Rise of the selfish innings

[Sin Nombre]

We are increasingly seeing batsmen play below-par innings on flat 330+ pitches which help increase their average but ensures their team loses.

Recent examples include Amla, Imam, Rayadu today and Dhoni at the SCG.


England seem to be the only ODI team that really understands how to bat unselfishly on 330+ pitches.


What would it take for fans / team management to start getting annoyed by these useless knocks? Averages mean zilch in ODI cricket of the last 2 years.

 

[Sanzcool]

Can't say about Imam since has not followed him much.

But Amla, Rayudu and MSD of today's time dont play a selfish innings, they are just not suited for the power game

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Kohli himself has played a few match losing knocks in IPL but barely gets called out for that.

Rohit does it more often. He played an atrociously selfish knock where he scored 170 off 162 balls in Brisbane which was hailed by many as a supreme knock.

Rahane is a legend at playing match losing knocks. WT20 SF.

Sadly cricket stats haven't evolved much and a lot of fans don't realize how much this impacts the team.

We need better metrics.

 

[austerlitz]

Rayudud and dhoni need to be kicked asap.Gill and pant sitting outside to accomodate these losers.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Rohit Sharma would be on top of the list.

 

[WengerOut]

Kohli himself has played a few match losing knocks in IPL but barely gets called out for that.

Rohit does it more often. He played an atrociously selfish knock where he scored 170 off 162 balls in Brisbane which was hailed by many as a supreme knock.

Rahane is a legend at playing match losing knocks. WT20 SF.

Sadly cricket stats haven't evolved much and a lot of fans don't realize how much this impacts the team.

We need better metrics.

In a nutshell, everyone scores selfish runs.

 

[Madplayer]

Didnt Dhoni score 48 in 30 odd balls today? I didnt watch the watch the match

 

[Sin Nombre]

Kohli himself has played a few match losing knocks in IPL but barely gets called out for that.

Rohit does it more often. He played an atrociously selfish knock where he scored 170 off 162 balls in Brisbane which was hailed by many as a supreme knock.

Rahane is a legend at playing match losing knocks. WT20 SF.

Sadly cricket stats haven't evolved much and a lot of fans don't realize how much this impacts the team.

We need better metrics.

Good post.

I actually don't think Kohli is suited for 200 run T20 pitches. Probably the best around for <170 pitches.

Why don't fans look beyond the simple batting average?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

In a nutshell, everyone scores selfish runs.

Some do it all the time.

Some do it some of the time.

But fans go by reputation and don't call out some when they do it.

We need better metrics is the point.

 

[Itachi]

Among the list, rayudu is consistent in this aspect. Look at any of his score. Two outcomes.

1. He gets out in low 20s when pitch is tough.

2. He plays at the SR of 80 when batting is easy.

He harms the team in both the conditions.

 

[Oxfordchamp]

Stupid thread... people forget nz has a top bowling attack..

 

[WengerOut]

Some do it all the time.

Some do it some of the time.

But fans go by reputation and don't call out some when they do it.

We need better metrics is the point.

The particular innings was at Perth. If i remember correctly, the pitch was juicy during start and they had to weather it out. Kohli was there until 45th over. Even he did not have a beastly final SR. You need to cut some slack there.

 

[Sin Nombre]

Rohit Sharma would be on top of the list.

How does Rohit manage to escape criticism?

Dhawan plays unselfishly and gets out for 40 odd and gets criticized.

Really bizarre to me that the average fan and commentator don't get it.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Good post.

I actually don't think Kohli is suited for 200 run T20 pitches. Probably the best around for <170 pitches.

Why don't fans look beyond the simple batting average?

Cos most commentators are either poor analysts or dont speak the truth and this helps shape the opinion of fans.

I always laugh when I hear the argument how many of you hav held a cricket bat.

 

[Buffet]

Didnt Dhoni score 48 in 30 odd balls today? I didnt watch the watch the match

48(33)

 

[Itachi]

In a nutshell, everyone scores selfish runs.

You can be selfish for yourself and the team at the same time. These two aren't exclusive with each other.

When you choose to be for yourself over the team, that's when issues creep in.

 

[Buffet]

Other team is playing to win as well!

 

[Itachi]

Stupid thread... people forget nz has a top bowling attack..

No. It is average like the others. There's nothing special.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

The particular innings was at Perth. If i remember correctly, the pitch was juicy during start and they had to weather it out. Kohli was there until 45th over. Even he did not have a beastly final SR. You need to cut some slack there.

Rohit's insane hitting ability got his SR above 100. Or else would hav had poor stats.

Momentum matters.

That knock was an exhibition of supreme skills but poor overall execution.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

You can be selfish for yourself and the team at the same time. These two aren't exclusive with each other.

When you choose to be for yourself over the team, that's when issues creep in.

True.

Some amount of selfishness is needed. All champions hav it.

But it's when you put yours above team's requirement and go one step too far, that's when fans hav a problem.

 

[wrongun]

I think some posters are misunderstanding team roles or batting goals.

To score 330+, any team in the world will be glad- and in fact instruct their batsmen- that if a top order player "gets in", scoring a big hundred, say 120 off 130 or 170 off 162 is exactly what is asked of them. It is the everyone else job to whack a quick 20 off 12, a 40 off 30 etc around them.

The big hundred allows the other batsmen some room to fail, as long as a few of them get a few boundaries and one can get a quick 50 then you have a very big total. Without the big ton, you need every single batsman to get in and a quick score- that rarely happens.

SA problem was that both set batsmen played the same role- one had to accelerate sooner and they didn't do that.

 

[WengerOut]

Rohit's insane hitting ability got his SR above 100. Or else would hav had poor stats.

Momentum matters.

That knock was an exhibition of supreme skills but poor overall execution.

Sorry i did not get you. You mean to say, they should've gone gung ho earlier regardless of conditions?

 

[Enforcer]

Good post.

I actually don't think Kohli is suited for 200 run T20 pitches. Probably the best around for <170 pitches.

Why don't fans look beyond the simple batting average?

Lol at Kohli not suited for 200 run T20 pitches. Greatest T20 player for India in T20 world cup and perhaps greatest overall in T20 world cup history and the most clutch player too is 'not suited' according to some.

 

[cr7great]

dhoni always play for average
he takes risk only in 49th and 50th over

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I think some posters are misunderstanding team roles or batting goals.

To score 330+, any team in the world will be glad- and in fact instruct their batsmen- that if a top order player "gets in", scoring a big hundred, say 120 off 130 or 170 off 162 is exactly what is asked of them. It is the everyone else job to whack a quick 20 off 12, a 40 off 30 etc around them.

The big hundred allows the other batsmen some room to fail, as long as a few of them get a few boundaries and one can get a quick 50 then you have a very big total. Without the big ton, you need every single batsman to get in and a quick score- that rarely happens.

SA problem was that both set batsmen played the same role- one had to accelerate sooner and they didn't do that.

True but we can see the difference between this and obvious selfish innings.

120 off 130 on a patta will usually lose you a game unless someone can truly play a cameo. It doesn't always happen.

Batsmen score 100 at 90-100 SR even on tougher pitches cos they get to make up their SR once set.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Sorry i did not get you. You mean to say, they should've gone gung ho earlier regardless of conditions?

Nope but they should maintain good momentum after initial start.

If insane hitting on a patta is needed to get your SR above 100, it's a poor knock.

 

[WengerOut]

True but we can see the difference between this and obvious selfish innings.

120 off 130 on a patta will usually lose you a game unless someone can truly play a cameo. It doesn't always happen.

Batsmen score 100 at 90-100 SR even on tougher pitches cos they get to make up their SR once set.

Some of the pattas would not be starting as one due to early conditions . We should not make the mistake of looking at the final scoreboard and judge.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Some of the pattas would not be starting as one due to early conditions . We should not make the mistake of looking at the final scoreboard and judge.

Seen Rohit play at 50 - 70 SR and get out even on patta of pattas.

I dont remember the exact games but I think 3rd odi vs england comes to mind.

Just checked.

2 off 18 at 11 SR while Dhawan scored at 90 Sr.

 

[Napa]

dhoni always play for average
he takes risk only in 49th and 50th over

What is this logic? It is not as if he cannot get out in the 49th and 50th overs. If he takes more risks in the 49th and 50th overs, it is for the sake of the team, not for his average.

Every batsmen tries to slog in the last 2 overs, not just Dhoni.

 

[Babbar]

Winning singlehandedly for your country is the most selfish inning any one can play. After all Dhoni, Virat et al will get way more money, fame, national awards, movie actresss falling in their feet when they win matches than just hitting a slow century in a losing cause ( Amla, Imam check). Pak’s CT17 win made some very mediocre Pakistani players millionaires and famous..

So why blame being selfish! I hope every Indian player is selfish and tries to win the match for fame and money! .

 

[pratiktc]

Definition of par score has changed with flat pitches and left many of these players high and dry.

40(45) was once a decent odi inns by any standards from any position, but now if a batsman scores it in last 20-25 ovs of an ODi it is a let down because he has gotten in and got out before moving into top gear.

Going forward, top order bat's role definition will have to change. Batsmen should be able to transition between gears more effectively and earlier on in inns. Batting orders will also have to be recast for flexibility to allow floating hitters to come in and blast around an anchor batsman. Teams will have to take steps to avoid unfavourable pairing of 2 anchor players or anchor and 'slow starting striker' together at crease

 

[holldout]

I guess some like rohit kohli get away with it because they have the skill to stay till the end and make it count for the team... Also it is their role to build the platform for launch at the death... But rayudu dhoni role is to play aggressively and hit out but instead play out selfish innings to stay not out or score a run a ball fifty

 

[WengerOut]

Seen Rohit play at 50 - 70 SR and get out even on patta of pattas.

I dont remember the exact games but I think 3rd odi vs england comes to mind.

Just checked.

2 off 18 at 11 SR while Dhawan scored at 90 Sr.

There is obviously the team plan that one of them will try to stay while other go berserk. Normally Rohit is the designated long innings one because he can be insane during slog overs. Dhawan rarely stays there after 40 overs. While game has evolved with England's relentless hitting, India still cannot afford that with the brittle middle order. You can pick any batsmen in history and term selfish when you are bringing outrageous metrics.

 

[Itachi]

Nope but they should maintain good momentum after initial start.

If insane hitting on a patta is needed to get your SR above 100, it's a poor knock.

I would exclude rohit on that part

If he can't get the momentum, he usually gets out within the first 5 overs. And in that sense, you have time to recover.

And when he does get going, he is a beast.

I admit it's a risk. Especially in the world cup. But it's a risk I'll be willing to take.

 

[Buffet]

Eng has built the team with batting depth and playing shots from the get go. It does get them 150 all out time to time as well.

Without batting depth, it will be a poor strategy to hit out from the get go.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

There is obviously the team plan that one of them will try to stay while other go berserk. Normally Rohit is the designated long innings one because he can be insane during slog overs. Dhawan rarely stays there after 40 overs. While game has evolved with England's relentless hitting, India still cannot afford that with the brittle middle order. You can pick any batsmen in history and term selfish when you are bringing outrageous metrics.

I think you may not be viewing this issue dispassionately, my friend.

I get Rohit's role but he screws up real bad on days when he is not in zone. It's ok to not score runs but you can't be a liability to your team at that time.

My aim is not to label players selfish or unselfish. I am simply commenting on their knocks as I see them.

Its not like Tendulkar, Lara haven't played selfish knocks.

Kallis's career is built on selfish LOI knocks.

 

[WengerOut]

Eng has built the team with batting depth and playing shots from the get go. It does get them 150 all out time to time as well.

Without batting depth, it will be a poor strategy to hit out from the get go.

It is like, people here are not allowing batsmen to have bad days. One bad day, there will be new terms for them. Pathetic

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Eng has built the team with batting depth and playing shots from the get go. It does get them 150 all out time to time as well.

Without batting depth, it will be a poor strategy to hit out from the get go.

No one is asking anyone to hit out from the get go.

 

[Buffet]

It is like, people here are not allowing batsmen to have bad days. One bad day, there will be new terms for them. Pathetic

I am kind of surprised that posters are criticizing Dhoni's knock today where he scored 145 SR for his 48 runs. He is surely past his best, but expectations of some posters are too high.

 

[Buffet]

No one is asking anyone to hit out from the get go.

Change get go to after few overs. Semantics...

 

[WengerOut]

I think you may not be viewing this issue dispassionately, my friend.

I get Rohit's role but he screws up real bad on days when he is not in zone. It's ok to not score runs but you can't be a liability to your team at that time.

My aim is not to label players selfish or unselfish. I am simply commenting on their knocks as I see them.

Its not like Tendulkar, Lara haven't played selfish knocks.

Kallis's career is built on selfish LOI knocks.

I have a problem with the terms like selfish. For arguments sake lets say you are correct, why can't a batsman have bad days? I mean, historically more than half of the innings of a batsman are failures. But that is just failure. There are different styles of failures when the job you are designated to do did not come off. But to term them selfish is not called for. My take on Imams innings yesterday is same. My take on Dhoni would have been same had he been hitting good consistently. But that is not the same now.

 

[Buffet]

India has a top heavy with a weaker middle order with a weak tail.

With this composition, you can't play like Eng.

 

[WengerOut]

India has a top heavy with a weaker middle order with a weak tail.

With this composition, you can't play like Eng.

This is what i am trying to convey. Dhawan is invariably the aggressor. Rohit, being in power play won't get many singles. So his SR will be low. He, most often makes that up later.

 

[introvert]

What is this logic? It is not as if he cannot get out in the 49th and 50th overs. If he takes more risks in the 49th and 50th overs, it is for the sake of the team, not for his average.

Every batsmen tries to slog in the last 2 overs, not just Dhoni.

That's the point when platform is set by top order then why wait for last 2 or 3 overs. Why not start hitting early from 44 or 45th over. Specially when you are setting up a target.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I have a problem with the terms like selfish. For arguments sake lets say you are correct, why can't a batsman have bad days? I mean, historically more than half of the innings of a batsman are failures. But that is just failure. There are different styles of failures when the job you are designated to do did not come off. But to term them selfish is not called for. My take on Imams innings yesterday is same. My take on Dhoni would have been same had he been hitting good consistently. But that is not the same now.

I answered this in my last post.

Modern odi allows you to fail but not fail in a certain way.

0(1) is better than 12(25) at a crucial juncture on a 300 pitch.

Most of the times.

Of course sometimes a 12(25) can be a golden knock.

Example, if you are wading through a tricky period of chase and batsmen at the opposite end can go bonkers.

A crazier example would be Zaheer Khan's 0(10) in 3rd test against AUS 2001 which played a small but crucial role in us winning the series.

 

[Madplayer]

48(33)

How is this selfish?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Change get go to after few overs. Semantics...

Maintain momentum.

Weak middle order is an often used convenient excuse imho.

No one is asking Rohit to flay attacks.. Just don't get bogged down.

Anyways, my main problem is not Rohit but our hopeless middle order led by Dhoni.

 

[WengerOut]

I answered this in my last post.

Modern odi allows you to fail but not fail in a certain way.

0(1) is better than 12(25) at a crucial juncture on a 300 pitch.

Most of the times.

Of course sometimes a 12(25) can be a golden knock.

Example, if you are wading through a tricky period of chase and batsmen at the opposite end can go bonkers.

A crazier example would be Zaheer Khan's 0(10) in 3rd test against AUS 2001 which played a small but crucial role in us winning the series.

India cannot go the modern way because of brittle middle order. So per plan, if Rohit fails, it might look ugly but that is the plan. It is not being selfish. Sometimes conditions also play a role.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

As the sun was setting down, Imam laborioulsy charged his way towards a 100. Soon he celebrated with a finger raising gesture to his lips, ready to silence his critics. He had scored a 100 in South Africa, a difficult place, with bounce troubling the best of Asian batsmen at times.

But it had come at a cost. A SR which struggled to go beyond 50 to 60 for most part of the innings and finally ended at 87. In old times, such a SR added to the final Pakistan score of 317-6 should have been hailed as a century for the watch keepers. However, in the cut throat cricket competition today, not many were pleased. Sure, he scored a century, but the pace of it, was NOT QUITE what the fans wanted.

Go back to a few days and find the South African Amla in a similar position. Again, similar circumstances and Amla refused to accelerate and refused to find the other gear, or even throw his wicket away trying. The end resut was a strange scoreline of 266-2 which Pakistan managed to overhaul with ease.

But then I've seen other knocks like these, the most famous Tendulkar knock against Bangladesh, a Dhawan knock if I remember correctly and many other knocks.

Cricket is being played at an alarming increase in pace nowadays. What was a winning score 1.5 decades ago, is now quite an average score. Batsmen are now improvising and finding new ways to hit the fence. The game is all about how much can you score off those 300 balls and is less about personal milestones and getting to that 100.

However, when innings like Imam and Amla come to mind, fans are quite less forgiving nowadays, especially when it comes at a price of a loss. I have nothing against Tendulkar, Imam or Amla or any other batsmen for that matter. Tendulkar has played his fair share of amazing innings and so has Amla. Even Imam will mature and grow to play faster innings provided that he gets other chances.

But innings like these are becoming less and less the norm because 300 balls is all you have to score a good score.

I remember [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] once telling me scores of 10 (8) hit by Afridi are better than 30 off 50 balls and I used to think that it was laughable. But now cricket is being scored at such a fast pace, I tend to agree that its better to get out score 20 off 10 balls rather than hitting 100 off 120 balls because you have failed to give adequate chance to your team-mates to further boost the score.

I have a strong opinion that even scores like 324/4 scored today are worthless as is 266/2 or 317/6. Teams should be looking to score 350 all out, 310 all out or 334 all out.

What is the point of those 6 wickets, 4 wickets or 8 wickets you have in store when the 50 overs end?

Until the entire approach towards cricket is changed, ODI scores will continue to be of a certain mystery, with teams thinking that 300 is a good score. Only a few decades ago, 250 used to be a winning total and now 300 to 350 is considered a normal winning score.

But a winning score is one, that utilizes all your batsmen to the maximum ability and the full use of 300 balls to get the biggest target possible. It is not a score which one batsmen bats forever to score his 100 in hope of getting personal acclaim.

- Bassim.

 

[WengerOut]

Maintain momentum.

Weak middle order is an often used convenient excuse imho.

No one is asking Rohit to flay attacks.. Just don't get bogged down.

Anyways, my main problem is not Rohit but our hopeless middle order led by Dhoni.

Getting bogged down is more due to him being in PP overs.

 

[Napa]

As the sun was setting down, Imam laborioulsy charged his way towards a 100. Soon he celebrated with a finger raising gesture to his lips, ready to silence his critics. He had scored a 100 in South Africa, a difficult place, with bounce troubling the best of Asian batsmen at times.

But it had come at a cost. A SR which struggled to go beyond 50 to 60 for most part of the innings and finally ended at 87. In old times, such a SR added to the final Pakistan score of 317-6 should have been hailed as a century for the watch keepers. However, in the cut throat cricket competition today, not many were pleased. Sure, he scored a century, but the pace of it, was NOT QUITE what the fans wanted.

Go back to a few days and find the South African Amla in a similar position. Again, similar circumstances and Amla refused to accelerate and refused to find the other gear, or even throw his wicket away trying. The end resut was a strange scoreline of 266-2 which Pakistan managed to overhaul with ease.

But then I've seen other knocks like these, the most famous Tendulkar knock against Bangladesh, a Dhawan knock if I remember correctly and many other knocks.

Cricket is being played at an alarming increase in pace nowadays. What was a winning score 1.5 decades ago, is now quite an average score. Batsmen are now improvising and finding new ways to hit the fence. The game is all about how much can you score off those 300 balls and is less about personal milestones and getting to that 100.

However, when innings like Imam and Amla come to mind, fans are quite less forgiving nowadays, especially when it comes at a price of a loss. I have nothing against Tendulkar, Imam or Amla or any other batsmen for that matter. Tendulkar has played his fair share of amazing innings and so has Amla. Even Imam will mature and grow to play faster innings provided that he gets other chances.

But innings like these are becoming less and less the norm because 300 balls is all you have to score a good score.

I remember [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] once telling me scores of 10 (8) hit by Afridi are better than 30 off 50 balls and I used to think that it was laughable. But now cricket is being scored at such a fast pace, I tend to agree that its better to get out score 20 off 10 balls rather than hitting 100 off 120 balls because you have failed to give adequate chance to your team-mates to further boost the score.

I have a strong opinion that even scores like 324/4 scored today are worthless as is 266/2 or 317/6. Teams should be looking to score 350 all out, 310 all out or 334 all out.

What is the point of those 6 wickets, 4 wickets or 8 wickets you have in store when the 50 overs end?

Until the entire approach towards cricket is changed, ODI scores will continue to be of a certain mystery, with teams thinking that 300 is a good score. Only a few decades ago, 250 used to be a winning total and now 300 to 350 is considered a normal winning score.

But a winning score is one, that utilizes all your batsmen to the maximum ability and the full use of 300 balls to get the biggest target possible. It is not a score which one batsmen bats forever to score his 100 in hope of getting personal acclaim.

- Bassim.

Nice post, another potw

 

[SARJ_BD]

I think it is very UNFAIR to compare Imam's innings with Amla. Imam is new and it takes time to learn how to accelerate innings. He cannot become Shoaib Malik overnight.
Atleast he is performing CONSISTENTLY unlike many other player and we as fans should SUPPORT him until he begin to underperform consistently.

 

[Pakpak]

Kohli himself has played a few match losing knocks in IPL but barely gets called out for that.

Rohit does it more often. He played an atrociously selfish knock where he scored 170 off 162 balls in Brisbane which was hailed by many as a supreme knock.

Rahane is a legend at playing match losing knocks. WT20 SF.

Sadly cricket stats haven't evolved much and a lot of fans don't realize how much this impacts the team.

We need better metrics.

How is scoring 170 in less than 30 overs selfish or am I missing the wider context of the match?

 

[Babbar]

It’s laugable to think that 300 all out is better than 324 for 3. It does not take much in this all-or-nothing approach to give you 74 all out or 154 all out. Top teams play percentage games! Hacks aim to play ODIs like T20 and often lose the match in the first 20 overs itself.

 

[Pakpak]

As the sun was setting down, Imam laborioulsy charged his way towards a 100. Soon he celebrated with a finger raising gesture to his lips, ready to silence his critics. He had scored a 100 in South Africa, a difficult place, with bounce troubling the best of Asian batsmen at times.

But it had come at a cost. A SR which struggled to go beyond 50 to 60 for most part of the innings and finally ended at 87. In old times, such a SR added to the final Pakistan score of 317-6 should have been hailed as a century for the watch keepers. However, in the cut throat cricket competition today, not many were pleased. Sure, he scored a century, but the pace of it, was NOT QUITE what the fans wanted.

Go back to a few days and find the South African Amla in a similar position. Again, similar circumstances and Amla refused to accelerate and refused to find the other gear, or even throw his wicket away trying. The end resut was a strange scoreline of 266-2 which Pakistan managed to overhaul with ease.

But then I've seen other knocks like these, the most famous Tendulkar knock against Bangladesh, a Dhawan knock if I remember correctly and many other knocks.

Cricket is being played at an alarming increase in pace nowadays. What was a winning score 1.5 decades ago, is now quite an average score. Batsmen are now improvising and finding new ways to hit the fence. The game is all about how much can you score off those 300 balls and is less about personal milestones and getting to that 100.

However, when innings like Imam and Amla come to mind, fans are quite less forgiving nowadays, especially when it comes at a price of a loss. I have nothing against Tendulkar, Imam or Amla or any other batsmen for that matter. Tendulkar has played his fair share of amazing innings and so has Amla. Even Imam will mature and grow to play faster innings provided that he gets other chances.

But innings like these are becoming less and less the norm because 300 balls is all you have to score a good score.

I remember [MENTION=135134]CricketAnalyst[/MENTION] once telling me scores of 10 (8) hit by Afridi are better than 30 off 50 balls and I used to think that it was laughable. But now cricket is being scored at such a fast pace, I tend to agree that its better to get out score 20 off 10 balls rather than hitting 100 off 120 balls because you have failed to give adequate chance to your team-mates to further boost the score.

I have a strong opinion that even scores like 324/4 scored today are worthless as is 266/2 or 317/6. Teams should be looking to score 350 all out, 310 all out or 334 all out.

What is the point of those 6 wickets, 4 wickets or 8 wickets you have in store when the 50 overs end?

Until the entire approach towards cricket is changed, ODI scores will continue to be of a certain mystery, with teams thinking that 300 is a good score. Only a few decades ago, 250 used to be a winning total and now 300 to 350 is considered a normal winning score.

But a winning score is one, that utilizes all your batsmen to the maximum ability and the full use of 300 balls to get the biggest target possible. It is not a score which one batsmen bats forever to score his 100 in hope of getting personal acclaim.

- Bassim.

I can't believe I am saying this but very good post. Cricket as a game has changed, we haven;t.

 

[CricketAnalyst]

Really good to see threads like this coming up.

I have been saying these things for years.

I think India will pay today for this approach. The way we were going we should have had 350, and I think NZL might chase this down easily on the small ground.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Really good to see threads like this coming up.

I have been saying these things for years.

I think India will pay today for this approach. The way we were going we should have had 350, and I think NZL might chase this down easily on the small ground.

Its irrelevant if NZ chase this down or not.

India might get away because of the strong bowling attack and script a win.

The point is, 324-4 is a useless score. Its neither here, nor there. Get bowled out for 324 or get 350 all out. That's the way moving forward, if you want to win ODI's.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

How is scoring 170 in less than 30 overs selfish or am I missing the wider context of the match?

I am talking in general. Haven't been watching this match.

On a 350 patta, 170 in 30 overs is super selfish as you hav to score 180 in the next 20 overs at 9 rpo with probably 6 or max 8 wickets in hand.

 

[Babbar]

How do you decide it’s 350 runs Patta. How many 350 runs have been scored in the last 1 year on any pitch by any team against any team. Whts this obsession about scoring 350 runs in an ODI. When you are 25 for 3 for any reason, unlucky or otherwise, even 250 is difficult. Also patta for one team or one player may not be patta for other. For Kohli almost any pitch is patta, even stinking mud gullis of Dharavi but for Sarfaraz these days, a cement pitch is full of hand grenades.

Paper analysis is all good and it’s on the ground where rubber meets the road.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

How do you decide it’s 350 runs Patta. How many 350 runs have been scored in the last 1 year on any pitch by any team against any team. Whts this obsession about scoring 350 runs in an ODI. When you are 25 for 3 for any reason, unlucky or otherwise, even 250 is difficult. Also patta for one team or one player may not be patta for other. For Kohli almost any pitch is patta, even stinking mud gullis of Dharavi but for Sarfaraz these days, a cement pitch is full of hand grenades.

Paper analysis is all good and it’s on the ground where rubber meets the road.

The aim is to play 50 overs, 300 balls, getting the maximum possible score.

Is it that hard to understand?

If you are 25-3, your aim should be to preserve your last 7 wickets for the remaining 40 odd overs.

The problem is not targeting 350 runs at the start of the innings. The problem is having 8, 6 or potential 5 wickets in hand when the 300 balls run out.

What are you going to do with those wickets? Eat them? Out of 300 balls, if 50 are dot balls and you end up with 280 for 6, why cant 25 of those be not dot balls, and you end up with 310 all out.

In any alternate realm of 3 dimensions, x, y and z, 310 is a better score than 280-6.

If you disagree, call me out now.

 

[big_gamer007]

Rayudud and dhoni need to be kicked asap.Gill and pant sitting outside to accomodate these losers.

Yes two top international stars one of whom won India the WC and both of whom have put years of hard work to achieve where they are, are losers.

Yet a guy sitting on an anonymous internet forums having done nothing in his life is calling them losers, is considered a winner.

Have some shame, learn to respect the players.. I have been vocal against their selections but it doesn't mean I demean the players..

 

[Abdullah]

I think people are being OTT with this. 325 is a winning score 9+ times out of 10. If one player holds the innings together and scores 125(130) the rest of the team should be able to score 200 off 170.

 

[Abdullah719]

Really good to see threads like this coming up.

I have been saying these things for years.

I think India will pay today for this approach. The way we were going we should have had 350, and I think NZL might chase this down easily on the small ground.

What did you make of Imam's knock yesterday?

 

[Abdullah]

The aim is to play 50 overs, 300 balls, getting the maximum possible score.

Is it that hard to understand?

If you are 25-3, your aim should be to preserve your last 7 wickets for the remaining 40 odd overs.

The problem is not targeting 350 runs at the start of the innings. The problem is having 8, 6 or potential 5 wickets in hand when the 300 balls run out.

What are you going to do with those wickets? Eat them? Out of 300 balls, if 50 are dot balls and you end up with 280 for 6, why cant 25 of those be not dot balls, and you end up with 310 all out.

In any alternate realm of 3 dimensions, x, y and z, 310 is a better score than 280-6.

If you disagree, call me out now.

You have to weigh up the ability to play attackingly whilst lasting the 50 overs. Otherwise in your above example you could just end at 255 all out.
If it was that easy we would see bish bash bosh in 20 overs with every team scoring 200+ ( given the 10 wickets cover a significantly smaller time frame) but even this doesn't happen and average scores are about 170

 

[Babbar]

Yeah! Throw out Dhoni, Jadhav who are regularly winning overseas matches for first time in 70 years for India. let’s get some U-19 players who will win the tournament against Steyn, Starc, Boult, Cummins for India! Terrific.

 

[Rahul1]

Yes two top international stars one of whom won India the WC and both of whom have put years of hard work to achieve where they are, are losers.

Yet a guy sitting on an anonymous internet forums having done nothing in his life is calling them losers, is considered a winner.

Have some shame, learn to respect the players.. I have been vocal against their selections but it doesn't mean I demean the players..

Just because dhoni won the world cup 8 years ago means he should keep playing till he is 50, amirite?

 

[Babbar]

And when you are in 25/3 esp in World Cup, you need players like Dhoni, Karthik, Imam and Amla to anchor one side and support fidgety tailenders. Even Rayudu, with average of 50, will look like god then. Hacks won’t take you beyond 154 in this case.

India’s top 3 will not fire in every match. There will be days when three of them will get out <100 but we still need to reach a fighting total of 250-300 that the current Indian bowlers will be able to defend more often than not. But a total score of 150 is a lost cause.

You plan for contingency, not just best case. Dhoni Provides that comfort to India.

 

[big_gamer007]

Just because dhoni won the world cup 8 years ago means he should keep playing till he is 50, amirite?

Do you need english lessons? What part of "I have been vocal against their selections" did you not understand?

Just because the selection is poor doesn't give anyone the right to name call the players representing the nation.. You can put your point without name calling..

 

[Dr_Bassim]

You have to weigh up the ability to play attackingly whilst lasting the 50 overs. Otherwise in your above example you could just end at 255 all out.
If it was that easy we would see bish bash bosh in 20 overs with every team scoring 200+ ( given the 10 wickets cover a significantly smaller time frame) but even this doesn't happen and average scores are about 170

I have nothing against building an innings. I think you are confusing that I am advocating for "bang, bang' off every ball.

Hardly so.

As I said the aim is to play out 300 balls, having maximum possible score. If you lose all 10 wickets before 300, balls are bowled, again its a terrible strategy as you have wasted 50 balls you could have played to get a good score.

My issue is with teams accelerating way too late, so that they end up with 266/2, 280-6 or in case of India's example, 324-4. There comes a time, when you know that the team can't be bowled out no matter what they do.

And if you can't predict that time, then I call for an "cricketing analyst" to be inducted as a member of all teams, who can tell them, that now is the time to go "bang" and you will get a better score than 280-6.

Again, I am not advocating 255 all out in 30 overs as that's terrible. But 255-6 in 50 overs is just as terrible. Do you agree?

 

[Babbar]

Just because dhoni won the world cup 8 years ago means he should keep playing till he is 50, amirite?

NO! Dhoni should play because he is hitting fifties in all last 4 matches; stumping like dream and a god to the world’s best ever ODI player and India’s captain. These are good enough reasons! His recent form against two top SENA teams in their own citadels is better than any other Indian batsmen this year!

 

[WengerOut]

NO! Dhoni should play because he is hitting fifties in all last 4 matches; stumping like dream and a god to the world’s best ever ODI player and India’s captain. These are good enough reasons! His recent form against two top SENA teams in their own citadels is better than any other Indian batsmen this year!

You really sound like [MENTION=147270]the_outsider[/MENTION]. Is there any chance that both are from same origin?

 

[Itachi]

Its irrelevant if NZ chase this down or not.

India might get away because of the strong bowling attack and script a win.

The point is, 324-4 is a useless score. Its neither here, nor there. Get bowled out for 324 or get 350 all out. That's the way moving forward, if you want to win ODI's.

I agree. I felt we were 15-20 runs short. The bowling saved us in this match but it won't always.

 

[Savage]

Its irrelevant if NZ chase this down or not.

India might get away because of the strong bowling attack and script a win.

The point is, 324-4 is a useless score. Its neither here, nor there.

Well said.What's the point of having start like 154/0 in first 25 overs when you are only scoring 174/4 in last 25 overs(by Indian recent standard 174 runs in last 25 overs is actually good).India have been doing this for a long time and the frustrating part is that they seem to be extremely happy with this batting approach.India fans probably won't realize this because they are now used to this safety-first or defensive approach and it also doesn't help that India have lost only 1 Jamodi series in last 3 years.
Of all the middle order Indian batsmen,Jadhav batting approach is best.

India's batting main problem is between 25-40 overs where no batsmen(whether set batsmen or not) is ready to take initiative of being the aggressor.

 

[Abdullah]

I have nothing against building an innings. I think you are confusing that I am advocating for "bang, bang' off every ball.

Hardly so.

As I said the aim is to play out 300 balls, having maximum possible score. If you lose all 10 wickets before 300, balls are bowled, again its a terrible strategy as you have wasted 50 balls you could have played to get a good score.

My issue is with teams accelerating way too late, so that they end up with 266/2, 280-6 or in case of India's example, 324-4. There comes a time, when you know that the team can't be bowled out no matter what they do.

And if you can't predict that time, then I call for an "cricketing analyst" to be inducted as a member of all teams, who can tell them, that now is the time to go "bang" and you will get a better score than 280-6.

Again, I am not advocating 255 all out in 30 overs as that's terrible. But 255-6 in 50 overs is just as terrible. Do you agree?

I think 255 in 30 is criminal. whereas 255-6 can be understandable.
There are lots and of factors that go into the overall picture. Sometimes it is needed for the batsman who is in rather than having new batsman at the crease who have to adjust to conditions. Depth of tail is also important ( which is why England go hardest)
Lets take India for example if they are 240-4 after 40 overs I don't think it is sensible for dhonis and Yadav to start trying to hit 6s every ball from 40.1 as they can do double the damage in half the time compared to what was left number 7-11 ( take today as an example (Shankar Kumar sami Kuldeep chahal)

So if they did get dismissed at that point, they could still potentially be restricted to sub 300

 

[Sir Alex]

350 patta where opposition got smashed for 240 ?

Next time wait till both sides bat before making comments like 350 patta folks.

Unlike any of us here, Dhoni has played raw international cricket for 15 years and is a bona fide winner, because he understands a thing or two that we don't or can't sitting on our chairs.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I think 255 in 30 is criminal. whereas 255-6 can be understandable.
There are lots and of factors that go into the overall picture. Sometimes it is needed for the batsman who is in rather than having new batsman at the crease who have to adjust to conditions. Depth of tail is also important ( which is why England go hardest)
Lets take India for example if they are 240-4 after 40 overs I don't think it is sensible for dhonis and Yadav to start trying to hit 6s every ball from 40.1 as they can do double the damage in half the time compared to what was left number 7-11 ( take today as an example (Shankar Kumar sami Kuldeep chahal)

So if they did get dismissed at that point, they could still potentially be restricted to sub 300

Then don't hit at 40.1 overs.

I am not advocating any particular time period to start hitting. You can start at 45.1 overs, if you feel that you will be bowled out.

The aim is to NOT get dismissed within 300 balls while MAXIMIZING the amount of runs during that period. Does 255-6 help? It does, but it COULD BE much better with heck even 270 all out or 275 all out.

Its simple math.

255 < 275.

People seem to be throwing variables like "situations" "adversity", "chance to be bowled out" "trying to build innings", and I am saying all of this is fine.

But the end score should reflect FULL USE of the 10 batsmen.

If anyone feels that 255-6 is superior to 275 all out, now is the time to disagree.

 

[Abdullah]

Then don't hit at 40.1 overs.

I am not advocating any particular time period to start hitting. You can start at 45.1 overs, if you feel that you will be bowled out.

The aim is to NOT get dismissed within 300 balls while MAXIMIZING the amount of runs during that period. Does 255-6 help? It does, but it COULD BE much better with heck even 270 all out or 275 all out.

Its simple math.

255 < 275.

People seem to be throwing variables like "situations" "adversity", "chance to be bowled out" "trying to build innings", and I am saying all of this is fine.

But the end score should reflect FULL USE of the 10 batsmen.

If anyone feels that 255-6 is superior to 275 all out, now is the time to disagree.

Lol I think teams do set out a plan to score as much as possible, surely.

 

[Abdullah]

Then don't hit at 40.1 overs.

I am not advocating any particular time period to start hitting. You can start at 45.1 overs, if you feel that you will be bowled out.

The aim is to NOT get dismissed within 300 balls while MAXIMIZING the amount of runs during that period. Does 255-6 help? It does, but it COULD BE much better with heck even 270 all out or 275 all out.

Its simple math.

255 < 275.

People seem to be throwing variables like "situations" "adversity", "chance to be bowled out" "trying to build innings", and I am saying all of this is fine.

But the end score should reflect FULL USE of the 10 batsmen.

If anyone feels that 255-6 is superior to 275 all out, now is the time to disagree.

Lol I think teams do set out a plan to score as much as possible, surely.

The aim of the game is to score more than the other team.
The other thing that comes into it , what teams think is a good score.
The 266-2 was a rare occurrence.

 

[Prince of Pakistan]

Not sure about others but do not think that Imam is selfish. Imam is just simply limited in stroke play. It's not his fault that he gets selected. He still does the best he can and deserves praise for that.

The same goes for Babar Azam. The guy has no power to smash bowlers into oblivion thus might look selfish to others when he takes singles in the death overs in order to give the other guy the strike. Do not think it's his intention to stay not out.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Lol I think teams do set out a plan to score as much as possible, surely.

I sort of disagree.

Teams nowadays, set out to score 250 to 300 as a winning score and depending on the situation in the middle, change to 200 or 350 depending on the pitch conditions.

This is my idea to maximize output of a team.

Batsmen 1 -- Hitter
Batsmen 2 -- Stabilizer/Hitter If the batsmen 2 is a stabilizer his job should be to score at a SR of 90 throughout the innings and not get out.
Batsmen 3 --- Send a 90 SR batsmen if first wickets falls late, or a 80 SR batsmen if first wicket falls early. Batsmen 3 must make way if he is batting slower than 80.
Batsmen 4 -- Hitter
Batsmen 5 -- Send a 90 SR batsmen if 4 wickets are down with 200 on the board and 15 overs to go, otherwise batsmen 5 can be a 70-90 SR batsmen depending on situation.
Batsmen 6 - Hitter
Batsmen 7 - Hitter/Allrounder
Batsmen 8 - Hitter
Batsmen 9 - Hitter
Batsmen 10 - Hitter
Batsmen 11 - Hitter

Infact, only batsmen 2, batsmen 3 and batsmen 5 need to be real constructor of the innings, with the entire aim of remaining batsmen should be to hit out as much as possible.

If batsmen 2 and 3 are constructors, its often you will find yourself in position to hit.

And if top 4 are dismissed batsmen 5 can construct with batsmen 6 or 7 if they are all rounders.

I know my idea is unique, and slow to evolve but I am confident as cricket evolves further, they will be increased strategic awareness to find out that not every batsmen needs to construct an innings when the entire innings is 300 balls.

Infact, If I were the "strategic analyzer of the team" I'd ask the batsmen to think they are 6 sessions of 300 balls, each session being of 50 balls. Make sure that the first 50 balls are at least made 50 runs, no matter what the condition of the pitch.

The next 50 should be constructional, the next 50 attack, the next 50 consolidation, and final 100 attack as much as possible.

Segmental cricket is the way to go forward and this outdated philosophy of scoring 100s and 50s for personal gain should be discouraged as much as possible.