Who says that the Indian batsmen are paper tigers abroad? The middle
order has delivered a solid and consistent performance in this Test
match.
Chan
by Chan Fonse » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 05:49:55
Who says that the Indian batsmen are paper tigers abroad? The middle
order has delivered a solid and consistent performance in this Test
match.
Chan
by Sougata Mukherje » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 05:57:43
- Sougata
> Who says that the Indian batsmen are paper tigers abroad? The middle
> order has delivered a solid and consistent performance in this Test
> match.
> Chan
by Madhusudan Sing » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:02:43
> - Sougata
>> Who says that the Indian batsmen are paper tigers abroad? The middle
>> order has delivered a solid and consistent performance in this Test
>> match.
>> Chan
by Aravind Hand » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:03:54
Contributions to a win or a loss? Remains to be seen.
How about the following Contributions:
i.e. 66 runs / 14 wickets. i.e. the remaining 7 batsmen couldn't even
average 5 runs / innings
by Sougata Mukherje » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:05:49
> Can't really blame the Indian bowlers too much. The umpires are cagey now,
> and the Indian tail contributed only 10 odd runs. WI tail with their
> captain added 65.
by Madhusudan Sing » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:46:20
>> Can't really blame the Indian bowlers too much. The umpires are cagey
>> now, and the Indian tail contributed only 10 odd runs. WI tail with their
>> captain added 65.
> So who constitutes the Indian tail?
> The Indian batsmen?
Just like the WI tail consists of Murray, Dillon, Cuffy, Sanford and Black.
by Sougata Mukherje » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:51:42
> >> Can't really blame the Indian bowlers too much. The umpires are cagey
> >> now, and the Indian tail contributed only 10 odd runs. WI tail with
their
> >> captain added 65.
> > So who constitutes the Indian tail?
> > The Indian batsmen?
> Quite evidently Ratra, HS, Srinath, Nehra and Khan.
> Just like the WI tail consists of Murray, Dillon, Cuffy, Sanford and
Black.
by Madhusudan Sing » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:19:53
It was the captain's job to ask his people to curb their natural tendencies
and put their heads down and bat out another 10 - 20 overs. Hooper did this
and added 65 runs with the tail. OTOH, Ganguly did not.
On the plus side, Ganguly batted far more responsibly than the start of his
innings indicated, but he did not press the tailenders to just hang in
there. Not score runs, but just defend their wickets. It does not take much
talent to just defend your wicket, does it ? 1-2 fallen tailender one can
understand, but all 4-5 fail this way ? No, that is not luck, its bad
strategy on the batting team's part.
Even Laxman was able to add many runs with the tail in I1.
While part of the blame might be assignable to the bowlers and WK, a good
deal must also go to the specialist batsman who was batting with them.
>> >> Can't really blame the Indian bowlers too much. The umpires are cagey
>> >> now, and the Indian tail contributed only 10 odd runs. WI tail with
> their
>> >> captain added 65.
>> > So who constitutes the Indian tail?
>> > The Indian batsmen?
>> Quite evidently Ratra, HS, Srinath, Nehra and Khan.
>> Just like the WI tail consists of Murray, Dillon, Cuffy, Sanford and
> Black.
by Sougata Mukherje » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:25:40
- Sougata
> > So can't you blame the bowlers and the WK then?
> The WK and the bowlers, as far as their batting skills are concerned, are
> similar to their WI counterpart. The natural tendency of a tailender
> anywhere is to hit out and get out. Contrast this tail's performance with
> that of the WI tail. None of the WI tailenders got out for 0,2, 0 etc.
> after hitting out.
> It was the captain's job to ask his people to curb their natural
tendencies
> and put their heads down and bat out another 10 - 20 overs. Hooper did
this
> and added 65 runs with the tail. OTOH, Ganguly did not.
> On the plus side, Ganguly batted far more responsibly than the start of
his
> innings indicated, but he did not press the tailenders to just hang in
> there. Not score runs, but just defend their wickets. It does not take
much
> talent to just defend your wicket, does it ? 1-2 fallen tailender one can
> understand, but all 4-5 fail this way ? No, that is not luck, its bad
> strategy on the batting team's part.
> Even Laxman was able to add many runs with the tail in I1.
> While part of the blame might be assignable to the bowlers and WK, a good
> deal must also go to the specialist batsman who was batting with them.
by Madhusudan Sing » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:32:32
The manner of the dismissal of at least 2 batsmen indicates that they were
not defending, they were just trying to hit out. The only possibility is
that Ganguly did not take the trouble to ask them to block. Maybe he was
tired after that long innings, but what happened remains as a fact. If you
wish to attribute it to my "bias", be my guest.
>> > So can't you blame the bowlers and the WK then?
>> The WK and the bowlers, as far as their batting skills are concerned, are
>> similar to their WI counterpart. The natural tendency of a tailender
>> anywhere is to hit out and get out. Contrast this tail's performance with
>> that of the WI tail. None of the WI tailenders got out for 0,2, 0 etc.
>> after hitting out.
>> It was the captain's job to ask his people to curb their natural
> tendencies
>> and put their heads down and bat out another 10 - 20 overs. Hooper did
> this
>> and added 65 runs with the tail. OTOH, Ganguly did not.
>> On the plus side, Ganguly batted far more responsibly than the start of
> his
>> innings indicated, but he did not press the tailenders to just hang in
>> there. Not score runs, but just defend their wickets. It does not take
> much
>> talent to just defend your wicket, does it ? 1-2 fallen tailender one can
>> understand, but all 4-5 fail this way ? No, that is not luck, its bad
>> strategy on the batting team's part.
>> Even Laxman was able to add many runs with the tail in I1.
>> While part of the blame might be assignable to the bowlers and WK, a good
>> deal must also go to the specialist batsman who was batting with them.
by Sougata Mukherje » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:46:21
> > I am pretty +ve you wouldn't have blamed the specialist batsman if it
was
> > D.Mongia and not Ganguly.
> > So when the tailenders came in Ganguly didn't tell them to bat
> > responsibly? He just stood silently at the other end?
> > You are really biased.
> You are welcome to assess it that way if you cannot understand what I am
> saying. So far in this series, the Indian tail has performed superbly, in
> T1, it was Dravid and Sarandeep, in the T2I1, it was Laxman and Srinath.
> The first failure of the Indian tail occured when it was absolutely
> important that they put on at least another 40-50 runs and waste 10-20
> overs.
> The manner of the dismissal of at least 2 batsmen indicates that they were
> not defending, they were just trying to hit out. The only possibility is
> that Ganguly did not take the trouble to ask them to block. Maybe he was
> tired after that long innings, but what happened remains as a fact. If you
> wish to attribute it to my "bias", be my guest.
Also maybe Ganguly didn't say anything.
What was Wright/Dravid doing in the pavillion before these batsmen came in?
Also don't these players have common sense? Didn't they know their task is
to defend?
FYI Harbhajan has very bad defense. His philosophy is to hit out.
He can't defend for 10-20 overs. Have you ever seen him bat?
Srinath also is better at hitting out. In the 1st innings did he defend?
In his parthership of 41 with Laxman he scored 18. He scored 18 in 23 balls.
Is that defense?
In the 1st innings he was lucky - he was not in the 2nd innings.
So either you are biased or don't know anything about cricket.
Take your pick.
- Sougata
by Madhusudan Sing » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:20:32
> Maybe after 2 good innings by the tail, they were due for a failure.
> After all, they are not like the Australian tail.
> When have they delivered in pressure situations?
> Remember the 4th innings vs Pakistan in Chennai or the 3rd innings vs
> Zimbabwe in Harare?
> Also maybe Ganguly didn't say anything.
> What was Wright/Dravid doing in the pavillion before these batsmen came
> in? Also don't these players have common sense? Didn't they know their
> task is to defend?
> FYI Harbhajan has very bad defense. His philosophy is to hit out.
> He can't defend for 10-20 overs. Have you ever seen him bat?
> Srinath also is better at hitting out. In the 1st innings did he defend?
> In his parthership of 41 with Laxman he scored 18. He scored 18 in 23
> balls. Is that defense?
> In the 1st innings he was lucky - he was not in the 2nd innings.
> So either you are biased or don't know anything about cricket.
> Take your pick.
> - Sougata
T2 I2 tail :
A Ratra 2(15)
HS 0(1)
JS 2(4)
ZK 4(7)
AN 0(1)
T2 I1 tail :
A Ratra 0(7)
HS 0(6)
JS 18(23) 3 4's => 6 runs in 20 balls - that is defensive enough for me.
ZK 5(20)
AN 0(3)
T1 tail :
AK 3(12)
SS 39(165)
(not including Bangar as he is not a tailender)
The tail is not a single entity - its composed of 3-4 batsmen. The
probability of all failing at once is quite low. While it is correct to say
that a given tailender may fail (its relative as he is not expected to
score more than 15-20 runs anyway) after having 2 good innings, it is not
correct to make the same statement for a group 4-5 batsmen.
Its pretty apparent that only Ratra showed any improvement while everyone
else dropped (again relative).
Why would Wright / Dravid say anything when the captain himself was in the
middle ?
HS might have a bad defence, but his tendency to hit out ? That is what we
are talking about - that tendency would have been curbed if the other
batsman had told him to just hang on to his wicket for dear life.
So take your pick. Either you are biased or you do not know how to read
scorecards.
Its expected that 1-2 batsmen might improve their performance while others
go down, but all except one deteriorate ?
Also interesting would be a comparison of how many balls did Ganguly face
after Ratra came in to how many Laxman faced after a similar juncture in
the first innings.
That said, this is my last post on this and the other thread. No one has
ever convinced a biased person to change his views. If you are biased, I
would be wasting my time in responding to you anymore. If not, you can do
your own comparisons based on the figures above.
by Sougata Mukherje » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:35:23
> Compare the following :
> T2 I2 tail :
> A Ratra 2(15)
> HS 0(1)
> JS 2(4)
> ZK 4(7)
> AN 0(1)
> T2 I1 tail :
> A Ratra 0(7)
> HS 0(6)
> JS 18(23) 3 4's => 6 runs in 20 balls - that is defensive enough for me.
> ZK 5(20)
> AN 0(3)
> T1 tail :
> AK 3(12)
> SS 39(165)
> (not including Bangar as he is not a tailender)
> The tail is not a single entity - its composed of 3-4 batsmen. The
> probability of all failing at once is quite low. While it is correct to
say
> that a given tailender may fail (its relative as he is not expected to
> score more than 15-20 runs anyway) after having 2 good innings, it is not
> correct to make the same statement for a group 4-5 batsmen.
> Its pretty apparent that only Ratra showed any improvement while everyone
> else dropped (again relative).
> Why would Wright / Dravid say anything when the captain himself was in the
> middle ?
> HS might have a bad defence, but his tendency to hit out ? That is what we
> are talking about - that tendency would have been curbed if the other
> batsman had told him to just hang on to his wicket for dear life.
> So take your pick. Either you are biased or you do not know how to read
> scorecards.
> Its expected that 1-2 batsmen might improve their performance while others
> go down, but all except one deteriorate ?
> Also interesting would be a comparison of how many balls did Ganguly face
> after Ratra came in to how many Laxman faced after a similar juncture in
> the first innings.
> That said, this is my last post on this and the other thread. No one has
> ever convinced a biased person to change his views. If you are biased, I
> would be wasting my time in responding to you anymore. If not, you can do
> your own comparisons based on the figures above.
- Sougata
by AK » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:59:34
Get a life ignorant. Tail-enders often collapse like this. It's not uncommon.
If it happens when Tendu is there, would you whine about Tendu? I doubt it.
by Ragupati - Chandrasekara » Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:00:25
<snip>
Cheers,
Ragu
1 is equal to 2 for sufficiently large values of 1
--Anonymous
1. 'Big' 10th wkt p'ship with minimal contribution from #11
2. GIDS 2009 Java:: Save Big, Win Big, Learn Big: Act Before Dec 29 2008
3. Questions about India's Big 3 (Big 4?)
4. Why Team India can't win matches with BIG stars???
6. Big win followed by a big loss
7. India's last 3 test matches....and contributions
8. Congrats NZ for the big win and India as well
9. South African's big win(SA v NL Scorecard)
10. 'Large' 10th wkt p'ships with minimal contribution from #11
11. 'Large' 10wkt p'ships with minimal contribution from #11
12. 'Large' 10th wkt p'ships with minimal contribution from #11