Is Indian Cricket in A Crisis

[PokerAce]

MSD was actually very poor in NZ/SA where he would go on the defensive at the drop of a hat. We ended up losing/drawing tests despite being in winning positions because of that. Also his (management's) stubbornness to pick up only 4 frontline bowlers was a major contributing factor in us not having a couple of historic overseas series. He actually did accept his folly indirectly because you could see he was intent on going with 5 bowlers (even if one of them was Bunny).

And he is/was actually quite unimaginative with field setting in India as well. He was absolutely clueless when KP and Cook were belting runs when they last visited us. Was just waiting for the batsmen to make mistakes and bowling the same ineffective bowlers in long unending spells.

Compared to this, he actually did much better as a captain both on and off the field. He was flexible when it came to changing the team around, and he also seemed to be showing some proactive intent on the field

A Captain will look poor when he is losing, or when partnership is going. It may look like he is not doing anything but he is trying. In any big partnership or against someone scoring big, obviously the captain cant do much. Sometimes the batsman of the opposite side will dominate and form a partnership. Its just part of cricket. The issue on team composition Dhoni has been criticised regardless of what he has done.

Ashwin was ineffictive in SA and MSD was criticised for playing him. When he dropped him realising he was not delivering overseas, come Eng, MSD started getting flack for not playing Ashwin. Again on the Binny front, like you said he has been criticised when he played 4 bowlers and when he played 5.

 

[abhi_jacko]

I see you are very keen on defending him no matter what. I like that

I love MSD as much as the next person, but he is not flawless. 3 points

1. MSD is very extreme when it comes to tests. He will either keep bowling the same bowlers and setting the same fields, or he will suddenly call for a replacement keeper and start bowling himself. And I agree that it is acceptable for tactics to not work. The best of tactics can fail if it is not your day. Its his stubborn approach that makes things worse than they should be. If he feels like something will work, he will keep pushing at it even if the tactic is not producing any results.

2. The Binny move was criticized both ways because it did not make any sense. Binny was selected to give the fast bowlers some respite. Binny was almost non-existent on the bowling cards. The issue here is - if you are making the ballsy move of playing 5 bowlers, why not actually pick 5 bowlers. Or worst case, 4 bowlers and an all-rounder. It was two half-assed risks instead of one actual full-assed risk

3. Its part of cricket. Yes. As long as it happens occasionally. But you would have to be blind to not notice the obvious pattern in overseas losses (barring this England series, where I think he did quite well as a captain and was let down by the batsmen). Making mistakes is acceptable. Not learning from them is the issue

 

[PokerAce]

I see you are very keen on defending him no matter what. I like that

I love MSD as much as the next person, but he is not flawless. 3 points

1. MSD is very extreme when it comes to tests. He will either keep bowling the same bowlers and setting the same fields, or he will suddenly call for a replacement keeper and start bowling himself. And I agree that it is acceptable for tactics to not work. The best of tactics can fail if it is not your day. Its his stubborn approach that makes things worse than they should be. If he feels like something will work, he will keep pushing at it even if the tactic is not producing any results.

2. The Binny move was criticized both ways because it did not make any sense. Binny was selected to give the fast bowlers some respite. Binny was almost non-existent on the bowling cards. The issue here is - if you are making the ballsy move of playing 5 bowlers, why not actually pick 5 bowlers. Or worst case, 4 bowlers and an all-rounder. It was two half-assed risks instead of one actual full-assed risk

3. Its part of cricket. Yes. As long as it happens occasionally. But you would have to be blind to not notice the obvious pattern in overseas losses (barring this England series, where I think he did quite well as a captain and was let down by the batsmen). Making mistakes is acceptable. Not learning from them is the issue

No I never made a case for MSD to be beyond making mistakes. However do look at what he is working with. Also cricket like Poker in many way is a very result oriented game, and your move is justified by the results. The same move can be genius and nonsense depending on the outcome at times. You can make a big bet knowing the opponent will fold but at times despite doing the right thing, the opponent will donk a call and you end up looking foolish. If he folds you are a genius. The point is you make a decision based on the all the info you have that is likely to yield the best results.

In cricket lets not look beyond the Rohit shot to Moenn Ali to get out in the first innings 3rd test. Charge down the wicket, lofted shot catch and Rohit is done ! If same shot had gone over the fielder its a six or a four and no fuss at all. The point is that in terms of tactics MSD has been his own man, and when they come off we say, ah I am done guessing Dhoni, he is a genius, and when they don't we go he needs to learn.

For instance at Lord's he just made Ishant bowl short and in the little period it didn't work we all went what is he doing, and when it came off we were all gushing over him. Far from being stubborn this tour was the most flexible I have ever seen him be, and the most out of the box. Remember standing back to the spinner, or remember that phase when he just all his bowler 1 over spells and what not. I mean he was constantly trying to change, things and affect the game, but the tools he had to work with were letting him down.

Also in terms of batting Dhoni's hands were tied. He had limited number of batsmen to work with. Rohit made himself unselectable for that shot, and which meant at most what he could do was bring in Gambhir

In the bowling though he tried every combination. 4 bowlers, 5 bowlers, 2 spinners you name it. Sometimes things don't work, because ultimately in cricket the tactics are eventually dependent on the tools.

 

[abhi_jacko]

I am guessing you did not read my post completely. I clearly said that in this tour MSD has actually been flexible and proactive when compared to the previous tours (*point3*). It seemed so with his field settings and approach to batting. Also with team selection, but like I said the thought process behind team selection seemed to be faulty. Just trying different things for the sake of being different is as bad as not trying anything.

I am not familiar with the mechanics of Poker so I wont comment on that. But the Rohit example you gave - regardless of the result, that was a terrible shot to play in those circumstances. It showed poor concentration and application, and an absolute lack of match awareness. Had this been one day cricket, you could be excused to some extent. But in a test in that situation, even if that shot had gone for a boundary, it would still be considered idiotic.

You fail to understand the real issue. The gut-feeling-tactics work well in limited overs cricket. You can actually shock the opposition into making a mistake. The problem is in tests, where batsmen can actually play out those periods of shock and awe as there is no urgency to score runs. For example the Lord's tactics was good and it worked. It was a risk and he/Ishant pulled it off. Plus England were in a weird frame of mind, and they fell into the trap. The issue would be if he continued using this tactic through the rest of the series (he did not !). Because the probability of pulling off such moves successfully in a Test match are not very high - especially against good Test teams. I hope you are getting what I am trying to say.

The bottom line is - the tactics that work in ODIs and T20s more often than not fall flat in Tests. The chances of pulling a Joginder Sharma are very low in Tests as compared to one day cricket. Dhoni, imo, is still getting his head around this idea. There was a marked improvement in this series but it seems to be happening a bit too late.

 

[PokerAce]

I am guessing you did not read my post completely. I clearly said that in this tour MSD has actually been flexible and proactive when compared to the previous tours (*point3*). It seemed so with his field settings and approach to batting. Also with team selection, but like I said the thought process behind team selection seemed to be faulty. Just trying different things for the sake of being different is as bad as not trying anything.

Hmm I missed the 'this tour' part I guess.

I am not familiar with the mechanics of Poker so I wont comment on that. But the Rohit example you gave - regardless of the result, that was a terrible shot to play in those circumstances. It showed poor concentration and application, and an absolute lack of match awareness. Had this been one day cricket, you could be excused to some extent. But in a test in that situation, even if that shot had gone for a boundary, it would still be considered idiotic.

Not really. If it had gone to the boundary, the commentators would have said he was being positive against Moenn Ali ! We just know it, don't we.

You fail to understand the real issue. The gut-feeling-tactics work well in limited overs cricket. You can actually shock the opposition into making a mistake. The problem is in tests, where batsmen can actually play out those periods of shock and awe as there is no urgency to score runs. For example the Lord's tactics was good and it worked. It was a risk and he/Ishant pulled it off. Plus England were in a weird frame of mind, and they fell into the trap. The issue would be if he continued using this tactic through the rest of the series (he did not !). Because the probability of pulling off such moves successfully in a Test match are not very high - especially against good Test teams. I hope you are getting what I am trying to say.

But this is where you miss the point I was making, he has the tactics, but has to work with whatever tools he has. You say he should have used the short ball tactics in the third test, but forget he no longer had the tool for it ! Ishant was injured, and Shami was having a shocker. So the same tactic, he couldn't use because the tools were no longer there. I would be too much to ask Bhuvi to bowl short. Similarly there was no Ishant for the 4th test, but Varun did use the Short ball well at times. He got Cook hooking and set up Moenn for the bowled. Even so for the most part he was spraying the short ball all over the place, and didn't have Ishant's accuracy, which rendred the tactic futuile and so Dhoni had to try other things. Thats what I am saying, Dhoni may have the tactic, but in the absence of the right tools, there is little to be done.

The bottom line is - the tactics that work in ODIs and T20s more often than not fall flat in Tests. The chances of pulling a Joginder Sharma are very low in Tests as compared to one day cricket. Dhoni, imo, is still getting his head around this idea. There was a marked improvement in this series but it seems to be happening a bit too late.

Again I beg to differ. I do agree that anoter Joginder is never happening, but I do differ when you say that tactics in ODIs and T20s don't work in tests. I don't know about T20s, but remember last year's CT final, where Ind have almost lost and then Dhoni asked Ishant to bowl short, and he got three quick wickets to bring Ind right back in it. He used the same tactics to win at Lord's. Thats the point. Dhoni has the tactic, but it also depends on him more often than not, not having the right tools !

Look I am not saying he is never wrong, I am sure he has been wrong plenty of times, not just in tests, but also in ODIs. But when criticising him we must look at what changed between two tests, why the same tactic he applied, he is no longer applying, does he have the same tools as last time. Also we need to trust the pundits less. They are the most result oriented lot in the whole business. Least of all the foreing pundits. They don't really care about or understand Indian cricket. They have all kinds of knowledge to impart suddenly and when a tour is over they just forget about it and move on.

 

[abhi_jacko]

LOL, we are starting to go around in circles. I dont think we will agree with each other from the way things are panning out . So just a few obvious corrections:

1. I never said he should have used the short pitched stuff in the third test. I said quite the opposite :P I actually praised him for not resorting to the barrage of short pitched deliveries just because they worked once in a blue moon. Once again, I think he did a good job as a captain in the England series. I have been pointing out his flaws in the series against SAF/NZ and in the 8-0 whitewash. They all followed a certain pattern if you look closely. He changed a bit this time around, but it feels a bit too late.

2. If I remember correctly, Ishant actually took only 2 wickets in the Champions Trophy final, and only one of them was a short ball.

 

[PokerAce]

LOL, we are starting to go around in circles. I dont think we will agree with each other from the way things are panning out . So just a few obvious corrections:

1. I never said he should have used the short pitched stuff in the third test. I said quite the opposite :P I actually praised him for not resorting to the barrage of short pitched deliveries just because they worked once in a blue moon. Once again, I think he did a good job as a captain in the England series. I have been pointing out his flaws in the series against SAF/NZ and in the 8-0 whitewash. They all followed a certain pattern if you look closely. He changed a bit this time around, but it feels a bit too late.

2. If I remember correctly, Ishant actually took only 2 wickets in the Champions Trophy final, and only one of them was a short ball.

Yeah we are disagreeing a lot here, but so what its all part of the fun of being Ind cricket fans Lively debates and all and in good taste.

When you go 8-0 its almost a given that the Captain has not done a great job. But at the same time, we must not dump everything automatically on the captain. Personally I tihnk Dhoni has gotten too large a portion of the blame, a share he doesn't deserve. Ultimately its his team that has to perform. For example I don't care what MSD was doing in the final test here, what he was telling the players, even if it was something as outlandish as telling the bowlers close your eyes when you bowl, or telling the slip fielders try catching with your weaker hand, or something even mroe ridiculous, the point is if Ind cannot bat 30 overs on a flattish pitch, then do we really pull up MSD for the defeat? If on the last tour the batting with SRT and Dravid and co. could score 300 just once, is Dhoni to blame?

What I am saying is that MSD is not blameless in all of this, but he has gotten too much of the blame. He has had to work with tools that are not quite ready and do the what he could with them. That he pulled off a win somehow, is beyond belief. I mean forget everything, if Jadeja holds that catch and Cook remains under pressure, its still a different series. Do we need to hand Dhoni because he is the captain, or do we need to be more rational about it. Not that that catch was the be all and end all of the series.

In the champs trophy final, I think could be wrong about the no. of wickets, but I remember Ishant being introduced and bowling short, that led to the breakthrough. That was the point. The short ball tactic.

 

[abhi_jacko]

Ok, I will make this even clearer this time and show you the patterns. This is why I feel blaming Dhoni and his stubborn tactics for the last 4 overseas tours is valid.

Just take England tour 2011
Test #1 - went in with 4 bowlers and Raina, because that combination works in ODIs. Zaheer breaks down after 13 overs (was unift?). England pile up 474 after being 160/3, and then make 269/6 after being 107/6 (62/5). Number of overs bowled by Raina in the match = 8 out of 200, and Dhoni = 10/200.

Test #2 - 4 bowlers again. England make 554 (at 4.5rpo) after being 57/2, and 339/6. Bhajji+part-timers bowl 28/120 overs and go for 5 an over.

Test #3 - Bhajji replaced with Mishra. England pile 710/7 LOL. why ? frontline pacers were flogged to death in the first two tests because we went in with our odi bowling lineup and part time tweakers.

Test #4 - all is lost. We still go with 4 bowlers. England make 591/6 after being 97/2. But by now, no one except Dhoni/Coach are surprised.

We can already see the pattern now. And I did not even mention the atrocious field settings and bowling changes that were done during these tests. He would be forgiven if we atleast learnt from this experience. But nope. The exact same thing happened in Australia. At times even worse - 37/3 to 659/4, 84/3 to 604/7. The worst was saved for NZ - 94/5 to 680/8.

I hope you see the point of stubbornness ? Just because 4 bowler theory works in ODIs, doesnt mean it will work in Tests. A more astute captain would have learnt from England 2011 experience, but MSD backed his wrong tactics in the hopes that they will work at some point. This is just one of the critiques. There are a few other strong reasons for why Dhoni-Fletcher get the maximum amount of blame.

 

[Samuels]

When did MSD have the Long on or long off back at any point during the Eng series, especially at the end of 1st hr? His criticism on faulty field placing are greatly exaggerated. I find it odd that field placings is where Dhoni is blamed. Dhoni knows exactly who to place where in ODIs and yet suddenly loses his mind in tests ! Come on !

That was just an example for defensive field placing and yes, he did place defensive fields on the current tour too.

Skipper sets fields, correct? So who else is to blame for not having setting the men at right places? Setting a field in a Test match is far different from setting it in an ODI/T20I. Dhoni is a wonderful captain in limited formats without a shadow of doubt but when it comes to the game's purest format, he sort for misses the trick. He needs to be attacking all the time; give his bowlers a chance to get on top of the batsmen particularly when he knows that he do not have an army of great bowlers.

For all his aggression as a captain what did Ganguly bring in terms of wins. Nothing. Not one ICC event won ! Sure the drawn series in Aus was great, but thats about it. Even at home he was not as dominant as MSD. And compare the teams they both had. Kumble in Ind was the biggest guarantee of a win, and Dhoni has never played a home test with Kumble in his side, and yet delivered more dominance than Ganguly in tests at home.

You are saying MSD needs to learn to get the best of his players, overseas , which is just saying that he needs to improve the results overseas. Of course he does, but that is just stating the obvious.

The point though is that even for all his aggression, Ganguly lags way behind MSD on almost all fronts. Winning major trophies is the biggest breath of fresh air in Ind cricket in recent years.

You are not getting the point. I will choose to leave the discussion.

 

[PokerAce]

That was just an example for defensive field placing and yes, he did place defensive fields on the current tour too.

Skipper sets fields, correct? So who else is to blame for not having setting the men at right places? Setting a field in a Test match is far different from setting it in an ODI/T20I. Dhoni is a wonderful captain in limited formats without a shadow of doubt but when it comes to the game's purest format, he sort for misses the trick. He needs to be attacking all the time; give his bowlers a chance to get on top of the batsmen particularly when he knows that he do not have an army of great bowlers.

You are not getting the point. I will choose to leave the discussion.

You can leave all you want, but the point still remains, why did India lose the series. Because MSD was setting def fields, or because the batsmen couldn't score more than 150 to save their lives, and usually 70 of those 150 came from MSD. ANd a captain cannot attack when his team have only scored 150 in the first innings. Attack all the time with 150 on the board. Right!