody said pitches weren't flat or your childhood heroes were shit, but if you can't see the differences between ODIs prior to T20s and now beyond that you're deliberately blinding yourself to reality.

Didn't I just say in that post that games have changed drastically since the advent of T20, and it is for the worse not the better as some seem to believe. Majority of the current run machines who score for fun wouldn't survive 10 overs if the pitches were not completely destroyed or boundaries weren't shrunk to the point they started touching the 30 yard circle. And most of all the notion that teams have discovered some kind of approach that they couldn't fathom for 40 years as your post earlier said is pretty much garbage. Give these pitches to the Aussie team of 03 for example back when T20 was barely a thing and they'd murder every bowling attack - guess they made over 350 in a WC final back in 2003 as well, which unsurprisingly came on a similar cement road. In short, batsmen now get shit pitches and tiny ground which reduce the risk of losing a wicket even to absolute crap shots to a bare minimum = they score quick and score a lot. That's pretty much 99% of the reason for higher scores and what matters the most in a game of cricket.

 

[AshRK]

MI could have finished the game around 17th over with the way they played, so it probably wouldn't have still been enough. He could have scored a bit more but his overall innings was understandable after DC got hit by the Pant injury and lost both Pant and Hetmyer and got Carey and Rahane in return, which completely ruined their middle order. Add to that the early wicket of Shaw pretty much meant it was upto Iyer and Dhawan to make the bulk of the runs as there was no one reliable left after them. I think the idea was to have Shaw and Iyer go for attack while Dhawan plays the anchor, had Shaw not gotten out and given them a better start the innings would have gone as planned. Dhawan knew he had to stay till the end to give them any sort of decent total and that's what he pretty much did. As someone said he doesn't have in him to go quicker than he did, but throwing his wicket would have hardly helped as the following cast was a load of crap. Not sure why people were getting their panties in a twist over that knock, it was pretty much what the situation needed. Once DC lost those two in the middle there was very little chance of winning unless all of top 3 fired massively, which they obviously didn't.

Like I said it was fine for him to stick around and play the way he was doing till the 15th over but being the set batsmen he had to take some risk. Yes probably MI would have won anyways but that doesn't justify dhawan's innings amd hus lack of intention to hit it out after the 15th over. He was just knocking the ball for one to two even in the 20th over. You have to play according to the situation and dhawan in the latter stages didn't do that costing delhi 15 to 20 runs in the process.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Didn't I just say in that post that games have changed drastically since the advent of T20, and it is for the worse not the better as some seem to believe. Majority of the current run machines who score for fun wouldn't survive 10 overs if the pitches were not completely destroyed or boundaries weren't shrunk to the point they started touching the 30 yard circle. And most of all the notion that teams have discovered some kind of approach that they couldn't fathom for 40 years as your post earlier said is pretty much garbage. Give these pitches to the Aussie team of 03 for example back when T20 was barely a thing and they'd murder every bowling attack - guess they made over 350 in a WC final back in 2003 as well, which unsurprisingly came on a similar cement road. In short, batsmen now get shit pitches and tiny ground which reduce the risk of losing a wicket even to absolute crap shots to a bare minimum = they score quick and score a lot. That's pretty much 99% of the reason for higher scores and what matters the most in a game of cricket.

Good, then we agree and I don't have to read another tetchy wall of text soapboxing about how things were better back in your day.

 

[Moby]

Like I said it was fine for him to stick around and play the way he was doing till the 15th over but being the set batsmen he had to take some risk. Yes probably MI would have won anyways but that doesn't justify dhawan's innings amd hus lack of intention to hit it out after the 15th over. He was just knocking the ball for one to two even in the 20th over. You have to play according to the situation and dhawan in the latter stages didn't do that costing delhi 15 to 20 runs in the process.

20 is a but much, I'd say maybe he could have stretched another 10. What do you think the final score would have been had he gotten out with 3-4 overs to go and those bowling all rounders left after him to come? He's not any good anymore to change gears like Kohli or others can, that's clear so at that point he simply could stay and try to get as many as possible or hit a stupid shot and let those no good batters left after him to basically do the same and pretty much hope to reach the same point. In the end 160 odd was pretty much par for the kind of batting order DC went into the game with especially against MI's bowling. Nothing unusual or unexpected really happened.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Like I said it was fine for him to stick around and play the way he was doing till the 15th over but being the set batsmen he had to take some risk. Yes probably MI would have won anyways but that doesn't justify dhawan's innings amd hus lack of intention to hit it out after the 15th over. He was just knocking the ball for one to two even in the 20th over. You have to play according to the situation and dhawan in the latter stages didn't do that costing delhi 15 to 20 runs in the process.

Bigger issue with Dhawan for me is his ability to change gears. He is a good option for DC because of the other aggressive batsman around but anytime he gets a score I don't really expect him to kick on and destroy the opposition

 

[Skills]

Good, then we agree and I don't have to read another tetchy wall of text soapboxing about how things were better back in your day.

 

[AshRK]

Bigger issue with Dhawan for me is his ability to change gears. He is a good option for DC because of the other aggressive batsman around but anytime he gets a score I don't really expect him to kick on and destroy the opposition

I liked his innings probably till 10th or 12 over. I would have liked him to be a bit more ambitious then. Instead he just put more pressure on Iyer who should have been the batsmen to stay till 16th over atleast. Dhawan still has a role, I agree just that I don't want to see him play the full 20 overs and have a strike rate of 125.

 

[Moby]

Good, then we agree and I don't have to read another tetchy wall of text soapboxing about how things were better back in your day.

They've changed simply because the pitches have changed, not because ODI teams saw T20 players score faster or coaches thought of something they never did in the past 40 years, the kind of garbage you seem to believe in.

 

[AshRK]

They've changed simply because the pitches have changed, not because ODI teams saw T20 players score faster or coaches thought of something they never did in the past 40 years, the kind of garbage you seem to believe in.

You also have to question some of the bowling that is being bowled now a days. Shane warne the other pointed out correctly if you bowl well and to your strength you will get rewarded. The other day at sharjah when delhi defended 180 against the same Rajasthan who have been going crazy in sharjah, you could see what good bowling rewards you. Ashwin and axar bowled to their strength to pick wickets and that helped other bowlers too. I feel sometimes bowlers just bowl to not get hit and end up bowling length bowl. I know everything is hypothetical but I would say the likes of akram, Warne, donald, mcgrath ,murali, ambrose, walsh, waqar, kumble, Vaas, pollock, would have been successful even in today's time and bowled.much better than some.of the crap we see today.

 

[Moby]

You also have to question some of the bowling that is being bowled now a days. Shane warne the other pointed out correctly if you bowl well and to your strength you will get rewarded. The other day at sharjah when delhi defended 180 against the same Rajasthan who have been going crazy in sharjah, you could see what good bowling rewards you. Ashwin and axar bowled to their strength to pick wickets and that helped other bowlers too. I feel sometimes bowlers just bowl to not get hit and end up bowling length bowl. I know everything is hypothetical but I would say the likes of akram, Warne, donald, mcgrath ,murali, ambrose, walsh, waqar, kumble, Vaas, pollock, would have been successful even in today's time and bowled.much better than some.of the crap we see today.

Yeah good bowlers are still there, even though people would remember a lot of the 90s bowlers as great and the quality went down a bit for a while, I think it went back up and there are quite a lot of good bowlers around, who can surely do their best to restrict scoring. Teams like India and SA have very good attacks. But in the end, you have to be a really top end bowler like the name you took, to be able to trap batsmen on surfaces that don't offer any help. And even back then teams didn't have more than 1-2 of those level of bowlers. So at worse batsmen have to play the likes of Bumrah or Rabada out, and can then target anyone else for even 12-14 runs an over, because you can just freely slog. There used to be teams like Pakistan, SL, NZ etc who didn't rely on top bowlers but also got wickets and controlled overs from part timers or 3rd/4th change. Of course you still have to be clever or have good variations, but you need something from the surface as well, and not have mis-hits going for sixes.

 

[Skills]

Is there any proof that the boundary sizes have changed that much? The fielders now are definitely much better - you have to try a lot harder to find the gaps because the players are much better athletes.

The batsman's are also much stronger and more athletic. You look at the likes of ABDV compared to the lumps of lard the likes of Tendulkar and Jayasuriya were, I know who I'm backing to clear the ropes.

 

[NinjaFletch]

They've changed simply because the pitches have changed, not because ODI teams saw T20 players score faster or coaches thought of something they never did in the past 40 years, the kind of garbage you seem to believe in.

Honestly, nobody is asking you to take down your life sized Viv Richard's cardboard cutout; I'm just stating the completely uncontroversial idea that the introduction of a shorter format of the game which necessitates that players play more aggressively has bled in to other formats and changed the paradigms of what a good score is.

I think it's more baffling that you think that cricket would stand utterly still and not change at all over the decades than the alternative. In fact, I don't find it baffling, I find it utterly bat-shit insane, but then again maybe you ARE right and Boycott would be hitting ODI centuries at over a run a ball if only he had the good fortune to play today.

Is there any proof that the boundary sizes have changed that much? The fielders now are definitely much better - you have to try a lot harder to find the gaps because the players are much better athletes.

The batsman's are also much stronger and more athletic. You look at the likes of ABDV compared to the lumps of lard the likes of Tendulkar and Jayasuriya were, I know who I'm backing to clear the ropes.

Moby would similarly struggle to objectively prove that pitches are flatter than they were 20 years ago, too. The alternative is that teams are much more equipped to score quickly on them, whatever the surface. Hell, it was only 6 years ago that Alistair Cook was England's ODI captain. If people genuinely think the only difference between him and Jason Roy is that Jason Roy plays on flatter pitches I think there's probably institutions that can help.

 

[Moby]

Honestly, nobody is asking you to take down your life sized Viv Richard's cardboard cutout; I'm just stating the completely uncontroversial idea that the introduction of a shorter format of the game which necessitates that players play more aggressively has bled in to other formats and changed the paradigms of what a good score is.

I think it's more baffling that you think that cricket would stand utterly still and not change at all over the decades than the alternative. In fact, I don't find it baffling, I find it utterly bat-shit insane, but then again maybe you ARE right and Boycott would be hitting ODI centuries at over a run a ball if only he had the good fortune to play today.

You literally need to ask yourself whether the scoring rate would still be as high as it is as of now if the pitches and ground sizes didn't change at all, while still having this magical new invention of t20 cricket. Spoiler alert - it isn't possible.

 

[NinjaFletch]

You literally need to ask yourself whether the scoring rate would still be as high as it is as of now if the pitches and ground sizes didn't change at all, while still having this magical new invention of t20 cricket. Spoiler alert - it isn't possible.

But that's a complete logical fallacy which you're using to prop up another complete logical fallacy. Pitches may be partly responsible for an increase in scoring rate (and probably are, although, again, I'd love for you to objectively prove that pitches are better without resorting to increasing run rates as your proof) whilst players are also playing differently. Both things can be true at the same time, it's only you who is making it a weird dichotomy between the two.

I don't think you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that all the players of the 90s would have picked a length ball off off stump and flicked it over their own shoulders for six over fine leg, if only they'd had the good fortune to play on better pitches; it is simply a shot that nobody had conceived of and flies in the face of all orthodoxy.

 

[Moby]

If people genuinely think the only difference between him and Jason Roy is that Jason Roy plays on flatter pitches I think there's probably institutions that can help.

Do you often jumble up basic words in your head or is it just the fact that people aren't crediting your only WC winning team with coming up with something revolutionary that teams didn't realize in the last 40 ( ) years that's wearing down the effect of those meds. No one's saying players who never attacked would suddenly transform into six hitting machines. There are anchors in today's era as well. It's the ones who like to attack getting far more reward for lesser quality of batting which is down to nothing but the pitches. Or maybe the likes of Gilchrist and Herchelle Gibbs had dreams of T20 cricket and learnt how to play big from watching them. What year was the 430 chase at joburg and how much t20 influence was there at the time.

 

[Moby]

I don't think you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that all the players of the 90s would have picked a length ball off off stump and flicked it over their own shoulders for six over fine leg, if only they'd had the good fortune to play on better pitches; it is simply a shot that nobody had conceived of and flies in the face of all orthodoxy.

You really think that the limited overs game didn't evolve before t20 especially when talking about scoring rates and new shots.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Do you often jumble up basic words in your head or is it just the fact that people aren't crediting your only WC winning team with coming up with something revolutionary that teams didn't realize in the last 40 ( ) years that's wearing down the effect of those meds. No one's saying players who never attacked would suddenly transform into six hitting machines. There are anchors in today's era as well. It's the ones who like to attack getting far more reward for lesser quality of batting which is down to nothing but the pitches. Or maybe the likes of Gilchrist and Herchelle Gibbs had dreams of T20 cricket and learnt how to play big from watching them. What year was the 430 chase at joburg and how much t20 influence was there at the time.

You really think that the limited overs game didn't evolve before t20 especially when talking about scoring rates and new shots.

What are you on about? Do you even know yourself anymore? Why are you talking about England or people after credit? I mean, I think virtually everyone would be in agreement that England were one of the slowest sides to adapt to how ODI cricket was being played by other countries in the early 2010s, and that they entirely nicked the blueprint off of New Zealand.

But honestly it's fine, if you want to believe that T20 had no effect whatsoever on cricket then that's absolutely your prerogative, but I am bored of a debate that I think you've entirely started because you don't understand hyperbole. You're perfectly entitled to be wrong, so let's just leave it at that.

 

[sammsky1]

There's not a lot wrong with what India do. For all the crap dished out on strike rates, we lost chasing 200 in the semi-final. England play the way they do because they have extremely high quality, high scoring players in their natural slot. We don't have those. We can't stick Pandya up to 4 just because he scores faster, and pick a dud like Samson at 5. The idea that strike rates in the 120s are irrelevant is inane considering literally 95% of matches that happens in T20 has someone who anchors in that manner. The expected average at a higher strike rate is much lower than at a lower strike rate. Conclusions on whether playing at a higher tempo is beneficial require a lot more sophisticated analysis. A player scoring at 120 in the first 20 balls might end up at 200 in the next 20 resulting in a weighted strike rate that is better than a combination of two players who score at, say, 150 for 40 balls.

I see praise for KKR's narine strategy, but all I see is someone who upsets the batting order. Brian Lara said the same thing - when someone strikes in that manner, the rest of the team bats in a different manner and he prefers Narine at a lower # for that reason, and I agree with him.

Why don't people come on here and knock Kohli for the 90 he made? He was at 120 for the first 30-40 balls. Why don't people knock Pandey for yesterday's knock? They'd have been all out for even less if not for Pandey.

This thread is full of people over-fitting to completed innings that suit their narrative.

It's weird how according to the discourse here, every single team that plays T20 cricket is outdated.

The point is, England have only been able to create a cadre of such batsman after specific direction and intent to do so starting in 2015.

Batters who failed to adjust to this requirement were deselected, and batters who could were backed with the security of longer term selection.

 

[zing]

The point is, England have only been able to create a cadre of such batsman after specific direction and intent to do so starting in 2015.

Batters who failed to adjust to this requirement were deselected, and batters who could were backed with the security of longer term selection.

No team has the quality that England does presently. If we pick guys like Tewatia as you'd suggested, we'd be competing with Afghanistan.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Interesting that RCB decided to pick an extra bowler while KKR picked an extra batsman

 

[prateik]

Finch

 

[MDFC Manager]

Looks like a slower, slightly less batsmen friendly pitch tonight.

 

[sammsky1]

No team has the quality that England does presently. If we pick guys like Tewatia as you'd suggested, we'd be competing with Afghanistan.

I think India has more than enough talent to develop such bench strength. But it had to be a stated strategy, players who have the skills and aptitude need to be identified, and those guys need to be given 15 games security that they won’t be dropped.

Over time the culture will get set as players become confident batting this way.

Compare that with how India has managed the ODI career of Pant so far to how England are developing Banton to see how far India leadership is from such a belief system.

 

[AshRK]

I think India has more than enough talent to develop such bench strength. But it had to be a stated strategy, players who have the skills and aptitude need to be identified, and those guys need to be given 15 games security that they won’t be dropped.

Over time the culture will get set as players become confident batting this way.

Compare that with how India has managed the ODI career of Pant so far to how England are developing Banton to see how far India leadership is from such a belief system.

You are right. It's a shame how we are operated now in comparison to mid to late 2000s which resulted in 2011 wc. The obsession to keep on giving chances to the likes of jadhav dhawan karthik cost us the 2019 wc. I blame the duo if Kohli shastri too for that.

 

[sammsky1]

You are right. It's a shame how we are operated now in comparison to mid to late 2000s which resulted in 2011 wc. The obsession to keep on giving chances to the likes of jadhav dhawan karthik cost us the 2019 wc. I blame the duo if Kohli shastri too for that.

Having lived through England’s transformation since 2015, I find India’s white ball squad selection quite baffling. Reeks of elder brother nepotism syndrome whereas all the brave innovation is happening amongst the younger guys.

Which is so absurd when India finds itself owner of the most prestigious and highest standard t20 tournament that is now producing young talent for fun.

 

[zing]

Think this is really valuable experience for Curran. CSK are very good at developing players.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Think this is really valuable experience for Curran. CSK are very good at developing players.

Yeah I can see that in their current squad

 

[AshRK]

Think this is really valuable experience for Curran. CSK are very good at developing players.

They were once, but now they are just too loyal to their oldies. Curran is an exception.

 

[zing]

Yeah I can see that in their current squad

Doesn't have to be young players - they get the maximum out of every player who has played for them.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

Doesn't have to be young players - they get the maximum out of every player who has played for them.

That's not really developing players though. If Shane Watson gets runs for them at age 38 then csk didn't really develop him did they