I don't really understand the criticisms of Pujara but here's my largely unfair attempt to construct one. India didn't seem to be able to score off the Australian attack. Understandably, because it's been very good. If everyone goes out and tries play solid and cautious, well, maybe they'll tire out the bowlers and be able to get somewhe…
I don't really understand the criticisms of Pujara but here's my largely unfair attempt to construct one. India didn't seem to be able to score off the Australian attack. Understandably, because it's been very good. If everyone goes out and tries play solid and cautious, well, maybe they'll tire out the bowlers and be able to get somewhere, but it's more likely the most successful of them will get 50 off 150 before lapses in concentration pick them off one by one. Given Australia got 338 that won't be enough and India will lose. So maybe someone has to figure out how to score off this attack, and the higher up the order it happens the better, because all the other batsmen can copy the player who figures it out. Gill tried, but he didn't get a lot of support. You know, halfway through that rant I almost had myself believing it.
If everyone batted like Sehwag you'd probably have a lot of days where your team was bowled out cheap as well. Batsmen all bat differently. India have dropped two batsmen in this series so far, and Vihari may not survive the series. Pujara is clearly in their six best batsmen right now. And Pujara did score, he made 50, if four of them made 50 from 150, they most probably would have the lead now.
Well, trouble is the moment someone mentions scoring quickly, people start dismissing you as the "ignorant T20 lot" or someone who doesn't understand cricket. Maybe I don't, but common sense tells us you'll win by scoring more than the opposition, not by merely staying longer. No one is asking Pujara to be Sehwag or Russell, but if the "knowlegeable fans " are saying Cummins et all must never be scored against, the Indians might as well do the Harbor bridge walk or take the train to the Blue mountains, before heading home. Of course, I know nothing
"common sense tells us you'll win by scoring more than the opposition, not by merely staying longer." Yes, and he was the equal top scorer, he was trying to get set, tire the bowlers and ball, and then cash in later. Which is how he, and thousands of Test batsmen, have played the game. There are spells and situations where you can't score against Cummins right now without taking risks, that isn't going to be the case with the older ball, or if he is tired. And sometimes he will bowl poorly. But he key spells in Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney he has bowled at a level most bowlers never get anywhere near. All the Indian batsmen have slowed down in this period, according to something I saw on twitter, they've all slowed down at roughly 40%, just that Pujara is slowing from a lower base. Pujara used his best gameplan, as did Pant. Neither played poor innings, sadly Pant got hit and things changed. This isn't just a T20 thing, it comes from the Australians dominating the previous generation thinking on cricket.
You are right - this is very much Waugh's brand of cricket and the game is better for it. The Aussies , under Waugh, made Test cricket entertaining, dull draws were more or less eliminated ( a draw to save a game on the last day, is not dull. But the slow 500s , followed by the slow 600s followed by handshakes, ended with Waugh).
I guess "take the game forward" was my giveaway ;). I am not enamored by all things Waugh - the baggy-green sentimentality being total bs. But, they were undeniably the most successful team in recent history and changed the game.
To your point , " cashing in later" doesn't happen all that much with Che Pu of late. He tires/bores himself into a soft dismissal. And so, it will help his team if he looked for non-risky runs on an ongoing basis, rather than wait for good omens 6 hrs into his innings.
All that said, if there ever was a day for Pujara to show his "Game", Day 5 is. Let's see how good he really is. With a win no longer in sight, if he really is that good a test batter, let him play good old fashioned Test cricket and save this one. Low hopes though, I just don't think he is good enough
I don't really understand the criticisms of Pujara but here's my largely unfair attempt to construct one. India didn't seem to be able to score off the Australian attack. Understandably, because it's been very good. If everyone goes out and tries play solid and cautious, well, maybe they'll tire out the bowlers and be able to get somewhere, but it's more likely the most successful of them will get 50 off 150 before lapses in concentration pick them off one by one. Given Australia got 338 that won't be enough and India will lose. So maybe someone has to figure out how to score off this attack, and the higher up the order it happens the better, because all the other batsmen can copy the player who figures it out. Gill tried, but he didn't get a lot of support. You know, halfway through that rant I almost had myself believing it.
If everyone batted like Sehwag you'd probably have a lot of days where your team was bowled out cheap as well. Batsmen all bat differently. India have dropped two batsmen in this series so far, and Vihari may not survive the series. Pujara is clearly in their six best batsmen right now. And Pujara did score, he made 50, if four of them made 50 from 150, they most probably would have the lead now.
Well, trouble is the moment someone mentions scoring quickly, people start dismissing you as the "ignorant T20 lot" or someone who doesn't understand cricket. Maybe I don't, but common sense tells us you'll win by scoring more than the opposition, not by merely staying longer. No one is asking Pujara to be Sehwag or Russell, but if the "knowlegeable fans " are saying Cummins et all must never be scored against, the Indians might as well do the Harbor bridge walk or take the train to the Blue mountains, before heading home. Of course, I know nothing
"common sense tells us you'll win by scoring more than the opposition, not by merely staying longer." Yes, and he was the equal top scorer, he was trying to get set, tire the bowlers and ball, and then cash in later. Which is how he, and thousands of Test batsmen, have played the game. There are spells and situations where you can't score against Cummins right now without taking risks, that isn't going to be the case with the older ball, or if he is tired. And sometimes he will bowl poorly. But he key spells in Melbourne, Adelaide and Sydney he has bowled at a level most bowlers never get anywhere near. All the Indian batsmen have slowed down in this period, according to something I saw on twitter, they've all slowed down at roughly 40%, just that Pujara is slowing from a lower base. Pujara used his best gameplan, as did Pant. Neither played poor innings, sadly Pant got hit and things changed. This isn't just a T20 thing, it comes from the Australians dominating the previous generation thinking on cricket.
You are right - this is very much Waugh's brand of cricket and the game is better for it. The Aussies , under Waugh, made Test cricket entertaining, dull draws were more or less eliminated ( a draw to save a game on the last day, is not dull. But the slow 500s , followed by the slow 600s followed by handshakes, ended with Waugh).
I guess "take the game forward" was my giveaway ;). I am not enamored by all things Waugh - the baggy-green sentimentality being total bs. But, they were undeniably the most successful team in recent history and changed the game.
To your point , " cashing in later" doesn't happen all that much with Che Pu of late. He tires/bores himself into a soft dismissal. And so, it will help his team if he looked for non-risky runs on an ongoing basis, rather than wait for good omens 6 hrs into his innings.
All that said, if there ever was a day for Pujara to show his "Game", Day 5 is. Let's see how good he really is. With a win no longer in sight, if he really is that good a test batter, let him play good old fashioned Test cricket and save this one. Low hopes though, I just don't think he is good enough