zing
Zingle balls
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 14,303
Funny how Pujara's innings are always reviewed in hindsight. No one knows till the match is over if it's a shit innings or not, despite the number of runs he makes.
On course to score about 230 today, which I don't think is good enough. New ball around the corner too.
Agreed.We have people who can accelerate down the order. Kohli himself picks up the run rate once he crosses 60 odd. So does Pujara after a 100. I'm actually happy with keeping wickets for day two and trudging along. These runs will be ungettable for Australia's second innings
Think so, which is why I still think the scoring rate has been (and continues to be) sub par.So basically its still a batting pitch with the odd uneven bounce? Which means 400+ is a par score?
Ermm, what nowI don't understand the strategy by India this morning. Is the plan to just bat once? I don't think that's a feasible strategy - even the Aussie tail bats better than the Indian top order. Getting the Aussies out twice is going to be a challenge even on this pitch.
The batsmen need to accelerate.
I don't understand the strategy by India this morning. Is the plan to just bat once? I don't think that's a feasible strategy - even the Aussie tail bats better than the Indian top order. Getting the Aussies out twice is going to be a challenge even on this pitch.
The batsmen need to accelerate.
I missed the part where Pat Cummins suddenly became a better batsman than Virat Fecking Kohli.
Ermm, what now
Now what?All this complaining about slow run rate doesn't make sense. Even if this is a batsman paradise, getting runs on board is paramount so that you can't lose the test. I'd rather be 420/5 in 220 overs than 420 all out in 120 in a test match.
If India can get past 500, a lot of pressure on the Aussies to not feck up their batting.
Yeah. Bit weird. But point still stands. In tests, you prioritise runs over run rate. I don't think India can really lose from here even though another 50 runs would have made sure of that.Now what?
Funny how Pujara's innings are always reviewed in hindsight. No one knows till the match is over if it's a shit innings or not, despite the number of runs he makes.
Eh no. No one says he played a shit innings if he scores a century. What are you on?
'https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...lbourne-test-ponting/articleshow/67274031.cms'Eh no. No one says he played a shit innings if he scores a century. What are you on?
No I fully agree with your general point that runs and time batted are more important.Yeah. Bit weird. But point still stands. In tests, you prioritise runs over run rate. I don't think India can really lose from here even though another 50 runs would have made sure of that.