6 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Nikhil Talgeri's avatar

Disagree - people tend to correlate "quick scoring" with slogging. No one is asking Pujara to slog. But Pujara is playing for a "tag". He is billed as "solid", "gutsy" , "the wall" and all those other clichés associated with blocking.

If a batsman has played out a 100 balls, then the onus is on him to take the game forward. No one is asking Pujara to go aerial. But, getting 2 or 3 an over in singles should not be too hard for modern day batsmen. And he shirks his responsibility by playing so long and not capitalizing on that.

The second issue I have with Che Pu is that he keeps bowlers fresh. Yes, Test cricket is a game of "breaking down the bowlers". But you break bowlers as much by scoring, as you do by wearing them down in the field. Che Pu keeps bowlers and fielders interested all the time. Best examples are Smitty and Marnus in the way they countered Ashwin

And finally, for all the Che Pu aficionados out there, I challenge the premise that he is technically one of the best in the world. Technically sound batsmen can evolve themselves into good fast scoring batsmen. Look at Williamson - the guy can block all day and yet play 30 ball-75s in T20s. THAT is my definition of a technically sound batsman. Pujara does his team no favors by spending time without killing the opposition.

Expand full comment
Jarrod Kimber's avatar

Any extra attacking is riskier. This taking the game forward stuff is modern cricket nonsense. His job is to blunt the best bowlers and the ball, two things he did. I never said he had the best technique, that’s irrelevant anyway, only runs really matter. Yes, Pujara is not as good as Williamson, huge slight on him there.

Expand full comment
Nikhil Talgeri's avatar

Disagree again. How is looking for 2 singles an over, risky? I am not advocating silly dil-scoops or reverse flicks. Fine, don't call it "take the game forward" (I hate that too btw!) but the reality is the Smith, Labuchagne approach is more effective than the block all day approach.

If deflating the opposition by blocking is his role, then Pujara should rediscover his leggies (his cricinfo profile says he bowls leg spin) and bat 8. As a number 8 , scoring 14 off 140 will absolutely kill the opposition as it makes them impatient. But, a top order guy scoring at that strike rate would make modern bowlers keep coming back at the opposition. Acknowledging the sarcasm on my Kane comment, but I was simply giving an example of what a model "blocker" should play like. Pujara is a top order player and not a night watchman. He has to discover a non-risky upper gear if he wants his team to win.

Expand full comment
Jarrod Kimber's avatar

Taking two singles an over from Pat Cummins bowling like that is more risky. You have to open or close the face, both dangerous. It means you are an increased chance of a run out, as you're trying to manufacture a single, see Vihari. Had Pujara tried this twice an over I don't think he makes it to lunch. It's also not his game, when batting is tough, and you are facing the absolute best bowlers in the world, you should go with your game plan, especially when it was working. He didn't make 14 from 140 balls, he made a 50, the equal top score. he literally batted like this when India won the last time in Australia. I cannot even with this.

Expand full comment
Veturi Sarma's avatar

I think Pujara's approach is in part due to his limited range of strokes. He will only score when the ball seems to be a scoreable one from his repertoire and he absolutely doesn't give his wicket away playing shots he hasn't perfected. He can blunt all day till the ball he wants to score arrives. To score the number of runs that he has at his average with his limited range is a phenomenal achievement and a tribute to his mental strength. He is a role-specific batsman and is good at one type of batting (god-level in that), and that is also the reason why you won't see him in limited overs cricket where guys have to play shots they don't have.

Expand full comment
Jarrod Kimber's avatar

It probably comes from him not having many shots. It may also fit his temperament.

Expand full comment