ICC Cricket World Cup 2019

Shankar should be dropped for Pant. He's literally useless.

Have a fixed top 3 and then depending on the situation, float Jadav, Dhoni, Pant and Hardik.
 
Varun said:
Shankar should be dropped for Pant. He's literally useless.

Have a fixed top 3 and then depending on the situation, float Jadav, Dhoni, Pant and Hardik.
Click to expand...
So far it didn't matter since the top 3 made 200+ and Hardik could just come up. It's only when the top order fails all hell breaks lose, but that is the weakness we have that we are incredibly reliant on the top 3 (now top 2, dont trust Rahul whatsoever). Any match that fails, we will be in trouble.
 
crappycraperson said:
That's a way too optimistic way to think about it. Even Kohli said we were 20-30 short of a par score. Anyone else than Afghanistan would have chased this down. No matter how slow the pitch, no excuse to score just score 49 off last 10 overs. Shankar has shown nothing as an ODI batsman to deserve a spot at 4. If you rate him for first class performances etc it is another thing but he does not even has a ODI 50 as of now. Like @Moby said there are no good solutions to this problem as of now since we completely bundled the last year or so. Don't want to rehash that old debate so for now it will be basically down to giving Shankar more chances and hoping he comes good. With Jadhav, I think people underrate him as a batsman. He kinda got stuck today against spinners but in the past he has played well for us. Not using him as a spinner does reduces his value though. Worst case scenario for us is that Shankar couple of times more and then we barely have enough time to blood in Pant or try Kartikl before the semis.
Click to expand...

We bungled number four for two years like you said. It's between Shankar and Pant, both can go wrong, both need to be blooded. If you've picked a guy, you need to stick with him. Couple of innings isn't enough data to make a change.

We are saying the same thing.

Mine was a general comment as well - there are people in this thread who didn't want Rohit and dhawan at the start of the tournament. There are people still complaining about the pace we play at in the power play. Jadhav is a reliable player, but we have people complaining about him as well.
 
Moby said:
That's fine and far less important than having the best teams qualify for the final stage. This isn't a movie going on where thrill and upsets need to be catered for.
Click to expand...
Then why even have a tournament? let's ditch the whole thing and have semifinals based on odi rankings.
 
VP said:
It is pretty horrible because lot of games have nothing at stake
Click to expand...

You are overstating format's impact for teams like Afghanistan. Even in a group of 7 teams, even if a team loses first first 3-5 matches they are out of contention more or less. So best case scenario is some upset victory. If anything this format allows team to qualify despite a bad start. Pakistan for example qualified in 1992 from exact same position they are in now. Problem with format is that some games towards the end lose value. Schedulers also fecked up by putting some big games between higher ranked teams at a late stage.
 
VP said:
Then why even have a tournament? let's ditch the whole thing and have semifinals based on odi rankings.
Click to expand...
I said the best performing teams make through in this tournament, nothing to do with the rankings. The 4 teams that will go through to the semis will be the best 4 teams in the WC and won't be there down to a single upset or fluke.
 
zing said:
We bungled number four for two years like you said. It's between Shankar and Pant, both can go wrong, both need to be blooded. If you've picked a guy, you need to stick with him. Couple of innings isn't enough data to make a change.

We are saying the same thing.

Mine was a general comment as well - there are people in this thread who didn't want Rohit and dhawan at the start of the tournament. There are people still complaining about the pace we play at in the power play. Jadhav is a reliable player, but we have people complaining about him as well.
Click to expand...

It is mostly one poster who complains about all this.....

With Shankar it is kind of a strange situation. He was picked on the back of very few innings so it can go in any direction and it comes down if you back him to make it or not. Personally I don't think he will come good this WC and more importantly think a player like Pant coming good would increase odds of us winning much more given the nature of most of the pitches in England.
 
WI NZ shaping up to be a good game. They need a bug hundred from either Gayle or Hetymer though. Gayle dropped! :lol:
 
Gayle dropped twice in an over!
 
VP said:
The problem with this ridiculous format is that it is impossible for smaller teams to progress. Even if Afghanistan had managed to win this, it wouldn't have made much difference to overall standings.. Made this game far less tense than it could've been
Click to expand...
I'm firmly on the side of associate teams on this. It should have been 16 sides with the inclusion of Zimbabwe, Ireland, Netherlands, Kenya, Nepal and PNG.

Saying that though, I still think that this format is good as it really does allow the best teams to rise to the top.
 
crappycraperson said:
You are overstating format's impact for teams like Afghanistan. Even in a group of 7 teams, even if a team loses first first 3-5 matches they are out of contention more or less. So best case scenario is some upset victory. If anything this format allows team to qualify despite a bad start. Pakistan for example qualified in 1992 from exact same position they are in now. Problem with format is that some games towards the end lose value. Schedulers also fecked up by putting some big games between higher ranked teams at a late stage.
Click to expand...

RedTiger said:
I'm firmly on the side of associate teams on this. It should have been 16 sides with the inclusion of Zimbabwe, Ireland, Netherlands, Kenya, Nepal and PNG.

Saying that though, I still think that this format is good as it really does allow the best teams to rise to the top.
Click to expand...

I think 16 teams in 4 groups followed by quarters would work the best. Every game would matter, genuine hope for smaller countries but enough opportunities for quality to shine.
 
VP said:
I think 16 teams in 4 groups followed by quarters would work the best. Every game would matter, genuine hope for smaller countries but enough opportunities for quality to shine.
Click to expand...

I don't even think there are 16 countries that play the sport.
 
VP said:
I think 16 teams in 4 groups followed by quarters would work the best. Every game would matter, genuine hope for smaller countries but enough opportunities for quality to shine.
Click to expand...

2007 had that format (except Super 8s instead of quarters) and it didn't end well.
 
zing said:
We bungled number four for two years like you said. It's between Shankar and Pant, both can go wrong, both need to be blooded. If you've picked a guy, you need to stick with him. Couple of innings isn't enough data to make a change.

We are saying the same thing.

Mine was a general comment as well - there are people in this thread who didn't want Rohit and dhawan at the start of the tournament. There are people still complaining about the pace we play at in the power play. Jadhav is a reliable player, but we have people complaining about him as well.
Click to expand...

I honestly think Rohit could work at 4 - obviously not now but we could always have had a different set of openers.
 
Di Maria's angel said:
I honestly think Rohit could work at 4 - obviously not now but we could always have had a different set of openers.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Rahul is the next best cab off the rank and he's playing like dogshit.

Hetmyer is hitting some beautiful shots. Anyone watching?
 
West indies just know how to play t20. Should stick to that. Ridiculously bad.
 
zing said:
I doubt it. Rahul is the next best cab off the rank and he's playing like dogshit.

Hetmyer is hitting some beautiful shots. Anyone watching?
Click to expand...

Rahuls got two hard working 30s and a slowish 50 - hes not been dogshit.
 
And another one trying to smash it out the ground. Do they have somewhere to be?
 
Windies still have a slight chance to do this...
 
Windies could have won this if they didn't want to finish within 30 overs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.