keep it cool
I think then it is a matter of view. Coz in my opinion
- You can groom a youngster when it is a stop gap arrangement; even if he fails, at least you have a back up available in the form of the regular player as and when he comes in
- On the other hand, if you need to find a regular in the middle order, you need an experienced hand who knows something about being there. In any case, there is no percentage in playing a person who may have just a few years of cricket ahead of him in the occassional test, as it takes away the opportunity of trying out a person in a live environment.
why would you want to test player in a stop gap arrangement just because he is young when there is a player in better form available. Shouldn’t one select the best available team –you are playing for your country, why wouldn’t you go for the best now. And if the best now based on form is the young player, then so be it.
Trying out a person in a live environment is fine and dandy with me even in a one off opportunity provided the person has earned his spurs (read current form), not based on an age criteria that trumps form.
The bottom line goal should be best team, best performance.
The argument is that if it’s a stop gap situation, play your best option based on form irrespective of age as long as the youth brigade get their opportunities for international exposure in the ODI’s.
Now, on the test v/s ODI issue
- it is good that YS did come to the fore playing ODIs; so did Sehwag. But then we also have the likes of jadeja and robin singh who played well over time in ODIs and looked totally out of their depth in the tests ... micheal bevan of Australia is another case in point. My point is that it is not necessary that a test player will be good at ODIs or vice versa .. they may be more than 50% of the time, but there is still a good probability that the transition may not be made.
Oh absolutely agree about separating the chaff (ODIs) from the wheat (tests). But what purpose will giving these players a one off chance in a test team solve ? The only way you will separate the Shewag from the Jadejas is when you get a chance to give them an extended run in the test version and currently that opportunity is non existent due to packed middle order. These one off chances does not settle the question one way or the other. At the end of the day, every potential player in form needs to be given a reasonable run in tests (consecutive) to see if they cut it or not.
- On the Australian example, sure they do not keep many reserves, but then the standard of their domestic cricket is also very high .. the gulf between sheffield shield and test cricket is not as yawning as we see in India. Even here, and correct me if I am wrong, the Aussies did not go back to a darren lehman or a damien martyn in the test matches when clarke failed. They opted for brad hodge, who probably they feel is a much more longer term prospect although maybe not in the same class. Neither have they gone back to a matthew hayden in ODIs when one of the openers got injured or dropped out - they opted to play jaques instead, give him a feel of the international scene, and then reverted to katich when he was available. So, what is being done out here is not so different really.
I am not talking about the domestic cricket standards between India and Australia. I agree our system is less of a preparation for test cricket, which is why I emphasized other international exposure such as ODIs (should have included A team, BP XI against touring sides et all).
And I mentioned several other teams including Australia, not specifically the Aussies. The point I made again has to do with the general procedure of transitioning from ODI’s before tests rather than specific selection decisions which can be debated either way. And your examples do not show anything contrary to that.
In your example, Lehman does not figure in the equation because he really took himself out of the equation. As for Martyn, I personally did not agree with the Australian selection decision to exclude him. What you are arguing here is that they selected youth over experience –frankly, Hodge isn’t a spring chicken for one. Secondly he was tested in ODI’s before his transition. And thirdly, he was selected for a direct opening in the playing XI, not a reserve spot. Even if Hodge plays the role of a reserve, he was selected based on form, not for his youth alone.
Either way, The argument you are putting forward with examples of Aussie selection relates to youth vs experience question whereas my reference to their system (among others) was based on the principle of ODI experience transitioning into a test spot when available –separate points of thrust I believe. As far as the Odi’s there is a prevailing thought in Australia about hayden clearing his cobwebs (which his test form of late suggests he has) before they consider bringing him back, which they may or may not do taking into account his age –kinda similar to what we did with SG and VVS vis-à-vis ODIs. But again this example relates to the youth vs experience issue as opposed to the context in which I mentioned Australia.
My quotation of a strength of the Australian system is not meant to imply that their system is infallible – The examples you are quoting relate to selection decisions regarding youth vs experience. This addresses a separate point and really does not refute or disprove the general principle I referred to –which is that Australians along with several others groom players through the ODI’s before transitioning them into tests when slots are available.
And I agree there have been a multitude of reasons given for SG's exclusion ... which I believe is a sad state of affairs ... but do you think this is to hide GC's ego or to handle the SG situation. Let us accept it, whether we want him in the team or not, SG is a border line case today; he is in no way one of the certainties. And there seems (and this is only what I percieve; may not be true) that there has been external pressure to include him in the team in the tests against SL and Pak. In this context, first a selector has to explain why they picked him and then why they dropped him .. Obviously, it would come out as a confused set of statements. To my mind, where the selectors or More goofed up was in not coming out straight with the reasons to keep him out ... just a simple "he is no longer getting young, not playing well enough to conclusively edge out any of the younger prospects and we want to focus on building a team to avoid the pain of sudden transition" would have been enough. It would still have led to a widespread debate and protests, but would at least have been a statement of intent.
The key here is that whatever be the divergence in reasons given, it still does not take away from the fact that when viewed against the experience (current) v/s youth (future) equation, SG does not seem to offer a significantly higher value proposition than the available youth options to warrant plumping for experience. Of course, this is only my view ... but it is as credible (if not more) as the opposite view. Ascribing the entire issue just to GC's ego is really taking the easy way out. GC's ego would have not been able to do anything had SG not presented such a weak case for himself.
On the contrary ascribing this to ego is not taking the easy way out. Its is putting yourself in those shoes and imagining the natural human reaction to such a spat (and make no mistake, it was a bad spat –I am not sure whether you have followed all the reports, but there were ugly and volatile exchanges between the 2). You apply common psychology and some of this is evident.
Also, when you quote pressure to include SG in SL and Pak as a defense for the convoluted and tortured logic that the selectors have provided to justify SG’s inclusion and exclusion, You are forgetting to take into account the fact that the pressure did not manufacture itself – it arose because it was unheard of that a player (whatever his failings in the past season) would be dropped after scoring a hundred 2 tests before, irrespective of the opposition.
Also, it arose because of the player doing well in domestic cricket --indication that he was coming out of the form slump. The pressure also arose because he performed reasonably well against SL on a difficult pitch only to be dropped in the next test (changing the winning combination be damned) in favor of a player (MK) who was going through a bad run of scores.
And by concentrating only on the post selection committee meeting press briefings, you are ignoring leaked reports of what happened in the meetings – and what kind of objections were raised against the player and more importantly by whom. Yes these are leaks, but when you have different media sources in the country reporting independently more or less the same story, then you know that this is a story that probably needs to be taken seriously.
Like I said, you have to look at things in perspective, serially, and in order to make the conclusion. And that is mine.
And I say that without exonerating SG from his part in the mess – he is responsible for the spat as well. But the guy paid the price for it too. Captaincy, ODI spot, test spot. But to continue denying him even the one off opportunity to prove his worth and capability (when he is in form) by any and every means possible and using every excuse conceivable and then some, reeks of agenda.
Again you may agree or disagree with this part. I respect your right to disagree, so I shall not prolong this discussion further.
AuthorTopic: Balance of power needed. (Read 7246 times)
February 10, 2006, 01:52:43 AM