Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[inoc]

inoc:

First of all RD is not a keeper, that was just a gamble we took with his keeping, hoping that extra batsman would help us score more runs. Now, you people turn that logic around and say we had a keeper who could bat higher up the order, and our extra batsman did a little better than others in other teams who were either all-rounders or Wicket keepers.  Shouldn't he have had a lot better average than these all-rounders & wicket keepers?

What should I say? I am spell bound by this logic. Now Dhoni is doing a lot better than MK. (Don't look at just the average. See what targets Dhoni is able to set & what targets he is able to chase at least in India.) So, what now?

Exactly that was my point in that list, by the way it is not my list, it is cricinfo's list for which Kban posted a link. I was flaying that table & the logic of comparing a batsman with all-rounders & Wicket keepers and saying Kaif did a lot better than them.

indcric

first of all you need to understand what i am trying to say.

of course RD is not a WK. Nevertheless he kept wickets for India in 73 ODIs.

The numbers/argument is not based on whether RD was a born/natural/good/poor WK. It is based on the fact that he kept wickets for india in 73 matches. got it?

the fact that he kept wickets for 73 matches allowed india to play a fifth bowler or a seventh batsman (sixth if you consider RD to be a WK). In this situation and this situation alone MK was batting at number 7. in that position he was the best of the lot. i totally agree that he was competing with allrounders/wk in that position but it does not take away that he did well there.

if you have followed any of my previous posts in this thread you will realise that i am not that keen on arguing for MK. credit however must be given whether it falls favourably in my argument or not, there is no turning around of logic here. As you will recall that despite all experts contradicting the plan we actually benefitted immensely from the move of getting RD to keep wickets. firstly in  terms of balance of the side and secondly in terms of improvement in RDs overall batting performance. kudos to the team management and RD for making it possible.

of course the 7th batsman should have a lot better average than the others, as far as the list goes other than hussey (nobody in the world at any position is better than him) and tillakratne, MK was good enough and better than the rest. could he have been better - of course.

MSD is doing better than MK. Good for him. since MK is not in the side we neednt worry about the comparitive performances of MSD/MK.

you dislike MK, no worries, he is not going to be in the side off late. dont however try to demean whatever he has achieved to prove a non existent point.

[indcric]

Inoc

My post was addressed to you, but actually I was answering to Dextrous who said  "Our keeper came earlier because we were just that damn good". That was wrong. Our keeper was not good. He was a batsman who was made a keeper. So, saying that we were that damn good, was totally wrong. We were actually bad enough to choose a batsman as a keeper. We made a gamble by making a batsman a keeper.

The last para in that post was addressed to you. How you people are coming to the conclusion that he did well there? Based  on those averages in that list, which is published on Cricinfo. My point was that when All-rounders (not of calibre of Flintoff, Botham, Kapil etc, but even of lower standard batsmen) could get an average of 30+, and when our 7th batsman had only 33+ average, how come his performance becomes good?

Do you know why those all-rounders' and wicket keepers' averages were good? That was because they were not out in around 30% of their innings. Same is true for Kaif. So, it clearly shows Kaif performed just above those all-rounders and Wicket keepers (who are themselves below average batsmen). So, it means that Kaif is an average batsman. Got it? If you want to say those all-rounders & wicket keepers as good batsmen, then kudos to you. I could not see that light which you guys are seeing.

It is another thing that those same all-rounders & wicket keepers are flamboyant batsmen who go for shots in the final overs, who can take the total to higher limits. That way, they were better No. 7 batsmen than Kaif.

I think you presume a lot of things about other person's likes & dislikes. That is wrong. I don't dislike Kaif. Just that I  think his performances were poor.

There is no demeaning any body. It is  just showing them in the right perspective. The point does exist, only if you guys can see the real picture.

[dextrous]

My post was addressed to you, but actually I was answering to Dextrous who said  "Our keeper came earlier because we were just that damn good". That was wrong. Our keeper was not good. He was a batsman who was made a keeper. So, saying that we were that damn good, was totally wrong. We were actually bad enough to choose a batsman as a keeper. We made a gamble by making a batsman a keeper.

inoc has already summed it up pretty well, but it really does not matter how good our keeper was or even who are keeper was. that has nothing to do with this argument. the point i tried to make was that the keeper was deemed good enough to be playing high up. with that being the case, of course #7 batsman can't be a keeper.

so whether or not we were good/bad about choosing dravid as a keeper has nothing to do with kaif. if the management felt that kaif was killing the balance in the side, they didn't have to pick him. you can't blame kaif for playing!!

[WicketView]

OK, I hope  JFK will accept my sincere apologies as I change my opinion to Kaif fan No 1-50 = jfk. And LN becomes Kaif fan No 51!

But you guys did not answer my question about which position you guys thought to be fit for Kaif (not in terms of batting position but style -> sheet anchor, finisher, opener?

Personally, I think Kaif was better suited to play sheet anchor than finisher for most of his career.  But there are two problems .... since we play a majority of our matches on FTs, a sheet anchor has not got that much to do. Besides, at some point our sheet anchor used to be RD. Anyway, because of this, I used to think that while Yuvi would go on to become the ODI star, Kaif would become our test star. Unfortunately, I was not so sure after watching some recordings of his test innings. Even when he was scoring well, (assuming this meant he was in great form), I did not think he looked like   any of our previous middle order batsmen who have played for a while. Maybe, we will just have to go with a middle order that is not as good, so this could be irrelevant.


LN ,

Thanks for your perspective. If I may ask, does Jadeja (pre match fixing, just like Azhar) make it to the list? What about someone like SRT, who in spite of his talent has also put in the hard yards?

[Zacked]

Kaif not even discussed!
   By: Harit N Joshi
   September 19, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AT a time when Indian fielding is at its nadir, one of the finest in the trade has been left out in the cold.

Mohammad Kaif, the Uttar Pradesh skipper failed to impress selectors for the one-day series against Australia.

He wasn’t even considered, said chairman of selectors Dilip Vengsarkar.

“First, he needs to perform.He is leading the India ‘A’ team and I hope he does well.

“As of now he doesn’t fit in the scheme of things,” Vengsarkar told MiD DAY yesterday.
 
 
http://www.mid-day.com/sports/international/2007/september/164238.htm