We'll take it, thanks
And in fact, England have gone ahead and taken the initiative by dismissing both Jaffer and Tendulkar. Given that India have only five specialist batsmen (curiously, two of India's spin trio bowled 21 overs compared to Kumble's 29), the pressure is well and truly on them now. Well, well.
My problem with exclusively defensive partnerships, like the one that Jaffer-Dravid put on, is that the opposition never goes out of the equation (or game or whatever your favorite cliche is). If a wicket falls, things are back to square one, and your team is still on the defensive.
My problem with exclusively defensive partnerships, like the one that Jaffer-Dravid put on, is that the opposition never goes out of the equation (or game or whatever your favorite cliche is). If a wicket falls, things are back to square one, and your team is still on the defensive.
posted by Samir Chopra at 6:19 AM
2 Comments:
I thought Dravid and Jaffer went about it in the right way, as India has plenty of attacking lower down in the order. The oppportunity is still there for India to go on the attack.
BTW how do you get Dravid out? He looks unbeatable.
Rolla,
I guess I was responding to the feeling that I thought there was only way for India to win the match, which would have been for them to make England bat on the last day facing a lead of 250. I never thought India would dismiss them for less than 200, with such a small lead to back them up. Turned out OK in the end, I guess.
And about Dravid, yeah, I dunno myself. Its claimed that the Aussies sussed him out in 2004, but I don't know what Dravid wouldn't have figured that out eventually.
Post a Comment
<< Home