Ranji Season 2008-09

Pujara's match winning knock in second innings in Saurashtra's last league game shows he has the temperament to handle pressure and bat purposefully even in last innings. The twin 300s are no fluke this season. This lad definately should be up the pecking order for Team India somewhere. I am surprised he wasn't tried in the first class game against the visiting England side last month.

Jaffar could as well get a 400 and still it wouldn't have changed his fortunes. His India test career is truely over. Doesn't look like GG will be offset unless he flops really badly over a period of 6 months over 3 sereis at least......

Can there be anyone more crap than Jaffar, wasting prime time recalls to the test team 3 times now?

why did Mumbai bat for so long?

on a flat track 1st innings leads will determine the winner of the contest. the only way bombay will not reach the finals is if saurashtra scores more runs in the 1st innings. trying to give them no chance

there has to be a better way than 1st innings leads to decide matches. else more bowler-friendly wickets

PlanetPakistan wrote:why did Mumbai bat for so long?

The points system of Ranji Trophy is to blame. It actually deters teams from playing for a result and encourages safe play, playing for a draw especially a first innings lead is always a priority. In drawn matches, points are not divided equally and more points are given to teams getting a first innings lead, so everyone wants to score big in the first dig and ensure a lead so that they don't have to worry about losing either the game or the extra points. Safe play it is then and no one cares for the result as long as they etch out more points to qualify. Any result to the game is a mere side effect, a secondary result. Thus aggression goes out of window unless the team is in a strong position and teams never start out with the first objective to win, but with a primary objective of getting a lead, no matter how much time is lost from the 4 days available. Teams only go for a result depending on the lead and time left. But the gameplan is never to play for a result outright in the first dig to win.

Stoopid BCCI, Stupdi rules and idiotic system.

The One wrote:on a flat track 1st innings leads will determine the winner of the contest. the only way bombay will not reach the finals is if saurashtra scores more runs in the 1st innings. trying to give them no chance

there has to be a better way than 1st innings leads to decide matches. else more bowler-friendly wickets

In the 1999 Asian test championship they had an interesting points system

IIRC it was something like

0-100 runs- 1 point
100-150- 2 points
150-225- 3 points
225- 400- 4 points
400+ 5 points

Similar thing with bowling as well.

The reason why this illogical practice was put in was back in the days of all out flat pitches, last decade, there were too many draws and too many crap teams playing the premier round turning the whole event a damp squib. The points system was meant to add some meaning to drawn matches instead of trying to make the pitches better and sporting for getting more results. Now the same ridiculous points system has become the achilles heel as it has killed all merits of the game once the first innings is over as by and large the winner is already decided based on the lead.

Games like the last Saurashtra game where a side wins chasing 300+ despite conceding a 100 run lead in the first innings becomes a miracle, an aberration.

The stoopid system gives no credit for teams that play well out of their skins to fight out a draw in case they have had a bad day in the first innings or if they have conceded a huge lead.

It's plain stoopid!

PlanetPakistan wrote:

The One wrote:on a flat track 1st innings leads will determine the winner of the contest. the only way bombay will not reach the finals is if saurashtra scores more runs in the 1st innings. trying to give them no chance

there has to be a better way than 1st innings leads to decide matches. else more bowler-friendly wickets

In the 1999 Asian test championship they had an interesting points system

IIRC it was something like

0-100 runs- 1 point
100-150- 2 points
150-225- 3 points
225- 400- 4 points
400+ 5 points

Similar thing with bowling as well.

But it still will have the same results. People getting a 100 plus lead in first innings say with 400-450 runs on board will still manipulate the points system to draw matches and march ahead. In 1999 Asian test Championship, It was this system that Pakistan manipulated by 'allowing' Lanka to bat well in the first innings in the league test, so they could bat India out of the final on Points system [similiar to manipulating the NRR where more than 2 teams are involved in which the top qualifying team has the luxury of manipulating the NRR of dead matches to choose who will make the finals]. It just leads to more fixing.

The only way to have good matches and meaningful points is to have good sporting pitches that gives both sides a chance. Only skill can decide in which case and if anyone still fights out a draw, they deserve an equal share of the points.

Perhaps we need a system where bonus points can be given depending on margins of victories like in some one day tournaments. That would make a result more tempting over labourous manipulation of first innings scores and strategies aimed at draws first hand.

Huge wicket for Mumbai, Pujara gone for 39 trying to play a cheeky shot off Powar.

i think a better system might be to restrict the 1st innings to say 120 overs. will encourage attacking play and also allow 120 overs for the second innings

The One wrote:i think a better system might be to restrict the 1st innings to say 120 overs. will encourage attacking play and also allow 120 overs for the second innings

But then that kind of FC match will have a forced tempo like you have in ODIs and it isn't ideal for the preparation of young players for test matches.

Btw, Mumbai could get Kotak out in time who played an excellent defiant inning and on this docile track, his risk-free nature of game gives very little chance to a bowler to pick his wicket.

My observation:

I'm not very impressed by Pujara. He didn't handle the short deliveries from Khan and Agarkar that efficiently, though he was quite comfortable against Kulkarni who rarely bowled accurately. His onside and off-side strokes are fine.

I'm not impressed by Kulkarni at all because he was way off the target in 90% of his deliveries.

I'm not impressed by Rahane who was too slow and could hardly time the strokes. If he scored 1000 runs with this kind of game, then that speaks a volume about the quality of competition in Ranji.

But he didn't, both Pujara and Rahane's SRs are pretty high.

Rahane was probably inspired by Kotak.

The One wrote:i think a better system might be to restrict the 1st innings to say 120 overs. will encourage attacking play and also allow 120 overs for the second innings

But then such a limitation could deprive batsmen from making 300+ runs which usually are rare even in FC matches. It would restrict any new batting records from taking place as well as deprive bowlers from taking more wickets in certain matches. It just takes the fizz out. Having bonus points in proportion to the margin of victories is a much better option and incentive. Also the financial incentive can be revamped a bit so that winning teams take more money from the game. That would make playing for a result a priority....

Batman wrote:

The One wrote:i think a better system might be to restrict the 1st innings to say 120 overs. will encourage attacking play and also allow 120 overs for the second innings

But then such a limitation could deprive batsmen from making 300+ runs which usually are rare even in FC matches. It would restrict any new batting records from taking place as well as deprive bowlers from taking more wickets in certain matches. It just takes the fizz out. Having bonus points in proportion to the margin of victories is a much better option and incentive. Also the financial incentive can be revamped a bit so that winning teams take more money from the game. That would make playing for a result a priority....

Don't you know that the teams already get a bonus point in Ranji if they win by an inning or even 10 wickets?

Go and check the points table. You'll get it.

the innings restrictions are only needed for the knock-out phase, not for the league. all the various other systems have absolutely no use in knock-outs

If Saurashtra bats through today and tomorrow is rained out then Mumbai will be knocked out of Ranji trophy.

Such is the bizarreness of the new rule for SFs. For finals, run rates of the final will count.

Apparently, run rates of both teams till the last game will be taken into account if even one innings of each team is finished in a knockout game prior to the final. And Saurashtra (2.34) is ahead of Mumbai (2.071) in that regard.

Previous rule of quotient ceases to exist from this session onwards.

And it appears that both teams weren't aware of this rule till 3rd morning.

And thats when Jaffer decided to declare at Mumbai's overnight score to have a crack at Saurashtra.

Chandan wrote:

Batman wrote:

The One wrote:i think a better system might be to restrict the 1st innings to say 120 overs. will encourage attacking play and also allow 120 overs for the second innings

But then such a limitation could deprive batsmen from making 300+ runs which usually are rare even in FC matches. It would restrict any new batting records from taking place as well as deprive bowlers from taking more wickets in certain matches. It just takes the fizz out. Having bonus points in proportion to the margin of victories is a much better option and incentive. Also the financial incentive can be revamped a bit so that winning teams take more money from the game. That would make playing for a result a priority....

Don't you know that the teams already get a bonus point in Ranji if they win by an inning or even 10 wickets?

Go and check the points table. You'll get it.

My idea is to have more points on various factors. Say win by 50 -100 runs/by 2-3 wickets = 1 point. Win by an innings/7-10 wickets/Chasing sucessfully over 250 runs = 3 points. Anything else in between = 2 points. That would make it more meaningful for teams that really play well. More incentives for more hard work including more match fees.

bombay vs UP for the final. no. 38 seems close

The One wrote:bombay vs UP for the final. no. 38 seems close

What was the result of neutral venues? We got to watch one inning wonders in both semifinals!

If a bowling line-up of Zaheer-Agarkar, Kulkarni, Nayar and Powar found it difficult, wonder which domestic team could have taken 20 wickets!

TN-UP match was little exciting as S Shukla played a marathon knock and that too with tail.

Somehow, I'm really disappointed by Ranji matches this season.

Amish Saheba strikes again.

He gave 2 horrendous decisions against Saurashtra who could've made the finals (justly or unjustly) by batting on for just half an hour more as it rained cats and dogs in Chennai thereafter.

Why this idiot is allowed to officiate at all in ANY match is beyond me!!! He has been officiating in int'l matches since '01. I still remember his ridiculous decision to rule Ganguly out off McGrath in the Goa ODI.

Probably he is India's answer to Ashoka De Silva.

have there ever been competent banindian umpires???..Neutral umps were brought in because of thelack of confidence the cricketing world had about banindian umps...esp on their home soil

BTW Shukla's knock of 178 is 4th longest ever in terms of time spent (821 min) at crease.

Top-3 are,

Rajeev Nayyar 1015m 271 runs
Hanif Mohammad 970m 337 runs
Gary Kirsten 878m 275 runs

SG wrote:BTW Shukla's knock of 178 is 4th longest ever in terms of time spent (821 min) at crease.

Top-3 are,

Rajeev Nayyar 1015m 271 runs
Hanif Mohammad 970m 337 runs
Gary Kirsten 878m 275 runs

....the crowd must have been glued to their seats to keep them there