India's batting strategy in limited-overs matches

[Cricfan4eva]

Our strategy with regards to batting is fast becoming out-dated and seeming a bit conservative.

India is a top heavy batting unit, Rohit-Dhawan-Kohli all can score at 100+ S/R with ease but they often start slow and kick-on after they settle-in. As a result, India is often left stranded if the top 3 fail. There is no momentum for the middle order to carry on from.

One of Dhawan-Rohit has to take up that role or just find an opener that can, with both trying to anchor the innings and Kohli looking to stay till end we never get the kick-start we need to go for 350+ totals.

Today's ODI scores have moved on from your 300s to 350s. India is somewhat reluctant to get there and are being conservative, hoping that their bowlers come good. Which will not happen in most games.

IMO in this CT, one of the more eye-opening defeats came against SL rather than Pak final. Final was a one-off batting collapse but the one against SL is a defeat that's becoming a pattern with our side when we're up against a good batting units.

I have a feeling that our status as a top ODI unit will be under threat if we don't move on with the times. And for this change to happen, India has to rethink its personnel for the format. Which puts focus on Ashwin and Jadeja as well, while they are no mugs with bat but they cant play a whirlwind knock even if their life was at stake. So does their batting ability even count for anything in the LOI format? I don't think so.

India's ODI side and T20 side, needs an upheaval if we're to continue being a top side in this format, or it wont be far where we're left behind.

 

[Mp812]

Even a kid knows the strategy.
Ensure at most 4 wickets are lost till 40th over even if it means just 5 runs an over.
Then go Bang.
If it works than 300 or 300+ is possible.
If it fails , well there is no plan B.
No plans to send pinch hitters if foundation is good to capitalise on good starts
No plans to try get even better run rate in first 40 even if it means more risks.

 

[Bhaag Viru Bhaag]

When was the last time we scored 90 in the first 12 overs? It was pretty common when Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly were our openers.

 

[troodon]

When was the last time we scored 90 in the first 12 overs? It was pretty common when Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly were our openers.

Rohit does not have the ability to launch from Ball 1. He will tuk tuk for about 10 overs and then unleashes his strokes. Rohit needs all the overs in the world to settle in first. When he fails, he leaves the team with something like 20(35 balls) which means there is no momentum.

Its not about the strategy. Both Dhawan and Rohit are not big hitters. At their best, they can keep the S/R 100. They never score at 150 S/R unless they score a 100 (which does not happen every ODI).

India needs a great hitter to partner Dhawan or Rohit. One of them has to bat in middle order or perish.

I am inclined to opening with Pant or Samson or Iyer who can hit from Ball 1. People forming their opinion on Pant after that T20 against WI are doing a mistake. He is the only big hitter that can score at 200 S/R in all of IPL. No Indian player showed that ability.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

When was the last time we scored 90 in the first 12 overs? It was pretty common when Sachin, Sehwag and Ganguly were our openers.

Ganguly was a slow starter usually. Sachin in 90s and Sehwag later on took the role to provide India a flying start, they set the tone.

It's alright if one in top 4 takes up the anchor role which is likely Kohli but Dhawan, Rohit and no.4 (Pandey/Dhoni) need to focus on quick scoring.

It was shocking to see the stat in CT that, India had the lowest RR among all nations in PP1. Which was below even 5. The fact that we won 2 out of 3 games despite scoring 20-30 below par hid the fact that we were unnecessarily conservative. But I'd put down those wins to poor opponents rather than us having a mammoth total.

 

[Billy1999]

Deflate the opposition,Slowly then attack

Off course this doesn't work all the time

 

[Justcrazy]

India is doing pretty well at the moment . You cannot win always.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

India need to drop Rohit and bring in Pant or some other dasher.

 

[Itachi]

India is doing pretty well at the moment . You cannot win always.

This. There will be times when you will lose. No one is invincible.

 

[ExpressPacer]

Rohit Sharma is a rich man's Azhar Ali in ODI's who's had the great luck of playing on some of the world's easiest pitches to bat on.

 

[ExpressPacer]

I'll tell you what India's strategy is, "All Kohli or nothing.". The Indian team seriously relies on Kohli to win. If he gets going, he takes pressure off of the other players because of his calm yet aggressive intent and ability to pierce the gaps regularly. However, if he fails, the India team usually loses. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

I personaly think KL was a good player and you need him instead of Dhawan/Rohit.

 

[thehub]

Rohit Sharma is a rich man's Azhar Ali in ODI's who's had the great luck of playing on some of the world's easiest pitches to bat on.

One is a strokeless wonder. Horrible comparison. Good he scored when needed most. But You can't change the fact that he plays like tailender when he tries to score fast.

 

[Rayyman]

One is a strokeless wonder. Horrible comparison. Good he scored when needed most. But You can't change the fact that he plays like tailender when he tries to score fast.

Don't even think about comparing Rohit to Azhar.

Talking about Test matches, Azhar is well on his way to becoming a Pakistan legend. While Rohit isn't even fit to tie the shoes of the Indian greats.

Yes, Rohit is a better record on the pancakes in India; But that's only in LOIs. And everywhere else in the world, Azhar is better than Rohit (regardless of format).

 

[ExpressPacer]

One is a strokeless wonder. Horrible comparison. Good he scored when needed most. But You can't change the fact that he plays like tailender when he tries to score fast.

I clearly said that Rohit Sharma is a "rich man's" Azhar Ali. That does mean he's superior to him in the ODI format however, both start off slowly and kill the momentum. The only reason Rohit Sharma's performances seem better is because his pathetic start get camouflaged by Dhawan, Kohli and KL Rahul who play at a much quicker pace.

Azhar Ali on the other hand opens with Hafeez or Ahmed Shehzad usually who are worse than him at accumulating dot balls.
Let me make myself clear here, I want Azhar out of the team but the fact that he came good in a final, played at a strike rate of over 100 for most part of the innings and doing that in totally alien conditions versus a self proclaimed "best" bowling attack already makes him a much more valuable opener than someone who scores double tons in meaningless, run fest bilaterals.

 

[Varun]

Since that 2015 series defeat to Bangladesh in Bangladesh it is fast becoming apparent that we play an outdated brand of ODI cricket.

This is especially true in run chases, we plod along doing the bare minimum and take the game to a fulcrum where we expect Dhoni and other lower order batsmen to hit out and save the day.

Barely works.

 

[thehub]

I clearly said that Rohit Sharma is a "rich man's" Azhar Ali. That does mean he's superior to him in the ODI format however, both start off slowly and kill the momentum. The only reason Rohit Sharma's performances seem better is because his pathetic start get camouflaged by Dhawan, Kohli and KL Rahul who play at a much quicker pace.

Azhar Ali on the other hand opens with Hafeez or Ahmed Shehzad usually who are worse than him at accumulating dot balls.
Let me make myself clear here, I want Azhar out of the team but the fact that he came good in a final, played at a strike rate of over 100 for most part of the innings and doing that in totally alien conditions versus a self proclaimed "best" bowling attack already makes him a much more valuable opener than someone who scores double tons in meaningless, run fest bilaterals.

Now you are saying azhar Ali is more valuable than rohit in odi after that finals. Seriously? Even in that tournament out of sort rohit scored a lot and lot more consistent than azhar ali. Before making fun of India's bowling, what happened to real best bowling line up against India in that league game or when that line up was thrashed for 400+ against England recently?
If you are going to do mud slinging, I think we should stop here. I am not interested and don't have time to that either. I called azhar ali strokeless wonder which was my assessment and many also felt the same until that final game.

 

[saifi]

lmao rohit has much more time elegance range.rohit is a match winner.

 

[idrizzy]

Now you are saying azhar Ali is more valuable than rohit in odi after that finals. Seriously? Even in that tournament out of sort rohit scored a lot and lot more consistent than azhar ali. Before making fun of India's bowling, what happened to real best bowling line up against India in that league game or when that line up was thrashed for 400+ against England recently?
If you are going to do mud slinging, I think we should stop here. I am not interested and don't have time to that either. I called azhar ali strokeless wonder which was my assessment and many also felt the same until that final game.

Azhar is a test match player. Let's first agree on one thing here. For him to be put into the ODI side isn't the best decision considering his SR, his 'technique' and limited stroke-making. However, he did well. Especially in the final.

To compare him to Rohit is ambitious. It's onvious who's the better LOI batsman is and who's the better Test player. However if Azhar carries on and performs at 85+ SR consistently in ODIs, then it'd be a better comparison. As of yet though it's a meaningless comparison.

Then again though, Rohit's stats are somewhat inflated due to playing on flat pitches in India which suit his style. Maybe his stats are skewed somewhat.

Need more time to compare and more data.

 

[thehub]

Azhar is a test match player. Let's first agree on one thing here. For him to be put into the ODI side isn't the best decision considering his SR, his 'technique' and limited stroke-making. However, he did well. Especially in the final.

To compare him to Rohit is ambitious. It's onvious who's the better LOI batsman is and who's the better Test player. However if Azhar carries on and performs at 85+ SR consistently in ODIs, then it'd be a better comparison. As of yet though it's a meaningless comparison.

Then again though, Rohit's stats are somewhat inflated due to playing on flat pitches in India which suit his style. Maybe his stats are skewed somewhat.

Need more time to compare and more data.

exactly. Azhar is one of the top test players. def better than Rohit at this point. when you are talking about ODI alone, there is no comparison at all. this person first said Rohit is similar to Azhar and later said Azhar was more valuable after that finals. Also made that poor comment that Rohit only scores in bilateral games. He forgot that Rohit was one the top scorers of this tournament though he was not in his usual self throughout this tournament.

 

[Justcrazy]

Rohit is miles ahead of Azhar in shorter formats.

Look at the kind of shots he can play. talent wise he is ahead of even Kohli.

 

[Rayyman]

Man I really hope that there are a few flat pitches in Ind v SL series so India can break 444 record.
[MENTION=143627]thehub[/MENTION] [MENTION=145243]Leo23[/MENTION] [MENTION=139961]santos11[/MENTION]