India in South Africa

[harishankar]

No, making excuses by saying that the captain is "as good as the team" will not explain it. It's up to the captain to get the best of out his players' strengths and weaknesses and Dravid failed miserably in that aspect. What a talented team he had and how they failed to collectively perform is there for everybody to see. We are supposed to have the greatest batting line up in Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Laxman, Ganguly etc. etc. and our bowlers were inspiring... India had the series for the taking and they muffed it up. So it wasn't necessarily just performance that played a part, but also the captaincy.

It looks like you don't understand the nuances of the game. Batting failure was just one aspect of the failure. If you analyze how quickly SA were allowed to score runs in the Durban Test match especially, you will understand how weak Dravid's on-field thinking was. He is not as adaptible or adjustable to the game's situations as other captains around the world are. What else would explain his over-attacking fields when the opposition camp was 200+ runs ahead and looking to pile on the runs quickly to make a declaration?

 

[Cricket_god]

No, making excuses by saying that the captain is "as good as the team" will not explain it. It's up to the captain to get the best of out his players' strengths and weaknesses and Dravid failed miserably in that aspect. What a talented team he had and how they failed to collectively perform is there for everybody to see. We are supposed to have the greatest batting line up in Dravid, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Laxman, Ganguly etc. etc. and our bowlers were inspiring... India had the series for the taking and they muffed it up. So it wasn't necessarily just performance that played a part, but also the captaincy.

It looks like you don't understand the nuances of the game. Batting failure was just one aspect of the failure. If you analyze how quickly SA were allowed to score runs in the Durban Test match especially, you will understand how weak Dravid's on-field thinking was. He is not as adaptible or adjustable to the game's situations as other captains around the world are. What else would explain his over-attacking fields when the opposition camp was 200+ runs ahead and looking to pile on the runs quickly to make a declaration?

Its no excuse its a fact.you cannot bat for other people also when ever a team tries to score quickly when in commanding positions they can easily score at 4 runs specially if they run well.its just people like you who want a find a scape goat for defeat where are the problem is the team asa whole is not that good as people think.what talent when you cannot perform.

 

[harishankar]

I'm not finding a scapegoat. I'm saying that captaincy was one of the contributing factors for the defeat. You'll find that I have been pretty critical of every non-performer on this tour, not just Dravid.

So without reading my other posts on this subject, don't assume that I am making Dravid a scapegoat. He was a failure with the bat and as a captain on this tour and there's no getting round that fact.

 

[Cricket_god]

The things you said as -south africa scored quickly in durban because he was trying to take wickets and wickets are only way to stop runs.his captaincy is orthodox so it is a form of safe captaincy which should come good most times.

 

[harishankar]

I didn't understand what you said, but never mind. My point has been made... If a team is 200+ runs ahead, you think of restricting the runs, not of attacking the batting which is what Dravid did in this series and which was a critical mistake on his part. Had SA's declaration been delayed even by an hour or so, India would have saved that match...

 

[Cricket_god]

I didn't understand what you said, but never mind. My point has been made... If a team is 200+ runs ahead, you think of restricting the runs, not of attacking the batting which is what Dravid did in this series and which was a critical mistake on his part. Had SA's declaration been delayed even by an hour or so, India would have saved that match...

If he tried to set defensive fields they would easily have got 6 runs by just running well so he did the right thing by setting attacking fields to get wickets which will in turn would have slowed the runrate.it was a attacking move which he should continue.

 

[harishankar]

I differ on that. The way in such a situation was to frustrate batsmen by not allowing them to score runs quickly and thus make them throw their wickets away. Setting at least a semi-defensive field would have done the job. Instead he chose to have too many attacking fielders. There was no balance in his thinking at all.

But really Rahul Dravid was in no position to attack the opposition because he wasn't in a position to gamble with runs. There's a time and place for everything. He only set a semi-defensive field after SA had gone past 300 by which time it was too late to save the day. In cricket, sometimes you have to defend and sometimes you have to attack - cannot always be attacking.

 

[Cricket_god]

I differ on that. The way in such a situation was to frustrate batsmen by not allowing them to score runs quickly and thus make them throw their wickets away. Setting at least a semi-defensive field would have done the job. Instead he chose to have too many attacking fielders. There was no balance in his thinking at all.

But really Rahul Dravid was in no position to attack the opposition because he wasn't in a position to gamble with runs. There's a time and place for everything. He only set a semi-defensive field after SA had gone past 300 by which time it was too late to save the day. In cricket, sometimes you have to defend and sometimes you have to attack - cannot always be attacking.

I think you did not understand my point teams like south africa and australia
are difficult to contain because they run well and take singles unless they are facing spinners.so i think he did the right think if we had bowled them for 250 odd we could have won it but its no excuse for the batting collapse.

 

[harishankar]

I think you did not understand my point teams like south africa and australia
are difficult to contain because they run well and take singles unless they are facing spinners.so i think he did the right think if we had bowled them for 250 odd we could have won it but its no excuse for the batting collapse.

You're right. They do run well. But asking them to score a lot more runs by running between the wickets would have slowed their run-rate down considerably more than allowing them to score boundaries at will.

I suppose at some point Dravid needed to weigh the benefits of allowing the singles in favour of allowing too many boundaries to leak away by continuing to attack. Rahul Dravid played right into their hands by allowing the South Africans to score boundaries so freely.

But ultimately you're correct in saying that nothing excuses their pathetic batting failure.

 

[Cricket_god]

You're right. They do run well. But asking them to score a lot more runs by running between the wickets would have slowed their run-rate down considerably more than allowing them to score boundaries at will.

I suppose at some point Dravid needed to weigh the benefits of allowing the singles in favour of allowing too many boundaries to leak away by continuing to attack. Rahul Dravid played right into their hands by allowing the South Africans to score boundaries so freely.

But ultimately you're correct in saying that nothing excuses their pathetic batting failure.

Right lets forget the past and think ahead

 

[harishankar]

Same here too... hope that the lessons were learnt though and the mistakes not repeated.

 

[Cricket_god]

The tour and its discussions have ended

 

[sohum]

With regards to Dravid's captaincy at that stage, there were two choices he had--attack or defend. This is the choice he always had. We have the benefit of hindsight. We have seen in this tour that batting collapses were always on. South Africa collapsed twice in the first match, India collapsed multiple times. That was probably on Dravid's mind--just one spell of match-winning bowling could get his team the edge.

If Sreesanth had gone in and taken 4 quick wickets with Dravid's fields set to attacking, we would not be singing this tune. We have the privilege of hindsight and speculation to allow us to decide what to do. There are critics of Dravid who think he is too defensive a captain. That may also have been on his mind. The fact of the matter is blaming the captain for playing a major part in the loss is not the right way to go, because he is going by his gut instincts. Sometimes it pays off, and sometimes it doesn't.

Our batting was pathetic. It didn't help that this was only the second time that Dravid has gone a whole series without scoring a 50.

 

[harishankar]

My grumpiness with Dravid's captaincy is not because of results. Fair enough, India lost 2-1. But it was the way he managed situations that made me think about his weaknesses...

All I can say is, if an opposition is 200+ runs in the lead with more than 5 wickets in hand, you do your best to slow down the scoring rate, not attack more and give the opportunity to score quicker with boundaries. And SA had a deep batting line-up. This was his mistake in Durban - not playing for time when it was crucial for India especially with the bad light conditions.

It's true he had the choice to attack or defend and he clearly made the wrong choice. But had India won the match, I'd still say they won it despite his captaincy and not because of it, because I judge the game not by winning or losing but by the way the captain reacted to situations.

Dravid reacted to situations as though he had a pre-built plan and didn't want to improvise. And that is bad captaincy... you need to improvise and think according to the situation which I felt he failed to do. When the Saffars were struggling against spin in their 1st innings, why the hell did he have to go back to pace in the Cape Town test in their 2th innings?

 

[Cricket_god]

My grumpiness with Dravid's captaincy is not because of results. Fair enough, India lost 2-1. But it was the way he managed situations that made me think about his weaknesses...

All I can say is, if an opposition is 200+ runs in the lead with more than 5 wickets in hand, you do your best to slow down the scoring rate, not attack more and give the opportunity to score quicker with boundaries. And SA had a deep batting line-up. This was his mistake in Durban - not playing for time when it was crucial for India especially with the bad light conditions.

It's true he had the choice to attack or defend and he clearly made the wrong choice. But had India won the match, I'd still say they won it despite his captaincy and not because of it, because I judge the game not by winning or losing but by the way the captain reacted to situations.

Dravid reacted to situations as though he had a pre-built plan and didn't want to improvise. And that is bad captaincy... you need to improvise and think according to the situation which I felt he failed to do. When the Saffars were struggling against spin in their 1st innings, why the hell did he have to go back to pace in the Cape Town test in their 2th innings?

I think this has discussed quite a few times and the simple answer is he took a gamble which did not pay.