India Team Discussion

[icyman]

Indian cricket desperately needs a 2001 Eden Test to rise from the Ashes. We had the Gabba, but then Dravid took over.

Apparently, the Gabba test was the right mix that could have taken Indian test cricket to the very top and perhaps won them a WTC

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

Is that you @icyman disguised as CricketAddictor?

 

[Bevab]

Indian cricket desperately needs a 2001 Eden Test to rise from the Ashes. We had the Gabba, but then Dravid took over.

Apparently, the Gabba test was the right mix that could have taken Indian test cricket to the very top and perhaps won them a WTC

The Gabba spurred us on to lead 2-1 in England did it not? It culminated in the South African series, we started it with the same intensity but dropped off eventually due to a variety of reasons.

 

[Bigby Wolf]

The Gabba spurred us on to lead 2-1 in England did it not? It culminated in the South African series, we started it with the same intensity but dropped off eventually due to a variety of reasons.

KL Rahul happened.

 

[Bevab]

KL Rahul happened.

Ah yes. The intensity of the pacers in particular dropped when he was captain.

 

[icyman]

We should have played more with the core that played at Gabba/ the Test series in Australia. Frequent chopping and changing of the team captains led to a drop in intensity.

 

[Bevab]

We should have played more with the core that played at Gabba/ the Test series in Australia. Frequent chopping and changing of the team captains led to a drop in intensity.

My biased TN self would have certainly liked to see more of Sundar and Natarajan in tests but I don’t think you’re right, the test side hasn’t been chopped and changed to the extent you believe. I’d wager that there was more chopping and changing in said series than since.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

The Gabba spurred us on to lead 2-1 in England did it not? It culminated in the South African series, we started it with the same intensity but dropped off eventually due to a variety of reasons.

The win at Lord's was almost as good as the one at The Gabba.

Since India jetted off, before finishing that series, it seems like the team ran out of steam. With whatever went on with Kohli and the captaincy they didn't look the same team. Like you said the intensity seemed to drop. Captaincy bingo hasn't helped either.

 

[Bevab]

The win at Lord's was almost as good as the one at The Gabba.

Since India jetted off, before finishing that series, it seems like the team ran out of steam. With whatever went on with Kohli and the captaincy they didn't look the same team. Like you said the intensity seemed to drop. Captaincy bingo hasn't helped either.

That was the one where they took a flurry of wickets to finish the game when it seemed 50-50 I believe.

It does look like the steam or momentum went away. It doesn’t help that the bowling was under extra pressure because the top order was in absolute shambles at that point.

 

[asprin]

With whatever went on with Kohli and the captaincy they didn't look the same team. Like you said the intensity seemed to drop

If there's one thing I miss the most about the Kohli-Shastri duo it was the belief that we could always make a comeback. Yes, there were collapses, yes there were those off days when bowling but somehow we fought tooth to nail and wrested the initiative from the opposition on most occasions.

That sadly has been missing post the Shastri era. Wonder if his pep talks were on another level as Dravid doesn't seem to have that influence and effect on the players.

 

[wasteyouryouth]

That was the one where they took a flurry of wickets to finish the game when it seemed 50-50 I believe.

It does look like the steam or momentum went away. It doesn’t help that the bowling was under extra pressure because the top order was in absolute shambles at that point.

Yep, it was Shami and Bumrah who put on 80 or 90 when it looked like England would need less than 200 to win. Then India had two sessions to bowl them out with England needing 270ish. India were all over them in the field and England just crumbled.

If there's one thing I miss the most about the Kohli-Shastri duo it was the belief that we could always make a comeback. Yes, there were collapses, yes there were those off days when bowling but somehow we fought tooth to nail and wrested the initiative from the opposition on most occasions.

That sadly has been missing post the Shastri era. Wonder if his pep talks were on another level as Dravid doesn't seem to have that influence and effect on the players.

Seem to remember seeing a video of Shastri at The Gabba after the match in the dressing room. He just has that kind of personality, that actually seems at odds with a lot of Indian cricketers, quite arrogant but also full of self belief.

Technical coaching and tactics are one thing but making players believe they can win is as important as anything. It's the biggest change that's happened with England too. Players are largely the same they are just full of belief in their skill and what they can achieve.

Think I've said before but India in the Kohli/Shastri years looked like a team that were determined to win, whereas a lot of times in the past they looked like a side that was almost too 'polite' to get in the faces of the opposition and just happy to be taking part.

 

[Aislabie]

I do find the notion of "Chopping and Changing" being universally bad to be quite a strange one.

If you are a country like India with a huge player pool, and you have a player like Jasprit Bumrah who must be protected from the world, you would surely rather have him play 60% of matches at 100% intensity than 100% of matches at 60% intensity.

It's a little different for a country like Ireland with a tiny player pool; replacing Josh Little with Fionn Hand is a little harder to accept.

 

[Na Maloom Afraad]

It's a little different for a country like Ireland with a tiny player pool; replacing Josh Little with Fionn Hand is a little harder to accept.

What's your beef with Fionn Hand

 

[icyman]

The Shastri-Kohli era saw 2 strong personalities at the very top of Indian cricket. Forget not, that they called the shots within the BCCI as well, as the board was being managed by an ad-hoc body then. The 'can do' attitude, optimistic hype and the fact that they could (or should have) bulldoze through Selection Committee meets made for a lethal combination. With these odds, one would have expected India to win a couple of major tournaments, but it wasn't to be. While this combination didn't give many chances to red-hot players, they had a good sense of how things could pan out.

Although it was irritating at times to accept that Shashtri played with words without the results in ICC events, I, in hindsight, find it better than with Dravid at the top.

 

[Bevab]

I do find the notion of "Chopping and Changing" being universally bad to be quite a strange one.

If you are a country like India with a huge player pool, and you have a player like Jasprit Bumrah who must be protected from the world, you would surely rather have him play 60% of matches at 100% intensity than 100% of matches at 60% intensity.

It's a little different for a country like Ireland with a tiny player pool; replacing Josh Little with Fionn Hand is a little harder to accept.

The Indian test side doesn’t even change much in the grand scheme of things these days. Having said that, I’d argue that most test sides are too conservative with their team selections usually; see Australia in the Ashes for the most recent example.