srbhkshk
Well-known member
Having a middle-order incapable of accelerating whatever the situation.
Is that losing matches on purpose? Possibly, but no more so than Australia selecting **** bowlers in all ODIs not called the world cup.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
38th Match - India v England
- Thread starter bihari420
- Start date
Is that losing matches on purpose? Possibly, but no more so than Australia selecting **** bowlers in all ODIs not called the world cup.
aussie tragic
Well-known member
Given the pathetic last 5 overs 'protecting the NRR', wouldn't it be ironic if India were now thrashed by BD and SL and therefore eliminated by BD/Pak on NRR
tooextracool
Well-known member
A few random thoughts:
Never realized how invaluable Jason Roy was to this side until when we played the last few games without him. Not only does England rely on him to set the pace at the top but it is quite obvious that Bairstow is a better player with him in the side. Shades of the last t20 world cup when we were on the brink of elimination at the halfway mark chasing 230-odd against the Proteas before a mini-inning from Roy gave us hope to bring us back in the game.
I'm not a huge fan of Morgan's rotation of bowlers - a few times this WC now, we've been in a dominant position with the ball only for an unnecessary double change or the introduction of Rashid into the attack. It seems like the aim is to figure out what combination of bowlers to get 50 overs out of rather than getting wickets irrespective of the match situation. Today, I hoped they would use Woakes in the same way that Australia has been using Behrendorff - that is bowl 7/8/9 overs in the first 20. India were 28/1 off 10 with both Virat and Rohit struggling to get the ball off the square. Instead, Plunkett and Wood came on and while Plunkett bowled admirably, the tempo of the game changed considerably after the introduction of Wood. Woakes returned later and got smacked, not shockingly, considering he's never been particularly effective later in the game.
The NZ game will be tough especially since both Ross and Kane love batting against us. I am expecting/hoping for an unchanged England side, though I do wonder if NZ might be tempted to pick Southee instead of Sodhi/Henry.
Never realized how invaluable Jason Roy was to this side until when we played the last few games without him. Not only does England rely on him to set the pace at the top but it is quite obvious that Bairstow is a better player with him in the side. Shades of the last t20 world cup when we were on the brink of elimination at the halfway mark chasing 230-odd against the Proteas before a mini-inning from Roy gave us hope to bring us back in the game.
I'm not a huge fan of Morgan's rotation of bowlers - a few times this WC now, we've been in a dominant position with the ball only for an unnecessary double change or the introduction of Rashid into the attack. It seems like the aim is to figure out what combination of bowlers to get 50 overs out of rather than getting wickets irrespective of the match situation. Today, I hoped they would use Woakes in the same way that Australia has been using Behrendorff - that is bowl 7/8/9 overs in the first 20. India were 28/1 off 10 with both Virat and Rohit struggling to get the ball off the square. Instead, Plunkett and Wood came on and while Plunkett bowled admirably, the tempo of the game changed considerably after the introduction of Wood. Woakes returned later and got smacked, not shockingly, considering he's never been particularly effective later in the game.
The NZ game will be tough especially since both Ross and Kane love batting against us. I am expecting/hoping for an unchanged England side, though I do wonder if NZ might be tempted to pick Southee instead of Sodhi/Henry.
stephen
Well-known member
Right throughout this cup every match has shown just how important a strong opening partnership is in modern ODI cricket. The teams doing the best - Australia, India and England have done so with strong opening partnerships. New Zealand are the only one not to have a great opening pair and that's because Guptill is so far out of form.
Roy leaves a huge hole in England when he's gone. Its great for England he's back.
Roy leaves a huge hole in England when he's gone. Its great for England he's back.
CricAddict
Well-known member
I know many here don't rate Jaddu. But he can seriously play a good role for India in current situation. Having lost Dhawan, we need someone to strengthen batting a bit. With Shami and Chahal both going for wickets over runs, we need someone to control the run rate in middle overs. We need someone who can turn the match through a super catch or a super run-out. We need someone who can evoke confidence in the Indian dressing room through his sword skills.
That someone is Sir Jadeja.
CricAddict
Well-known member
And in a corollary, if India got thrashed by BD and SL but still went through on NRR, it will justify their NRR protection this match.
CricAddict
Well-known member
That is a good idea, but I will just swap Pant and Rahul. Rahul did well at 4 in the initial matches so can just have him there and hope for him to come good. DK and Jadhav are both good finishers but not sure of their ability to play long innings. So will prefer only one of them in the team at one point.
Burgey
Well-known member
There's a difference between picking Victorians and therefore being dreadful/ mediocre and seriously not having a crack to win a game. I didn't see India's innings so am only going off what's been said on the forum, but don't you find it problematic if they actively tried not to win a game? This isn't a test match where you can shut up shop and legitimately play for a draw then bop Md Shami over long-on for six once that draw is secured.
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
No arguments here Aus selection in meaningless ODIs has been a joke for years
stephen
Well-known member
Tbf most of it has been so that we can win the next world cup.
zorax
likes this
https://www.instagram.com/p/BzWunzNgn45/?igshid=1lcycgnpucuy6
Is this why India weren't trying to hit sixes
Is this why India weren't trying to hit sixes
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
IIRC he did something similar in 2015 WC semi-final chasing against Aus. Like they probably weren't going to win but he put it beyond doubt by not even really trying. He's often great at pacing a chase right down to the last over but a lot of the time falls well short and it looks pretty silly especially when you've still got wickets in hand.
OverratedSanity
Well-known member
It's funny because after that innings a lot of people were saying Dhoni is done and yet he's still here 4 years later still stinking it up with almost monotonous regularity.
stephen
Well-known member
Dhoni seems to have lost a bit of his game sense. He does have the extra gear but he doesn't really use it at the right time. Its mostly because he's getting bogged down and not rotating the strike like he used to, which is a big problem because that's what the specialist chaser has to be good at.
srbhkshk
Well-known member
Of course I find it problematic, that's why the rants all over the thread.
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
I can't think of anyone else who did that, being not out at the end and still losing. Bevan's the guy Dhoni is often compared to (albeit from a different era in regards to quantity of run scoring), but I don't recall Bevan losing games while batting right to the end. If Australia lost Bevan was usually out well before the end.
