India tour of New Zealand 2019

[GOKUL RAJ K]

Bad luck for team India. Lost By 8 Wickets and 212balls left

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

Lost By 8 Wickets and 2212balls left

OMG !!! I thought we only have 300 balls in an innings in ODI Cricket

 

[GOKUL RAJ K]

OMG !!! I thought we only have 300 balls in an innings in ODI Cricket

while typing 2 came twice in my mobile

 

[Ashutosh.]

Kuldeep and Chahal batted better than all other batsmen.

 

[aditya123]

This game, my friends, is why we won`t in the world cup. Unlike 2003 or 2011, this side has no spine or shock absorbers that can take us from 20/3 to 300. At best, we would save face and get to 150 or 200 on such days, and 200 won`t win you many ODIs. To all those claiming this is the best ODI side ever, the 2003 side was arguably much better quality against better sides. Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly with Kaif, Dravid and Yuvraj meant that we had a combination of anchors and finishers right through. The pace attack in that WC was damn good as well. Srinath, Zak and Nehra were bowling late 130s to late 140s as well. The only thing making this site look good is some really average opposition these days. We are a decent side but not an all-time great side as Goti claims.

 

[SaiSrini]

This game, my friends, is why we won`t in the world cup. Unlike 2003 or 2011, this side has no spine or shock absorbers that can take us from 20/3 to 300. At best, we would save face and get to 150 or 200 on such days, and 200 won`t win you many ODIs. To all those claiming this is the best ODI side ever, the 2003 side was arguably much better quality against better sides. Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly with Kaif, Dravid and Yuvraj meant that we had a combination of anchors and finishers right through. The pace attack in that WC was damn good as well. Srinath, Zak and Nehra were bowling late 130s to late 140s as well. The only thing making this site look good is some really average opposition these days. We are a decent side but not an all-time great side as Goti claims.

This game is where an MS Dhoni would've been ever so valuable. He is that "shock absorber" that we needed in the middle when things were collapsing all over. That is what he did in that ODI against Australia where India were 4/3 and Dhoni came out and played a shock absorbing innings and even though we lost that game, it was a respectable and competitive.

But these situations are extremely rare and is less likely to happen in an ICC tournament where the ICC would not want a 100 over game to be completed in 45 overs (this game lasted 44.4 overs of a total of 100 overs).

On Gill - I thought it was a very harsh initiation for him into international cricket and he will learn from it. And I was absolutely disgusted with all the hype that was being given to him before the game started. What was the need for Kohli to make a statement like "I was not even 10 percent of what Gill is, when I was 19"? That statement alone added enormous amount of hype and expectations on Gill. I mean, everyone on social media were treating Gill's debut as some kind of a "arrival of the megastar and his first footsteps on the cricket soil" thing. Based on the tiny bits of commentary I followed while Gill was batting, it seemed like he has some glaring issues with his technique that he needs to fix in order to be successful at this level. Did anyone else notice that?

 

[aditya123]

This game is where an MS Dhoni would've been ever so valuable. He is that "shock absorber" that we needed in the middle when things were collapsing all over. That is what he did in that ODI against Australia where India were 4/3 and Dhoni came out and played a shock absorbing innings and even though we lost that game, it was a respectable and competitive.

But these situations are extremely rare and is less likely to happen in an ICC tournament where the ICC would not want a 100 over game to be completed in 45 overs (this game lasted 44.4 overs of a total of 100 overs).

On Gill - I thought it was a very harsh initiation for him into international cricket and he will learn from it. And I was absolutely disgusted with all the hype that was being given to him before the game started. What was the need for Kohli to make a statement like "I was not even 10 percent of what Gill is, when I was 19"? That statement alone added enormous amount of hype and expectations on Gill. I mean, everyone on social media were treating Gill's debut as some kind of a "arrival of the megastar and his first footsteps on the cricket soil" thing. Based on the tiny bits of commentary I followed while Gill was batting, it seemed like he has some glaring issues with his technique that he needs to fix in order to be successful at this level. Did anyone else notice that?

Sai, the point is that the MS Dhoni method will only make it look respectable. One cannot win very many games by just saving face. When we had guys like Yuvraj, Kaif and MSD 1.0 along with Dravid as the lower middle order glue, we would counter pumch to 300 from this kind of situations. England have a side that can do that. We do not. We rely on our top 3 and bowling to deliver every single time. Our contingency is blocking it out and paying out 50 overs in such scenarios. On a tight knockout day, such formulaic cricket does not work, as SA have shown so often. We are like SA of the 90s and 2000s. We play good formulaic cricket which will statistically give you consistency and get you good rankings. However, in tournament cricket, it does`nt work very well. We need a counter-punching x-factor to win a WC. Most WC winning sides had it. We don`t.

 

[bumrahfan]

Sai, the point is that the MS Dhoni method will only make it look respectable. One cannot win very many games by just saving face. When we had guys like Yuvraj, Kaif and MSD 1.0 along with Dravid as the lower middle order glue, we would counter pumch to 300 from this kind of situations. England have a side that can do that. We do not. We rely on our top 3 and bowling to deliver every single time. Our contingency is blocking it out and paying out 50 overs in such scenarios. On a tight knockout day, such formulaic cricket does not work, as SA have shown so often. We are like SA of the 90s and 2000s. We play good formulaic cricket which will statistically give you consistency and get you good rankings. However, in tournament cricket, it does`nt work very well. We need a counter-punching x-factor to win a WC. Most WC winning sides had it. We don`t.

This sort of x-factor thing is for philosophical sides like Australia and West Indies, who are hellbent on playing beautiful attacking cricket no matter what the result is.

It is not in India's DNA to play like that. The fans worry about every single defeat that occurs and are more than happy to settle for experienced cricketers, even if that means more defensive, formulaic cricket. The stakes are too high for India to worry about this x-factor thing, to worry about a philosophy. Anyone who takes responsibility and acts as a philosopher in India is immediately shot down. So the fans prefer older, 30-35 old cricketers who have experience and know what it takes.

You should give up on x-factor cricket. If you want that, go watch West Indies or Australia.

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

Based on the tiny bits of commentary I followed while Gill was batting, it seemed like he has some glaring issues with his technique that he needs to fix in order to be successful at this level. Did anyone else notice that?

I noticed it already during the IPL and the A-series against Australia which was played here in India

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

This game, my friends, is why we won`t in the world cup. Unlike 2003 or 2011, this side has no spine or shock absorbers that can take us from 20/3 to 300. At best, we would save face and get to 150 or 200 on such days, and 200 won`t win you many ODIs. To all those claiming this is the best ODI side ever, the 2003 side was arguably much better quality against better sides. Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly with Kaif, Dravid and Yuvraj meant that we had a combination of anchors and finishers right through. The pace attack in that WC was damn good as well. Srinath, Zak and Nehra were bowling late 130s to late 140s as well. The only thing making this site look good is some really average opposition these days. We are a decent side but not an all-time great side as Goti claims.

But actually speaking during this series except the last match each batsman of this team scored runs. These instances are one of those rare instances when you are bound to play no matter how much quality you can bring in. And these claims of Sachin, Ganguly, Sehwag, Zak, Nehra, Srinath, Yuvraj, Dravid, Kaif being adding strength to the side is just baseless. And the argument you brought in from being 20/3 to taking the total past 300 never actually existed even in that team.

Between Jan 2003 & Dec 2005, India batted first on 43 occassions on which they were bowled out under 250 on 11 occasions off which they lost on 8 occassions and in those 11 occasions they were bowled out under 150 on 4 occassions and all 4 were lost by them. Also to add to that they were bowled out on 204 against Netherlands that too in a tournament like 2003 WC. Also between Jan 2010 and Dec 2012, India batted first on 34 occassions and they were bowled out under 250 on 6 occasions off which they lost 5 matches while on 3 occassions they were bowled out under 150 and lost all those matches and now coming to Jan 2016 to Feb 2019 India batted first on 27 occassions and they were bolwed out under 250 on only 2 occassions both of which were under 150 and both matches were lost.

Lowest scores in those 3 periods mentioned above were 108 between Jan 2003 & Dec 2005, 88 between Jan 2010 & Dec 2012 while 92 between Jan 2016 & Feb 2019

Between Jan 2003 & Dec 2006 the top 3 of India scored 47.30% runs, between Jan 2010 & Dec 2012 it was 47.10% while between Jan 2016 and Feb 2019 it is 65.19%

So only thing that the top order contribution has increased more that too not because of the inability in the lower order but because of better stability in top 3 but this line-up hasn't suffered much of shock batting displays as it did in the past. And adding to the discussion this side has better balance than the ones in the past. And I guess I've already mentioned that Srinath was injury prone and never lived upto his expectations, Zak was inexperienced upto 2005 while Nehra was inconsistent as ever. And again in 2010-2012 Zak too had became like Srinath while there were no other bowlers along with him who got as much opportunities as he did while if we see 2016- Present we have 5-6 very good fast bowlers

 

[NILAYSHAH60]

Sai, the point is that the MS Dhoni method will only make it look respectable. One cannot win very many games by just saving face. When we had guys like Yuvraj, Kaif and MSD 1.0 along with Dravid as the lower middle order glue, we would counter pumch to 300 from this kind of situations. England have a side that can do that. We do not. We rely on our top 3 and bowling to deliver every single time. Our contingency is blocking it out and paying out 50 overs in such scenarios. On a tight knockout day, such formulaic cricket does not work, as SA have shown so often. We are like SA of the 90s and 2000s. We play good formulaic cricket which will statistically give you consistency and get you good rankings. However, in tournament cricket, it does`nt work very well. We need a counter-punching x-factor to win a WC. Most WC winning sides had it. We don`t.

If you actually remember we started from scratch in 2013 Champions Trophy where the side hardly had experience of 400 ODI matches all the players combined while in this side if we combine all the matches of players we get an experience of 600 matches quite comfortably

Whether you believe or not we are still well-equipped and more balanced limited overs side than the side which played in the past.

You need to move on from that 90s team big time or else you will have nothing to think other than criticizing the failure of current team. Sometimes it's better to be in present

 

[Rehan_24]

This game, my friends, is why we won`t in the world cup. Unlike 2003 or 2011, this side has no spine or shock absorbers that can take us from 20/3 to 300. At best, we would save face and get to 150 or 200 on such days, and 200 won`t win you many ODIs. To all those claiming this is the best ODI side ever, the 2003 side was arguably much better quality against better sides. Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly with Kaif, Dravid and Yuvraj meant that we had a combination of anchors and finishers right through. The pace attack in that WC was damn good as well. Srinath, Zak and Nehra were bowling late 130s to late 140s as well. The only thing making this site look good is some really average opposition these days. We are a decent side but not an all-time great side as Goti claims.

Dont talk about shastri he also said in the last WC that India will now win the World Cup. When I heard that statement straight away I had a feeling now that this claim will prove wrong.

Kohli wants to make Indian side super power in international cricket. Though this thing is quite far but currently India is best side in the world. However, To be invincible like Australian era ? We will have to see

 

[aditya123]

But actually speaking during this series except the last match each batsman of this team scored runs. These instances are one of those rare instances when you are bound to play no matter how much quality you can bring in. And these claims of Sachin, Ganguly, Sehwag, Zak, Nehra, Srinath, Yuvraj, Dravid, Kaif being adding strength to the side is just baseless. And the argument you brought in from being 20/3 to taking the total past 300 never actually existed even in that team.

Between Jan 2003 & Dec 2005, India batted first on 43 occassions on which they were bowled out under 250 on 11 occasions off which they lost on 8 occassions and in those 11 occasions they were bowled out under 150 on 4 occassions and all 4 were lost by them. Also to add to that they were bowled out on 204 against Netherlands that too in a tournament like 2003 WC. Also between Jan 2010 and Dec 2012, India batted first on 34 occassions and they were bowled out under 250 on 6 occasions off which they lost 5 matches while on 3 occassions they were bowled out under 150 and lost all those matches and now coming to Jan 2016 to Feb 2019 India batted first on 27 occassions and they were bolwed out under 250 on only 2 occassions both of which were under 150 and both matches were lost.

Lowest scores in those 3 periods mentioned above were 108 between Jan 2003 & Dec 2005, 88 between Jan 2010 & Dec 2012 while 92 between Jan 2016 & Feb 2019

Between Jan 2003 & Dec 2006 the top 3 of India scored 47.30% runs, between Jan 2010 & Dec 2012 it was 47.10% while between Jan 2016 and Feb 2019 it is 65.19%

So only thing that the top order contribution has increased more that too not because of the inability in the lower order but because of better stability in top 3 but this line-up hasn't suffered much of shock batting displays as it did in the past. And adding to the discussion this side has better balance than the ones in the past. And I guess I've already mentioned that Srinath was injury prone and never lived upto his expectations, Zak was inexperienced upto 2005 while Nehra was inconsistent as ever. And again in 2010-2012 Zak too had became like Srinath while there were no other bowlers along with him who got as much opportunities as he did while if we see 2016- Present we have 5-6 very good fast bowlers

The difference is that you are just churning out numbers without any context. ODI scores also have to be scaled according to the era. Anyone who watched Indian cricket in the past 25 years would tell you that the Indian ODI middle order of the early 2000s was a cut above the rest of the world in terms of run rates. Yuvraj and Kaif, in their prime along with Rahul Dravid were clinical finishers. Dhoni and Raina joined the lot in the mid 2000s. The reason we did well in the 2011 WC was precisely that. If you look beyond the numbers, you`d realize that this Indian middle order is doomed for failure. You claim that we never went from a hopeless situation to 300 odd is again incorrect. If this lot prove themselves, I will be the first person to accept that. However, I`m yet to see the current lot perform under pressure (in meaningful situations). I will point out some instances from the top of my head. These are scenarios where this current side has not shown the ability to turn the game around.

1.) 146/5 at Lords in the famous Natwest final in 2002. Chased down 326 (record run chase back then and a run chase that was unheard of in pre-T20 era). Less well remembered is the opening game of the same series where Dravid and Yuvraj chased down 280 odd after a middle order collapse.
2.) 2004 Pakistan ODIs -- Dravid and Kaif in that epic partnership. From 95/4 (then 150/5), we chased down 295 in a high voltage clash. If we lost that, we`d have lost the series.
3.) 2006 Pakistan ODIs -- Dhoni and Yuvraj chasing down 290-300 targets lower down the order with ease.
4.) 2011 WC Q/F versus Australia : When Dhoni got out, we still needed 100 odd to win the game and it was the Yuvraj-Raina partnership that got us across the line.
5.) 2003 WC game against Pakistan where Kaif put on those crucial 100 or so runs with Tendulkar and then Yuvraj and Dravid put on another 90-odd to finish the game off. A high quality Pakistan bowling lineup and a real high-voltage encounter again.
6.) You might or might not remember this game where we were 25/5 against Zimbabwe (Douggie Hondo the destroyer) in a knockout game in the 2002 Champions Trophy at Colombo. We went on to get close to 300 and won a close game. An era where Zimbabwe were half decent and had guys like Flower brothers, Campbell and Streak in their lineup
7.) Yuvraj`s debut game against Australia.

A common theme above is that during the period of 2002-2011, we had a middle to lower middle order capable of rescuing us from difficult situations in games that mattered. When it came down to the crunch during the 2011 WC Q/Fs and even the final, those guys had the experience of having won us games from hopeless situations under pressure. You`d have to be Ravi Shastri to claim that the current ODI middle order is of the same match-winning pedigree as the XI that featured Yuvraj, Kaif, Dravid, MSD 1.0 and Raina (in is prime). Not that our top order batting had sloths back then either. Gambhir-Sehwag, Sehwag-Sachin and Sachin-Ganguly were all fabulous, high-impact opening stands who arguably put on much faster opening partnerships. Dravid, for all the propoganda of being slow was an ODI legend as a finisher. His knocks in the 2003 WC coming in at No.5/6 were gold. Even as late as 2007, he had a 60-ball 93 against England if my memory serves me right. This ODI side is good and kudos to them for consistency. However, they have not shown the ability to absorb pressure. When it comes to winning World Cups, that is what matters. If the WC were a league, like the EPL, I`d put all my money on this side. However, whenever we`ve found ourselves under pressure in any game of consequence, we`ve folded (WC 2015 semis, CT 2017, 2016 T20 WC Semis). The reason is that we were too heavily dependant on one man, Kohli, very much like the Indian ODI sides of 1996-2002. Also, many of the bilateral ODI numbers of the post-IPL era lack context. Back in the 90s and even till 2007, bilateral ODIs were taken reasonably seriously, especially in the subcontinent. Sides would regularly field full XIs unlike now where most sides use bilateral ODIs as a tinkering lab for the WC. Also, adding further context in terms of pressure were several multi-nation series which had some high pressure qualifying scenarios and finals which are different to bilateral games. Raw numbers do not capture any of this.

 

[aditya123]

Whether you believe or not we are still well-equipped and more balanced limited overs side than the side which played in the past.

You need to move on from that 90s team big time or else you will have nothing to think other than criticizing the failure of current team. Sometimes it's better to be in present

I have lived and breathed this sport for the past 25 years. I`m giving you an objective assessment of this side`s shortcomings. To claim that we have a fully equipped middle order in Rayudu, Karthik, Jadhav and MS Dhoni (current) is a claim that suits someone like Shastri but not reality. I`ve followed all sides with the same passion and can safely say that the current lineup is no comparison to Yuvraj, Dravid, Kaif/Raina and MSD (1.0) when it comes to sheer match-winning ability in crunch situations. And I`ve watched all those sides, even really crappy sides which had guys like Sujit Somasundar, Vikram Rathore and MSK Prasad.

Us denying the shortcomings is just a disaster waiting to happen. England were living in denial with regards to their test match top order and they have been exposed in the Caribbean. I can see something very similar happening to us in a WC knock-out game if this is all we have. I`d want to be proven wrong but this middle order has very little big-hitting pedigree and/or proven big match ability. Its our bowling that has ensured our success. We are a good fair-weather side but we have very little rough weather experience which is vital for winning big events. Its also why we have`t won any ICC events since 2013.

I`d like to know what someone like Sai or LiveLoveABD have to say about this.

 

[Gaurav_7]

Again the same story for India batters. When it swings we just cannot fight it out. Imagine a WC KO game and we are thrown conditions where it swings like this? That will be it for us even if we have Kohli in the XI.