Bored Members - Guests | Media | White Bored | Interview | Bored Anthem - Songs | Boredwaani | Cartoons | Facebook | Twitter | Login

is it this simple...?

by straight point

fellow blogger kartikeya wrote a post in disagreement of manjrekar's observations that india lacked 'mental discipline' and concluded it with his interpretations as...

A simpler and more reasonable analysis of the game, which does not dip into stereotypes about "Australia coming hard at India", would be that both batting line ups went hard at the opposition bowling - Australia's assault came off, while India's didn't.

needless to say... i do not agree with K's simplistic conclusion...

first... australia's assault paid off coz india was bowling filth... it was buffet bowling and those who watched the match would agree with me that it was a mystery why oz were still going at only 10 rpo then... they were not at risk of losing their wickets unless they were bored of hitting sixes... it was that bad bowling...

but when india came to bat the target was still stiff... 9rpo from outset is stiff asking rate and when pitch is favoring certain kind of bowling it becomes even more stiffer...

where our batsmen faulted was that they went blindly for their shots irrespective of the fact that bowlers were bowling really well... that the short balls were hitting the upper part of their bats... that they were hurried to play the shots...

now it's easy to say our counter attack not came off... they were not robots who were programmed to behave particular ways... we are talking about international level batsmen here... and though t20 game is a bang bang cricket it still leaves some scope for 'mind over matter' kind of batting...

as an international batsman you are supposed to quickly size up the situation and mold your approach accordingly... the shots gambhir and raina played before getting out proves the point... both were late in playing the pull shots... the ball hit the bat rather than the other way around... but still they looked adamant on playing those shots countering the sharp bounce and perished...

in the end we needed 50 odd runs in last three overs with no batsman to follow... considering that in t20 game chasing 30 runs in last three overs is a par target... had our top order batsmen shown some grit to grind it out we could have got more opportunities to close the gap of those 20 runs in first 17 overs...

india played the similar game against south africa when in first 10 overs they looked behind the eight balls but preserved their wickets to compensate it in later overs and set almost the same target they were chasing against australia... they needed to adopt the similar approach against australia but they lacked the same discipline hence failed miserably... the match was as good as over inside first six overs itself...

15 comments:

Mahek said...

We had the same approach against South Africa. The difference was in the quality of bowling and the fact that Raina was lucky to be caught off a no ball. For all you know, we would have collapsed against South Africa had Morkel not overstepped.

Amidst the ruins that was the Indian innings, Nohit's flashy innings has been branded as a classy knock. The fact of the matter is before he settled down to play some brilliant strokes he had tried really hard to get out, so much so that even Senile Sunny was criticising him. To top it off, he happily turned the strike over to Zaheer and Nehra will more than two overs to go.

straight point said...

have we seen any batsmen caught off no ball for the first time...? does any statistic reveal that so and so batsmen scored x runs but dropped y times...?

anyways i have seen enough arguments on raina's 'no ball' dismissal at other place to get trapped into it here as well...

regarding your accusation that he happily turned the strike over to zaheer and nehra... here is the last three overs account of india's inningg starting from bhajji's dismissal at 14.3 overs... and get reality check...

http://www.cricinfo.com/world-twenty20-2010/engine/match/412691.html?innings=2;page=1;view=commentary

Mahek said...

Just because there aren't any such statistics doesn't mean such incidents aren't important. Cricket statistics are as primitive as the caveman. You don't even see cricinfo record the number of dot balls in an innings, does that mean the number of dot balls in an innings aren't important?

You can give as many reality checks as you want. The bottom line is Zaheer and Nehra got out to the first ball they faced off Tait. If you don't think it's the responsibility of a top order batsman to farm the strike till the end of the innings then so be it. Wouldn't be any different from the way most people fail to read the situation anyway.

Aditya said...

@SP

Giving No 10 5 balls of Tait!

17.1 Tait to Sharma, 1 run, a yorker on middle, punched back towards the bowler, just past Tait, single taken off a ricochet off throw at non-striker's end





Rohit gave Nehra the strike to face Shaun tait when we had 3 balls to negotiate!

17.3
Tait to Sharma, 1 run, worked away towards fine leg for a single, can the No. 11 survive the two deliveries of this over?
17.4
Tait to Nehra, OUT, no he can't, a yorker that was much too good for him crashes into the base of middle stump, Australia win by 49 runs, a massive margin in Twenty20s, no doubting who the favourites for the title are now
A Nehra b Tait 0 (1b 0x4 0x6) SR: 0.00


Giving No 11, 3 Balls of Tait!

I agree he did a commendable job in the previous two overs by keeping the strike, but why not of the 18th over! We were all out with 14 deliveries to go (of which Watson and Johnson were to bowl 12 of them)! If Rohit would have played sensibly he might have even got to a 100 and reduced the margin of defeat by at least 15-20 runs!

This is not just a one off! He did it against Rajasthan Royals at Nagpur! When he was single handedly taking deccan to victory, why did he have to take a single of the 1st ball of the final over when 6 were reqd. of the final over and when he had tail enders at the other end!

http://www.cricinfo.com/ipl2010/engine/match/419141.html?innings=2;page=1;view=commentary

Do have a look at the 17th over, as soon as he got off the strike, a procession had started! He had seen it happen right before him !

And again takes strike at the end of 19th over! But takes a single of the 1st ball to expose the tail! ^ reqd from 6 balls, playing so well. He should have backed himself to score a boundary in one of those 6 balls and settle the issue! RP couldn't get bat onto ball and the pressure got to him! I still blame HIM for that defeat ! Playing good knocks isn't enough but utilizing your brain also matters! I would have been happier if he did not play that innings at all ad this was even more heart-breaking!



Here as well but on a differnet note of not being able to finish things off!

http://www.cricinfo.com/ipl2009/engine/match/392229.html?innings=2;page=1;view=commentary

DC vs KXIP IPL 2009, plays well gets target down to 4 of 4 and plays an ugly swipe and DC loose! No doubt he is talented but this just shows that he has not matured as a cricketer !

straight point said...

adi... do not get carried away with rohit bashing... for a moment even if i agree that he gave strike to nehra and co. and we could have got closer in defeat margin... but i urge you to read the post again and tell me what is the scope of this post is...

the post is based on argument that ozeis attack paid off while ours not...

if we limit our arguments to the central idea (irrespective of we agree or not) and avoid introducing characters (which brings another set of emotions associated with them) so don't you think rohit gave strike to whom is beyond the crux of this post...? :)

Soulberry said...

The bowling was the difference. Australia was more sustained that Saffers - they had three bowlers pelting it down while Saffers had Steyn. And more skillfully too.

The Saffer performance actually best illustrates the point against India in the Australia match - India batted first...

Something in the Australian match made attacks "not to come off." What was it...or what were they?

When India batted first at least some players had the clarity of mind to freely attack. The no-ball theory being bandied about by some is a meaningless fixation and nothing more. Clarity of mind makes one hear the no-ball call, or when reprieved, go on to capitalize. The remaining ifs and buts are all woulda coulda shouldas.

Batting second brought something different along - was it that they were down because of the poor bowling effort? was it that their attention was divided between keeping an eye on the ball and a mind worrying about a core?

There was a mentally different approach after a few overs into the match by India.

What it is, better experts than I on the web can better tell.

Good points in the article which might make sense in clam receptive minds.

Aditya said...

Well, the crux of the post I completely agree with! I continued on what Mahek said about Rohit!
I may have gone a bit overboard with the Rohit bashing, but it is what I feel so I let it out at the first opportunity!

No issues with the post! We need to Buckle up else Kemar Roach and Jerome Taylor will do the same to our top order today!

We will have a post here on Bored about Rohit's immaturity if he does this ever again ! :)

straight point said...

thanks sb!

Batting second brought something different along - was it that they were down because of the poor bowling effort? was it that their attention was divided between keeping an eye on the ball and a mind worrying about a core?

this is what team is there for sb... there are going to be days when bowlers will be bashed around park... but then it does not give excuse to batsmen (our biggest strength) to surrender tamely...

straight point said...

thanks adi... not for agreeing but to understand the point of mine about sticking to the central idea of post so sportingly... it is becoming very difficult to convey and understand this point...

so cheers buddy! :)

Mahek said...

I thought your point was to disagree with the simplistic explanation from Kartikeya. So what's wrong in extending the discussion to what actually went wrong, which was virtually the whole bloody plan right from the toss? Nohit was simply continuing the mindlessness that we went into the game with.

Mr Bisht said...

I agree with Karthikeya

if we say India bowled filth then they did so
as they lacked mental toughness on that particular day; as how come a bowler who bowls good and innovatively one day fails to do so the next day.

Whether one likes or not, Australians are still the benchmark for not only aggression but mental toughness too. They intimidated India with words prior to the game; and then they intimidated them successfully on ground as well. It’s like India stopped thinking, seeing, listening and reacting because of stress.

straight point said...

thanks mr. bisht...

irrespective of how badly we bowled and what were the reasons behind it... our batters could have still applied it bit more as i said earlier in comments... as a team there are going to be days when bowlers can be thrashed around parks but then batsmen which are and have been out strength can not make it as excuse... much the same way when batting bits the dust bowlers cant make it as excuse to bowl badly...

so whether oz are benchmark of aggression is highly subjective... but in a way you have corroborated my pov that it was not as simple as dismissing it with oz attack paid off and ours not... :)

Mahek said...

Wonder when we bowled well and innovatively in the the first two games. The focus has simply been on restricting the opposition batsmen and it's not about to change. We might win tonight and maybe against Lanka and everyone will forget how pathetically we've bowled. Then we'll lost to a side that doesn't screw itself and wonder why we weren't as "good an innovative" on the day.

straight point said...

can you quote a even a single word leave alone a sentence from the post to corroborate your last comment about 'innovative bowling'...?

Mr Bisht said...

@ Straightpoint

That's exactly what the contradiction lies. If batsmen have failed; that more so points to mental fragility.

Australian aggression (my addition: mental toughness) is not subjective, as this is the only team who has dominated all other teams in the past 15 years.