About where the idea originated, let's not be too diplomatic. The senior players have won the last two series in Aus. They know what it takes. It's got to be the head coach. Gambhir has a lot to answer for. Reddy's runs may look good on a score card but it never moved the needle sufficiently. Ultimately he's a batsman who can bowl a bit like ganguly rather than a Shardul. The other thing which must be questioned is how the richest board in cricket history can't seem to find an incentive for hardik pandya. At least he can play in seamer friendly conditions with strict workload management. 10 overs per day from hardik like in odi cricket might have changed the complexion of this entire series.
I don't think its obvious that Gambhir is the moving force behind this shift. I also don't think there are any obvious things IND could have done.
I think IND should have played Jadeja + 4 quicks in all five Tests, simply because there's nothing on offer for the finger spinner on these pitches. They might still have lost. But this would have given them a better chance of bowling AUS out cheaply.
Fair enough, we can't say for certain it was gambhir. But it just seems bizarre that the seniors in the most successful Indian team in history would okay two spinners in aus. Especially after the debacle in the first wtc match. It's like we are back in 2008 and India playing kumble and harbhajan. Not to mention the pitches have changed drastically. That scg pitch has no resemblance to the ones where Tendulkar made so many centuries. There was little chance of escaping with draws in these conditions against this attack, which was basically the strategy in 04 and 08. True, that aus might have won regardless of whatever India did, but India might never get a bowler like Bumrah in this form again. To pair him with two spinners in these conditions, it's just a bit shocking.
The worst part is there are no pointed questions on this to Gambhir ( who was the only person accessible to the media post the series). Nor did he clarify on these decisions. Everyone can make bad decisions, the least they can do is explain the rationale behind these decisions and accept what went wrong.
None of those sides is as complete as this one. They also didn't face too many teams as complete as several teams in the current era. The quality of play has improved significantly. Every Test team today is professional. Fast bowling has gone global.
Sorry....but that sounds like ignorant hyperbole. The England team in Bradman's time was damn strong, as were the WI, SA , Eng and Pak teams of Chappell's time.
Sorry, but you do come across as ignorant when you make those outrageous claims without anything to back it up with.
"Sorry....but that sounds like ignorant hyperbole. The England team in Bradman's time was damn strong, as were the WI, SA , Eng and Pak teams of Chappell's time."
Bradman's team got beaten 3-1 at home in 1931-32, in case you didn't know.
SA beat Australia 3-1 and 4-0 in 1966-67 and 1969-70 respectively.
England beat India in India 3-1 in 1976-77, and were quite competitive all around. One retrospective ICC ranking actually gave them rank no.1 in 1970-1973. Hell, even India held the no.1 rank in 1973-1974.
WI had many overseas victories even before they became the team that dominated cricket. Pakistan was still competitive, drawing series in England and winning in India...and especially winning at home.
I agree. The batsmen were already in poor form after the NZ series, so the bowling should have been strengthened. Playing 2 spinners and under-bowling them made no sense. The consistent reliance on extra batsmen to cover up for top-order failures backfired, and selection staff should be held accountable.
About where the idea originated, let's not be too diplomatic. The senior players have won the last two series in Aus. They know what it takes. It's got to be the head coach. Gambhir has a lot to answer for. Reddy's runs may look good on a score card but it never moved the needle sufficiently. Ultimately he's a batsman who can bowl a bit like ganguly rather than a Shardul. The other thing which must be questioned is how the richest board in cricket history can't seem to find an incentive for hardik pandya. At least he can play in seamer friendly conditions with strict workload management. 10 overs per day from hardik like in odi cricket might have changed the complexion of this entire series.
I don't think its obvious that Gambhir is the moving force behind this shift. I also don't think there are any obvious things IND could have done.
I think IND should have played Jadeja + 4 quicks in all five Tests, simply because there's nothing on offer for the finger spinner on these pitches. They might still have lost. But this would have given them a better chance of bowling AUS out cheaply.
Fair enough, we can't say for certain it was gambhir. But it just seems bizarre that the seniors in the most successful Indian team in history would okay two spinners in aus. Especially after the debacle in the first wtc match. It's like we are back in 2008 and India playing kumble and harbhajan. Not to mention the pitches have changed drastically. That scg pitch has no resemblance to the ones where Tendulkar made so many centuries. There was little chance of escaping with draws in these conditions against this attack, which was basically the strategy in 04 and 08. True, that aus might have won regardless of whatever India did, but India might never get a bowler like Bumrah in this form again. To pair him with two spinners in these conditions, it's just a bit shocking.
The worst part is there are no pointed questions on this to Gambhir ( who was the only person accessible to the media post the series). Nor did he clarify on these decisions. Everyone can make bad decisions, the least they can do is explain the rationale behind these decisions and accept what went wrong.
His decisions didn't work. They're not bad decisions per se. They're negative choices. That's not the same as thinking that they're bad choices.
This is nowhere near Australia’s greatest ever team. Not within a bulls roar of it. Bradman, Steve Waugh
And Ian and Greg Chapple all led far stronger teams than this one.
None of those sides is as complete as this one. They also didn't face too many teams as complete as several teams in the current era. The quality of play has improved significantly. Every Test team today is professional. Fast bowling has gone global.
Sorry....but that sounds like ignorant hyperbole. The England team in Bradman's time was damn strong, as were the WI, SA , Eng and Pak teams of Chappell's time.
Sorry, but you do come across as ignorant when you make those outrageous claims without anything to back it up with.
"Sorry....but that sounds like ignorant hyperbole. The England team in Bradman's time was damn strong, as were the WI, SA , Eng and Pak teams of Chappell's time."
What backs up this claim?
Records...individual and team.
Bradman's team got beaten 3-1 at home in 1931-32, in case you didn't know.
SA beat Australia 3-1 and 4-0 in 1966-67 and 1969-70 respectively.
England beat India in India 3-1 in 1976-77, and were quite competitive all around. One retrospective ICC ranking actually gave them rank no.1 in 1970-1973. Hell, even India held the no.1 rank in 1973-1974.
WI had many overseas victories even before they became the team that dominated cricket. Pakistan was still competitive, drawing series in England and winning in India...and especially winning at home.
So yes, that was that.
Now you.
Right, but why do those results suggest that they were as good as today's teams?
I agree. The batsmen were already in poor form after the NZ series, so the bowling should have been strengthened. Playing 2 spinners and under-bowling them made no sense. The consistent reliance on extra batsmen to cover up for top-order failures backfired, and selection staff should be held accountable.
I am a paid subscriber, not a visitor!