The rain spoiled India's chances to reach the semis it seems.
Cricinfo says: Washout hits India's semis chances
Yeah right!!
Be honest, did anyone of you really think India would have won that match??
(I had to "watch" the match on CI so I could be wrong here...)
With our cr@p bowling and wierd batting lineup, really is that what we expected?
I honestly did not.
I am NOT criticisng team India. They have done well in the past two years and it reflects in the stats. However, in the Champions Trophy they have made some glaring mistakes-like showing up without pace bowlers.
Oops!
So no, CI, rain hasn't marred our chances. If anything, it has given us a ray of hope.
If our neighbors beat the Aussies, and we beat theWindies...there might still be a chance.
The rain has actually helped.
Taking Stock
1 hour ago
56 Maidens bowled!!:
Not sure if we would have lost the game Leela, especially the truncated version.
Our bowlers were all over the place, but the Aussie bowlers haven't exactly covered themselves in glory against the West Indies.
And look at the scoring patterns at the Centurion -
Sri Lanka 319/8 (50 ov); South Africa 206/7 (37.4/37.4 ov)
New Zealand 214 (47.5 ov); South Africa 217/5 (41.1 ov)
Pakistan 302/9 (50 ov); India 248 (44.5 ov)
England 323/8 (50 ov); South Africa 301/9 (50 ov)
Australia 234/4 (42.3 ov)
Barring the NZ game, Oz was actually behind on the par rate when the game was called off ( remember that the 42 overs included 20 overs of power play). So, even a linear extrapolation of their score would have put them at the 270-275 range ( the same score they made against the West Indies).
The rain did rob us.. This win and a win against the West Indies and we would have been through. Instead, Australia got a lifeline ahead of a crucial game against Pakistan.
Cheers,
Gee that's a little hard on Nehra, isn't it? We came to the Champions Trophy with a defensive mindset and we're paying for it. There was fear of being shown up against the short ball (Yeah right) so Rahul Dravid came in. There was fear of the batting too thin so Harbhajan is the guy picked whenever we go in with a lone spinner (He hasn't scored a 50 in ODIs). Of course it doesn't help that we're without Sehwag, Yuvraj and Zaheer, but that doesn't excuse the lame bowling performances from Ishant, RP, Harbhajan. You gotta ask: Is Irfan Pathan any worse with the ball than Ishant?
H,
I watched only the first part of the game (RP and Huss were batting beautifully) and at that time the bowlers looked toothless.
(Had to leave, small matter of work.)
The rain did rob us.. This win...
Now that you say that, will watch the highlights.
Anyway, I'll be honest, I am not too disheartened about the rain.
Why would you have a linear extrapolation? Australia were 172-7 after 40 overs against the Windies. They didn't score 215, did they? They scored 275. Of course no one can definitely say India would've lost, but the odds were very much in favour of Australia.
BTW, even if we'd won our remaining games it would've come down to NRR if Australia beat Pakistan. As things stand, I think they will do that anyway. They're better than Pakistan at the moment and it wouldn't be surprising to see Pakistan not show up for the game. They're in the semis and they can ensure India go out if Australia beat them.
Mahek,
Nehra excluded, of course.
Irfan Pathan any worse with the ball than Ishant?
No, not if you consider Ishant's present avatar.
See, like I said, I am not hating the team right now. The team has been hit hard by injury woes. And my reaction was based on the team that is playing right now.
RD included.
Mahek,
I considered the fact that Aus have to play Pak, and also that Pak has good spinners against whom the Aussies have struggled.
Of course, if Pakistan don't showup... it's curtains.
mahek,
Pakistan playing hooky is to be expected and thats fair. And if it came down to NRR, thats fair too.
But to write off India when we could not get even one completed innings in the match is more than a tad unfair.
Remember that PK, AN and AM had 5 overs between them out of the remaining 7.
Also, there was no guarantee that the Australian bowlers would bowl better than us. Its all nice to talk down the Indian bowling, but without context, there is no way of knowing.
Cheers,
L,
Cricinfo got it right... And seriously, if you did not watch the Australian innings to completion , tad much to say that
"Be honest, did anyone of you really think India would have won that match??
(I had to "watch" the match on CI so I could be wrong here...)
With our cr@p bowling and wierd batting lineup, really is that what we expected?
I honestly did not."
"cr@p bowling and wierd batting lineup" - really?
Cheers,
Homer,
Perhaps I am being defensive.
I am not sure that India would've won. I'd take 1 point instead of risking the chance of losing 2 (and getting kicked out today itself).
Sorry! I know that is not how one shd approach a match, but the way India has played thus far...
Homer,
I guess it wasn't clear. I meant I watched the match live until RP and Huss were batting and then had to watch the remainder on CI.
And yes, the bowling has been crap.
Leela,
"Sorry! I know that is not how one shd approach a match, but the way India has played thus far...'
And this is premised on what? One match?
So winning the Compaq Cup amounted to naught then?
India might have lost,and that's fine. But we don't know, so why speculate?
And when teams have scored 300+ batting first in 3 of the previous 4 games, how exactly was the Indian bowling not in keeping with the norm?
Cheers,
H,
And this is premised on what? One match?
No.
On India's bowling performances in the 3 games they have played in the CT, including the warm-up.
If you feel they have not bowled badly (with the exception of Nehra), well let's agree to disagree.
So winning the Compaq Cup amounted to naught then?
No. That's why they are at #1.
As I said, I am assessing them based on the team we have right now - minus Veeru, Yuvi, and Zak.
India might have lost,and that's fine. But we don't know, so why speculate?
Well just as one can say they might have won, I can speculate that they could've lost.
And when teams have scored 300+ batting first in 3 of the previous 4 games, how exactly was the Indian bowling not in keeping with the norm?
And in that case the team batting first won. Which is what I feared.
Didn't I say there was no definite way of saying who would have won? All I'm saying is based on the match situation, current form of each side and historical evidence my money would have been on Australia. That doesn't mean India couldn't have won, all it means is Australia were in a better position than India when rain interrupted play.
L,
In that case the toss is a lottery and not a real assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the teams on display, no?
Cheers,
Mahek,
Just as you would've bet your money on Aus winning, I too could've bet on Aus winning.
And therefore I am willing to take that 1 pt vs risking 2.
And now, I also can bet on Aussies losing to Pak and Ind winning against the Windies and reaching the semis.
Will that really happen? Who knows.
If our neighbors beat the Aussies, and we beat theWindies...there might still be a chance.
This reminds me of Jim Carrey in Dumb and Dumber when he's asking Mary what the chances are of a girl like her ending up with him and she says
"I'd say more like one out of a million" to which he replies
So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*
H,
OK.
Ache,
If what I said reminds you of Jim Carey in "Dumb and Dumber", so be it.
If I was to bet, I would bet on the scenario that I talked about, instead of Ind winning against Aus.
If that makes me "Dumb and Dumber", so be it.
:-)
Leela,
Didn't we agree about India catching a break thanks to the rain? :)
I bet on things based on what I've seen from teams. From what I've seen, Pakistan are way too inconsistent anyway and Australia need to win to ensure they go through. They're also very professional in the way they approach their cricket. Only a pumped up Pakistan can beat them, and I'm not sure we'll see a pumped up Pakistan on Wednesday.
Achettup,
I think you've quoted that line before too :)
:-) some interesting debate there.
@ Homer, I'd agree with Leela . I guess it's all a personal opinion, but the minute it started raining, I was thanking god. Aus were en route to a pretty decent total. And like I mentioned else where, I don't have enough faith in Virat "Primetime" Kohli just yet to help us chase it down.
@ Achhe : I love that scene in D&D!!
Mahek,
From what I've seen, Pakistan are way too inconsistent
And that's what I am banking on!
(Do I need therapy? Perhaps.)
:-)
Well the match hasn't started yet. And I am willing to hope that Pak will win this.
And if Ind don't beat the Windies, we did not deserve to be in the tournament, anyway!
Sujith,
High Five.
(See I wasn't the only one!)
:-)
Shouldn't Pakistan's inconsistency mean they may be the opposite of how they've been so far? :)
But seriously, stop hoping for a Pakistan win because there's a good chance your hopes will be dashed. Think Pakistan v/s Sri Lanka in the Asian Test Championship in 1999.
At this point in time, India has one simple directive. Irrespective of how the Australia-Pakistan game turns out the #1 (2 or 3 depending upon the time of the day and the position of Saturn) team in the world should be easily smashing the #8 team of replacement players. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Take care of matters that are in your control and then see where the rest of the marbles line up. If I was Gary Kirsten I'd ban the Indian team from paying attention to the other game until the first innings is done. Then I would remind them that their mandate is to win as comprehensively as you can and give them targets (if it was required).
Worrying about moral victories over who benefited from the rain and all that jazz is just moot. I will wake up, watch the start of the Pak-Aus match, then switch to Indo-WI and pray that it all ends before I have to go and teach!!
Cmon Leela, thats silly talk. You can be either Dumb, or Dumber or even neither, but you absolutely cannot be both. Trust me, I've tried, people always see through it.
@Mahek: quite possible, though note that unlike "bosey" I actually attributed it to the original author. Wait, did "bosey" ever quote dumb and dumber?
@ Sujith: If I had to pick between that scene and the dead bird, I would probably sit still doing nothing for a very long time....
I think India would have made a decent fist of chasing whatever the Aussies put up, somehow the Aussie bowling seemed a little less threatening than Pakistan's (they do have Lee, Bracken and Johnson but we should know what to expect from them).
But I will agree the bowling has been crap; Bhajji is never at his best when expected to dry up the runs, and the loss of Sehwag and Yuvraj impacted the middle-overs bowling as much as the batting.
I'm hoping India doesn't go the South African way in big tournaments, the 'favourites' tag doesn't seem to bring out the best in them.
Ache,
Trust me, I've tried, people always see through it.
OK. Thanks for that lesson.
JQ,
#1 (2 or 3 depending upon the time of the day and the position of Saturn)
So true.
;-)
Suhas,
I'm hoping India doesn't go the South African way in big tournaments,
Actually SA is going India's way...
Earlier they (SA) used to choke in the semis, now they are exiting in the first round itself!!!
Barring a miracle, India's out of this.
I simply don't see Australia losing to Pakistan and West Indies losing to us so handsomely as to make up for the difference in the NRR.
I would rate our chances of chasing down a 280-300 score against Australia's bowlers much higher than the chances of us making the semi-finals at this point. Because now, we need two (or more) things to go right for us: We need to play out of our skins AND Pakistan has to play out of theirs AND Australia has to play significantly under their potential.
In the other scenario, we just had to bat out of our skins. Surely the former is more likely?
I think Cricinfo got it right.
I think Cricinfo got it right.
I dunno Sharath, I am still not convinced.
Teams chasing 300+ in the tournament have lost so far. India, without Yuvi, has looked weak.
And India (in recent times atleast, under Dhoni's leadership) has always done better while setting a target.
Anyway, what a reaction to this post!
:-)
There's no way we'd have been chasing 280-300. And it's a lot harder to play out of your skins against a professional Australian outfit than to do it against the Windies.
Also, even if we'd beaten Australia it would've most likely come down to NRR as Australia will most probably beat Pakistan, albeit a Pakistan that had its place on the line.
We were screwed the moment we lost three of our better players, picked a player because we were afraid of getting found out, and dropped an attacking spinner to persist with a dart-thrower who is supposedly a good batsman.
Don't you people think that well as Nehra bowled, he is no replacement for Zaheer Khan simply because the latter can lift the performances of the others and hence his has been as big a loss as Sehwag or Yuvaraj? (it seems Ishant needs somebody else to do his thinking for him. This same bunch will bowl better with Zaheer in the team).
As for all the talk of rain scuppering/improving India's chances, Australia are not dependant on the performance of some other team to make it to the semis, but on their own. India, by contrast need Pakistan to beat Australia to entertain any hopes of a last 4 berth. In my book any team which needs to be 'helped' into the knock out round does not deserve a semi-final place (I will no change my opinion even if such a team subsequently wins the final).
Incidentally, hasn't NZ's resurgence pleased any one here? And much as I dislike England, they have done well enough to get into the semis.
I think Australia were looking good but stranger things have happened in ODI.
There is a pattern here with India un terms of crashing out of recent world cricket tournements.
Adverbin,
What would you have said if Australia had lost and had to depend on the Windies to ensure India didn't go through? It almost came down to that, didn't it? So stop going high and mighty about these things.
Adverbin,
Sure, the loss of Zaheer is a problem, but if and when he comes back, I think he will replace someone other than Nehra, seeing how well he has supposedly bowled (I say 'supposedly' because I don't get to see the games where I live).
As for the rain, we were placed in a position of reliance on someone else BECAUSE of the rain. It was unfortunate, because something like that does play a big role in a short tournament. You have three league games, out of which you have to win two to make it to the semis. If one of them gets washed out, you're in a knock out. And then one bad day will kick you out.
I am not blaming the format; no. But the truth is that we did get a little unfortunate with the weather. I don't think we should beat up the team too much on one bad day's worth of cricket.
"New Zealand's resurgence"
Resurgence is a strong word. New Zealand always makes it to the semi-finals of global tournaments. I was not surprised at all with them making it. England, though, is another matter. It's amazing how threatening they look on pitches that suit their bowling and how pedestrian they become once you put them on featherbeds.
Adverbin,
Agree with you on Zaheer's role; I've said it before but bears repeating... we need him because he can baby-sit Ishanth.
(Apart from his bowling duties.)
And yes, I would have taken India's entry into the semis whichever way possible.
CB,
... and India continued that pattern.
Sharath,
I don't think we should beat up the team too much on one bad day's worth of cricket.
I am not beating up the team. In fact a few posts ago I wrote about the ranking.
But there is no harm in accepting that they bowled badly, and had the wrong batting lineup.
I still believe India would not have chased a big total easily.
p.s I am very glad that Kohli did well today.
Hi Leela,
My previous comment was really in response to Adverbin's 'Teams that rely on other matches don't deserve to qualify'. I just thought that was being a bit too tough. After all, it was just one bad day at the office - all right, one and a half, if you count the first innings against Australia.
Yes, we bowled badly. I will give you that. But we had the wrong batting lineup? Don't you think it's a bit unfair saying that based on just one match where they faltered in a 300+ chase only in the last 15 overs?
Guess it's a matter of opinion :-)
Sharath,
:-)
I misunderstood. My bad.
Just been fighting fires for this post, so reacted.
Regdg the batting line-up, I guess I am really irritated with the RD selection ...
OK, I agree with you that it was just one match. However, they managed to mess it up when they were in a winning situation. And thatz what bothers me.
You are right, it's a matter of personal opinion, clearly, because what seems so obvious to me seems all wrong to others. I am sure the "others" feel the same way about me too!!
:-)
Ishant hasn't been bowling well for a while. It's not like he had a bad day. Ditto for Harbhajan. I'm not that worried about the batsmen as we were missing our two most important batsmen in LOIs. But the bowling and fielding have been problem areas since the tour of New Zealand.
BTW, why doesn't Praveen Kumar get picked ahead of RP and Ishant? He's as canny an international bowler as you come across these days. Gets the ball to swing into and away from the batsman and knows it's stupid to bowl short. What more do you need from a bowler?
Mahek,
I think it was during the SL series (or was it in Pak) that I noticed that the problem with PK is that he bowls well only in the first 10 overs (with the new ball)..later he goes for lots of runs.
@Soldier
It has been my impression from watching Praveen Kumar that he is a woeful old-ball bowler. And he is woeful when bowling in conditions that don't aid swing. RP, at least the last time I saw him, was quite good bowling yorkers.
But now that I think about it, that's true of all our fast bowlers. Is bowling with the old ball such a dark art?
Sharath,
High Five!
Praveen Kumar isn't any worse with the old ball than RP or Ishant. Atleast you know he's not going to gift runs to the batsmen by bowling in the wrong areas. I don't mind batsmen slogging perfectly good deliveries to the boundary, I do mind bowlers straying in line and length. Besides, once Zaheer is back we have him and Nehra to bowl at the death so why worry about Kumar?
@Leela
Not too hard. I have very delicate hands.
@Soldier
"We have Nehra and Zaheer to bowl at the death so why worry about Kumar?"
That's the thing. I don't trust Kumar to bowl at any time BUT in the first few overs. At least RP can wheel away a few in the middle overs without too much damage.
With Kumar, he almost looks surprised when asked to bowl with the old ball. All that wrist cocking to no avail.
I wonder what Venkatesh Prasad is doing? And Robin Singh? It was not too long ago we were singing their praises.
OK Sharath!
:-)
Hey I never sang Robin Singh's praises... though I must admit the man is quite good-looking.
@Mahek,
The thing is PK becomes too slow and predictable during the last 10.
I remember bowlers like Chris Harris and Ian Harvey bowling well at the death so clearly speed isn't the only thing that works.
The problem is we keep branding these bowlers without much evidence. Praveen Kumar bowls at the death for his IPL side and does a good job. And if it's that much of a problem then finish his spell in the first 30 overs.
The Chocolatecream Soldier,
"What would you have said if Australia had lost and had to depend on the Windies to ensure India didn't go through?"
I would say that Australia did not deserve to make it to the semis.
India are not a poor team; but their performances have been below par here. The best that can be said is that the exit has not been as comprehensive a that in the World T20.
England are a s**t team; but based on their performances in this tournament deserved to make it to the semis of this tournament .
The team/management/selectors atleast have to accept that they performed poorly so that they can apply correctives.
Let's rewind a little then.
1.India play a bad game and lose to Pakistan, England play a bad game and lose to New Zealand.
2.India were on course to concede over 300 against Australia and didn't get to chase it down. England scored 300+ against South Africa and almost lost the game.
So how is it that England deserve to go through?
Let's compare India and Australia now.
1.Australia were 172-7 against West Indies. Did well to reach 274 but didn't defend the target too well.
2.Bowled well to restrict Pakistan to 205 but faltered badly during the chase.
Now I don't think India would have beaten Australia, but it's preposterous to suggest that Australia and England have been better and deserve to go through. It's the nature of the tournament that doesn't give teams a second chance.
Instead of the results of the last two ICC tournaments I'd concentrate on barring Nehra how toothless our bowling has been, how the fielding has regressed, and giving more opportunities to players like Yusuf Pathan, Virat Kohli and Ravindra Jadeja. It's too much to expect these guys to bat at 6 and 7. If you're going to play inconsequential series like the ones in Sri Lanka and West Indies you should give these guys a chance to bat in the top 5.
"England scored 300+ against South Africa and ALMOST lost the game."
But they didn't.
"Australia were 172-7 against West Indies. Did well to reach 274 but DIDN'T DEFEND the target too well."
But they did.
"Bowled well to restrict Pakistan to 205 but faltered badly during the chase."
FALTERED, but ended up winning.
Now if we'd only 'badly faltered' in our chase against Pakistan instead of badly faltering AND losing, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
My point is if we're going to compare, maybe it's best we don't use words like 'almost won' and 'almost lost'.
Overall, in this tournament, I think justice has been served. I think the four best teams are in the semi-finals. And Adverbin's general point is true - teams that rely on other teams to qualify, generally speaking, don't deserve to be there.
Buddy it could have easily gone the other way and you guys would've happily forgotten our shortcomings.
As for teams relying on others to make it through, Pakistan needed it in 1992. Does that mean they shouldn't have won the World Cup?
And the whole relying on other results depends on how matches are scheduled. If India would've played the Windies upfront while Australia had played their first game against Pakistan then we'd have our fate in our own hands, so don't go all high and mighty with such claims.
Thx Sharath.
Easy Mahek. We can obviously argue till kingdom come regarding 'deserving'. And yes, Pakistan's 92 victory is tainted by their entry into semis being helped by another team's performance. (wasn't it the then existing rain rule which changed SA's target against England to an impossible 22 of 1 ball from 22 of 9, thus facilitating Pak's entry? looks like Pak has to share the credit for their WC win with rain and rules-LOL).
I agree that scheduling has had it's influence on results. I merely hope that the players do not make rain/scheduling an excuse and look seriously to get rid of flaws and improve. WorldT20 '07 apart our performances in WCups/Champions trophy after 2003 has been poor. I personally would prefer top ranking plus cup winning performances; if not, than low ranking and cup wins are acceptable. Some one else might prefer top ranking over cup wins. I will simply agree to disagree.
The South Africa game you mentioned was their semi-final against England. It didn't enable Pakistan to go through. They needed Australia to beat the West Indies and the hosts duly obliged.
There were tell-tale signs about our bowlers not doing well since well before the Champions Trophy. This is where the concept of process comes in. The amount of work you put in shouldn't depend on the outcome, it should depend on your performance. So while the some of the bowlers were performing badly, people tended to not notice it because we kept winning. It's only when we start losing that the vultures come out to prey.
There were tell-tale signs about our bowlers not doing well since well before the Champions Trophy.
I agree. Corrective action should have been taken immediately to ensure the the best team, not just talentwise, but also current performancewise (forgive the mauling of the language), would have been selected for the CCT.
Post a Comment