What's new

What should be India's T20 XI going forward?

Hasan123 said:
I think the pitches will be flat. India still have a strong batting line up for such pitches.
Click to expand...

Flat pitches india will need atleast 180 to challenge england.the first match the difference was the pace attack
 
Here’s how England would build the Indian team:

1. Ishan Kishan
2. KL Rahul
3. Virat Kohli (c)
4. Sanju Samson
5. Rishabh Pant (wk)
6. Hardik Pandya
7. Ravindra Jadeja
8. Washington Sundar
9. Deepak Chahar
10. Jasprit Bumrah
11. Yuzvendra Chahal

I have absolutely no doubts about it that this is what the England management would play if they were in charge. And it’s a damn good lineup too.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
Here’s how England would build the Indian team:

1. Ishan Kishan
2. KL Rahul
3. Virat Kohli (c)
4. Sanju Samson
5. Rishabh Pant (wk)
6. Hardik Pandya
7. Ravindra Jadeja
8. Washington Sundar
9. Deepak Chahar
10. Jasprit Bumrah
11. Yuzvendra Chahal

I have absolutely no doubts about it that this is what the England management would play if they were in charge. And it’s a damn good lineup too.
Click to expand...

They'd drop Kohli before Sharma, and it's unlikely they'd only play one specialist fast bowler.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
Here’s how England would build the Indian team:

1. Ishan Kishan
2. KL Rahul
3. Virat Kohli (c)
4. Sanju Samson
5. Rishabh Pant (wk)
6. Hardik Pandya
7. Ravindra Jadeja
8. Washington Sundar
9. Deepak Chahar
10. Jasprit Bumrah
11. Yuzvendra Chahal

I have absolutely no doubts about it that this is what the England management would play if they were in charge. And it’s a damn good lineup too.
Click to expand...

Samson is not a middle order batsman.

And if we go with this team, then Rohit will come up with his Mumbai Paltans and their chances of playing the finals vs England will be higher than any other team.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last Monetarist said:
They'd drop Kohli before Sharma, and it's unlikely they'd only play one specialist fast bowler.
Click to expand...

India has a problem with their specialist bowlers. None of them can bat. Adding Bhuvi or Shami would lengthen the tail too much, which sinks England’s strategy of attacking in every phase of the game since batting depth is key to this mental freedom.

As a result, I’m 100% certain they would pick Deepak Chahar and Hardik Pandya as second and third pacer over Shami and Bhuvi or anyone else like Natarajan or Saini. Deepak Chahar bowls almost as well at the death but also in theory guarantees India 10 extra runs per innings whether he bats or not.

That does sound like heresy but that’s just how England plays its cricket and it’s key to why they’re so successful. For example, in my eyes, Jofra Archer is more valuable to the England lineup because he can bat, not because he can bowl.

As there are six bowling options in the above lineup, Bumrah, Chahar, Sundar, and Chahal bowl their full quota with Pandya and Jadeja distributing the remaining 4 between themselves.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
India has a problem with their specialist bowlers. None of them can bat. Adding Bhuvi or Shami would lengthen the tail too much, which sinks England’s strategy of attacking in every phase of the game since batting depth is key to this mental freedom.

As a result, I’m 100% certain they would pick Deepak Chahar and Hardik Pandya as second and third pacer over Shami and Bhuvi or anyone else like Natarajan or Saini. Deepak Chahar bowls almost as well at the death but also in theory guarantees India 10 extra runs per innings whether he bats or not.

That does sound like heresy but that’s just how England plays its cricket and it’s key to why they’re so successful. For example, in my eyes, Jofra Archer is more valuable to the England lineup because he can bat, not because he can bowl.

As there are six bowling options in the above lineup, Bumrah, Chahar, Sundar, and Chahal bowl their full quota with Pandya and Jadeja distributing the remaining 4 between themselves.
Click to expand...

Deepak Chahar is about the same level as a batsman as Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Umesh Yadav, or Shardul Thakur, and arguably inferior to all three as a bowler.

I totally disagree about England picking Archer for his batting, that's a laughable assertion.
 
Last edited:
Ab Fan said:
Samson is not a middle order batsman.

And if we go with this team, then Rohit will come up with his Mumbai Paltans and their chances of playing the finals vs England will be higher than any other team.
Click to expand...

He played at 3 for Rajasthan, he can play at 4. If it’s too much of an issue, drop Kohli down a place as he starts slow anyways.
 
Last Monetarist said:
Deepak Chahar is about the same level as a batsman as Bhuvneshwar Kumar, Umesh Yadav, or Shardul Thakur, and arguably inferior to all three as a bowler.
Click to expand...

He is inferior as a bowler, but he has much better ability as a batsman. Coming in during the 18th over, for example, you can rely on him to be your number 9. Bhuvneshwar Kumar, for example, has a SR of 94 in the IPL averaging 7 compared to Chahar who has a SR of 140 and averages 11.

That’s a subtle difference that allows batsmen like Kishan, Samson, Pant, and Pandya to play more freely. Especially if you stack this effect with the other bowlers who can bat (Jadeja, Sundar).
 
Last edited:
Thunderbolt14 said:
He is inferior as a bowler, but he has much better ability as a batsman. Coming in during the 18th over, for example, you can rely on him to be your number 9. Bhuvneshwar Kumar, for example, has a SR of 94 in the IPL averaging 7 compared to Chahar who has a SR of 140 and averages 11.

That’s a subtle difference that allows batsmen like Kidhan, Samson, Pant, and Pandya to play more freely. Especially if you stack this effect with the other bowlers who can bat (Jadeja, Sundar).
Click to expand...

I think this factor is overstated in T20 cricket, it makes sense in 50 overs, but in T20s if your main batsmen aren't firing, there's a very limited chance of sustainable success.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
I didn’t say that.
Click to expand...

You asserted that he adds more value to England with the bat than with the ball, which is so bizarre that it's not worth debating. Even if Archer didn't know which side of the bat to hold, he'll still be one of the most valuable cricketers in that side. His batting is a mere afterthought.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
He played at 3 for Rajasthan, he can play at 4. If it’s too much of an issue, drop Kohli down a place as he starts slow anyways.
Click to expand...

Samson is suited for top order only. Max at 3 and not below that. His game is not suited below no.3. He can be a genuine match winner in T20s as opener but in middle order, he is just not able to bat with the same freedom, much like Rohit Sharma.
 
Last Monetarist said:
I think this factor is overstated in T20 cricket, it makes sense in 50 overs, but in T20s if your main batsmen aren't firing, there's a very limited chance of sustainable success.
Click to expand...

I may or may not agree, but England disagrees. That’s all I’m saying.

As far as I go, I’m a fan of England’s approach.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
India has a problem with their specialist bowlers. None of them can bat. Adding Bhuvi or Shami would lengthen the tail too much, which sinks England’s strategy of attacking in every phase of the game since batting depth is key to this mental freedom.

As a result, I’m 100% certain they would pick Deepak Chahar and Hardik Pandya as second and third pacer over Shami and Bhuvi or anyone else like Natarajan or Saini. Deepak Chahar bowls almost as well at the death but also in theory guarantees India 10 extra runs per innings whether he bats or not.

That does sound like heresy but that’s just how England plays its cricket and it’s key to why they’re so successful. <B>For example, in my eyes, Jofra Archer is more valuable to the England lineup because he can bat, not because he can bowl</B>.

As there are six bowling options in the above lineup, Bumrah, Chahar, Sundar, and Chahal bowl their full quota with Pandya and Jadeja distributing the remaining 4 between themselves.
Click to expand...

Bro, are you okay?? I hope it's just a joke.

:)))
 
Last Monetarist said:
You asserted that he adds more value to England with the bat than with the ball, which is so bizarre that it's not worth debating. Even if Archer didn't know which side of the bat to hold, he'll still be one of the most valuable cricketers in that side. His batting is a mere afterthought.
Click to expand...

It isn’t a mere afterthought and it’s a key component of England’s strategy. If Jofra Archer batted like McGrath for example, yes he would still be one of the most valuable cricketers in the side, but it would throw part of their batting strategy haywire. To compensate that lower depth the top 5 batsmen would be instructed to curtail their shots a bit like any other T20I team in the world, rather than given the license to go all guns blazing no matter what.

If I were to quantify the impact, I’d say Archer’s batting presence in the bottom 3 has an impact of about 5-10 runs to England’s total whether he bats or not.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
I may or may not agree, but England disagrees. That’s all I’m saying.

As far as I go, I’m a fan of England’s approach.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that's true though. They dropped David Willey from the World Cup squad despite him being a better batsman than all of their fast bowlers, to accommodate both Archer and Wood.

Liam Plunkett was in that side because he could do a very specific role in the middle overs, not because he could hit sixes.

The reason they are successful as a white ball side is because they have flexible tactics and specialist batsmen that can take apart any attack.

The fact that they bat deep is a bonus, but they don't discard bowlers because of batting ability.
 
Last edited:
Ab Fan said:
Bro, are you okay?? I hope it's just a joke.

:)))
Click to expand...

I’m serious. Perhaps I should have phrased it better because Archer is obviously valuable for his bowling, but his batting is very very important to England’s strategy even if it’s unnoticed and he doesn’t even come in to bat.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
It isn’t a mere afterthought and it’s a key component of England’s strategy. If Jofra Archer batted like McGrath for example, yes he would still be one of the most valuable cricketers in the side, but it would throw part of their batting strategy haywire. To compensate that lower depth the top 5 batsmen would be instructed to curtail their shots a bit like any other T20I team in the world, rather than given the license to go all guns blazing no matter what.

If I were to quantify the impact, I’d say Archer’s batting presence in the bottom 3 has an impact of about 5-10 runs to England’s total whether he bats or not.
Click to expand...

This strategy may have been the case in ODI cricket, but in T20 cricket there's not enough time to be circumspect because of a lack of confidence in the tail. There's simply not enough time. In any case, and I might of course be totally wrong, I can't think of any examples in T20 cricket where England's tail came to their rescue.
 
Last Monetarist said:
I am not sure that's true though. They dropped David Willey from the World Cup squad despite him being a better batsman than all of their fast bowlers, to accommodate both Archer and Wood.

Liam Plunkett was in that side because he could do a very specific role in the middle overs, not because he could hit sixes.

The reason they are successful as a white ball side is because they have flexible tactics and specialist batsmen that can take apart any attack.

The fact that they bat deep is a bonus, but they don't discard bowlers because of batting ability.
Click to expand...

Here’s England’s main lineup from that world cup:

1. Jason Roy
2. Jonny Bairstow
3. Joe Root
4. Eoin Morgan (c)
5. Ben Stokes
6. Jos Buttler (wk)
7. Chris Woakes
8. Liam Plunkett
9. Jofra Archer
10. Adil Rashid
11. Mark Wood

Batting till 10 — so not sure what David Willey has to do with it. Essentially their strategy is to pick the best bowlers, but ensure they have decent bats at 9 and 10.

I’m not saying they discard bowlers because they can’t bat, but I am saying that batting is a consideration for them when picking bowlers. And it works damn well too.

You’re right that they work because they “have flexible tactics and specialist batsmen” but one of those primary tactics is batting depth so that those specialist batsmen are given the license to go for the kill rather than create a solid base.

For example, they know that if Roy or Buttler don’t come off as openers, they can continue attacking at say 10/2 as opposed to most teams which will try and consolidate.

On the other hand, if they do come off, then even better.
 
Thunderbolt14 said:
Here’s England’s main lineup from that world cup:

1. Jason Roy
2. Jonny Bairstow
3. Joe Root
4. Eoin Morgan (c)
5. Ben Stokes
6. Jos Buttler (wk)
7. Chris Woakes
8. Liam Plunkett
9. Jofra Archer
10. Adil Rashid
11. Mark Wood

Batting till 10 — so not sure what David Willey has to do with it. Essentially their strategy is to pick the best bowlers, but ensure they have decent bats at 9 and 10.

I’m not saying they discard bowlers because they can’t bat, but I am saying that batting is a consideration for them when picking bowlers. And it works damn well too.

You’re right that they work because they “have flexible tactics and specialist batsmen” but one of those primary tactics is batting depth so that those specialist batsmen are given the license to go for the kill rather than create a solid base.

For example, they know that if Roy or Buttler don’t come off as openers, they can continue attacking at say 10/2 as opposed to most teams which will try and consolidate.

On the other hand, if they do come off, then even better.
Click to expand...

I think it would be extremely churlish on my part to argue with any of that, because what you're saying is fair.

However, it's still a secondary consideration. I don't, for example, see any specialist domestic bowlers in county cricket that are better than Archer, Wood, Rashid, and Plunkett at what they do with the ball.
 
india's first choice pacers in the eleven are bumrah and Natarajan. that is confirmed. if they decide to go with 3rd pacer, then shami or bhuvi will make it. Pandya at 6 and Jadeja at 7 is also confirmed. the remaining 2 slots at 8 and 9 will be between chahal, washington, bhuvi and shami.
 
Last Monetarist said:
I think it would be extremely churlish on my part to argue with any of that, because what you're saying is fair.

However, it's still a secondary consideration. I don't, for example, see any specialist domestic bowlers in county cricket that are better than Archer, Wood, Rashid, and Plunkett at what they do with the ball.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. However based on the various interviews I’ve seen of the English management, I do think it’s intentional. Sam Curran over Tymal Mills or Saqib Mehmood comes to mind. I don’t think Sam’s that good to be honest. Chris Jordan’s batting is also a fantastic bonus.

India, while just as talented a team, cannot afford having their top order batsmen bat at 150-160 to begin with before moving on to 180-200. That’s why you’ll find even someone as talented as Rohit Sharma or KL Rahul consolidating before trying to go big. India needs to begin making the conscious decision to pick players who maximize strike rate by phase of the game, regardless of average.
 
My team

1 KL Rahul
2 Mayank Agarwal
3 SKY
4 Samson
5 Ishan Kishan
6 Dinesh Kartik
7 Hardik
8 Kunal Pandya
9 Varun Chakravarthy
10 Bhumrah
11 Natarajan

Reserve: Deepak Chahar, Bhuvi, Jaddu, Rohit
 
SKY, Kishan and Chahar making India look a better team than they were earlier.
 
1) R. Sharma
2) Kishan
3) Kohli
4) Pant
5) SKY
6) Pandya
7) Jadeja
8) Sundar
9) B. Kumar
10) Bumrah
11) K. Yadav/Thakur
 
Bilal7 said:
1) R. Sharma
2) Kishan
3) Kohli
4) Pant
5) SKY
6) Pandya
7) Jadeja
8) Sundar
9) B. Kumar
10) Bumrah
11) K. Yadav/Thakur
Click to expand...

Kuldeep is done. Chahal is on the verge. Rahul Chahar is better as a wrist spinner
 
Rohith
Kishan
Surya
Kohli
Iyer
Pant
Pandya
Sundar
Bhuvi
Axar
Bumra

Extras
Dhawan
Tewatia
Rahul chahar
Thakur
Natrajan
 
Last edited:
Rohit Sharma
Ishan Kishan
Surya Kumar Yadav
Virat Kohli
KL Rahul (wk)
Hardik Pandya
Ravindra Jadeja
Washington Sundar
Rahul Chahar/ T Natarajan
Jasprit Bumrah
Bhuvneshwar Kumar
 
Ab Fan said:
Chahal is a brilliant T20 spinner who basically trolled Aussies and Langer as a concussion substitute in first T20 match. He has done great for RCB as well over the last few years.

He is overrated in ODIs.
Click to expand...

Have you changed your mind on Chahal now?
 
Mesozoic said:
Rohit Sharma
Ishan Kishan
Surya Kumar Yadav
Virat Kohli
KL Rahul (wk)
Hardik Pandya
Ravindra Jadeja
Washington Sundar
Rahul Chahar/ T Natarajan
Jasprit Bumrah
Bhuvneshwar Kumar
Click to expand...
Like this team..KLR at 5 might just do him good with fewer deliveries to face and he can just go for it
 
OldWarHorse said:
Like this team..KLR at 5 might just do him good with fewer deliveries to face and he can just go for it
Click to expand...

Moving down the order did a world of good to him in ODI cricket. He is a type of player who is at his best with a clear head. But I doubt this TM is capable of grasping that....
 
Give wicketkeeping to KL Rahul. He was looking confident when he was playing as a wicketkeeper batsman. This also doesn't look like Pant's best format anyway. Also we can play a specialist batsman/bowler instead of playing 3 wicketkeeper batsmen in one team. :inti
 
1. Rohit
2. KL Rahul
3. Kohli
4. Surya / Shreyas Iyer
5. Pant
6. Pandya
7. Jadeja
8. Bhuvi/Sundar
9. Chahal/Chahar
10.Bumrah
11. Natarajan
 
Rohit
Rahul
Pant
Kohli
Shreyas
Sky
Pandya
Jadeja
Chahal
Bumrah
Natarajan
 
RyanRyan10 said:
Have you changed your mind on Chahal now?
Click to expand...

Not completely but Rahul Chahar was very good today especially considering the fact that he bowled with dew already there. I will continue with him but will have an eye on Chahal also. Yuzi Chahal's problem is also that he is a poor fielder.
 
Rohit
SKY
Kohli
Iyer
Tewatia
Pant
Pandya
Jaddu
Washy
Bumrah
Nutty
_________________
Backups
----
Ishan
Varun Chakravarti
Rahul Chahar
Bhuvi
 
Last edited:
Rohit
Rahul
Virat
shreyas
sky
pandya
Dinesh Karthik (better finisher than hack pant)
Jaddu/washi
Chahal
Bumrah
Natarajan/bhuvi

Backup
Rahul chahar/Kuldeep
Shardul
Ishan kishan
 
The hack has won test matches that Dinesh Kartik or any WK Indian keeper batsman only can dream off.
 
Last edited:
1.Rohit
2.Kishan
3.VK
4.Sky
5.Rahul/Pant
6.Pandya
7.jadeja
8. Washington
9.B.kumar
10.bumrah
11.Natrajan

Looks like most of the Pitches are going to be either flat or slow with no turn. So you need economical bowlers like jadaja and Washington over spinners like chahal, kuldeep.

Pandya showed that you need more medium pacers in these conditions who can change pace intelligently. Him in the middle, with Bhuvi/bumrah bowling in the powerplay and the yorker specialists natrajan and bumrah at the death would be too much for the opponents

But after seeing pandya's performance , don't think Kohli would go with 6 bowling options. He would play either of Bhuvi or natrajan with Iyer an extra batsman.
 
I still feel 6 bowlers is mandatory.

If Jadeja is fit and available, I will go with Pandya at 6 and Jadeja at 7.

But if Jadeja gets injured, then rather than replacing him with Axar, go with 6 batsman and Pandya at 7 and he bowls full overs of quota.
 
Ab Fan said:
I still feel 6 bowlers is mandatory.

If Jadeja is fit and available, I will go with Pandya at 6 and Jadeja at 7.

But if Jadeja gets injured, then rather than replacing him with Axar, go with 6 batsman and Pandya at 7 and he bowls full overs of quota.
Click to expand...

Yes, 6th bowler is mandatory.
If we want Jaddu in team then there will be no place for Washi.

Picking final XI is not easy once Bumraha , Jaddu and Nattu back.
 
Too much problem of plenty in picking up the team.



Batting: Only 5 can be played in playing XI from below 9 players

Rohit
Rahul
Kishan
Kohli
Surya
Iyer
Pant
Samson
Dhawan



Allrounders: Only 2 can be played

Pandya
Jadeja
Washington



Spinners: Only 1 can be played

Yuzi Chahal
Rahul Chahar
Varun Chakravarthy ( wildcard)



Pacers: Only 3 can be played
Bumrah
Bhuvi
Natrajan
Thakur
Deepak Chahar
Shami
 
King_Kohli said:
Yes, 6th bowler is mandatory.
If we want Jaddu in team then there will be no place for Washi.

Picking final XI is not easy once Bumraha , Jaddu and Nattu back.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is very hard now. Jaddu gives us right balance at 7. Washi is a proper all-rounder too but in T20s, his batting is not of any use at no.7.

Shardul can give us those last minute runs which are always useful in T20s but his bowling is unpredictable. Going with 3 spinners can be troublesome.
 
deep82 said:
Too much problem of plenty in picking up the team.



Batting: Only 5 can be played in playing XI from below 9 players

Rohit
Rahul
Kishan
Kohli
Surya
Iyer
Pant
Samson
Dhawan



Allrounders: Only 2 can be played

Pandya
Jadeja
Washington



Spinners: Only 1 can be played

Yuzi Chahal
Rahul Chahar
Varun Chakravarthy ( wildcard)



Pacers: Only 3 can be played
Bumrah
Bhuvi
Natrajan
Thakur
Deepak Chahar
Shami
Click to expand...

Sums up pretty well but figuring out best XI is a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bhaijaan
IPL : Career earnings
Replies
65
Views
2K
Bewal Express
B
MenInG
The 3rd ODI between New Zealand (104/1) and India (219) abandoned due to rain - NZ win series 1-0
Replies
54
Views
5K
Ahmed216
Ahmed216
MenInG
India (373/7) defeat Sri Lanka (306/8) by 67 runs to win the 1st ODI
2 3
Replies
161
Views
8K
Champ_Pal
C
MenInG
Bangladesh (187/9) defeat India (186) to win the 1st ODI by 1 wicket
2 3
Replies
213
Views
14K
Banda298
B
MenInG
India (191/6) defeat New Zealand (126) by 65 runs to win the 2nd T20I - lead series 1-0
2 3
Replies
160
Views
9K
rhony
R
Back
Top