He has a point, we could've taken an extra batter in vihari instead of ashwin, ashwin wasn't getting much help in the conditions, if at all he was hell-bent on five bowlers he could've taken ishant instead for all-seam, but he wanted the batting cushion of ashwin, so why not take vihari the more accomplished batter and get the real batting boost that was needed!
Also team selection? Not the squad that selectors select, but which eleven take the field - I think he was behind the game in that respect as well, his blind obsession with jadeja instead of ashwin for variety in bowling attack, his taking of ishant in the wtc final and two back to backs in england instead of siraj when ishant didn't look fit, continued backing of pujara and rahane resulting in a shaky batting lineup for a while, not having the talk with pant about his role in a five batsman lineup in difficult conditions like south africa until the team management felt it necessary after the second test.. Then the toss and what to do upon winning the toss, batting first on a green top like headingley putting his batters in more pressure than necessary, it's like he had that macho thing that oh we can take it, when reality was that maybe he could take it but he wasn't seeing in terms of the rest of the batsmen - even in the third south africa test selecting to bat first when seeing grass, and when seeing that the pitches in South Africa were becoming better to bat in fourth innings - even Rahul got influenced by kohli's strategy in selecting to bat first in the second test!
I think this is a case of Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc.
On hindsight we see and can tell that these were right or wrong decisions.
And if you've watched Jarrod's videos, Jadeja has averaged over 50 in the past few years with the bat. I mean he's an all rounder and keeps the over rate in check too.
And we can't blame the batters in this era of juiced pitches and amazing fast bowling! Like even Steve Smith the god of batting is averaging 37 since Ashes 2019 and he hasn't batted anywhere else in the world apart from Australia during that time. It is hard to be a batsman in this era. Period.
And he has always been rigid because 20 wickets win you matches. Having 4 bowlers reduces the chances of getting 20 wickets and hence winning and more draws. And since we've already seen that these are one of the best bowling eras in the world having 7 batters doesn't guarantee draw let alone wins. Hence the gamble
And regarding it being a bowling era and being tough for batters, that's precisely why you need another batter! If it's juicy conditions can't your four seamers get you 20 wickets? What's a finger spinner going to do on a green top?
An extra batter doesn't do anything other than take the score to respectability. Like even South Africa played 5 out and out bowlers in the recent series! A finger spinner adds a variety and they come into the game as it goes along.
And I think you've heard Jarrod talk about pitches and how they behave. Is the green top like the one in Hagley Oval or the one in Hobart?
In the end, we can argue till the cows come home, but we won't be any further precisely because all the decisions are subjective and can be argued either way from hindsight.
All I'm saying is it makes prudent sense to know your team's strengths and weaknesses and make decisions based on that - if we know that our batting is weak because of a shaky middle order then when we win the toss on a pitch with grass in a series with lot of assistance for the seamers why not bowl first and give ur strong bowling attack the best use of conditions to get an advantage earlyup! Same as how england should've bowled first at the gabba and finally learnt their mistake and chose to bowl first in hobart
Regarding south africa picking maharaj, I think it's clear he contributes more as a nightwatchman vs india than as a bowler! I don't know if they had another batter in reserve but if they did they would've been better served picking that batter since maharaj was barely called on to bowl and when he was it was against pant which was a laughable mistake given his record of obliterating left hand finger spin
Green top like the one in headingley, but generally in South Africa this series too
If it's subjective then why just stick with one theory why not try another, once we saw that it was a clear mistake to bat first at headingley why repeat that in South Africa?
There's averages and there's specifics based on the conditions - how much has jadeja averaged in England or south africa? How much of his par score are when the team is 60/5 rather than 250/5? When the team is 60/5 would you rather have a proper batsman who can stem the rot or an all-rounder who'll be out of his batting depth in those conditions? How has jadeja's bowling averages been last couple of years? Is it worth on a green top when jadeja can't get any purchase and can't contribute much with the bat either?
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cricket/why-are-you-so-rigid-why-so-adamant-ex-opener-aakash-chopra-tears-down-on-india-s-batting-during-south-africa-tests-101642250300928.html
He has a point, we could've taken an extra batter in vihari instead of ashwin, ashwin wasn't getting much help in the conditions, if at all he was hell-bent on five bowlers he could've taken ishant instead for all-seam, but he wanted the batting cushion of ashwin, so why not take vihari the more accomplished batter and get the real batting boost that was needed!
Also team selection? Not the squad that selectors select, but which eleven take the field - I think he was behind the game in that respect as well, his blind obsession with jadeja instead of ashwin for variety in bowling attack, his taking of ishant in the wtc final and two back to backs in england instead of siraj when ishant didn't look fit, continued backing of pujara and rahane resulting in a shaky batting lineup for a while, not having the talk with pant about his role in a five batsman lineup in difficult conditions like south africa until the team management felt it necessary after the second test.. Then the toss and what to do upon winning the toss, batting first on a green top like headingley putting his batters in more pressure than necessary, it's like he had that macho thing that oh we can take it, when reality was that maybe he could take it but he wasn't seeing in terms of the rest of the batsmen - even in the third south africa test selecting to bat first when seeing grass, and when seeing that the pitches in South Africa were becoming better to bat in fourth innings - even Rahul got influenced by kohli's strategy in selecting to bat first in the second test!
I think this is a case of Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc.
On hindsight we see and can tell that these were right or wrong decisions.
And if you've watched Jarrod's videos, Jadeja has averaged over 50 in the past few years with the bat. I mean he's an all rounder and keeps the over rate in check too.
And we can't blame the batters in this era of juiced pitches and amazing fast bowling! Like even Steve Smith the god of batting is averaging 37 since Ashes 2019 and he hasn't batted anywhere else in the world apart from Australia during that time. It is hard to be a batsman in this era. Period.
And he has always been rigid because 20 wickets win you matches. Having 4 bowlers reduces the chances of getting 20 wickets and hence winning and more draws. And since we've already seen that these are one of the best bowling eras in the world having 7 batters doesn't guarantee draw let alone wins. Hence the gamble
And regarding it being a bowling era and being tough for batters, that's precisely why you need another batter! If it's juicy conditions can't your four seamers get you 20 wickets? What's a finger spinner going to do on a green top?
An extra batter doesn't do anything other than take the score to respectability. Like even South Africa played 5 out and out bowlers in the recent series! A finger spinner adds a variety and they come into the game as it goes along.
And I think you've heard Jarrod talk about pitches and how they behave. Is the green top like the one in Hagley Oval or the one in Hobart?
In the end, we can argue till the cows come home, but we won't be any further precisely because all the decisions are subjective and can be argued either way from hindsight.
All I'm saying is it makes prudent sense to know your team's strengths and weaknesses and make decisions based on that - if we know that our batting is weak because of a shaky middle order then when we win the toss on a pitch with grass in a series with lot of assistance for the seamers why not bowl first and give ur strong bowling attack the best use of conditions to get an advantage earlyup! Same as how england should've bowled first at the gabba and finally learnt their mistake and chose to bowl first in hobart
Regarding south africa picking maharaj, I think it's clear he contributes more as a nightwatchman vs india than as a bowler! I don't know if they had another batter in reserve but if they did they would've been better served picking that batter since maharaj was barely called on to bowl and when he was it was against pant which was a laughable mistake given his record of obliterating left hand finger spin
Green top like the one in headingley, but generally in South Africa this series too
If it's subjective then why just stick with one theory why not try another, once we saw that it was a clear mistake to bat first at headingley why repeat that in South Africa?
There's averages and there's specifics based on the conditions - how much has jadeja averaged in England or south africa? How much of his par score are when the team is 60/5 rather than 250/5? When the team is 60/5 would you rather have a proper batsman who can stem the rot or an all-rounder who'll be out of his batting depth in those conditions? How has jadeja's bowling averages been last couple of years? Is it worth on a green top when jadeja can't get any purchase and can't contribute much with the bat either?
This is great Jarrod!