• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

3rd Test (Lord’s) - 10 July to 14 July

Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Re: Jadeja's approach, the main thing I found odd was that it was totally uniform and undifferentiated, with no attempt to pose any different questions to Stokes and force him to problem solve by attacking certain bowlers (specifically Bashir). Given that Bashir ended up getting the final wicket, that might be something he regrets now.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Spark said:
Re: Jadeja's approach, the main thing I found odd was that it was totally uniform and undifferentiated, with no attempt to pose any different questions to Stokes and force him to problem solve by attacking certain bowlers (specifically Bashir). Given that Bashir ended up getting the final wicket, that might be something he regrets now.
Click to expand...
You do realise that carries a risk of getting out right? Like, a very large risk given the conditions, field placements, match pressure and Jadeja's own skill set.

When he got chances to hit fours - like when the field came up on the 6th ball, or when he got a short and wide one he could flail over the slips - he took it. He's a man not a machine who can hit a six on demand whenever he feels like it. He hit many attacking shots that could not get through the outfielders because of the slowness of the outfield.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
cnerd123 said:
I think you just find cricket as a sport odd. These are people playing in real conditions, not a video game algorithm. He was not perfect but he did extremely well. Most players in his situation would have either gotten out much earlier, or failed to control the strike well enough to take it as deep as he did.
Click to expand...
I don't love the amateur psychoanalysis, nor do I accept that scoring at 2 an over with the tail is actually good because Cricketers Are Human.

I would have said the human element of the game makes my arguments stronger because Jadeja's tactics made England very comfortable. When you go after bowlers trying to break a 9th and 10th wicket partnership in a high-pressure situation their lines and lengths often fall apart.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
cnerd123 said:
You do realise that carries a risk of getting out right? Like, a very large risk given the conditions, field placements, match pressure and Jadeja's own skill set.

When he got chances to hit fours - like when the field came up on the 6th ball, or when he got a short and wide one he could flail over the slips - he took it. He's a man not a machine who can hit a six on demand whenever he feels like it. He hit many attacking shots that could not get through the outfielders because of the slowness of the outfield.
Click to expand...
You know what else was a large risk?

Batting slowly, ensuring that #10 and #11 got exposed to a large number of balls and giving an England a long time to get them out. There are no "risk free" scenarios when you're 8 down with 70 runs to get, so you have to decide which risks are worth taking.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Spark said:
You know what else was a large risk?

Batting slowly, ensuring that #10 and #11 got exposed to a large number of balls and giving an England a long time to get them out. There are no "risk free" scenarios when you're 8 down with 70 runs to get, so you have to decide which risks are worth taking.
Click to expand...
Yes but there are degrees of risk. Suggesting he made a mistake by not attacking earlier is just wrong. There's a higher chance of him getting out rather than succeeding. He needed to remain not out at the end of it if India were to win, all he could do was shield Siraj and Bumrah to the best of his ability.

It nearly worked. Bumrah got impatient and Siraj middled the ball that ended up on his stumps. His performance is the only reason we didn't lose before Tea.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
Spark said:
Could not have picked a worse example than Cummins for this list, a guy who has literally won multiple Test matches through his batting.

If you want a specific example of a case where a bowler should have been picked over the slightly better (or more credentialed bowler) specifically because of his batting, Neser in 2023 is the best example of this. Still think that him not playing a single game that series was a massive blunder that might have made the difference in the series.
Click to expand...
Cummins first and foremost isn't picked to bat at 8, he's picked to bowl and take wickets. That he's got that extra capability is just a cherry on top of the Cummins sundae. The point is that he's not there to provide a bit of batting and a bit of bowling, the way Reddy is in this series. Even with Washington, you can't sit here and say on the whole he's a superior bowler to Kuldeep and that his batting is better than the specialists in the squad. That Reddy and Washington made contributions this game shouldn't suddenly validate the poor strategy of picking them with Jadeja to have some makeshift bowling options as support for the pacers.

I don't need specific Australian examples because in this series we have literally seen how the 4th pacer for India not being a proper bowler and the reduced impact of Indian spinners has hurt them when it comes to taking wickets without giving away too many runs.
 
X

Xix2565

International Regular
Spark said:
Re: Jadeja's approach, the main thing I found odd was that it was totally uniform and undifferentiated, with no attempt to pose any different questions to Stokes and force him to problem solve by attacking certain bowlers (specifically Bashir). Given that Bashir ended up getting the final wicket, that might be something he regrets now.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps with regards to Bashir he could've tried to take on the risk and score more, but I don't think he has the skillset to consistently take on the pacers and clear boundaries against the softer ball the way some other players can.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Uppercut said:
I don't love the amateur psychoanalysis, nor do I accept that scoring at 2 an over with the tail is actually good because Cricketers Are Human.

I would have said the human element of the game makes my arguments stronger because Jadeja's tactics made England very comfortable. When you go after bowlers trying to break a 9th and 10th wicket partnership in a high-pressure situation their lines and lengths often fall apart.
Click to expand...
How is Jadeja supposed to 'go after the bowling' without himself getting out? Which low-risk boundary scoring shots was he not playing? Which empty areas of the field should he have targeted?
 
Daemon

Daemon

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He could have attacked Woakes, Bashir and Root’s over a bit more, but that’s about it in terms of risk reward ratio being in his favour.

I didn’t like him taking a number of singles on the 3rd ball of the over either.

These are valid criticisms imo, but they don’t make it a less than excellent knock.
 
Last edited:
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
the big bambino said:
Yeah calm your farm cnerd123. It was a great effort from Jadeja but India still lost. Surely there can be some constructive criticisms of his choices that don't diminish his performance.
Click to expand...
Constructive criticism is for performances that are below expectations. The top order lost us this game, yet posters want to criticise the one man who made a match of it simply because he's not superhuman. It's really mind boggling.

I suppose this is what you get when you read cricket chat on the internet.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
In my opinion, Expecting Jadeja to bash Woakes or Bashir (on a day 5 breaking pitch) for sixes or boundaries is a bit much, he's a number 6 all rounder and the field was spread out for him to either hit and it would get no run, tempting him to risk a single or he gets out sending it to a fielder. I feel like he was unlucky, a little more support from Sundar, Washington and Bumrah and he'd have his Headingley 2019
 
Last edited:
the big bambino

the big bambino

Cricketer Of The Year
cnerd123 said:
Constructive criticism is for performances that are below expectations. The top order lost us this game, yet posters want to criticise the one man who made a match of it simply because he's not superhuman. It's really mind boggling.

I suppose this is what you get when you read cricket chat on the internet.
Click to expand...
Hey not my fault if you read it, hate it but keep doing it. What a terrible attitude this is. Almost a claim for immunity. Other players have been criticised. Doesn't mean Jadeja shouldn't sit down and reflect too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top