[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

Come on, Shami has been bowling well. You can't expect a bowler to pick up 3+ wickets in every game! He has looked penetrative enough.

Leaving out Kuldeep is a good decision. He is still not ready to bowl as a spinner out of subcontinent conditions. He needs to be nurtured. With Jadeja available I don't think the team needs any more spinners on this tour.

Pant had a good game, but he needs to work on his footwork as a keeper.

He is sitting on a total of 7 wickets in the series. If he is indeed bowling well and troubling batsmen, its not showing up in the wickets column. He is in the team purely as a bowler and it is only right to expect more.

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

It may be to give them exposure around the team prior to the Australia tour. Even if Virat's back is giving issues, Karun Nair would be a better bet than throwing Shaw or Vihari in the deep end.

I don't really see why we needed 2 batsmen, but I guess we will know if they are looking to cover some other aspects or injuries to other players not yet disclosed.

On the other side of the fence, it looks likely that Moeen will return. I hope we don't make it a sequel of the 2014 success story for him.

Although unlikely after the way Hardik Dev Pandya has performed, Karun Nair is the batsman in waiting in case we change the combination to play 6 batsman. Maybe Vihari is the injury backup guy then.

[suku_patel_22]

The problem with Shami is the number of boundary balls he bowls every now and then. When is is not picking wickets, or swinging the ball, he keeps trying magic deliveries and loses control over the ball.

He is unable to bowl a tight line and be patient.

[PPS]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

I would question Shami's selection too.

I think overall, he's bowled better than the SA series. In SA, there were spells where he looked completely flat, those sort of spells have considerably reduced in the first 3 tests so far.

Originally Posted by Eddy

What worries me is if Vihari has been chosen does that mean that Kohli's back is getting worse ? Hence the middle order backup.

Don't think Virat looked in any sort of discomfort during this 3rd test. In any case there is a week's gap till the 4th test starts. Vihari & Shaw have been drafted in for getting a feel of the Indian dressing room more than anything else.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

I would question Shami's selection too. He bowled a total of 29 overs in the test going for 134 runs with just 2 wickets. Remember these are wickets conducive for fast bowling and if Ishaant and Pandya can take wickets, I wonder what excuse Shami has.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

He is sitting on a total of 7 wickets in the series. If he is indeed bowling well and troubling batsmen, its not showing up in the wickets column. He is in the team purely as a bowler and it is only right to expect more.

The thing with Test Cricket, and Cricket in general is that you cannot and should not look at figures in isolation.

For example, this Test series results read 2-1, but it's clear that India has been the dominant side, barring the disastrous Lord's Test match. The first match was a pretty close one, with VK being the stand out player between both teams. What sealed it for England at the very end of the match was the late flourish in the 3rd Innings.

Hardik Pandya may not have picked up wickets, and he may have sprayed the ball around the first few matches. But he has played with heart, and he has reaped the rewards in the 3rd match. He must be given a chance to prove himself and he cannot and should not be written of on the basis of 2 poor performances in his maiden(?) Test Series. That would be grossly unfair.

Shami has held up the other end quite well, in my opinion. It is true that he has not been great in terms of length and has often pitched it up to settled batsmen giving them the opportunity to strike through the line. But he has undoubtedly held the other end well enough to justify his place in the team.

[selfdrive]

The issue is that Kohli's captaincy was a bit odd in letting England off the hook in the 1st test. After lunch, he should have continued with Ishant and Ashwin who had just taken wickets. By changing the bowlers, he allowed Sam Curran to get away with the game.
30 fewer runs would have been an achievable target.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

Hardik Pandya may not have picked up wickets, and he may have sprayed the ball around the first few matches.. He must be given a chance to prove himself and he cannot and should not be written of on the basis of 2 poor performances in his maiden(?) Test Series. That would be grossly unfair.

Shami has held up the other end quite well, in my opinion.

I do not think anyone is questioning Hardik's place after the 3rd test.

As for a holding role, I think Jadeja will perform an equivalent role at a faster rate of overs per hour. He will also improve the ground fielding and add more strength to the batting order. This will allow us to keep attacking from the other end.

[ninjatalli]

We are a finicky lot, on this thread

About a week ago, we were all crying out for the coach's (and others') blood saying this is turning out to be a disaster (/ overhaul / gone case / decimated / too late). Even when I put up this post, the responses were pretty much on the same tone as earlier.

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

...
But it's a good wake-up call. Even better if we do equally bad in the remaining 3 tests (which probably could happen). With less than a year to go, I'd rather have the situation that we do badly in this series and come well prepared next year than facing this situation next year.

And the problems aren't that big if you ask me - clearly we have over-estimated ourselves in away conditions and this is exactly what we need - a solid wake up call. We have two more away series after this; both in extremely tough conditions (Aus & NZ) where our track record is even more worse. This is exactly what we need for the year before the world cup.

We should take a lot of learning from the series, even if we don't end up winning the next two matches; and leverage it across the next two international series. The focus HAS to get to the peak by April next year, across batsman, bowlers and the all-rounders; and more importantly together as a team.

There's a level of self-confidence in this young team; very few "brilliant" players (except Kohli of course) but hard working gents ready to get into the pits when needed.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

The thing with Test Cricket, and Cricket in general is that you cannot and should not look at figures in isolation.

For example, this Test series results read 2-1, but it's clear that India has been the dominant side, barring the disastrous Lord's Test match. The first match was a pretty close one, with VK being the stand out player between both teams. What sealed it for England at the very end of the match was the late flourish in the 3rd Innings.

+1 to this

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by selfdrive

The issue is that Kohli's captaincy was a bit odd in letting England off the hook in the 1st test. After lunch, he should have continued with Ishant and Ashwin who had just taken wickets. By changing the bowlers, he allowed Sam Curran to get away with the game.
30 fewer runs would have been an achievable target.

I agree.

It was definitely poor captaincy from Kohli.

Notwithstanding the additional 30 runs, it wasn't a target out of reach. Our batting let us down. Not one player stepped up to the game. Most played rash shots and threw away their wickets.

Originally Posted by selfdrive

I do not think anyone is questioning Hardik's place after the 3rd test.

As for a holding role, I think Jadeja will perform an equivalent role at a faster rate of overs per hour. He will also improve the ground fielding and add more strength to the batting order. This will allow us to keep attacking from the other end.

I'm not sure if Jadeja is suited for English conditions. We need a good pace attack, and one good spinner should suffice. Jadeja rarely performs with the bat, and tends to play very rashly. His fielding may be good, but overall I believe he's not the right fit for test matches on English soil.

[Oxy]

Originally Posted by Eddy

What worries me is if Vihari has been chosen does that mean that Kohli's back is getting worse ? Hence the middle order backup.

It still doesn't add up. What's the point of picking Vihari when Nair is already there in the squad?

And why drop Kuldeep? Even if you are not going to play him, keep him in the squad. A mystery spinner could have been useful. Why not drop Dinesh Karthik instead?

[Eddy]

As I said, you need two batters - one if we decide to play 6 batters and another as an injury backup. That's the only reason I can think of getting another middle order batsman in.

OT: India - A doing pretty well against Aus - A. The Aus A team is made up of almost all international players.

[WindRide]

Our country is geographically-blessed and BCCI should set up training centers in cold & wet places that simulate English-like conditions (ooty/shimla/etc) where ball possibly swings more than in the plains. This will prevent our 'boys' from always losing the first few matches on an away tour and then play catch-up from behind.

[Prafful_Rathod]

Originally Posted by WindRide

Our country is geographically-blessed and BCCI should set up training centers in cold & wet places that simulate English-like conditions (ooty/shimla/etc) where ball possibly swings more than in the plains. This will prevent our 'boys' from always losing the first few matches on an away tour and then play catch-up from behind.

Thats a good idea but I think BCCI's current set up lacks any such vision. Series and Calendar planning (not just fitting matches in to the available dates) takes a lot of careful thinking and brainstorming. I am not sure how many practice matches did India play in England, but then modern day cricketers are considered to be hardcore professionals and none of the touring teams nowadays play many (or any ?) practice matches.

Long term strategy in terms of team combination is also missing.

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by WindRide

Our country is geographically-blessed and BCCI should set up training centers in cold & wet places that simulate English-like conditions (ooty/shimla/etc) where ball possibly swings more than in the plains. This will prevent our 'boys' from always losing the first few matches on an away tour and then play catch-up from behind.

BCCI will never do that. They are a political bent private body and will schedule practice matches with a friendly state board, more as a favor than purpose.

Originally Posted by Prafful_Rathod

I am not sure how many practice matches did India play in England, but then modern day cricketers are considered to be hardcore professionals and none of the touring teams nowadays play many (or any ?) practice matches.

This time around, before that start of the 1st test match, India played a total of one 3-day practice match. Instead of that being a match, it was more of a practice session where all 18 played. After losing the 1st test, during the 9-day break, the team went for Europe trip. No news after losing 2nd test and we are yet to hear what they are doing after winning the 3rd test. Other teams like England, Australia or South Africa insist on at least 2 practice matches before the start of the 1st test.

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by msdivy

. Other teams like England, Australia or South Africa insist on at least 2 practice matches before the start of the 1st test.

Not always true. AFAIK, Australia had one warm up game in India before the test series the last time they visited.

After losing the 1st test, during the 9-day break, the team went for Europe trip. No news after losing 2nd test and we are yet to hear what they are doing after winning the 3rd test.

Since we didn't hear anything after the 2nd test and nothing till now after the 3rd, we can assume they are doing the regular stuff - practice.
Btw, this is a ridiculously tightly packed 5 match series, maybe even our worst ever. So the occasional break may not be a bad idea.

[kavensri]

I see some discussions happening on the practice matches. Let me share my insights on what exactly is happening in some of the countries. For the practice matches, the home country will field a depleted team and on top of that, they will schedule a match on such pitches where the playing conditions are totally alien to the conditions where the test matches are played later.
So, my point is, unless we address this issue (I am not sure whether ICC can have any say in these things), I don't think practice matches are going to help any visiting team.