ODI Draft QF#4- Samid vs EAP/TMH

[crappycraperson]

Please adjudicate as to which team will win over a 3 match series with a match each on following pitches -

#1 Flat pitch - Batting paradise, nothing for bowlers.
#3 Good batting pitch with assistance for spinners - Reasonably good surface for batsmen; spinners can exploit the pitch with old ball; no particular assistance for pace bowlers.
#4 Good bowling pitch for seamers/pacers pacers will be get assistance throughout the match; spinners will not get any assistance; batsmen will have to dig deep to make runs against spinners.

Team Samid

1. Rohit Sharma
2. Tilakaratne Dilshan
3. Babar Azam
4. Joe Root
5. Andy Flower (wk)
6. Michael Bevan
7. Lance Klusener
8. James Faulkner (Pitch 1+4) / Kuldeep Yadav (Pitch 3)
9. Waqar Younis (c)
10. Saeed Ajmal
11. Allan Donald

Team EAP/TMH

1. Virender Sehwag
2. Martin Guptill
3. Virat Kohli
4. Aravinda de Silva
5. Inzamam ul Haq
6. Sarfaraz Ahmad
7. Mitchell Johnson
8. Jason Gillespie (Pitch 1+4) / D. Vettori (Pitch 3)
9. Glenn McGrath
10. Muttiah Muralitharan
11. Jasprit Bumrah

 

[crappycraperson]

Team Samid

	Runs	Avg	SR	Wkts	Avg	SR	Eco
Rohit	9115	49	89
Dilshan	10290	39	86	106	45	55	4.8
Babar	3359	54	87
Root	5922	51	87
Flower	6786	35	75
Bevan	6912	54	74
Klusener	3576	41	90	192	29	38	4.7
Faulkner (P1+4)	1032	34	104	96	31	33	5.5
Yadav (P3)				104	26	30	5.1
Waqar				416	23	30	4.7
Ajmal				184	22	32	4.2
Donald				272	21	31	4.1

Why I win:

• A formidable batting lineup. Four of some of the highest averaging batsmen ever in this format.
• Three awesome finishers. Bevan is top 2 finishers of all time, capable of winning the game from any position. Klusener and Faulkner are dynamic finishers with high averages and strike rates.
• The top order are excellent players of spin, neutralising the Murali factor on the slow track.
• As great as Kohli is, the burden on him is too much here. Their openers are a bit hit and miss. There are no finishers in that team. Kohli can't do it all himself.
• Waqar and Donald are world class. Ajmal puts a stranglehold on the middle overs and Klusener is the perfect support bowler.
• My bowlers are wicket takers. With averages in the low 20s and strike rates in the low 30s the opposition will struggle to put together partnerships.

Team EAP/ TMH

Lineup: Flat Track & Pace Pitch:

Player Name	Batting Average	Bowling Average
Virender Sehwag	35.06	40.14
* Martin Guptill	42.5
* Virat Kohli	59.34
Aravinda de Silva	34.9	39.41
Inzamam ul Haq	39.53
* Sarfaraz Ahmad	33.85
* Mitchell Johnson	16.12	25.26
Jason Gillespie	12.57	25.43
Glenn McGrath		22.02
Muttiah Muralitharan	13.89	27.77
* Jasprit Bumrah		24.43

Lineup: Batting pitch with Spin Assistance:

[Daniel Vettori replaces Jason Gillespie]

Player Name	Batting Average	Bowling Average
Virender Sehwag	35.06	40.14
* Martin Guptill	42.5
* Virat Kohli	59.34
Aravinda de Silva	34.9	39.41
Inzamam ul Haq	39.53
* Sarfaraz Ahmad	33.85
Daniel Vettori	17.33	31.72
* Mitchell Johnson	16.12	25.26
Glenn McGrath		22.02
Muthiah Muralitharan	13.89	27.77
* Jasprit Bumrah		24.43

About our team:

Batting: Our team is built on an explosive opening partnership, a top top quality middle order who can both steady the innings and score quickly and then a lower middle order which is very much capable of big hitting. Sehwag and Guptill can take the game away from opposition, definitely on good batting tracks. Sehwag has a career strike rate of 100+ and is among only 3 players other than AB and Afridi to have career strike rate of over 100 for players with 4000+ runs. Given he played as opener mostly, it makes him most destructive opener of all time.
At no. 3 is Virat, arguably the best ODI batsman of all time. I don't know what can be said about him more than previous line. Whatever the continent, whatever the country, his ODI record is unparalleled. At no. 4 is Aravinda, a class act to put it simply. MoM in 1996 semi-final and final and big game player. The reason Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana could have the license to go bang bang in 90s was because they knew that at no. 4 is Aravinda who can be relied on. When he came in semi final, the score was 2/1 with both explosive openers gone and proceeded to score 66 of 47 balls with 14 fours and took game away from India. In final, he came in at 2/23, chasing a challenging score of 242 (for those times) in a world cup final and proceeded to score 107*.
At no. 5 is Inzi the gentle giant of Multan. We can expect him to keep cool and carry on scoring in a match when things get tough. Average of ~51 in winning causes and ~29 in losing causes tell his importance to Pakistan's fortunes.

These 3 have a combined 33,000 ODI runs between them and are capable of handling even the best of attacks and scoring against them.

Lower middle order comprises of Sarfaraz, and/or Vettori along with Johnson. Sarfaraz has proved to be capable of both steadying ship and scoring quickly. Vettori too has a good S/R of 80+. Given the strength of our middle 3, we don't see need for our lower middle order to bat long, so they will be primarily doing quick hitting.


Bowling:

• For Pace (and flat) Track: We have 4 top class pacers Glenn McGrath, Mitchell Johnson, Jason Gillespie and Jasprit Bumrah bowlers supported by Murali.
• For Batting with Spin assistance pitch: We have 2 top spinners in Murali and Vettori supported by pacers in McGrath, Johnson and Bumrah.

+ Mcgrath is arguably the best bowler in this format with career average of 22 and economy of just 3.88. Holds the record for most wickets in world cup with 71 in just 39 matches at average of 18.
[+Gillespie too in 2003 averaged just 12 with bowling. At their best, they are a very formidable duo and not easy to get away with]
+ Johnson: A fiery fast bowler, his ODI record may get overlooked due to his legendary Ashes performance. 239 wickets at avg of 25 and SR of 31 he is adept and taking wickets when most needed and will be playing on pitch which has assistance for pace. Although it has to be pointed that his bowling figures are consistently good across countries. He has 25 wickets in 15 world cup matches, at average of 22 and S/R of 29. Another big match player like his compatriots in our team.
+ Jasprit Bumrah - One of the best pacers in modern cricket. His unorthodox style coupled with ability to hit the blockhole and efficiency at death overs makes him a genuine threat.

+ Vettori: One of New Zealand's finest. Coming from a country which is more about swing bowlers, he took over 300 wickets in ODIs. One of the finest left arm spinners ever, has ability to deceive batsman in flight as well as possesses arm ball. A bowler with a stingy Econ of 4.13 scoring off him in a patch that assists spin would be very difficult.
+ Murali: Greatest spinner of all time (along with Warne for some). Nothing more to be said. Effective irrespective of pitch conditions.

Support bowlers:
+ Sehwag and Aravinda: Both of these will be doing support bowling on spin assisting pitches. Both have ~100 wickets in ODIs. Sehwag quite often delivered India wickets when nothing else was working. Aravinda also was one of key support bowlers in Lanka's big spin department of 90s. Had figures of 9-0-42-3 in 1996 world cup final, dismissing both Taylor and Ponting who had put on century partnership of 100 and were poised to take game away from Lankans.


Why we will win:

1. Arguably this format's greatest in batting, pace bowling and spin bowling: Virat, McGrath and Murali
2. Supported by genuine match winners like Sehwag, Aravinda, Inzi, Gillespie, Johnson and Bumrah
3. Stingy as feck bowlers: We boast 2 players who played 250 and 350 matches respectively and have bowling strike rate less than 4. Along with these 2, Vettori and Gillespie are miserly as well. Of all the bowlers whose career ended/ongoing after 2001 and who took 125+ wickets, our quartet feature in top 10, ranked by economy. Add to this Bumrah, who is one of the best in this regard in modern format which is tough on bowlers. Bumrah's death over bowling will make Waqar proud.
4. Strong and better middle order (3-6): If looked at individually, Virat, Aravinda and Inzi are better than Babar, Flower and Root. Whereas, Samid's no. 6 Bevan is better than Sarfaraz. Sarfaraz too though has proved to be capable of steadying ship if needed and score quickly and overall we think we have more quality here.

Overall we think that batting wise, our openers are comparable. I will pick Sehwag over Dilshan but Rohit is better than Guptill (however Guptill too is used to big innings like Rohit, has 3 180+ scores). Middle order, ours is better whereas in lower order with presence of Klusener, Samid has edge. Although we too have some big hitters lower down and bank more on stability and scoring which our middle order will bring. We rely on lower order for quick hits only.

Bowling wise, Samid has a great opening pace duo of Waqar and Donald. However we are carrying 4 genuine pacers in our attack, especially when all 4 are playing together it gives us edge in pace department as we can extract 40 overs from McGrath, Gillespie, Bumrah and Johnson. All with averages ~25 or less and 3 of them with economy ~4.5 or less. Samid has support bowler in form of Klusener but Klusener, though a decent/good bowler, is not comparable to any of our 4 pacers. His bowling numbers are slightly worse than Oram in our squad who isn't playing

In spin department, the balance is on our side with presence of Murali and Vettori who are better than Ajmal and Kuldeep duo.

 

[crappycraperson]

@Samid @Edgar Allan Pillow @The Man Himself

 

[crappycraperson]

@Interval @2mufc0 @Fiskey @Mani @anant

 

[Samid]

Sarfraz at 6 and Johnson at 7. Wow. Sarfraz isn't even suited for a finisher role and Johnson is a tailender.

Sehwag the test batsman was great. Sehwag the ODI batsman was frustrating and for most parts hit and miss. There's a reason why he averages in the mid 30s. He would be fine in a deep batting lineup (India anno 2011) where all you need him to do is score quick-fire runs. That won't work here because there's zero batting depth. That quick-fire 35 won't be worth much when the rest of the team will struggle to bat out the whole 50 overs.

Guptill is an ordinary player and the stats back that up. He only scores runs in NZ (extremely small boundaries where every mishit lands in the carparks) and in Zimbabwe. Another walking wicket on any standard cricket stadium.

And since they are claiming that their benched player Oram has 'better numbers' than Klusener then I'm going to claim that my benched players Rhodes and Mahmudullah have 'better numbers' than their middle order consisting of Aravinda and Sarfraz. Or does that logic only work one way?

Kohli, McGrath, Murali. All great players. But whenever their teams succeeded they had great support from their teammates who they built perfect partnerships with. Kohli has had a formidable opener in Rohit ahead of him, a guy averaging close to 60 at almost a run a ball as an opener. He then had Dhoni coming in as a finisher. World class reliable like Rohit and Dhoni take pressure off Kohli and elevate him to ultimate beast level. He doesn't have that here and he will be too busy trying to put out fires left by the less than ideal batting lineup around him.

McGrath had the lethal pace of Lee, Tait supporting him from the other end. Batsmen were struggling with the sheer pace of those two so they tried scoring off McGrath which never was a good idea. My openers will just see off the opening burst from McGrath and with wickets in hand won't have any problems dealing with the other bowlers. The likes of Rohit, Babar, Root and Bevan eat bowlers like Gillespie and Johnson for breakfast.

Murali to be fair to him often carried the bowling lineup alone, at least until Malinga came along. But he only has one supporting pitch and my batsmen are excellent players of spin. And even then Murali had a telepathic partnership with Sanga, they racked up so many wickets just because they were on wavelength. Here however Murali is bowling to butterfingers Sarfraz who is renowned for dropping clangers every game.

In this team Kohli, McGrath and Murali haven't been given a proper chance to shine. But I guess that's just how it goes when most of the budget is blown on three players. You end up without finishers, with hit and miss openers, and with the tail starting at 7.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

McGrath had the lethal pace of Lee, Tait supporting him from the other end. Batsmen were struggling with the sheer pace of those two so they tried scoring off McGrath which never was a good idea. My openers will just see off the opening burst from McGrath and with wickets in hand won't have any problems dealing with the other bowlers. The likes of Rohit, Babar, Root and Bevan eat bowlers like Gillespie and Johnson for breakfast.

McGrath and Gillespie have played together and well

Pace assisting pitch:

Waquar + Donald + Klusner + Faulkner (plus Ajmal)
vs
McGrath + Bumrah + Johnson + Gillespie (plus Murali)

My pace attack is hands down the better one. Johnson and Gillepsie are way better than Klusner and Faulkner. If there's to be any "eating for breakfast" it'll be done by my bowling unit.

Batting + Spin friendly pitch:

Ajmal + Yadav
vs
Murali + Vettori

Class apart. Vettori is stingy bowler adept in containing to scoring rate. Very very economical. And Murali is the GOAT. If there's to be any "eating for breakfast" it'll be done by my bowling unit.

It'd be a tie in flat track and I have edge in both other tracks assisitng bowlers.

 

[2mufc0]

It's economy lower than 4 not strike rate.

 

[Samid]

McGrath and Gillespie have played together and well

Pace assisting pitch:

Waquar + Donald + Klusner + Faulkner (plus Ajmal)
vs
McGrath + Bumrah + Johnson + Gillespie (plus Murali)

My pace attack is hands down the better one. Johnson and Gillepsie are way better than Klusner and Faulkner. If there's to be any "eating for breakfast" it'll be done by my bowling unit.

Batting + Spin friendly pitch:

Ajmal + Yadav
vs
Murali + Vettori

Class apart. Vettori is stingy bowler adept in containing to scoring rate. Very very economical. And Murali is the GOAT. If there's to be any "eating for breakfast" it'll be done by my bowling unit.

It'd be a tie in flat track and I have edge in both other tracks assisitng bowlers.

See here's the thing. You have completely messed up the basic fundaments of cricket with that team selection.

You have picked five pure bowlers which has never been a success in ODIs. I have picked three pure bowlers and two all rounders which is pretty much the template for successful ODI teams.

Johnson and Gillespie may be better bowlers than Klusener and Faulkner but the latter two have a far better overall impact on the game. Your 6,7,8 (Sarfraz, Johnson, Gillespie) average 33, 16 and 12 with the bat. My 6,7,8 (Bevan, Klusener, Faulkner) average 54, 41, and 34 with the bat. That's on average 68 (!) runs difference per game. If your top order fails it's game over. If my top order fails I have a great late middle order to bail me out.

Bowling attacks are measured by comparing to the opposite batting lineup. In this case it is:

You: McGrath, Bumrah, Johnson, Gillespie, Murali
vs
Me: Rohit (49), Dilshan (39), Babar (54), Root (51), Flower (35), Bevan (54), Klusener (41), Faulkner (34)

You: Sehwag (35), Guptill (42), Kohli (59), Aravinda (34), Inzamam (39), Sarfraz (33)
vs
Me: Waqar, Donald, Ajmal, Klusener, Faulkner

This isn't even a contest. The sheer volume of average runs and the incredible depth of my batting trumps whatever argument you have with Johnson and Gillespie being better bowlers than Klusener and Faulkner. The pure class of Waqar, Donald and Ajmal will do serious damage to that lineup and you don't have a single late order batsman to get you out of jail.

My no. 8 has the same average as half your batting lineup which is ridiculous to think of at this late stage of the draft. You went so overboard with bidding on 3 players that you neglected the rest of your team.

I get why you only answered the bowling part of my post btw. I would also avoid answering questions on the batting if my batting lineup was so thin and fragile.

 

[crappycraperson]

There will be a lot of pressure on Inzy to close out innings for EAP, the lower order is definitely dire. People gave me shit for having Duminy, Sarfraz should not even have been selected in the auction

 

[anant]

Voted for Samid, purely because of depth of his batting.

Where I do disagree with Samid in his writeup is his use of stats. Batsmen of the current generation and bowlers of the earlier generations are always going to be better, and that's not because batsmen have gotten better or bowlers worse, but simply because how the game and the rules have evolved.

There's a reason why in the screenshot you posted, there's only 1 player who made his debut before the turn of the century (and he has 67 not outs in 196 innings) and that tells you quite a lot

 

[crappycraperson]

Voted for Samid, purely because of depth of his batting.

Where I do disagree with Samid in his writeup is his use of stats. Batsmen of the current generation and bowlers of the earlier generations are always going to be better, and that's not because batsmen have gotten better or bowlers worse, but simply because how the game and the rules have evolved.

There's a reason why in the screenshot you posted, there's only 1 player who made his debut before the turn of the century (and he has 67 not outs in 196 innings) and that tells you quite a lot

Yes, average of 50 in ODIs in current era is equivalent of 40 in the previous one. There is a reason only top tier players of 90s average in 40s. Kohli's average of 59+ is still insane given his batting order but Root having 50+ average does not make him a better ODI batsmen than Inzy.

 

[Samid]

Voted for Samid, purely because of depth of his batting.

Where I do disagree with Samid in his writeup is his use of stats. Batsmen of the current generation and bowlers of the earlier generations are always going to be better, and that's not because batsmen have gotten better or bowlers worse, but simply because how the game and the rules have evolved.

There's a reason why in the screenshot you posted, there's only 1 player who made his debut before the turn of the century (and he has 67 not outs in 196 innings) and that tells you quite a lot

I don't disagree with that, it's true that modern day batsmen have been helped by better pitches. However, on the flip side I feel like people put too much emphasis on this point and as a result far easily write off any modern batsman in favor of players from previous generations.

For example, Rohit is a far superior ODI batsman than Sehwag imo. And that's not just because he averages 15 runs more but his ability, consistency, temperament and willingness to bat for long periods is what makes a great opener in this format. 5 centuries at a single World Cup is simply unheard of. 3x double centuries is simply unheard of. 150+ scores in 7 consecutive years is simply unheard of. Sehwag on the other hand is pretty much a wasted talent in ODIs when you look at the things he was capable of in tests. Yet a lot of people will prefer Sehwag because of nostalgia and that he was easy on the eyes, while playing down Rohit's career because he had easier pitches.

Overall the message I'm trying to convey with the screenshot is that you are a bloody consistent player if you can maintain such a high average for such a long period. Not for one moment trying to claim that the batsmen averaging 50+ are the best batsmen in the format.

 

[12OunceEpilogue]

It's Samid all day for me, the team has been much better constructed than EAP's. In the first round Samid got over the line with a quality TO, quality bowlers and an average MO/LMO. With the fundamentals taken care of he used reenforcement to beef up that middle order with quality ODI players like Bevan and Klusener.

However though I understand the points Samid has made about the impact other players had on star players like McGrath, Kohli and Murali, and how the state of the game can affect the outcome (i.e. the top order laying a platform, keeping wickets in hand makes it more difficult even for quality bowlers to make the difference) I think talk of Gillespie and Johnson being 'eaten for breakfast' doesn't do Samid's case any favours. Them guys in an attack with McGrath, Murali and Bumrah are keeping any batsmen honest, the reason Samid wins is because of the better construction of his team and the much better batting depth, not because his batsman somehow have the ability to make EAP's bowlers look like mugs.

 

[anant]

I don't disagree with that, it's true that modern day batsmen have been helped by better pitches. However, on the flip side I feel like people put too much emphasis on this point and as a result far easily write off any modern batsman in favor of players from previous generations.

For example, Rohit is a far superior ODI batsman than Sehwag imo. And that's not just because he averages 15 runs more but his ability, consistency, temperament and willingness to bat for long periods is what makes a great opener in this format. 5 centuries at a single World Cup is simply unheard of. 3x double centuries is simply unheard of. 150+ scores in 7 consecutive years is simply unheard of. Sehwag on the other hand is pretty much a wasted talent in ODIs when you look at the things he was capable of in tests. Yet a lot of people will prefer Sehwag because of nostalgia and that he was easy on the eyes, while playing down Rohit's career because he had easier pitches.

Overall the message I'm trying to convey with the screenshot is that you are a bloody consistent player if you can maintain such a high average for such a long period. Not for one moment trying to claim that the batsmen averaging 50+ are the best batsmen in the format.

Again stats across eras aren't comparable in ODI cricket. Rohit is the best opener of this era and no one's denying that, but had he played a decade-decade and a half earlier, his stats wouldn't have been like that.

Just look at some of the stats from this decade and compare that to say 1995-2004 time period and you'd see the difference. For example: Sachin in that time period scored 34 centuries in 246 innings at 1 century per 7.2 innings, Ganguly was at 11.6, Lara 11.42 and so on. Compare this to this decade - 5.34, Rohit 6.13, Taylor - 1 in 9 and you get where I'm going with it here.

 

[The Man Himself]

We were a batsman short which we knew. @Edgar Allan Pillow wanted to take a chance by reinforcing bowling more and we got Bumrah (Bumrah was also New school so he was trying to reduce dependence on old school bowlers if we get to next round and get a OS big name allrounder or opener then). I was more leaning towards Bairstow that time, obviously to strengthen batting and he can be WK as well if we want to drop Sarfaraz. I think we had a very strong bowling attack and to counter it you need a really top batting so I don't think these lineup necessarily meant we will end up losing. Sarfaraz in the end is not so shit a batsman. For him to do major work, all of our middle order and top order need to fail which is highly unlikely. Anyway fun drafting and trying to control EAP from some crazy drafting urges he gets

Good luck for next round @Samid

 

[crappycraperson]

We were a batsman short which we knew. @Edgar Allan Pillow wanted to take a chance by reinforcing bowling more and we got Bumrah (Bumrah was also New school so he was trying to reduce dependence on old school bowlers if we get to next round and get a OS big name allrounder or opener then). I was more leaning towards Bairstow that time, obviously to strengthen batting and he can be WK as well if we want to drop Sarfaraz. I think we had a very strong bowling attack and to counter it you need a really top batting so I don't think these lineup necessarily meant we will end up losing. Sarfaraz in the end is not so shit a batsman. For him to do major work, all of our middle order and top order need to fail which is highly unlikely. Anyway fun drafting and trying to control EAP from some crazy drafting urges he gets

Good luck for next round @Samid

You guys should have gone big on ABD instead of Murali.

 

[The Man Himself]

Also, Rohit is not a 'definite' better batsman than Sehwag. Sehwag played a different role in team. He went more bang bang and obviously that reduces average. Plus he faced some better bowlers on relatively difficult pitches. Rohit builds his innings and then accelerates later. That job was of other players not Sehwag when he was playing.

 

[crappycraperson]

Sehwag is one of the most overrated Indian players along with Kumble. Rohit is easily better than him.

 

[The Man Himself]

You guys should have gone big on ABD instead of Murali.

That would have meant Inzi batting at 6 which is too low for him. Dropping any of Inzi and Aravinda, given their ability would have meant needing another good player for 6 which we wouldn't have had budget for after AB. Plus then main spinners would have been Vettori+Swann which are not enough for 2nd round of draft.

 

[Samid]

We were a batsman short which we knew. @Edgar Allan Pillow wanted to take a chance by reinforcing bowling more and we got Bumrah (Bumrah was also New school so he was trying to reduce dependence on old school bowlers if we get to next round and get a OS big name allrounder or opener then). I was more leaning towards Bairstow that time, obviously to strengthen batting and he can be WK as well if we want to drop Sarfaraz. I think we had a very strong bowling attack and to counter it you need a really top batting so I don't think these lineup necessarily meant we will end up losing. Sarfaraz in the end is not so shit a batsman. For him to do major work, all of our middle order and top order need to fail which is highly unlikely. Anyway fun drafting and trying to control EAP from some crazy drafting urges he gets

Good luck for next round @Samid

Cheers. As I said in the other thread you should have just played Oram at 7 and that would have been the all rounder spot sorted. The issue of the late middle order became just a bit too glaring with Sarfraz and Johnson at 6+7.

Also, Rohit is not a 'definite' better batsman than Sehwag. Sehwag played a different role in team. He went more bang bang and obviously that reduces average. Plus he faced some better bowlers on relatively difficult pitches. Rohit builds his innings and then accelerates later. That job was of other players not Sehwag when he was playing.

And that was half of my point here. In that Indian team Sehwag had great players like Sachin/Dhoni and to a lesser extent Yuvraj/Dravid playing the longer innings. He was a luxury you could afford because the runs he scored were bonus runs. If he didn't score them, someone else would. In this team however the batting gets extremely dodgy at 4 wickets down. Carrying a luxury player at the top of the order just isn't sustainable if you don't have any depth in the batting.

I actually don't think he would even made the first XI under the current setup with Kohli as captain. Kohli realises the importance of his wicket and would much rather have a stable opening partnership than a madman who might give you a rapid start but just as well might do something daft and expose you to the new ball in the first over.

 

[The Man Himself]

Cheers. As I said in the other thread you should have just played Oram at 7 and that would have been the all rounder spot sorted. The issue of the late middle order became just a bit too glaring with Sarfraz and Johnson at 6+7.



And that was half of my point here. In that Indian team Sehwag had great players like Sachin/Dhoni and to a lesser extent Yuvraj/Dravid playing the longer innings. He was a luxury you could afford because the runs he scored were bonus runs. If he didn't score them, someone else would. In this team however the batting gets extremely dodgy at 4 wickets down. Carrying a luxury player at the top of the order just isn't sustainable if you don't have any depth in the batting.

I actually don't think he would even made the first XI under the current setup with Kohli as captain. Kohli realises the importance of his wicket and would much rather have a stable opening partnership than a madman who might give you a rapid start but just as well might do something daft and expose you to the new ball in the first over.

He wasn't a 'luxury' player. The starts he gave were important. Luxury player is someone whose wicket doesn't matter at all and runs will be bonus which wasn't the case here.