New Zealand in India, 2010

[akmohanty]

PKB, it seems we exactly feel the same about this. yusuf's bowling is a but iffy for sure but he is the type of pinch-hitter we need at #7. The slightly higher #6 slot is perhaps the one prasen has in mind. that's the one which dhoni has been keeping to himself, one which keeps an end stable and grinds it out. the way i would do i would like #7 managed is: for Indian wickets, yusuf who is a spin option (provided, of course, he works at being more economical) and for foreign wickets like Aus, Eng, SA, irfan who is a good swing option for those pitches.

[akmohanty]

Yusuf got out to a full-toss after giving a catch for the fourth time and India batted an over less.

i don't hold it against him the way he got out since he was in attacking mode and the shot he hit was an aggressive one, need of the hour. he was just plain unfortunate that it went straight to the fielder.
this was much unlike quite a few of the others who got out fending tentatively outside the off stump, including yuvraj.

[prasen9]

i don't hold it against him the way he got out since he was in attacking mode and the shot he hit was an aggressive one, need of the hour. he was just plain unfortunate that it went straight to the fielder.
this was much unlike quite a few of the others who got out fending tentatively outside the off stump, including yuvraj.

At least Yuvraj did not get out to a gimme ball and held the innings together and contributed well towards the final total. I do hold it as lack of skill when in an innings more than 50% of one's shots are mishits. That shows lack of class and skill. The guy was batting with a #9 and could not even last more than a few overs.

And wrt his bowling, not only has he been way more expensive than the average bowler, his bowling average is worse than that of Yuvraj, and Sehwag, both of whom are also more economical than him. So, he would be the 7th bowler in this team and that contribution is negligible.

[SaniaFan]

Did he not bat during the last 5 overs? Then you basically try to hit everything. I did not watch the match.

[prasen9]

He came in the 40th over. The first five overs were power-play and the last five slog overs. He got out in the 48th over. True, you hit everything, but, a batsman is expected to have more proper hits than mishits. He was beaten and mishit in at least 8-9 balls of the 19 he faced. Given that he was batting with Nehra, Munaf, and Sree, he failed to manage the strike and hit and got out himself with one over and a bit wasted.

[genius]

i am really sick of this allrounder nonsense.its nothing but a figment of imagination that allrounders are really needed.pure man made stupidity.

australia have been without a world class allrounder for over four decades till watson came along ...did it ruin their cricket? or did lloyd's team have a great allrounder?

lesser players get picked precisely for this reason. even if they are as horrible as bangar or jp yadav.
selectors have done their bit to ruin the teams in the shorter format.

Its the specialists who will give much better returns for the investment, who have better basics, better range of shots
and ability to win matches.

The matchwinners are the source of competitive advantage ,not the lesser mortals who bring quality down.

If the simple policy "put in the matchwinners and fill in the blanks" is folowed by the selcgtors , it goes a long long way.

they are ruining the squad with a futile search for allrounders-yusuf is not a good enough bowler, his batting is less than a level than what i would have liked. he is a striker of the ball but he does not have uthappa's range

and too many youngsters who are unreliable in a big tournament like the WC.they can be a investment for the future but as far the wc is concerned its dangerous to invest in them.

[akmohanty]

He came in the 40th over. The first five overs were power-play and the last five slog overs. He got out in the 48th over. True, you hit everything, but, a batsman is expected to have more proper hits than mishits. He was beaten and mishit in at least 8-9 balls of the 19 he faced. Given that he was batting with Nehra, Munaf, and Sree, he failed to manage the strike and hit and got out himself with one over and a bit wasted.

i felt he did the best he could under the circumstances (except for that shot to long-on in which he thought that either he was out or it had gone for six but realised late that it had been well managed by Guptill, the fielder who had thrown it inside the boundary. he should have carried on running and gotten a two instead of one; but, these are things we can easily say in hindsight, it does get quite confusing there i suppose).
apart from that shot, which did look like a mishit (and still went so far), i do not distinctly remember any other bad mishits. the shot he got out to was nothing to be ashamed of (unlike most others around him who were getting beaten by the pace and seam of Mackay). that shot was very powerfully hit and would have raced to the boundary if it had been a few inches either side of the fielder. those are the shots one has to play during the last 10 overs, some come off and some do not. i don't think jadeja would have done any better under similar circumstances.

[PKBasu]

i am really sick of this allrounder nonsense.its nothing but a figment of imagination that allrounders are really needed.pure man made stupidity.

australia have been without a world class allrounder for over four decades till watson came along ...did it ruin their cricket? or did lloyd's team have a great allrounder?

.

Australia didn't have an allrounder for four decades?? Gilchrist was one of the greatest. But the beauty of successful Australian teams (especially in the ODI format) has been that they are loaded with all-rounders. The balance of the 1999 WC-winning team was provided by allrounder Tom Moody. Brett Lee and Shane Warne were bowling allrounders, as were Fleming, Gillespie, etc. All their batsmen got into the team as batting allrounders: Slater and Blewett were good examples (following in the hallowed tradition of Bobby Simpson, Ian and Greg Chappell, and Alan Border), but Damien Martyn used to bowl at first, as did Ponting, Clark, etc., and Langer first got into the team as a batsman who could 'keep.

Lloyd himself started out as an allrounder, and Rohan Kanhai got into the Windies side as a 'keeper-batsman. But the balance of Lloyd's great ODI teams was provided by pure allrounders like Collis King (whose 86 in the final won the 1979 World Cup for his team) and Larry Gomes, and the allround abilities of Viv Richards (almost a top-line off-spinner in ODI cricket) and Malcolm Marshall (an excellent batsman in the second half of his career). In 1975, the balance of Lloyd's World Cup winning side was provided by TWO allrounders, Keith Boyce and Bernard Julien.

[PKBasu]

And of course, it goes without saying (I hope) that India's 1983 World Cup winning squad was chockful of allrounders. Only Gavaskar, Srikkanth and Sandhu were pure specialists in that side (and Yashpal played as a specialist batsman, but was capable of being pressed into bowling if needed). The other eight seven members of the XI were allrounders of varying shades -- Kapil Dev, Roger Binny, Mohinder Amarnath and Madanlal playing that role to the hilt throughout the World Cup, Kirti Azad, Sandeep Patil and Syed Kirmani clearly capable of two roles. (Shastri and Vengsarkar were not in the XI for the SF and final, that was how good the side was!).

[akmohanty]

And of course, it goes without saying (I hope) that India's 1983 World Cup winning squad was chockful of allrounders. Only Gavaskar, Srikkanth and Sandhu were pure specialists in that side (and Yashpal played as a specialist batsman, but was capable of being pressed into bowling if needed). The other eight seven members of the XI were allrounders of varying shades -- Kapil Dev, Roger Binny, Mohinder Amarnath and Madanlal playing that role to the hilt throughout the World Cup, Kirti Azad, Sandeep Patil and Syed Kirmani clearly capable of two roles. (Shastri and Vengsarkar were not in the XI for the SF and final, that was how good the side was!).

All-rounders were the backbone for that success. We can never forget that great innings kapil played when India was down 17/5 against Zim and needing 200 more runs to win and stay in the World Cup. That innings changed the very course of the World Cup.
as fas as aussie examples go, perhaps the greatest in recent times was steve waugh. his all-round abilities made him a more permanent fixture of the side inspite of him being slightly lesser in terms of pure batting abilities than his brother mark.

[PKBasu]

Indeed, akm. The Waugh brothers were excellent examples of all-round ability. Mark Waugh continued bowling off-spin throughout his career, and gave the side balance (especially in ODIs), and his fielding was utterly spectacular. I was at the World Cup final in 1999, and can never forget the spectacular flying catch he took at second slip at the start of the match (around the fifth over) to dismiss opener Wajahatullah Wasti. It just seemed to demoralize Pakistan, and effectively ended the match...! Tom Moody of course got 2/17 in 5 overs in that final, but it was the specialists McGrath (2/13 in 9 overs!!) and Warne (4/33) who finished off what Mark Waugh had begun. Mark and Steve Waugh, and Michael Bevan - allrounders all -- didn't have to bowl at all. But they were in the team as allrounders, who could be called on to bowl if necessary. Just like India in 1983.

[PKBasu]

Fine bowling effort by India so far. Ashwin remains very impressive indeed, including in the batting PowerPlay (during which he took a wicket) and in the slog overs (in which he has been bowling his recent overs). Munaf bowled a peach of a delivery to get rid of Williamson. And Saha has been very good behind the stumps. Nehra also has done the job pretty well, and there was a bonus wicket for Yusuf early on. But Sreesanth has been brilliant, leading the attack superbly today. On a hat-trick now.

[prasen9]

Vijay flatters to deceive again. He gave India a good start but for his sake and the sake of the team, I was hoping that he carried on to play a long innings. Oh, well. This has been his highest score in ODIs and he did not look at ease while facing Vettori. I hope Kohli and Gambhir have a century partnership now.

[PKBasu]

Yes, it was almost as if he was heeding (and responding to!) your criticisms. He played a careful innings, but again failed to cement his place in the ODI squad. He did his job in the context of the match, giving the side a fine start -- but clearly (for his own sake) needs to make at least one big score of 50+ in the next match or two. With Nathan McCullum doing a Deepak Patel by opening the bowling, Vijay's relative discomfort with spin bowling was also somewhat exposed. It helps explain why he should always be opening, whether in tests or ODIs.

[kna]

All-rounders were the backbone for that success. We can never forget that great innings kapil played when India was down 17/5 against Zim and needing 200 more runs to win and stay in the World Cup. That innings changed the very course of the World Cup.

Minor correction - India batted first in that match. We were indeed 17-5, before Kapil fashioned a recovery with that brilliant 175 not out and his partnerships with Binny, Madan Lal and Kirmani helped us reach 266-8.

The tragedy was that BBC technicians were on strike and with only a skeleton crew BBC chose not to cover the India-Zimbabwe match. Consequrently, I don't think there is any video record of Kapil's memorable knock.