Anthropogenic climate change is the idea that human activity at an industrial scale has caused emissions of greenhouses gases to an extent which is sufficient to change climate.
You know there is massive amounts of desperation, denial and coping..
.when someone blames " 'Human influenced' climate change", as a reason for their employer's team's humiliating defeat.
Yes climate change is why India couldn't chase 147. Climate change is why Glenn Philips has a better bowling average in the series than R Ashwin.
Then there are subjective terms like 'control percentage' thrown around generously to cope with the ineffectiveness of the likes of Bumrah and Ashwin in very suitable conditions.
I used to enjoy reading this thread. There used to be sincerely insightful bits of writing. But now it all reads like a BCCI-sponsored propaganda aimed at keeping the image of the BCCI owned team, shining the brightest.
Ohh...and Sourav Ganguly (regardless of how overrated his captaincy might have been)...was a better player of spin bowling than Virat Kohli will ever be....result pitch or any other kind of pitch.
It is not about the impact on the bat or whether he played the right line or not, its just whether the ball went to the place where apparently by eye test ball would go to seeing the shot and batters intent. Even an edged shot can be in control shot.
A false shot is as simple as it sounds, when the ball ends up somewhere other than where the batter intended, resulting in an uncontrolled shot. This indicates that the shot was not "in control." According to Cricinfo, Control is a statistic that measures whether the ball went to the batter’s intended location on each delivery faced. So, it has binary result 0 and 1 and no grey area.
This is a comment from a reader Ravi Naarla which appeared in my email notifications, but is not visible here (or at least, not yet). This seems to be some glitch with substack.
I'm copying it here:
India’s issues in this series weren’t just about challenging pitch conditions. They were rooted in a mix of tactical gaps, lapses in patience, and a struggle to adapt effectively to New Zealand’s game plan. The article missed an opportunity to dig into these tactical and mental aspects that explain why India’s strong home track record faltered against New Zealand’s disciplined, methodical approach. It's worth noting that when legends like Sehwag, Sachin, Sourav, Rahul, and VVS played, they faced some of the best spinners in the game, like Muralitharan and Warne, who struggled to post standout records in India despite the spin-friendly conditions. Back then, India’s batting lineup excelled under similar conditions, yet with the patience and technique to outplay even world-class opponents. Ultimately, New Zealand’s consistency, patience, and well-rounded strategy surfaced India’s weak points, underscoring the need for a mindset recalibration and refined technical prep for high-stakes, result-driven pitches.
1) firstly, just comparing false shots doesnt tell you much -- it doesnt take into account other factors that cause the false shot to lead to a wicket. for example, an edge falling just short of slip consistently vs a false shot landing in no man's land. or false shot played with soft hands vs hard that carries to fielders. or perhaps NZ had better field placing?
2) on this quote: "There’s not much point discussing the Indian batting against spin (or pace). Firstly, they score well against pace and spin, and better than their predecessors did"
^^ how can you say that when quality of spinners (& bowlers in general) was much better in the past?
Respectfully, the links you posted are about generic articles, not really answering the points i mentioned above.
lets start with specifics:
1. i get the FAQ on control -- my point is this: once you establish that batsmen were not in control, there are 2 ways to interpret your statement in original article - a) either indian batsmen were unluckier than NZ ones (higher freq of dismissal to false shot), or b) that is not as statistically significant unless you consider OTHER factors, like perhaps NZ had better field placings for false shots to RESULT in dismissals, OR that perhaps we need to look BEYOND just the fact taht it is a false shot but the manner in which it is played might cause indian batsmen to give a wicket -- can you please paste the excerpt from the article that specifically talks about this? otherwise that part just sounds like indian batsmen were unluckier which may not be entirely true
2. im sorry but the link you posted is generic article about bowling depths....can you post me the exact analysis and excerpt from the article that proves that indian batsmen of earlier era on a) bowler friendly pitches, and b) against bowlers who were the prime of their era or in that time fared *worse* vs those bowlers than todays batsmen? that way, we eliminate whether or not we play a minnow. Just plain analysis about earlier batsmen vs "good' bowlers vs todays batsmen vs good bowlers? perhaps false shots of earlier batsmen vs today, and/or perfmance against good bowlers adjusted for match situation?
I'm not sure why the idea that they were not better (in 2) or that other factors need to be considered (in 1) has to be disproven. It hasn't been established that they do. Its not a falsifiable hypothesis yet.
Doesn't it feel like a BCCI- backed article to still keep glorifying the BCCI XI's achievement (and thus glorify the BCCI itself)? The man now claims that the current players are better players of spin than their predecessors!
It still doesn't explain how these glorious players couldn't score more than 46 in slightly-seam friendly conditions. When was the last time any team got bowled out for 46, 156 and 121 in home Test matches?
Great piece. I largely agree with the arguments here. India has been a great team and this loss should not shadow what they have achieved. The loss is a result of confluence of many things. I have a little question though, while they have gone for result pitches which may result in victory or defeat, do they still need to rethink the plan, not because of absurd criticism or accusations of doctoring but just in the wake of results. Also Wankhede seems to crumble really more than other grounds, 2004, 2006 against Udal, 2012. Most rank turners seem to remain constant-ish, Wankhede seems to get really really hard on third fourth day. I felt even a target of 120 was enough
I genuinely believe rank turners is not how India have won most of their test matches. Hear me out.
If you go back and look at most dismissals of England in 16', or 20' or even Australia in 17&23 Indian spinners tend to get a majority of their wickets with Arm balls. That said the turn is needed to set up the arm ball. Recently, with Indian Management requesting rank turners, Indian team has sort of dug their own grave similar to what happened vs England in 2012. We need to understand that Patel and Santner are quality spinners who will take advantage of such pitches. That said, India. Batsman were poor in their shot making and we're not able to channel their intent into good shots.
yes, I absolutely agree with you, Rank turners are not what has won India most matches, 2016 Eng, 2019 SA, 2024 Eng, 2021, 2016, 2012 NZ, all of the wins are on normal turners or flat wickets. One of the reasons they started with rank turners originally in Pune 2017, because they started getting medical advice in terms of preserving Ashwin. and since then WTC has changed their minds a little too much. India batted very badly in this series but they have not left too much scope for themselves once they lose the toss, I would prefer batting wickets for a while so batters gain confidence. England wickets were great, something like Vizag or Dharamsala earlier this year or even Rajkot. I don't want complete flat wicket because again toss becomes important. that said, sometimes pitches go wrong but yeah felt like India with their shot and tactic selections and approaches kept getting things wrong.
Yeah, and we have to factor in the amount of Ranji cricket our Legends use to play. Sachin, Dravid, Laxman etc were regular domestic players ( As regular one can be when playing international cricket), something that the new gen has not explored. They were always comfortable with spin coz they played so much of it. A lot of our batsman faced proper spin (I do not consider spin bowling with the white ball as proper) after January this year. We gotta be less cocky and try and understand that the opposition can have good spinners.
I enjoy reading this substack as it manages to redefine the limits of human smugness with every post. This one certainly didn’t disappoint. Any view that the author doesn’t fully agree with is conveniently labelled as ‘not cricket’. Nowhere else can one see such cogent arguments. But one can’t be faulted for a lack of consistency. The conclusion of every post is almost always the same. The result stems mostly from luck, and occasionally bowling prowess, if Bumrah or Cummins are involved. Anything else would just not be cricket. With some allowance for woke friendly themes in the spirit of intersectionality.
Players are the same most of the time. Bumrah (or any player) is not crap one day and great the next. That is what makes it cricket - a game of skilled labour and uncertain outcomes.
Great piece, loved the introduction of the Climate Change- Storms- to the analysis of the series, it genuinely made me crack up. I have recently started publishing on Substack and will encourage you to check out my post on the Fierce Legacy between Australia and India in light of the upcoming Border-Gavaskar-Trophy
You know there is massive amounts of desperation, denial and coping..
.when someone blames " 'Human influenced' climate change", as a reason for their employer's team's humiliating defeat.
Yes climate change is why India couldn't chase 147. Climate change is why Glenn Philips has a better bowling average in the series than R Ashwin.
Then there are subjective terms like 'control percentage' thrown around generously to cope with the ineffectiveness of the likes of Bumrah and Ashwin in very suitable conditions.
I used to enjoy reading this thread. There used to be sincerely insightful bits of writing. But now it all reads like a BCCI-sponsored propaganda aimed at keeping the image of the BCCI owned team, shining the brightest.
Ohh...and Sourav Ganguly (regardless of how overrated his captaincy might have been)...was a better player of spin bowling than Virat Kohli will ever be....result pitch or any other kind of pitch.
Who's employing whom? I don't follow your comment.
Curious to know what a false shot is?
1. Batter A attempts to deliberately play the line or inside the line and more likely to get beaten on the outside edge
2. Batter B tends to follow the ball and more likely to edge it
Are both of these considered false shots?
If NZ batters have survived more false shots relative to IND's,
A. Perhaps their batters have done something better deliberately
B. Perhaps their bowlers have induced false shots which are more likely to get wickets (line and length closer to the stumps)
If it's happened over 5/6 innings, I think NZ have done something much better than IND to be on the right side.
It is not about the impact on the bat or whether he played the right line or not, its just whether the ball went to the place where apparently by eye test ball would go to seeing the shot and batters intent. Even an edged shot can be in control shot.
Please see here.
https://cricketingview.substack.com/p/control-faq
*Kindly ignore the question mark in my first sentence. It's a typo
A false shot is as simple as it sounds, when the ball ends up somewhere other than where the batter intended, resulting in an uncontrolled shot. This indicates that the shot was not "in control." According to Cricinfo, Control is a statistic that measures whether the ball went to the batter’s intended location on each delivery faced. So, it has binary result 0 and 1 and no grey area.
This is a comment from a reader Ravi Naarla which appeared in my email notifications, but is not visible here (or at least, not yet). This seems to be some glitch with substack.
I'm copying it here:
India’s issues in this series weren’t just about challenging pitch conditions. They were rooted in a mix of tactical gaps, lapses in patience, and a struggle to adapt effectively to New Zealand’s game plan. The article missed an opportunity to dig into these tactical and mental aspects that explain why India’s strong home track record faltered against New Zealand’s disciplined, methodical approach. It's worth noting that when legends like Sehwag, Sachin, Sourav, Rahul, and VVS played, they faced some of the best spinners in the game, like Muralitharan and Warne, who struggled to post standout records in India despite the spin-friendly conditions. Back then, India’s batting lineup excelled under similar conditions, yet with the patience and technique to outplay even world-class opponents. Ultimately, New Zealand’s consistency, patience, and well-rounded strategy surfaced India’s weak points, underscoring the need for a mindset recalibration and refined technical prep for high-stakes, result-driven pitches.
1) firstly, just comparing false shots doesnt tell you much -- it doesnt take into account other factors that cause the false shot to lead to a wicket. for example, an edge falling just short of slip consistently vs a false shot landing in no man's land. or false shot played with soft hands vs hard that carries to fielders. or perhaps NZ had better field placing?
2) on this quote: "There’s not much point discussing the Indian batting against spin (or pace). Firstly, they score well against pace and spin, and better than their predecessors did"
^^ how can you say that when quality of spinners (& bowlers in general) was much better in the past?
For (1), please see https://cricketingview.substack.com/p/control-faq
For (2): There's no reason to think that the quality of spinners and bowlers in general in the past was better. There's some evidence for the opposite view. Please see here https://cricketingview.substack.com/p/bowling-depth?utm_source=publication-search
thank you - I appreciate the reponse.
Respectfully, the links you posted are about generic articles, not really answering the points i mentioned above.
lets start with specifics:
1. i get the FAQ on control -- my point is this: once you establish that batsmen were not in control, there are 2 ways to interpret your statement in original article - a) either indian batsmen were unluckier than NZ ones (higher freq of dismissal to false shot), or b) that is not as statistically significant unless you consider OTHER factors, like perhaps NZ had better field placings for false shots to RESULT in dismissals, OR that perhaps we need to look BEYOND just the fact taht it is a false shot but the manner in which it is played might cause indian batsmen to give a wicket -- can you please paste the excerpt from the article that specifically talks about this? otherwise that part just sounds like indian batsmen were unluckier which may not be entirely true
2. im sorry but the link you posted is generic article about bowling depths....can you post me the exact analysis and excerpt from the article that proves that indian batsmen of earlier era on a) bowler friendly pitches, and b) against bowlers who were the prime of their era or in that time fared *worse* vs those bowlers than todays batsmen? that way, we eliminate whether or not we play a minnow. Just plain analysis about earlier batsmen vs "good' bowlers vs todays batsmen vs good bowlers? perhaps false shots of earlier batsmen vs today, and/or perfmance against good bowlers adjusted for match situation?
thanks
I'm not sure why the idea that they were not better (in 2) or that other factors need to be considered (in 1) has to be disproven. It hasn't been established that they do. Its not a falsifiable hypothesis yet.
Doesn't it feel like a BCCI- backed article to still keep glorifying the BCCI XI's achievement (and thus glorify the BCCI itself)? The man now claims that the current players are better players of spin than their predecessors!
It still doesn't explain how these glorious players couldn't score more than 46 in slightly-seam friendly conditions. When was the last time any team got bowled out for 46, 156 and 121 in home Test matches?
Great piece. I largely agree with the arguments here. India has been a great team and this loss should not shadow what they have achieved. The loss is a result of confluence of many things. I have a little question though, while they have gone for result pitches which may result in victory or defeat, do they still need to rethink the plan, not because of absurd criticism or accusations of doctoring but just in the wake of results. Also Wankhede seems to crumble really more than other grounds, 2004, 2006 against Udal, 2012. Most rank turners seem to remain constant-ish, Wankhede seems to get really really hard on third fourth day. I felt even a target of 120 was enough
I genuinely believe rank turners is not how India have won most of their test matches. Hear me out.
If you go back and look at most dismissals of England in 16', or 20' or even Australia in 17&23 Indian spinners tend to get a majority of their wickets with Arm balls. That said the turn is needed to set up the arm ball. Recently, with Indian Management requesting rank turners, Indian team has sort of dug their own grave similar to what happened vs England in 2012. We need to understand that Patel and Santner are quality spinners who will take advantage of such pitches. That said, India. Batsman were poor in their shot making and we're not able to channel their intent into good shots.
yes, I absolutely agree with you, Rank turners are not what has won India most matches, 2016 Eng, 2019 SA, 2024 Eng, 2021, 2016, 2012 NZ, all of the wins are on normal turners or flat wickets. One of the reasons they started with rank turners originally in Pune 2017, because they started getting medical advice in terms of preserving Ashwin. and since then WTC has changed their minds a little too much. India batted very badly in this series but they have not left too much scope for themselves once they lose the toss, I would prefer batting wickets for a while so batters gain confidence. England wickets were great, something like Vizag or Dharamsala earlier this year or even Rajkot. I don't want complete flat wicket because again toss becomes important. that said, sometimes pitches go wrong but yeah felt like India with their shot and tactic selections and approaches kept getting things wrong.
Yeah, and we have to factor in the amount of Ranji cricket our Legends use to play. Sachin, Dravid, Laxman etc were regular domestic players ( As regular one can be when playing international cricket), something that the new gen has not explored. They were always comfortable with spin coz they played so much of it. A lot of our batsman faced proper spin (I do not consider spin bowling with the white ball as proper) after January this year. We gotta be less cocky and try and understand that the opposition can have good spinners.
I enjoy reading this substack as it manages to redefine the limits of human smugness with every post. This one certainly didn’t disappoint. Any view that the author doesn’t fully agree with is conveniently labelled as ‘not cricket’. Nowhere else can one see such cogent arguments. But one can’t be faulted for a lack of consistency. The conclusion of every post is almost always the same. The result stems mostly from luck, and occasionally bowling prowess, if Bumrah or Cummins are involved. Anything else would just not be cricket. With some allowance for woke friendly themes in the spirit of intersectionality.
Players are the same most of the time. Bumrah (or any player) is not crap one day and great the next. That is what makes it cricket - a game of skilled labour and uncertain outcomes.
Great piece, loved the introduction of the Climate Change- Storms- to the analysis of the series, it genuinely made me crack up. I have recently started publishing on Substack and will encourage you to check out my post on the Fierce Legacy between Australia and India in light of the upcoming Border-Gavaskar-Trophy
https://open.substack.com/pub/thedailykrid/p/rivalry-beyond-boundaries-the-fierce?r=4p46ng&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web