Fair to say it's not only modern-day batsmen that are lacking patience, it's true with modern-day fans too. In the era of T20s and more results in Tests, it's hard to find batsmen like Pujara. They need Pujara, Rahane & Vihari to play the way they do for India to keep the series at 1-1.
Will be interesting to see how he plays tomorrow. I doubt India will outright go for the win, but scoring quicker will force Paine to set more defensive fields and might be the best form of defense.
Well written article. Ask any team and they would love to have a Che Pu in their team. Even Aussies would be worried about him then anybody else. May be he is in a lean patch but there is a role set for him to be the backbone of the team and he does that. I don't think any of his partners expect him to up the ante, they all play to their roles. What is the need of scoring runs at a higher rate anyways. Its not like there are prizes for run rates. I think a bowler would be more worn down by just defending or leaving then attacking. An attacking batsmen will keep the bowler more interested. Pujara will bore the bowlers to death. Its just that Aussie bowlers have been impeccable. There were no soft dismissals of Pujara as far as I can see in this series.
Nice elaborate piece on che pu just like the previous one @jarrodkimber. The issue is that we been down this road before with Pujara. He was previously dropped from the team, with strike rate or rather his inability to turn the strike over consistently being pointed out. Maybe someone could just work with him regarding the strike rotation cause we need him and we don't have someone else who could do his job.
People rode the Che Pu bandwagon back in 2018 towards a series victory and now the same are ready to bash him left and right.
Maybe he's moulded himself to bat this way and this team has to live with it and shuffle the middle order around him to suite the match situation. That's the only temporary solution which looks feasible.
This is the funniest/saddest bit "People rode the Che Pu bandwagon back in 2018 towards a series victory and now the same are ready to bash him left and right."
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
First of all, thanks for a well written piece. It's becoming harder to find good cricket articles these days (not that there are none).
Secondly, fans are allowed to have emotional outbursts. This is, after all, an entertainment industry and we subcontinent fans have always been vocal about our cricket. If Bradman were playing in this social media era, we fans (and some trolls)would probably tell how to bat!!!!
But what I hate the most about this saga is respected pundits like Waugh and Ponting not refining and explaining there statements respectively.
Tbh, I didn't expect a very well put neutral statement from Waugh, he's just old school 'Australian' cricketer.
But I expected Ponting to be have a wider perspective and explain it well enough in such a manner that non-cricketers like us would understand what he exactly wants to say (maybe learn from Harsha!!).
Reading the widespread comments about Pujara's innings feels like so many fans (not all, of course) just don't understand Test Cricket, especially when sub continent teams play in SENA. People just seem to ignore you need to survive to score runs in Test matches, and when the bowlers are bowling in bsolutely incredible discipline, batsmen need to respect that. In the name of modern batting, people want batsmen to throw their wickets away.
And also you can't expect anyone to be as consistently good as the best batsmen of contemporary cricket; please don't compare Che Pu with Smith, Kohli or Willaimson!
So in my opinion, Che Pu did a really good job surviving for 150 odd balls.
And also I want to blame Indian Management for giving space to such a discussion when they dropped him for a 'slow' innings a couple of years back, in WI series if I remember right!
I think there is a fundamental problem with how people see players like Pujara, and by that I mean, if you aren't virtually flawless, you're shit. It's why so many good players are dripped., if you can average 45 in Test cricket, chances are you are struggling away from home, against spin, or something else. If you didn't have those weaknesses, your Smith.
Disagree - people tend to correlate "quick scoring" with slogging. No one is asking Pujara to slog. But Pujara is playing for a "tag". He is billed as "solid", "gutsy" , "the wall" and all those other clichés associated with blocking.
If a batsman has played out a 100 balls, then the onus is on him to take the game forward. No one is asking Pujara to go aerial. But, getting 2 or 3 an over in singles should not be too hard for modern day batsmen. And he shirks his responsibility by playing so long and not capitalizing on that.
The second issue I have with Che Pu is that he keeps bowlers fresh. Yes, Test cricket is a game of "breaking down the bowlers". But you break bowlers as much by scoring, as you do by wearing them down in the field. Che Pu keeps bowlers and fielders interested all the time. Best examples are Smitty and Marnus in the way they countered Ashwin
And finally, for all the Che Pu aficionados out there, I challenge the premise that he is technically one of the best in the world. Technically sound batsmen can evolve themselves into good fast scoring batsmen. Look at Williamson - the guy can block all day and yet play 30 ball-75s in T20s. THAT is my definition of a technically sound batsman. Pujara does his team no favors by spending time without killing the opposition.
Any extra attacking is riskier. This taking the game forward stuff is modern cricket nonsense. His job is to blunt the best bowlers and the ball, two things he did. I never said he had the best technique, that’s irrelevant anyway, only runs really matter. Yes, Pujara is not as good as Williamson, huge slight on him there.
Disagree again. How is looking for 2 singles an over, risky? I am not advocating silly dil-scoops or reverse flicks. Fine, don't call it "take the game forward" (I hate that too btw!) but the reality is the Smith, Labuchagne approach is more effective than the block all day approach.
If deflating the opposition by blocking is his role, then Pujara should rediscover his leggies (his cricinfo profile says he bowls leg spin) and bat 8. As a number 8 , scoring 14 off 140 will absolutely kill the opposition as it makes them impatient. But, a top order guy scoring at that strike rate would make modern bowlers keep coming back at the opposition. Acknowledging the sarcasm on my Kane comment, but I was simply giving an example of what a model "blocker" should play like. Pujara is a top order player and not a night watchman. He has to discover a non-risky upper gear if he wants his team to win.
Taking two singles an over from Pat Cummins bowling like that is more risky. You have to open or close the face, both dangerous. It means you are an increased chance of a run out, as you're trying to manufacture a single, see Vihari. Had Pujara tried this twice an over I don't think he makes it to lunch. It's also not his game, when batting is tough, and you are facing the absolute best bowlers in the world, you should go with your game plan, especially when it was working. He didn't make 14 from 140 balls, he made a 50, the equal top score. he literally batted like this when India won the last time in Australia. I cannot even with this.
I think Pujara's approach is in part due to his limited range of strokes. He will only score when the ball seems to be a scoreable one from his repertoire and he absolutely doesn't give his wicket away playing shots he hasn't perfected. He can blunt all day till the ball he wants to score arrives. To score the number of runs that he has at his average with his limited range is a phenomenal achievement and a tribute to his mental strength. He is a role-specific batsman and is good at one type of batting (god-level in that), and that is also the reason why you won't see him in limited overs cricket where guys have to play shots they don't have.
Pujara was 16 off 100 balls and scored the remaining 34 of his runs off a fair clip in 74 balls after rahane got out recognizing the need for him to accelerate - perhaps vihari was following pujara's trajectory too much? Rahane could've begun to be more positive earlier, if pujara sees himself as the rock then the other partner needs to be more positive
I think thing he found the need to accelerate, he had faced 100 balls, he was set, he often gets quicker through an innings which is obviously a common thing. Rahane tried to be positive and went out.
The other comparison with 2018 was that our openers were shot and so pujara kept coming to stabilize the innings whereas in this instance the openers had set the platform of 70 and so now the number 3 and 4 should be being positive, pujara and rahane made 11 off 70 in that last session wanting to preserve their wickets and then the first session also it was very careful, even rohit one could say was tentative and thus got out to a soft push caught and bowled. In general the top 4 (apart from gill) are worried about not enough support below them so are being very careful first - it's probably fine on other pitches but on pitches that are deteriorating and getting up and down it's just going to get harder. Vihari made it worse, if someone like a pant was in at that point it might've been a different story. Pujara and vihari both at the crease it's like two pujara's
Fair to say it's not only modern-day batsmen that are lacking patience, it's true with modern-day fans too. In the era of T20s and more results in Tests, it's hard to find batsmen like Pujara. They need Pujara, Rahane & Vihari to play the way they do for India to keep the series at 1-1.
If only puj were English!
Will be interesting to see how he plays tomorrow. I doubt India will outright go for the win, but scoring quicker will force Paine to set more defensive fields and might be the best form of defense.
People moan because they are watching Test cricket but expecting a T20.
This does seem to be true.
Well written article. Ask any team and they would love to have a Che Pu in their team. Even Aussies would be worried about him then anybody else. May be he is in a lean patch but there is a role set for him to be the backbone of the team and he does that. I don't think any of his partners expect him to up the ante, they all play to their roles. What is the need of scoring runs at a higher rate anyways. Its not like there are prizes for run rates. I think a bowler would be more worn down by just defending or leaving then attacking. An attacking batsmen will keep the bowler more interested. Pujara will bore the bowlers to death. Its just that Aussie bowlers have been impeccable. There were no soft dismissals of Pujara as far as I can see in this series.
Yeah, he's clearly not in form. But you are right, a lot of teams would love to have him.
Nice elaborate piece on che pu just like the previous one @jarrodkimber. The issue is that we been down this road before with Pujara. He was previously dropped from the team, with strike rate or rather his inability to turn the strike over consistently being pointed out. Maybe someone could just work with him regarding the strike rotation cause we need him and we don't have someone else who could do his job.
People rode the Che Pu bandwagon back in 2018 towards a series victory and now the same are ready to bash him left and right.
Maybe he's moulded himself to bat this way and this team has to live with it and shuffle the middle order around him to suite the match situation. That's the only temporary solution which looks feasible.
This is the funniest/saddest bit "People rode the Che Pu bandwagon back in 2018 towards a series victory and now the same are ready to bash him left and right."
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
First of all, thanks for a well written piece. It's becoming harder to find good cricket articles these days (not that there are none).
Secondly, fans are allowed to have emotional outbursts. This is, after all, an entertainment industry and we subcontinent fans have always been vocal about our cricket. If Bradman were playing in this social media era, we fans (and some trolls)would probably tell how to bat!!!!
But what I hate the most about this saga is respected pundits like Waugh and Ponting not refining and explaining there statements respectively.
Tbh, I didn't expect a very well put neutral statement from Waugh, he's just old school 'Australian' cricketer.
But I expected Ponting to be have a wider perspective and explain it well enough in such a manner that non-cricketers like us would understand what he exactly wants to say (maybe learn from Harsha!!).
Reading the widespread comments about Pujara's innings feels like so many fans (not all, of course) just don't understand Test Cricket, especially when sub continent teams play in SENA. People just seem to ignore you need to survive to score runs in Test matches, and when the bowlers are bowling in bsolutely incredible discipline, batsmen need to respect that. In the name of modern batting, people want batsmen to throw their wickets away.
And also you can't expect anyone to be as consistently good as the best batsmen of contemporary cricket; please don't compare Che Pu with Smith, Kohli or Willaimson!
So in my opinion, Che Pu did a really good job surviving for 150 odd balls.
And also I want to blame Indian Management for giving space to such a discussion when they dropped him for a 'slow' innings a couple of years back, in WI series if I remember right!
I think there is a fundamental problem with how people see players like Pujara, and by that I mean, if you aren't virtually flawless, you're shit. It's why so many good players are dripped., if you can average 45 in Test cricket, chances are you are struggling away from home, against spin, or something else. If you didn't have those weaknesses, your Smith.
I agree a 100%. And sadly, those people will not change their perspective or opinion, be it commentators and pundits or just fans.
The only solace we have is writers like you, whose opinion are unbiased and aren't based on populist behaviour. So Kudos to you (and others).
Disagree - people tend to correlate "quick scoring" with slogging. No one is asking Pujara to slog. But Pujara is playing for a "tag". He is billed as "solid", "gutsy" , "the wall" and all those other clichés associated with blocking.
If a batsman has played out a 100 balls, then the onus is on him to take the game forward. No one is asking Pujara to go aerial. But, getting 2 or 3 an over in singles should not be too hard for modern day batsmen. And he shirks his responsibility by playing so long and not capitalizing on that.
The second issue I have with Che Pu is that he keeps bowlers fresh. Yes, Test cricket is a game of "breaking down the bowlers". But you break bowlers as much by scoring, as you do by wearing them down in the field. Che Pu keeps bowlers and fielders interested all the time. Best examples are Smitty and Marnus in the way they countered Ashwin
And finally, for all the Che Pu aficionados out there, I challenge the premise that he is technically one of the best in the world. Technically sound batsmen can evolve themselves into good fast scoring batsmen. Look at Williamson - the guy can block all day and yet play 30 ball-75s in T20s. THAT is my definition of a technically sound batsman. Pujara does his team no favors by spending time without killing the opposition.
Any extra attacking is riskier. This taking the game forward stuff is modern cricket nonsense. His job is to blunt the best bowlers and the ball, two things he did. I never said he had the best technique, that’s irrelevant anyway, only runs really matter. Yes, Pujara is not as good as Williamson, huge slight on him there.
Disagree again. How is looking for 2 singles an over, risky? I am not advocating silly dil-scoops or reverse flicks. Fine, don't call it "take the game forward" (I hate that too btw!) but the reality is the Smith, Labuchagne approach is more effective than the block all day approach.
If deflating the opposition by blocking is his role, then Pujara should rediscover his leggies (his cricinfo profile says he bowls leg spin) and bat 8. As a number 8 , scoring 14 off 140 will absolutely kill the opposition as it makes them impatient. But, a top order guy scoring at that strike rate would make modern bowlers keep coming back at the opposition. Acknowledging the sarcasm on my Kane comment, but I was simply giving an example of what a model "blocker" should play like. Pujara is a top order player and not a night watchman. He has to discover a non-risky upper gear if he wants his team to win.
Taking two singles an over from Pat Cummins bowling like that is more risky. You have to open or close the face, both dangerous. It means you are an increased chance of a run out, as you're trying to manufacture a single, see Vihari. Had Pujara tried this twice an over I don't think he makes it to lunch. It's also not his game, when batting is tough, and you are facing the absolute best bowlers in the world, you should go with your game plan, especially when it was working. He didn't make 14 from 140 balls, he made a 50, the equal top score. he literally batted like this when India won the last time in Australia. I cannot even with this.
I think Pujara's approach is in part due to his limited range of strokes. He will only score when the ball seems to be a scoreable one from his repertoire and he absolutely doesn't give his wicket away playing shots he hasn't perfected. He can blunt all day till the ball he wants to score arrives. To score the number of runs that he has at his average with his limited range is a phenomenal achievement and a tribute to his mental strength. He is a role-specific batsman and is good at one type of batting (god-level in that), and that is also the reason why you won't see him in limited overs cricket where guys have to play shots they don't have.
It probably comes from him not having many shots. It may also fit his temperament.
Finally some sensible writing! Great read, really enjoyed it
Cheers
Also not to be a grammar Nazi but it's US Capitol building not Capital building :)
Weirdly I wrote it that way and it autocorrected to this. And being that is was five am I didn’t check.
Pujara was 16 off 100 balls and scored the remaining 34 of his runs off a fair clip in 74 balls after rahane got out recognizing the need for him to accelerate - perhaps vihari was following pujara's trajectory too much? Rahane could've begun to be more positive earlier, if pujara sees himself as the rock then the other partner needs to be more positive
I think thing he found the need to accelerate, he had faced 100 balls, he was set, he often gets quicker through an innings which is obviously a common thing. Rahane tried to be positive and went out.
The other comparison with 2018 was that our openers were shot and so pujara kept coming to stabilize the innings whereas in this instance the openers had set the platform of 70 and so now the number 3 and 4 should be being positive, pujara and rahane made 11 off 70 in that last session wanting to preserve their wickets and then the first session also it was very careful, even rohit one could say was tentative and thus got out to a soft push caught and bowled. In general the top 4 (apart from gill) are worried about not enough support below them so are being very careful first - it's probably fine on other pitches but on pitches that are deteriorating and getting up and down it's just going to get harder. Vihari made it worse, if someone like a pant was in at that point it might've been a different story. Pujara and vihari both at the crease it's like two pujara's