*Official* Match 29 - India v South Africa

[Teja.]

Ideally, Nehra shouldn't have been in the team.

If Nehra was indeed in the team, He should have bowled his quota/taken off for being too expensive before the 47th over and Zak should've got the very last over and Dhoni should've ensured Harby got his full 10 overs before.

If Dhoni had a tact-fail and finished Zak's 10 before the 50th over, He should've just given it to Harby.

The idea behind a fast bowler being given is the last over is that he puts the balls fast - in the blockhole. Nehra has not bowled an accurate full delivery more than three times in the 21st century so you don't really have an argument about choosing Nehra over Harbhajan. Another over-looked fail is Harbhajan being given only 9 overs overall. When you have two decent bowlers, You make sure that both of them bowl their full 10 overs each. This incident clearly speaks of no planning and cloudy thinking - leaving your best bowler of the day one over for the 50th over and then being an instinctive ****wit and giving the ball to Nehra. Total joke tbh, No defense at all.

[Spark]

This incident clearly speaks of no planning and cloudy thinking

This

[shankar]

Originally Posted by Teja.

When you have two decent bowlers, You make sure that both of them bowl their full 10 overs each. This incident clearly speaks of no planning and cloudy thinking - leaving your best bowler of the day one over for the 50th over and then being an instinctive ****wit and giving the ball to Nehra. Total joke tbh, No defense at all.

He would have bowled Harbhajan earlier, but couldn't because of the batting powerplay tactically taken by S.Africa. Now, he might have made a mistake not bowling Harbhajan in the powerplay, sure. But the reason for not finishing the quota was not that he forgot about him.

[Teja.]

Nah, I reckon he saved Harby's last over for the 50th over and then had an 'inspired' hunch and bowled Nehra.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Teja.

Nah, I reckon he saved Harby's last over for the 50th over and then had an 'inspired' hunch and bowled Nehra.

Plus, if he did intend Nehra to bowl at the end, he should have bowled BOTH 48 and 50.. Maybe he would have gone for lesser than Munaf to Botha... And would have been warmed up!!!

[Turbinator]

I thought of replying back to all the pessimism in this thread regarding India's chances in this WC, but then decided against it. All seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction after only 2 proper games. Nonetheless, anything I say won't matter, all I can say is wait and watch; India will win this WC. Feel free to bump this if they don't, although I assure you all you won't be getting that chance.

[shankar]

Originally Posted by Teja.

Nah, I reckon he saved Harby's last over for the 50th over and then had an 'inspired' hunch and bowled Nehra.

Nah, Bhajji was actually ready to bowl the 37th over. S.Africa then took the batting powerplay and he then handed the ball to Zaheer. He then resumed bowling from the last over of the powerplay. So he could have only bowled out if he bowled the 50th over. I don't think there was any issue with his planning yesterday.

[Shri]

Originally Posted by Turbinator

I thought of replying back to all the pessimism in this thread regarding India's chances in this WC, but then decided against it. All seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction after only 2 proper games. Nonetheless, anything I say won't matter, all I can say is wait and watch; India will win this WC. Feel free to bump this if they don't, although I assure you all you won't be getting that chance.

Have we beat any non minnow yet? There is your answer. Will be against India till the day of our next game, bastards cost me 100 bucks.

[Prad100w]

Kallis's century instead of Ab's fifty could have won India the match. Damn you Kallis.

[vcs]

Originally Posted by Prad100w

Don't really think it was Dhoni's fault to give Nehra the final over. Surely he would have been criticized it bhajji was given the ball and was smacked for 2 sixes. Having a fast man was the better choice logically. That said, it was simply foolish to bowl length in the final overs. Nehra should have bowled those yorkers. Munaf is guilty of it as well. Only thing Munaf has in the final overs is the slower ball. Hardly seen him bowling yorkers. That led to India's downfall.

Yeah, this. Sick of Patel's length balls in the slog overs, cost us against Shahzad and again yesterday. Nehra is ****ing ****.

[kingkallis]

Why dont we complete Munaf's quota before 42nd 43rd then? He is pretty handy in the middle overs.

[IndiaLose]

Originally Posted by kingkallis

Why dont we complete Munaf's quota before 42nd 43rd then? He is pretty handy in the middle overs.

We?!! That is MSD's job to decide who needs to complete his quota and when. So far his captaincy has been below average in this world cup.

[Blaze 18]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

To be fair that's a stat weighted by Aussies mostly not hosting it and England mostly doing so.

Besides, Sri Lanka in '96?

Wasn't the final in Pakistan? I suppose you could count it; it depends how you look at it.

Anyway, my point was that past records don't really matter - especially in India-Pakistan matches. Regardless of what has happened in previous World Cups, I, as an Indian fan, would much rather have Sri Lanka or New Zealand as our quarterfinal opponent than Australia or Pakistan. Again, that isn't to say New Zealand-Sri Lanka can't beat us; it's just that they aren't as likely to as Australia and Pakistan are.

[Turbinator]

Originally Posted by Shri

Have we beat any non minnow yet? There is your answer. Will be against India till the day of our next game, bastards cost me 100 bucks.

I've heard quite a few people say this, so let's take a trip down memory lane.

T20 WC 2007 - India's first three matches

Vs. Scotland - Rained out
Vs. Pakistan - Match tied
Vs. NZL - India lost by 10 runs

Similarities much? Guess who won that tournament? Point is, we came back strong, it had only been 2 matches and far too early in the tournament.

People are quick to point out my optimism and unrealistic hopes. But if I was to even agree to that, some of you have to agree you've been far too pessimistic and have overreacted to a grand total of two games. If this was any other team, some of you guys would go into the match threads as neutrals and say something along the lines of the team still being dangerous, peaking at the right time, and/or anything can happen in KO stages etc.

My thinking behind this is that, India are a good ODI unit at home. Two games are too little to judge their chances off of. India have a great home record, and are a team that we've seen improve over the years. We just need to get back into form, and all it can take is one game. And if we play great cricket in the next 4 games, this cup is ours.

[Blaze 18]

I am a little tired of the "haven't beaten a non-minnow" line myself. I've seen that put forward on pakpassion about a million times now. Aside from Australia, every team has lost at least a match - India have only lost one, a close one against a quality side at that (yes, that is hard to believe!). Instead of being pessimistic and bashing/criticizing our side, we should be supporting it. Yes, we have some problems; okay, Dhoni made a tactical blunder (I'd still say that's arguable but screw it for now) - so what? From an Indian point of view, it's good that there a few areas we can improve in. I'd have been a lot more uncomfortable going into the knockout stages if we had won each and every match by two hundred runs or ten wickets.