Indian cricket team is loosing most of the ODI (One Day International) cricket matches off late. And as always, experts from India have found a reason of loss in lack of technique of batsmen and poor bowling resources. But things aren't straightforward as that. India is confusing ODI cricket and Test Match Cricket.
India is of the theory of playing out first 10 overs without loosing a wicket and settle for a score between 20-30 runs and then accelerate later on with wickets in hands. But for that to happen you need finishers in the team. Without Suresh Raina, Yuvraj Singh, MS Dhoni, there are no finishers in this indian team. India have selected players who might have good solid front foot and back foot defense, and may be who are better looking against short pitch bowling than Suresh Raina and Yuvraj Singh, but this ploy of selecting technincally good batsmen has messed up everything. With theory of saving wickets at top, you would really like to have players at the end who have ability to attack and cover up for slow and secure starts. Not only Indian team is not getting off to fast starts, as was the case when Sehwag and Gambhir were around, to make matter worst they are not looking secure as well, loosing couple of wickets early.
On the name of technique some very good players have been dropped. Yuvraj Singh can hit 6 sixes in an over and Suresh Raina can hit few of them as well. You need to have that ability even if you can't do it every time.
At top of the order you need someone to get as many as possible in powerplay overs, at least look to do that, especially in subcontinent since it is mighty difficult to do anything against old ball on slow and low pitches and with bowlers like 'Lasith Malinga' and 'Saeed Ajmal' bowling accurately. But Indian Cricket is lost in theories. There are people of 1970's and 1980's sitting in commentary boxes representing India who don't waste any time criticising players if they get out trying to play their role.
Rohit Sharma can easily play freely and go over the top, but he won't do that because he knows that someone sitting in commentary box will reprimand him if he gets out trying to play his role, even make him look like a schoolboy with his words and blame him of not having elementary cricket knowledge. Interestingly, the same man would praise and shower all the appreciation on Kusal Perera and Shahid Afridi if they slog a few terming it as good strategy and as per their role.
India has never given respect to someone who has maintained average of 35 (more than Mahela Jaywardene's) and strike rate of 95 (again more than Mahela Jaywardene's) over 200 caps. On the name of bad technique and how a player looks suspect against a bouncy ball, India is quite happy to drop their finishers and instead select those who might look a bit solid but can never get as many as India needs to achieve a safe score.
Ajinkya Rahane has had a good start to its test career. According to theory of Indian cricket pundits "one who is good test players is surely a good ODI player," but it is not true always. Ajinkya Rahane has looked tense and incapable to consistently do what Suresh Raina did with good consistency, and that is to get those 35 runs at strike rate of 100 in slog overs. It requires skills, a different skill than may be what is required in test cricket.
But Indian Cricket is confused. They fail to understand that ODI cricket is a role based cricket. You need cricketers who can maximize the first 10 overs, consolidate the mid innings, and then finish their batting with a bang.
Much blame of it goes to commentators like Hasrha Bhogle, Aakash Chopra, Sunil Gavaskar, and Ravi Shastri. Their old theories and the environment that it creates, is not helping indian cricket at all.
Harsha Bhogle says: "We are going back to times when people used to take time in first 15 overs," Really? Jesse Ryder, Kusal Perera, Quinton De Kock all are trying to get as many as possible in first few overs. Let Indian openers do that, and please don't impose your theory so much that they don't even try to attack a bit.
 |
| Don't underestimate role of finishers in ODI cricket! |
India is of the theory of playing out first 10 overs without loosing a wicket and settle for a score between 20-30 runs and then accelerate later on with wickets in hands. But for that to happen you need finishers in the team. Without Suresh Raina, Yuvraj Singh, MS Dhoni, there are no finishers in this indian team. India have selected players who might have good solid front foot and back foot defense, and may be who are better looking against short pitch bowling than Suresh Raina and Yuvraj Singh, but this ploy of selecting technincally good batsmen has messed up everything. With theory of saving wickets at top, you would really like to have players at the end who have ability to attack and cover up for slow and secure starts. Not only Indian team is not getting off to fast starts, as was the case when Sehwag and Gambhir were around, to make matter worst they are not looking secure as well, loosing couple of wickets early.
On the name of technique some very good players have been dropped. Yuvraj Singh can hit 6 sixes in an over and Suresh Raina can hit few of them as well. You need to have that ability even if you can't do it every time.
At top of the order you need someone to get as many as possible in powerplay overs, at least look to do that, especially in subcontinent since it is mighty difficult to do anything against old ball on slow and low pitches and with bowlers like 'Lasith Malinga' and 'Saeed Ajmal' bowling accurately. But Indian Cricket is lost in theories. There are people of 1970's and 1980's sitting in commentary boxes representing India who don't waste any time criticising players if they get out trying to play their role.
Rohit Sharma can easily play freely and go over the top, but he won't do that because he knows that someone sitting in commentary box will reprimand him if he gets out trying to play his role, even make him look like a schoolboy with his words and blame him of not having elementary cricket knowledge. Interestingly, the same man would praise and shower all the appreciation on Kusal Perera and Shahid Afridi if they slog a few terming it as good strategy and as per their role.
India has never given respect to someone who has maintained average of 35 (more than Mahela Jaywardene's) and strike rate of 95 (again more than Mahela Jaywardene's) over 200 caps. On the name of bad technique and how a player looks suspect against a bouncy ball, India is quite happy to drop their finishers and instead select those who might look a bit solid but can never get as many as India needs to achieve a safe score.
Ajinkya Rahane has had a good start to its test career. According to theory of Indian cricket pundits "one who is good test players is surely a good ODI player," but it is not true always. Ajinkya Rahane has looked tense and incapable to consistently do what Suresh Raina did with good consistency, and that is to get those 35 runs at strike rate of 100 in slog overs. It requires skills, a different skill than may be what is required in test cricket.
But Indian Cricket is confused. They fail to understand that ODI cricket is a role based cricket. You need cricketers who can maximize the first 10 overs, consolidate the mid innings, and then finish their batting with a bang.
Much blame of it goes to commentators like Hasrha Bhogle, Aakash Chopra, Sunil Gavaskar, and Ravi Shastri. Their old theories and the environment that it creates, is not helping indian cricket at all.
Harsha Bhogle says: "We are going back to times when people used to take time in first 15 overs," Really? Jesse Ryder, Kusal Perera, Quinton De Kock all are trying to get as many as possible in first few overs. Let Indian openers do that, and please don't impose your theory so much that they don't even try to attack a bit.
