India Team Discussion

[LiveLoveABD]

So Rohit has played a dead rubber for MI and he's unfit for India? Something is very fishy about this or this has been managed to shambolic levels.

Also, it's hilarious how suddenly everyone is like "Oh, what's happened to Pant? He's looking mentally shot! He is just not himself!"

Well, everyone has been after his life to not be himself and now the same chaps are screaming from roof tops!

Enjoy it. KL is next and Kohli seems to be terminally diseased by the bug of irrelevant stats. One bit another great batsman in the late 90's as well. Some antidote was arranged for the 2003 and 2011 world cups but this plague needs to end immediately.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

I have massive, immense respect for Kohli. I don't remember which year it was, but there was a World T20 where he was batting like he was on steroids (the one where Yuvi struggled in the finals against SL) and I was very sad that day because I have so much love for Yuvi but my heart was aching for the way Kohli had batted that World Cup. He managed to take it a notch higher when the World T20 happened in India and it was fair to say I was in awe of him. I was convinced that a more versatile batter in LOI had not stepped on a cricket field. Then came the 2016 IPL and I still to this day believe WADA should have tested him after that tournament. A thousand runs and four tons in a season in T20 cricket was just a joke. It was basically telling every batter in the world that they're not half as good as him and that includes my man crush whose user name I go by.

Then, his captaincy debacles began. Every season the SR drops more, the average goes higher and while the wealth of talent in the Indian ranks and RCB swells, the major tournaments continue to escape us.

I still think this is a management failure from the upper brasses but IF and I mean a serious IF Kohli has one bit to do with Rohit Sharma being dropped for fitness reasons then this will be a bigger farce than the atrocities Chappell carried out on Ganguly.

There are three world cups in three years and every criticism of Rohit Sharma with the red ball is acceptable but he is as important to the team as Kohli in white ball cricket if not more. He has been a match for Kohli since he started opening, he has made bucket load of runs in a recently concluded very well competed World Cup and is irreplaceable considering what lies ahead with all those ICC tournaments. I dearly hope Rahul is not being seen as the ready replacement for Rohit. The vice captaincy etc etc is sniffing very bad. The two IPL tons don't cut it for Dhawan. He should be in the squad. That's about it.

 

[Neptune]

Before the 2019 WC, I was watching some of Harsha Bhogle's videos about the squad that was about to be selected. He said, is it more important to have someone who takes India to 250 when they are 3 wickets down for 3 runs, or is it more important to have someone that comes in at 250-3 and makes a 320 score a 350. That's why he wanted rayudu in the squad and dk over pant. Now with the T20 WC approaching, this debacle arises again. We have so many accumalators, Kohli, Iyer, Pandey and even Rahul and Rohit havent really lit this IPL with their strike rates. At this point I challenge you all with a question again, is it more important to get a 130 score to a 150 or a 200 to 220?

 

[Akshay.]

Before the 2019 WC, I was watching some of Harsha Bhogle's videos about the squad that was about to be selected. He said, is it more important to have someone who takes India to 250 when they are 3 wickets down for 3 runs, or is it more important to have someone that comes in at 250-3 and makes a 320 score a 350. That's why he wanted rayudu in the squad and dk over pant. Now with the T20 WC approaching, this debacle arises again. We have so many accumalators, Kohli, Iyer, Pandey and even Rahul and Rohit havent really lit this IPL with their strike rates. At this point I challenge you all with a question again, is it more important to get a 130 score to a 150 or a 200 to 220?

Our setup is like that
Stay for 10-20 balls and then try to hit, if not then keep playing slowly, taking those ones and twos

The MI model is the one to follow. Except Rohit Sharma, everyone has a 130+ strike rate. Each player has a fifty plus score. It's not senseless hitting, everyone have clear roles. And they know, if they fail Pollard and Pandya can more than make up for it

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Virat Kohli to come back to India after the first test. I think it's great that paternity leaves are being granted in Indian cricket. About time.

I don't see him rejoining the squad for the tests as it will interfere with the bio secure bubble. An opportunity for someone to make a mark in the middle order. An opportunity for Rahane to prove his salt as captain.

 

[Bevab]

Before the 2019 WC, I was watching some of Harsha Bhogle's videos about the squad that was about to be selected. He said, is it more important to have someone who takes India to 250 when they are 3 wickets down for 3 runs, or is it more important to have someone that comes in at 250-3 and makes a 320 score a 350. That's why he wanted rayudu in the squad and dk over pant. Now with the T20 WC approaching, this debacle arises again. We have so many accumalators, Kohli, Iyer, Pandey and even Rahul and Rohit havent really lit this IPL with their strike rates. At this point I challenge you all with a question again, is it more important to get a 130 score to a 150 or a 200 to 220?

This revisionism over the exclusion of Rayudu is genuinely shocking to me, he was absolutely clueless against quality international bowlers with him charging down and trying to hit over cover or drive it down the ground. In that semi-final, Rayudu would have been walking back to the pavilion as soon as Boult got a crack at him. His very inclusion was a bit rushed, he did not play in the LA tournament in 2017, in 2018 he scored just 39 runs in two games. It was almost entirely based on his 2018 IPL form which proves the folly of including someone in a longer format due to their success in T20s. His strike rotation was terrible, the only good thing about him was his ability to handle spin but again in international cricket you need to be very aggressive against the spinners with the fielding restrictions if you are being picked exclusively for that (Roscoe and Morgan are absolutely destructive versus spin for examples of great #4s) and Rayudu is not someone who is naturally aggressive in List A cricket IMO.

With the way ODIs are going, we need players who can score more of 50(40) rather than 100(105). Batting depth is the issue as always but teams generally do opt for 2 all-rounders in their top seven while India has only opted for one usually with Jadeja often playing at eight. If you are limiting yourself with just five bowling options, your batting needs to be absolutely aggressive. No point in playing cautious cricket if you've already strengthened the depth even if the bowling attack is good generally. It just takes one bad day for any one of the bowlers to suddenly chase an above par score or lose a game with us setting a below par total.

As for my own lineup, it would probably be something like this

Dhawan/Mayank
Rohit
Kohli
Shreyas
Rahul
Hardik
Jadeja
Saini/Bhuvi/Chahar/bowling all-rounder (Nagarkoti? Gopal?)
Shami
Chahal/Kuldeep
Bumrah

On Indian pitches, I would go with Kuldeep and Chahal both playing and Saini sitting out, unless Gopal is already playing.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

This revisionism over the exclusion of Rayudu is genuinely shocking to me, he was absolutely clueless against quality international bowlers with him charging down and trying to hit over cover or drive it down the ground. In that semi-final, Rayudu would have been walking back to the pavilion as soon as Boult got a crack at him. His very inclusion was a bit rushed, he did not play in the LA tournament in 2017, in 2018 he scored just 39 runs in two games. It was almost entirely based on his 2018 IPL form which proves the folly of including someone in a longer format due to their success in T20s. His strike rotation was terrible, the only good thing about him was his ability to handle spin but again in international cricket you need to be very aggressive against the spinners with the fielding restrictions if you are being picked exclusively for that (Roscoe and Morgan are absolutely destructive versus spin for examples of great #4s) and Rayudu is not someone who is naturally aggressive in List A cricket IMO.

And that is why I never really wanted Rayudu to be the part of the Indian OD side. He was never really up there. It is just he took a liking towards an average and an inexperienced looking West Indies attack with only Holder looking like troubling India. Let me take you to the 2018 Asia Cup Final where despite of chasing a low target that too against Bangladesh he came in early with easily around 45 overs to play and this guy just looked clueless against all the deliveries he faced and just lost patience and edged one to the keeper with tentative foot work. Where was the game awareness over here?

And that is why I backed someone like Vijay Shankar since despite being inexperienced since he was the one guy who performed all the roles of the proper no.4 that we were expecting. But come the World Cup KL Rahul was moved down to 4 and Shankar wasn't even the part of our playing XI, then Dhawan got injured and KL opened for us only then Shankar was brought into the scheme of things. He also played well against Afghanistan but he got out early against West Indies then he got injured. Therefore, some of the backlash that Shankar got from the fans was unwanted & unnecessary.

 

[LiveLoveABD]

Before the 2019 WC, I was watching some of Harsha Bhogle's videos about the squad that was about to be selected. He said, is it more important to have someone who takes India to 250 when they are 3 wickets down for 3 runs, or is it more important to have someone that comes in at 250-3 and makes a 320 score a 350. That's why he wanted rayudu in the squad and dk over pant. Now with the T20 WC approaching, this debacle arises again. We have so many accumalators, Kohli, Iyer, Pandey and even Rahul and Rohit havent really lit this IPL with their strike rates. At this point I challenge you all with a question again, is it more important to get a 130 score to a 150 or a 200 to 220?

I think we are seeing a further extension of the evolution of the white ball game. This MI template of going guns and bullets from ball 1 is already well established in the international arena by England. England pick multi skilled cricketers with basically two death bowlers. I personally think too many teams overcomplicate a format that demands simplicity. T20's and dare I say even 50 over cricket demands fearlessness. Where England and MI have excelled is playing the merit of that particular ball and playing as per the conditions.

England and MI have not feared being thrashed on the odd occasion and that will happen with the brand of cricket they play but by allowing this freedom they simply are aiming at long term consistency. MI have hardly tinkered with their side even when they have failed to qualify. Little tinkering here and there to plug holes which every auction allows you but not making demented errors in mega auctions. 34 crores for Rohit, Hardik and Bumrah which is an average of 11 crores is just unbelievable. Smart trades, assisted by brainless franchises and that man Zaheer Khan is ZEN. Not the first time I have seen him manage teams and situations. People talk about Morgan like he's some holy grail of a tactical captain but it is his man management that's stand out along with a plethora of all rounders and match winners.

I don't rate Rayudu. I always felt Pant should have been groomed for the 19 WC and I literally wept for 3 years to bat Dhoni at 4. Regardless, the decision making 6 months prior to that WC and in it was just absolute madness. For them to leave Rayudu out was bad and absolute bananas if you ask me but to call Pant and not him after Shankar left was basically an exclamation mark on the kamikaze experiments that were happening in the Kohli/Shastri lab for years.

This Indian team doesn't need anything. It lacks nothing. It just needs leadership and every leadership needs to be challenged at regular intervals for growth. Our country right now believes in monarchy. It's the same with the government and with the cricket. Two individuals have become cult figures and they seem to go unquestioned no matter the degree of madness.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Now that IPL is done,

let me activate my Team India Banner

[HASHTAG]#BleedBlue[/HASHTAG]

 

[RichieBGM]

For you guys that want the Aussie squad for the Border/Gasvaskar Trophy: I also have the ODI/T20 and A squads if interested.

Australia Test squad: Tim Paine (c), Sean Abbott, Joe Burns, Pat Cummins, Cameron Green, Josh Hazlewood, Travis Head, Marnus Labuschagne, Nathan Lyon, Michael Neser, James Pattinson, Will Pucovski, Steve Smith, Mitchell Starc, Mitchell Swepson, Matthew Wade, David Warner.

India Test squad: Virat Kohli (c) (first Test only), Ajinkya Rahane (vice-captain), Rohit Sharma, Mayank Agarwal, Prithvi Shaw, KL Rahul, Cheteshwar Pujara, Hanuma Vihari, Shubman Gill, Wriddhiman Saha (wk), Rishabh Pant (wk), Jasprit Bumrah, Mohammed Shami, Umesh Yadav, Navdeep Saini, Kuldeep Yadav, Ravindra Jadeja, Ravichandran Ashwin, Mohammed Siraj

 

[KiranKohli9]

And that is why I never really wanted Rayudu to be the part of the Indian OD side. He was never really up there. It is just he took a liking towards an average and an inexperienced looking West Indies attack with only Holder looking like troubling India. Let me take you to the 2018 Asia Cup Final where despite of chasing a low target that too against Bangladesh he came in early with easily around 45 overs to play and this guy just looked clueless against all the deliveries he faced and just lost patience and edged one to the keeper with tentative foot work. Where was the game awareness over here?

And that is why I backed someone like Vijay Shankar since despite being inexperienced since he was the one guy who performed all the roles of the proper no.4 that we were expecting. But come the World Cup KL Rahul was moved down to 4 and Shankar wasn't even the part of our playing XI, then Dhawan got injured and KL opened for us only then Shankar was brought into the scheme of things. He also played well against Afghanistan but he got out early against West Indies then he got injured. Therefore, some of the backlash that Shankar got from the fans was unwanted & unnecessary.

in my opinion we definitely lost that WC2019 due to no number 4 and Rahane should have been our number 4. He has the best technique, rotates strike and can hit sixes at ease.

 

[Bevab]

in my opinion we definitely lost that WC2019 due to no number 4 and Rahane should have been our number 4. He has the best technique, rotates strike and can hit sixes at ease.

How is the bloke who has one six for every three ODIs someone who hits sixes at ease? He was struggling to clear the infield in the 2015 World Cup semi-final.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

How is the bloke who has one six for every three ODIs someone who hits sixes at ease? He was struggling to clear the infield in the 2015 World Cup semi-final.

But @Bevab inspite of that he did well in an ODI match at Durban against the likes of Rabada, Morkel, Ngidi & Tahir. The rest of the series he went downhill I accept that but isn't it unfair to not back him for the England tour, I am sure he would've answered a lot of question marks being raised over him. And instead we go with Rayudu who is very limited in his stroke making and could be easily restricted. Atleast Rahane would try and give you those singles and twos on most deliveries. See what I was able to see was that Rahane was the only one who seemed to be a better option. Dhoni would be suited for situations like the World Cup Semi-final where he would nearly take us over the line on most occasions. I think it was a collective failure on the part of the management and the team (includes Dhoni) to not react to what was happening in that big match.

Honestly I wouldn't make sense for us to mourn over the 2019 World Cup. The thing that is gone is gone but now we have a better batting line-up capable of taking us out of any situation provided there is less scoreboard pressure.

Should we concentrate more on why our bowling is failing terribly in Australia considering Australia themselves have been poor with their batting order for most part of last 3-4 years? What is going wrong with our bowling?

 

[Bevab]

But @Bevab inspite of that he did well in an ODI match at Durban against the likes of Rabada, Morkel, Ngidi & Tahir. The rest of the series he went downhill I accept that but isn't it unfair to not back him for the England tour, I am sure he would've answered a lot of question marks being raised over him. And instead we go with Rayudu who is very limited in his stroke making and could be easily restricted. Atleast Rahane would try and give you those singles and twos on most deliveries. See what I was able to see was that Rahane was the only one who seemed to be a better option. Dhoni would be suited for situations like the World Cup Semi-final where he would nearly take us over the line on most occasions. I think it was a collective failure on the part of the management and the team (includes Dhoni) to not react to what was happening in that big match.

Honestly I wouldn't make sense for us to mourn over the 2019 World Cup. The thing that is gone is gone but now we have a better batting line-up capable of taking us out of any situation provided there is less scoreboard pressure.

Should we concentrate more on why our bowling is failing terribly in Australia considering Australia themselves have been poor with their batting order for most part of last 3-4 years? What is going wrong with our bowling?

I think I've answered already as to why Rahane shouldn't have been a part of the squad long-term but I'll respond with some additional things on my mind.

Just like Rayudu, the obsession with wanting Rahane in the WC has been a post-2019 thing. I really don't remember much calls for him to play at four after that failed SA tour, he had his chances in arguably the conditions that would have suited his style the most. The ones that people wanted at number four were primarily Dhoni (the most popular by far), Rayudu (the incumbent at that time), Rahul/Kohli (another option being discussed in the media) and an outside shot for someone like Pandey or Shreyas.

The reasons why Rahane would not have been good?

• Contrary to popular opinion, Rahane is not someone who would have rotated strike easily. This myth of a classical batsman with good technique finding strike-rotation easy needs to die, the latter is a skill and art by itself and requires a different skill-set in addition to good technique. An example is Shai Hope who people think of as someone who works his way to a big score with just singles and doubles. No, Hope's method is block-block-boundary-block. The difference between him and a slogger lies in his consistency with making high scores.
• To illustrate how Rahane would have struggled, his boundary percentage in List A cricket is close to 48%. That means nearly half of his runs have come via boundaries. Other Indian batsmen have a better percentage of sixes highlighting my first problem with his lack of power game. Now you might think, 'hey, that is not so bad. Players like Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina have all got percentages in a similar range while others like Pandey have it lesser'. The issue is that his strike-rate is very poor. It is 80 in List A cricket, while Rohit has it in the high 80s and Raina in the mid 90s. For all his boundaries, Rahane lags 10-15 behind what most other international class batsmen have and that should already tell you the problems with his strike-rotation.
• To make matters worse, Rahane was an opener for a lot of these games which meant that he would naturally find it easier to score fours to boost that boundary percentage up. There is an argument to be made that it would make his strike-rotation much better as a top order bat but it wouldn't be true. Khawaja for example is world-class as an opener but at number three he struggled in the WC as he did not have the cushion of those early boundaries to get his eye in and settle. If you were to have Rahane in as the number four, he wouldn't guarantee you the boundaries that he hit often as an opener and he still wouldn't really rotate strike that well. The worst of two worlds in a nutshell.
• Rahane's strong versus pace, I would say one of the best in India at the moment when he is in the right space mentally but he is not good versus spin. That is the reason for his rather average record in India compared to away tours and a number four batsman should be best equipped to deal with spinners a lot more than pacers. Two of the best number fours in ODIs right now are Eoin Morgan and Ross Taylor. Both of them are absolutely destructive versus spin to the point that you would think twice before tossing spinners to them. Rahane is none of that.
• With Rayudu, he has the advantage of being very good versus spinners indeed and has a better percentage of runs from sixes too. However, his boundary percentage is around the same range as Rahane's and he has an equally poor strike-rate. That should have set off alarm bells regarding his strike-rotation and instead of being swayed by one (admittedly) monstrous IPL campaign, they should have tried other options whilst also keeping Rayudu on the shortlist.
  
• The ideal players here would be Dhoni, Kohli and Pandey himself. They've all got boundary percentages below 45ish, they're all capable of hitting sixes if needed and they've all got a strike-rate close to 90 on either side of it. Shreyas would have been the wildcard given that his boundary percentage is above 50 and he has a strike-rate in the mid 90s. Hell, Vijay '3D' Shankar was not the worst option either, he has a boundary percentage of 42 and his strike-rate is 90, showing a healthy amount of strike-rotation and the odd boundary.
  
• And finally, we would have been gathering our collective pitchforks if Rahane was made a guarantee for the 2019 WC after witnessing multiple series' where England racked up scores in excess of 300 and sometimes even 350. We already had a liability in such run chases with Dhoni, adding another would have been folly. If anything, we placed too much hope in our bowlers to always bail us out of such monstrous chases. Imagine having Rahane in that semi-final. I still believe that the failure was due to the 'intent' tactic of trying to play assertive cricket rather than hunker down and play out a rough spell. Maybe Rahane tries his best to block it out. Or maybe Rahane, the counter-attacker in test cricket chooses to take on the bowlers fueled by whatever words were already fed to our top three that day. And even if we were to win that game thanks to Rahane, we would have to face England in the final and if they had posted something in excess of 330, we now have Rahane and Dhoni who both will not be of much use unless two of our top three played a freakishly good knock with Hardik offering some excellent finish.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

I think I've answered already as to why Rahane shouldn't have been a part of the squad long-term but I'll respond with some additional things on my mind.

Just like Rayudu, the obsession with wanting Rahane in the WC has been a post-2019 thing. I really don't remember much calls for him to play at four after that failed SA tour, he had his chances in arguably the conditions that would have suited his style the most. The ones that people wanted at number four were primarily Dhoni (the most popular by far), Rayudu (the incumbent at that time), Rahul/Kohli (another option being discussed in the media) and an outside shot for someone like Pandey or Shreyas.

The reasons why Rahane would not have been good?

• Contrary to popular opinion, Rahane is not someone who would have rotated strike easily. This myth of a classical batsman with good technique finding strike-rotation easy needs to die, the latter is a skill and art by itself and requires a different skill-set in addition to good technique. An example is Shai Hope who people think of as someone who works his way to a big score with just singles and doubles. No, Hope's method is block-block-boundary-block. The difference between him and a slogger lies in his consistency with making high scores.
• To illustrate how Rahane would have struggled, his boundary percentage in List A cricket is close to 48%. That means nearly half of his runs have come via boundaries. Other Indian batsmen have a better percentage of sixes highlighting my first problem with his lack of power game. Now you might think, 'hey, that is not so bad. Players like Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina have all got percentages in a similar range while others like Pandey have it lesser'. The issue is that his strike-rate is very poor. It is 80 in List A cricket, while Rohit has it in the high 80s and Raina in the mid 90s. For all his boundaries, Rahane lags 10-15 behind what most other international class batsmen have and that should already tell you the problems with his strike-rotation.
• To make matters worse, Rahane was an opener for a lot of these games which meant that he would naturally find it easier to score fours to boost that boundary percentage up. There is an argument to be made that it would make his strike-rotation much better as a top order bat but it wouldn't be true. Khawaja for example is world-class as an opener but at number three he struggled in the WC as he did not have the cushion of those early boundaries to get his eye in and settle. If you were to have Rahane in as the number four, he wouldn't guarantee you the boundaries that he hit often as an opener and he still wouldn't really rotate strike that well. The worst of two worlds in a nutshell.
• Rahane's strong versus pace, I would say one of the best in India at the moment when he is in the right space mentally but he is not good versus spin. That is the reason for his rather average record in India compared to away tours and a number four batsman should be best equipped to deal with spinners a lot more than pacers. Two of the best number fours in ODIs right now are Eoin Morgan and Ross Taylor. Both of them are absolutely destructive versus spin to the point that you would think twice before tossing spinners to them. Rahane is none of that.
• With Rayudu, he has the advantage of being very good versus spinners indeed and has a better percentage of runs from sixes too. However, his boundary percentage is around the same range as Rahane's and he has an equally poor strike-rate. That should have set off alarm bells regarding his strike-rotation and instead of being swayed by one (admittedly) monstrous IPL campaign, they should have tried other options whilst also keeping Rayudu on the shortlist.
  
• The ideal players here would be Dhoni, Kohli and Pandey himself. They've all got boundary percentages below 45ish, they're all capable of hitting sixes if needed and they've all got a strike-rate close to 90 on either side of it. Shreyas would have been the wildcard given that his boundary percentage is above 50 and he has a strike-rate in the mid 90s. Hell, Vijay '3D' Shankar was not the worst option either, he has a boundary percentage of 42 and his strike-rate is 90, showing a healthy amount of strike-rotation and the odd boundary.
  
• And finally, we would have been gathering our collective pitchforks if Rahane was made a guarantee for the 2019 WC after witnessing multiple series' where England racked up scores in excess of 300 and sometimes even 350. We already had a liability in such run chases with Dhoni, adding another would have been folly. If anything, we placed too much hope in our bowlers to always bail us out of such monstrous chases. Imagine having Rahane in that semi-final. I still believe that the failure was due to the 'intent' tactic of trying to play assertive cricket rather than hunker down and play out a rough spell. Maybe Rahane tries his best to block it out. Or maybe Rahane, the counter-attacker in test cricket chooses to take on the bowlers fueled by whatever words were already fed to our top three that day. And even if we were to win that game thanks to Rahane, we would have to face England in the final and if they had posted something in excess of 330, we now have Rahane and Dhoni who both will not be of much use unless two of our top three played a freakishly good knock with Hardik offering some excellent finish.

I rest my case now. Thanks for the wonderful explanation of the situation about the Rahane argument. If you can answer the latter part it would be absolutely great.