Print

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

[jks61]

I think so..unless, Indian team falls flat on its face (England is the one which looks out of place already).....the chances of a come back for SG looks tough....I might be wrong but generally, changes of such magnitude is not going to happen unless the team does very very badly..
---------------------
England in India 2005-06

Ganguly dropped for Nagpur Test

Cricinfo staff

February 23, 2006

Sourav Ganguly has been dropped from the Indian squad for the first Test against England at Nagpur beginning on March 1.

More to follow

Team
Wasim Jaffer, Virender Sehwag, Rahul Dravid (capt) Sachin Tendulkar, VVS Laxman, Mohammad Kaif, Suresh Raina, Mahendra Singh Dhoni (wk), Irfan Pathan, Piyush Chawla, Harbhajan Singh, Anil Kumble, Sreesanth, RP Singh, VRV Singh

[jks61]

why is this forum in camtose mood..after such an important news?

[arjun]

Not camtose- comatose. Get your spelling right even when you want to gloat.

[dhruvdeepak]

Not camtose- comatose. Get your spelling right even when you want to gloat.

and no need to snap either.
I think that SG isnt done yet. There definitely is some fire burning inside, and I cant wait for it to surface.
This team selection was a good one on all counts barring SG's exclusion. There would have been no harm done in giving him a chance and letting Raina wait till the next series.

[Libran]

Not camtose- comatose. Get your spelling right even when you want to gloat.

and no need to snap either.
I think that SG isnt done yet. There definitely is some fire burning inside, and I cant wait for it to surface.
This team selection was a good one on all counts barring SG's exclusion. There would have been no harm done in giving him a chance and letting Raina wait till the next series.

Did Kaif deserve a place in this team after such a pathetic performance in the ODIs ...

[achutank]

please give me credit when this also happens. dhruv is witness.


 Re: BP XI v England at Vadodara, 23-25 Feb 2006
« Reply #13 on: Today at 02:46:26 AM »     

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i am calling it

5 bats 5 bowlers 1 wk, no SG

SRT VS WJ RD VVS MD IP SS HS AK AA

[dhruvdeepak]

hey sorry man  you're wrong. you picked AA

besides, i think the selectors are pretty set on the 11 they want for the 1st Test. PRETTY sure Kaif will be playing at 6, Dhoni at 7, Pathan at 8. Just remains to be seen who gets the Test cap, Sreesanth or VRV? My money's on Sree

[ramshorns]

hey sorry man  you're wrong. you picked AA

could use a hot cup of coffee.

[achutank]

oh yeah i was so sure man. didn' bother to look at the team. they dropped AA

[dhruvdeepak]

AA, Zak, SG, GG are out.

[senthilpeter]

On the other DG, I called Raina and Piyush in... thoroughly kicked am I 

and yeah, I called GG,AA and Zak out too .....

[CLR James]

So yet again, just like  Ahmedabad, Mohammad Kaif will be playing a test match instead of Sourav Ganguly. The latter is not be be given a breath of an opprtunity, even if he looks the best batsman on display against rampant Murali or a rampant Shoaib. For the former it is going to be try try try again till you succeed. GC will make a man out of Kaif, even if it takes 20 test matches to do so.

The only reason the GC-SG affair should be given importance is that it is perhaps the most significant instance of unbridled, raw, personal aggression exercised by a megalomaniac.

[rajg]

VVS and Kaif...two inconsistent performers.....i wonder y no new bats got a chance. I thought Rao may get a chance.

[toney]

I wasnt happy with SG's exclusion. I think he showed enough form in the Karachi test.  Kaif is struggling in oDI cricket and while he may prove me wrong, the chances of him playing a big innings are remote. IMO, they coould have included SG and Raina, kept Kaif out for the series. This should have been SG's last series to prove himself.
In Pak, I dont think he got a fair chance to prove his worth.

The bowling attack looks very inexperienced. At least the pacers. Munaf's figures are infinitely better than VRV's. But didnt the selectors meet during lunch time to select the team? That may be why they decided to bring in VRV. But if the pitch at Nagpur is a dry one, he wont even play. If it is a green one, VRV with his height and the ability to hit the deck might be a better option that Munaf anyhow. My only concern here is experience.

[achutank]

well give kaif three tests , an entire eng series on flat indian pitches in hot, dusty UP plains conditions, if he does not perform you can write him off for a long time in tests and nurture someone else instead

[dhruvdeepak]

well give kaif three tests , an entire eng series on flat indian pitches in hot, dusty UP plains conditions, if he does not perform you can write him off for a long time in tests and nurture someone else instead

i agree with you, except the problem is yuvi will come back and take his rightful spot. so pressure's on Kaif to prove himself, and quick.

[Jai]

well give kaif three tests , an entire eng series on flat indian pitches in hot, dusty UP plains conditions, if he does not perform you can write him off for a long time in tests and nurture someone else instead

Fantastic. But SG should be judged based on not converting 30s and 40s to hundreds although in every innings he played since the infamous saga, he has been involved in big partnerships and not only that, he rarely played two tests in a row. Why not give SG a full series and then judge him? We have different set of rules for different players, eh?

[ramshorns]

Why not give SG a full series and then judge him? We have different set of rules for different players, eh?

Why do you have to say that is only the case with SG?? What happened when VVS was dropped for WC03 and guys like patel, bangar and mongia selected and 2 of them did not even play a game.  Don't you think we could have used a player like VVS against AUS on the SA pitches.  I think SG was the captain then and he sure has a say in the matter then .  What goes around sometimes comes around I guess???In this case I personally feel SG should be in the 15 in Yuvraj's absense as I thought VVS ahould be part of the WC03 under the SG regime.

[Jai]

Dude, we are talking about tests and I was replying to someone's comment about Kaif getting three tests. Since Kaif has been picked in place of SG for a TEST series, that's why I have said what I said about SG (and about nobody else). Makes sense? If we have to look at the broader picture of which players were dropped and didn't get enough chance, then it'll be a long discussion. And yes, it happened in SG's era and prior to that and will happen again. One recent example is Venugopal Rao.

[j]

I wasnt happy with SG's exclusion. I think he showed enough form in the Karachi test.  Kaif is struggling in oDI cricket and while he may prove me wrong, the chances of him playing a big innings are remote. IMO, they coould have included SG and Raina, kept Kaif out for the series. This should have been SG's last series to prove himself.
In Pak, I dont think he got a fair chance to prove his worth.

The bowling attack looks very inexperienced. At least the pacers. Munaf's figures are infinitely better than VRV's. But didnt the selectors meet during lunch time to select the team? That may be why they decided to bring in VRV. But if the pitch at Nagpur is a dry one, he wont even play. If it is a green one, VRV with his height and the ability to hit the deck might be a better option that Munaf anyhow. My only concern here is experience.

On form alone even Steve Waugh could have played for some more time. In another 2-3 years, RD, SRT and VVS will retire. We need to get in new generation of indian cricketers now. SG is most likely and right choice. Drop sentiments. SG's career should be celebrated ( until 2003 atleast) because he pulled us out of fixing ruckus and brought back the fighting quality.

[ramshorns]

Dude, we are talking about tests and I was replying to someone's comment about Kaif getting three tests. Since Kaif has been picked in place of SG for a TEST series, that's why I have said what I said about SG (and about nobody else). Makes sense? If we have to look at the broader picture of which players were dropped and didn't get enough chance, then it'll be a long discussion. And yes, it happened in SG's era and prior to that and will happen again. One recent example is Venugopal Rao.

I can understand your feeling being an SG fan.  Just like I felt when VVS was dropped for WC03 and felt the same way the kind of players that were picked ahead of him for WC03.  Tests or ODI does not matter when it comes to having different standards for different people.  To clear up like I said earlier SG never went on to convert the starts into big scores, like Yuvraj did in Karachi though lost cause. So not a 50 in the last 4 or 5 innings did not board well for his cause.  If he did score a 100 in one of them we would have seen SG in the 15 today.  

[Jai]

Dude, we are talking about tests and I was replying to someone's comment about Kaif getting three tests. Since Kaif has been picked in place of SG for a TEST series, that's why I have said what I said about SG (and about nobody else). Makes sense? If we have to look at the broader picture of which players were dropped and didn't get enough chance, then it'll be a long discussion. And yes, it happened in SG's era and prior to that and will happen again. One recent example is Venugopal Rao.

I can understand your feeling being an SG fan.  Just like I felt when VVS was dropped for WC03 and felt the same way the kind of players that were picked ahead of him for WC03.  Tests or ODI does not matter when it comes to having different standards for different people.  To clear up like I said earlier SG never went on to convert the starts into big scores, like Yuvraj did in Karachi though lost cause. So not a 50 in the last 4 or 5 innings did not board well for his cause.  If he did score a 100 in one of them we would have seen SG in the 15 today.  

I don't think so. When there are people out there to get you, it doesn't matter whether you score a 100 or a 200. Although this example may not be applicable, but I remember soon after getting dropped from the SL ODIs when SG scored a century on green top against VRV and Co, some people on the other DG (there was only one DG at that time) questioned the quality of the bowling attack and some even called it Dinesh Mongia's gift to SG. Same happened when he made 150+ against Munaf and Co. It didn't matter then. Now all of a sudden the same people are excited about the young talents like VRV and Munaf. Many people (and not everyone is a SG fan) didn't believe that SG will lose his place after those two innings in Karachi. The only issue was if India plays two specialist openers. Yuvi's injury made it even easier. But after what happened today, I don't think anyone can say for sure that a century in Karachi would have saved SG. Also remember a few things. a) SG was not given a consistent run. It does affect a player's confidence. b) the way he played. Many (and again that includes the likes of Prem and cricinfo writers) believed that SG batted beautifully in the Karachi test although he didn't get a big score. c) please remember that both the Kotla and Karachi tests were low scoring affairs. Not all the batsmen scored too many runs, in fact some of them clearly failed. While SG didn't really fail, but he didn't score a big one either but he was involved in big partnerships. I think we should keep that in perspective. It's not like in a team score of 600+, Sg scored 39.

[j]

Dude, we are talking about tests and I was replying to someone's comment about Kaif getting three tests. Since Kaif has been picked in place of SG for a TEST series, that's why I have said what I said about SG (and about nobody else). Makes sense? If we have to look at the broader picture of which players were dropped and didn't get enough chance, then it'll be a long discussion. And yes, it happened in SG's era and prior to that and will happen again. One recent example is Venugopal Rao.

I can understand your feeling being an SG fan.  Just like I felt when VVS was dropped for WC03 and felt the same way the kind of players that were picked ahead of him for WC03.  Tests or ODI does not matter when it comes to having different standards for different people.  To clear up like I said earlier SG never went on to convert the starts into big scores, like Yuvraj did in Karachi though lost cause. So not a 50 in the last 4 or 5 innings did not board well for his cause.  If he did score a 100 in one of them we would have seen SG in the 15 today.  

I don't think so. When there are people out there to get you, it doesn't matter whether you score a 100 or a 200. Although this example may not be applicable, but I remember soon after getting dropped from the SL ODIs when SG scored a century on green top against VRV and Co, some people on the other DG (there was only one DG at that time) questioned the quality of the bowling attack and some even called it Dinesh Mongia's gift to SG. Same happened when he made 150+ against Munaf and Co. It didn't matter then. Now all of a sudden the same people are excited about the young talents like VRV and Munaf. Many people (and not everyone is a SG fan) didn't believe that SG will lose his place after those two innings in Karachi. The only issue was if India plays two specialist openers. Yuvi's injury made it even easier. But after what happened today, I don't think anyone can say for sure that a century in Karachi would have saved SG. Also remember a few things. a) SG was not given a consistent run. It does affect a player's confidence. b) the way he played. Many (and again that includes the likes of Prem and cricinfo writers) believed that SG batted beautifully in the Karachi test although he didn't get a big score. c) please remember that both the Kotla and Karachi tests were low scoring affairs. Not all the batsmen scored too many runs, in fact some of them clearly failed. While SG didn't really fail, but he didn't score a big one either but he was involved in big partnerships. I think we should keep that in perspective. It's not like in a team score of 600+, Sg scored 39.

Stop talking about consistent run. SG is not a newcomer. He should have been dropped 6 months after 2003 WC but was not. What would you say to that? However I agree that SG was looking at his best now in last 3 years but then again. it is more important to develop a team for future then to think about fitting farewell.

[ramshorns]

Dude, we are talking about tests and I was replying to someone's comment about Kaif getting three tests. Since Kaif has been picked in place of SG for a TEST series, that's why I have said what I said about SG (and about nobody else). Makes sense? If we have to look at the broader picture of which players were dropped and didn't get enough chance, then it'll be a long discussion. And yes, it happened in SG's era and prior to that and will happen again. One recent example is Venugopal Rao.

I can understand your feeling being an SG fan.  Just like I felt when VVS was dropped for WC03 and felt the same way the kind of players that were picked ahead of him for WC03.  Tests or ODI does not matter when it comes to having different standards for different people.  To clear up like I said earlier SG never went on to convert the starts into big scores, like Yuvraj did in Karachi though lost cause. So not a 50 in the last 4 or 5 innings did not board well for his cause.  If he did score a 100 in one of them we would have seen SG in the 15 today.  

I don't think so. When there are people out there to get you, it doesn't matter whether you score a 100 or a 200. Although this example may not be applicable, but I remember soon after getting dropped from the SL ODIs when SG scored a century on green top against VRV and Co, some people on the other DG (there was only one DG at that time) questioned the quality of the bowling attack and some even called it Dinesh Mongia's gift to SG. Same happened when he made 150+ against Munaf and Co. It didn't matter then. Now all of a sudden the same people are excited about the young talents like VRV and Munaf. Many people (and not everyone is a SG fan) didn't believe that SG will lose his place after those two innings in Karachi. The only issue was if India plays two specialist openers. Yuvi's injury made it even easier. But after what happened today, I don't think anyone can say for sure that a century in Karachi would have saved SG. Also remember a few things. a) SG was not given a consistent run. It does affect a player's confidence. b) the way he played. Many (and again that includes the likes of Prem and cricinfo writers) believed that SG batted beautifully in the Karachi test although he didn't get a big score. c) please remember that both the Kotla and Karachi tests were low scoring affairs. Not all the batsmen scored too many runs, in fact some of them clearly failed. While SG didn't really fail, but he didn't score a big one either but he was involved in big partnerships. I think we should keep that in perspective. It's not like in a team score of 600+, Sg scored 39.

SG was the only batsman who played atleast 5 innings in the SL/PAK series and failed to score a  50 that includes Dhoni and Pathan.  Played well yes, makes the starts count no.  That is what I am talking about.   Also being under pressure to perform guys like VVS are always under that every test or ODI they play despite all the great knocks they played in course of their careers.  So SG needs to deal with that and learn to live if he has a future with TEAM INDIA. Also your take on 100 does not matter is pure speculative.

[gouravk]

I do think SG should have been picked ahead of Raina (and Kaif)

[Jai]

Dude, we are talking about tests and I was replying to someone's comment about Kaif getting three tests. Since Kaif has been picked in place of SG for a TEST series, that's why I have said what I said about SG (and about nobody else). Makes sense? If we have to look at the broader picture of which players were dropped and didn't get enough chance, then it'll be a long discussion. And yes, it happened in SG's era and prior to that and will happen again. One recent example is Venugopal Rao.

I can understand your feeling being an SG fan.  Just like I felt when VVS was dropped for WC03 and felt the same way the kind of players that were picked ahead of him for WC03.  Tests or ODI does not matter when it comes to having different standards for different people.  To clear up like I said earlier SG never went on to convert the starts into big scores, like Yuvraj did in Karachi though lost cause. So not a 50 in the last 4 or 5 innings did not board well for his cause.  If he did score a 100 in one of them we would have seen SG in the 15 today.  

I don't think so. When there are people out there to get you, it doesn't matter whether you score a 100 or a 200. Although this example may not be applicable, but I remember soon after getting dropped from the SL ODIs when SG scored a century on green top against VRV and Co, some people on the other DG (there was only one DG at that time) questioned the quality of the bowling attack and some even called it Dinesh Mongia's gift to SG. Same happened when he made 150+ against Munaf and Co. It didn't matter then. Now all of a sudden the same people are excited about the young talents like VRV and Munaf. Many people (and not everyone is a SG fan) didn't believe that SG will lose his place after those two innings in Karachi. The only issue was if India plays two specialist openers. Yuvi's injury made it even easier. But after what happened today, I don't think anyone can say for sure that a century in Karachi would have saved SG. Also remember a few things. a) SG was not given a consistent run. It does affect a player's confidence. b) the way he played. Many (and again that includes the likes of Prem and cricinfo writers) believed that SG batted beautifully in the Karachi test although he didn't get a big score. c) please remember that both the Kotla and Karachi tests were low scoring affairs. Not all the batsmen scored too many runs, in fact some of them clearly failed. While SG didn't really fail, but he didn't score a big one either but he was involved in big partnerships. I think we should keep that in perspective. It's not like in a team score of 600+, Sg scored 39.

SG was the only batsman who played atleast 5 innings in the SL/PAK series and failed to score a  50 that includes Dhoni and Pathan.  Played well yes, makes the starts count no.  That is what I am talking about.   Also being under pressure to perform guys like VVS are always under that every test or ODI they play despite all the great knocks they played in course of their careers.  So SG needs to deal with that and learn to live if he has a future with TEAM INDIA. Also your take on 100 does not matter is pure speculative.

Yes, I agree that he didn't score a single fifty but you can't deny the fact that he didn't play two consecutive tests. I don't think VVS plays under any pressure in tests and I won't be judging VVS in the ODIs based on 2-3 games like you are doing here. The same is applicable to Dhoni and Pathan. Are you considering Kaif's scores in Ahmedabad? Why not? My take on 100 doesn't matter may be speculative, but I didn't say 100 from any batsman, I said 100 from SG. There's a big difference. The way things are going for SG under GC and More, your take that a 100 would have been enough is mere speculation too my friend because you are not one of the selectors out there. You are just a fan like me.

[dextrous]

I do think SG should have been picked ahead of Raina (and Kaif)

I think most fans agree on that, even those who do not like SG too much, just a few ppl here who care as much about antagonizing everyone as they do about cricket, who don't agree with that sentiment.

[gouravk]

Having said that Im not too disappointed about it anyway. 

[ramshorns]

Yes, I agree that he didn't score a single fifty but you can't deny the fact that he didn't play two consecutive tests. I don't think VVS plays under any pressure in tests and I won't be judging VVS in the ODIs based on 2-3 games like you are doing here. The same is applicable to Dhoni and Pathan. Are you considering Kaif's scores in Ahmedabad? Why not? My take on 100 doesn't matter may be speculative, but I didn't say 100 from any batsman, I said 100 from SG. There's a big difference. The way things are going for SG under GC and More, your take that a 100 would have been enough is mere speculation too my friend because you are not one of the selectors out there. You are just a fan like me.

Jai, You know darn well if SG scored a 100 it would be awfully difficult to drop him than when he did not score.  Agree with that or not.  Does not matter who the selectors are.   I think even two 70's or 80's  instead of the 4 30+ would have helped him IMO.  Also in my previous posts I already said that SG should be in the 15 especially with Yuvraj out.

[dextrous]

Yes, I agree that he didn't score a single fifty but you can't deny the fact that he didn't play two consecutive tests. I don't think VVS plays under any pressure in tests and I won't be judging VVS in the ODIs based on 2-3 games like you are doing here. The same is applicable to Dhoni and Pathan. Are you considering Kaif's scores in Ahmedabad? Why not? My take on 100 doesn't matter may be speculative, but I didn't say 100 from any batsman, I said 100 from SG. There's a big difference. The way things are going for SG under GC and More, your take that a 100 would have been enough is mere speculation too my friend because you are not one of the selectors out there. You are just a fan like me.

Jai, You know darn well if SG scored a 100 it would be awfully difficult to drop him than when he did not score.  Agree with that or not.  Does not matter who the selectors are.   I think even two 70's or 80's  instead of the 4 30+ would have helped him IMO.  Also in my previous posts I already said that SG should be in the 15 especially with Yuvraj out.

So do you agree there's a problem with the selection?

Between two cricket fans, is it not clear that those runs were scored under pretty difficult circumstances -- esp. compared to how the rest of the stalwarts fared?

[ramshorns]

So do you agree there's a problem with the selection?

Between two cricket fans, is it not clear that those runs were scored under pretty difficult circumstances -- esp. compared to how the rest of the stalwarts fared?

It is process in place for years wheather I like it or not.   It is my personal opinion that SG should be in the 15 now, just like I thought VVS should have been in the WC03 squad under SG.  I will leave it at that.

[Jai]

Yes, I agree that he didn't score a single fifty but you can't deny the fact that he didn't play two consecutive tests. I don't think VVS plays under any pressure in tests and I won't be judging VVS in the ODIs based on 2-3 games like you are doing here. The same is applicable to Dhoni and Pathan. Are you considering Kaif's scores in Ahmedabad? Why not? My take on 100 doesn't matter may be speculative, but I didn't say 100 from any batsman, I said 100 from SG. There's a big difference. The way things are going for SG under GC and More, your take that a 100 would have been enough is mere speculation too my friend because you are not one of the selectors out there. You are just a fan like me.

Jai, You know darn well if SG scored a 100 it would be awfully difficult to drop him than when he did not score.  Agree with that or not.  Does not matter who the selectors are.   I think even two 70's or 80's  instead of the 4 30+ would have helped him IMO.  Also in my previous posts I already said that SG should be in the 15 especially with Yuvraj out.

Yes, I agree that he didn't score a single fifty but you can't deny the fact that he didn't play two consecutive tests. I don't think VVS plays under any pressure in tests and I won't be judging VVS in the ODIs based on 2-3 games like you are doing here. The same is applicable to Dhoni and Pathan. Are you considering Kaif's scores in Ahmedabad? Why not? My take on 100 doesn't matter may be speculative, but I didn't say 100 from any batsman, I said 100 from SG. There's a big difference. The way things are going for SG under GC and More, your take that a 100 would have been enough is mere speculation too my friend because you are not one of the selectors out there. You are just a fan like me.

[ramshorns]

Yes, I agree that he didn't score a single fifty but you can't deny the fact that he didn't play two consecutive tests. I don't think VVS plays under any pressure in tests and I won't be judging VVS in the ODIs based on 2-3 games like you are doing here. The same is applicable to Dhoni and Pathan. Are you considering Kaif's scores in Ahmedabad? Why not? My take on 100 doesn't matter may be speculative, but I didn't say 100 from any batsman, I said 100 from SG. There's a big difference. The way things are going for SG under GC and More, your take that a 100 would have been enough is mere speculation too my friend because you are not one of the selectors out there. You are just a fan like me.

Jai, You know darn well if SG scored a 100 it would be awfully difficult to drop him than when he did not score.  Agree with that or not.  Does not matter who the selectors are.   I think even two 70's or 80's  instead of the 4 30+ would have helped him IMO.  Also in my previous posts I already said that SG should be in the 15 especially with Yuvraj out.

Yes, I agree that he didn't score a single fifty but you can't deny the fact that he didn't play two consecutive tests. I don't think VVS plays under any pressure in tests and I won't be judging VVS in the ODIs based on 2-3 games like you are doing here. The same is applicable to Dhoni and Pathan. Are you considering Kaif's scores in Ahmedabad? Why not? My take on 100 doesn't matter may be speculative, but I didn't say 100 from any batsman, I said 100 from SG. There's a big difference. The way things are going for SG under GC and More, your take that a 100 would have been enough is mere speculation too my friend because you are not one of the selectors out there. You are just a fan like me.

You posting the same message won't help unless it is done in mistake.

[Jai]

Yes, I agree that he didn't score a single fifty but you can't deny the fact that he didn't play two consecutive tests. I don't think VVS plays under any pressure in tests and I won't be judging VVS in the ODIs based on 2-3 games like you are doing here. The same is applicable to Dhoni and Pathan. Are you considering Kaif's scores in Ahmedabad? Why not? My take on 100 doesn't matter may be speculative, but I didn't say 100 from any batsman, I said 100 from SG. There's a big difference. The way things are going for SG under GC and More, your take that a 100 would have been enough is mere speculation too my friend because you are not one of the selectors out there. You are just a fan like me.

Jai, You know darn well if SG scored a 100 it would be awfully difficult to drop him than when he did not score.  Agree with that or not.  Does not matter who the selectors are.   I think even two 70's or 80's  instead of the 4 30+ would have helped him IMO.  Also in my previous posts I already said that SG should be in the 15 especially with Yuvraj out.

Yes, I agree that he didn't score a single fifty but you can't deny the fact that he didn't play two consecutive tests. I don't think VVS plays under any pressure in tests and I won't be judging VVS in the ODIs based on 2-3 games like you are doing here. The same is applicable to Dhoni and Pathan. Are you considering Kaif's scores in Ahmedabad? Why not? My take on 100 doesn't matter may be speculative, but I didn't say 100 from any batsman, I said 100 from SG. There's a big difference. The way things are going for SG under GC and More, your take that a 100 would have been enough is mere speculation too my friend because you are not one of the selectors out there. You are just a fan like me.

You posting the same message won't help unless it is done in mistake.

Of course it was a kstke. Some copy and paste problem. This is due to the warning message you get while posting because someone else has posted a new message on this thread while you were typing your comments. I then copy and pasted my text, but somehow it didn't. So it retained the old text.

Anyways, here what I said. I have made it very clear the last time around that I am not so sure that SG would have been picked if he had scored a hundred. Yes, any sane person will believe that after scoring a hundred, a batsman is a certainty for the next test. But remember we are not talking about any batsman but SG who has gone though enough. With More and GC, nothing is c ertainty when it comes to SG. Why was he dropped after Kotla test? What Kaif did in Ahemdabad? What did he do in the ODIs in Pakistan? So how come he's back again for the tests? Any logical answer to that? So let's leave all logics aside when it comes to SG. Let me ask you another thing. Do you believe that had it been Kaif, Raina or some Dayashankar Tripathi who had scored those two knocks in Karachi and not SG, would he have been dropped?

[ramshorns]

So let's leave all logics aside when it comes to SG. Let me ask you another thing. Do you believe that had it been Kaif, Raina or some Dayashankar Tripathi who had scored those two knocks in Karachi and not SG, would he have been dropped?

I hear you brother and if I were a SG fan and I am a no hater of his either, would fully understand the feeling and point of view.  I am saying again at the least he should be in the 15 for the 1st test.  It makes no sense IMO for Kaif to make the cut.  Raina I get it.

[dextrous]

I think if nothing else every fan should ask two things:
1. Should one coach really have this much power?
2. Should there be an outrage at the way some players are treated?

[dhruvdeepak]

look, i agree that SG should have been picked in the 15.

but in 'evaluating' GC some other questions should be asked:

1) Might'nt this benefit the team?
2) Arent the changes in the bowling for the better?
3) Learning from past mistakes (RD opening--ask yourself honestly why he did that)

[Jai]

look, i agree that SG should have been picked in the 15.

but in 'evaluating' GC some other questions should be asked:

1) Might'nt this benefit the team?
2) Arent the changes in the bowling for the better?
3) Learning from past mistakes (RD opening--ask yourself honestly why he did that)

1) How really? You should ask the question whether SG deserves to be in the XV after his two innings in Karachi? If the answer is yes, then how not having him there benefit the team? The way kaif played in the Ahmedabad test and in the recent ODI series, do you think if it was SG, he would have been picked for the Nagpur test? So having Kaif in the team actualy benefits the team although he's not really performing? He has the potential and he may perform in Nagpur test given a chance, but doesn't a player get selected based on his performances? So why Kaif over SG?

2) I appreciate the inclusion of Sreesanth. VRV I am not so sure yet. He went for 63 runs in 9 overs without a wicket when others bowled well in BPXI Vs. Eng match. And then he has some fitness issues too.

3) Not sure why are you calling it a mistake? RD and VS almost broke the world record opening the innings. How does it help if we include a 'specialist' opener in the side who doesn't contribute much? Gambhir failed and now we have all our hopes on Jaffer. He may succeed but he may fail too. Some people are blaming the loss of Karachi because we didn't have a specialist opener in the side. Is that really true? Do we really believe that a Jaffer or a Gambhir would have been successful on that track against Akhtar and Asif? Haven't we lost any test on similar tracks before with a specialist opener? And if the management believes that the team needs a specialist opener, they should play one. Didn't they drop SG for the second test because they wanted to play five bowlers? What's the problem there? Did SG complain? But doesn't SG figure even in the XV ahead of Kaif and Raina (he needs to play some more ODIs before getting picked for tests)?

[Blwe_torch]

So yet again, just like  Ahmedabad, Mohammad Kaif will be playing a test match instead of Sourav Ganguly. The latter is not be be given a breath of an opprtunity, even if he looks the best batsman on display against rampant Murali or a rampant Shoaib. For the former it is going to be try try try again till you succeed. GC will make a man out of Kaif, even if it takes 20 test matches to do so.

The only reason the GC-SG affair should be given importance is that it is perhaps the most significant instance of unbridled, raw, personal aggression exercised by a megalomaniac.

Very nicely written!
I wonder how come these selectors, coaches ( megalomaniacs) are allowed to go scot free with this kind of sacrilege!?
Where is the accountablity of their selection process.
Players who performed well have been ignored...and non-performing players rewarded!
Why are these mean people representing us Indians,  given so much freedom?
How will a talented player ever have faith in this rotten system, which is driven by personal agenda?
What is the point of selecting a team in the name of India, when so many feel unjustly deprived?
How long do we need to wait for justice?

[dhruvdeepak]

look, i agree that SG should have been picked in the 15.

but in 'evaluating' GC some other questions should be asked:

1) Might'nt this benefit the team?
2) Arent the changes in the bowling for the better?
3) Learning from past mistakes (RD opening--ask yourself honestly why he did that)

1) How really? You should ask the question whether SG deserves to be in the XV after his two innings in Karachi? If the answer is yes, then how not having him there benefit the team? The way kaif played in the Ahmedabad test and in the recent ODI series, do you think if it was SG, he would have been picked for the Nagpur test? So having Kaif in the team actualy benefits the team although he's not really performing? He has the potential and he may perform in Nagpur test given a chance, but doesn't a player get selected based on his performances? So why Kaif over SG?

2) I appreciate the inclusion of Sreesanth. VRV I am not so sure yet. He went for 63 runs in 9 overs without a wicket when others bowled well in BPXI Vs. Eng match. And then he has some fitness issues too.

3) Not sure why are you calling it a mistake? RD and VS almost broke the world record opening the innings. How does it help if we include a 'specialist' opener in the side who doesn't contribute much? Gambhir failed and now we have all our hopes on Jaffer. He may succeed but he may fail too. Some people are blaming the loss of Karachi because we didn't have a specialist opener in the side. Is that really true? Do we really believe that a Jaffer or a Gambhir would have been successful on that track against Akhtar and Asif? Haven't we lost any test on similar tracks before with a specialist opener? And if the management believes that the team needs a specialist opener, they should play one. Didn't they drop SG for the second test because they wanted to play five bowlers? What's the problem there? Did SG complain? But doesn't SG figure even in the XV ahead of Kaif and Raina (he needs to play some more ODIs before getting picked for tests)?

Before anything else, I think we should try and understand why the heck 15 players are being chosen for ONE Test, for a home game. It is purely for the youngster's sake. in any other situation you'd pick 12 or 13, but with the current situation, with a cartload of youngsters knocking on the doors, the squad is expanded so they can get a taste for what is required of them in an intl team environment. good idea, this is.

as to the three points:
1)I answered you already, I'm afraid. I think SG should be in the team of 15.
My first question could be put: What if Kaif and/or Raina perform exceedingly well? Doesnt this benefit the team more? Honestly, yes SG was batting determinedly, but he still didnt get the runs. Where is your guarantee for me that SG would deliver here?
I think SG should be in the team on a matter of faith, and because yes he is ahead in the pecking order in terms of Raina and (VERY debatably) Kaif. But that doesnt translate into runs or results, because:
a) there is no guarantee Ganguly would feature in the 11
b) there is no guarantee he'd make runs
if you weigh in the chance of a youngster performing well and sinking his teeth into intl cricket, then I'm afraid, no, our team is not 'harmed' by SG not being in it.

so basically, if Raina or Kaif perform well, then this becomes a moot point, because the move has paid off.

2) trying to put VRV down because of his performance in today's game is poor. Having seen him myself in the challengers, I have to say, yes he looks like a dangerous bowler and I wouldnt mind picking him in the 15. I wouldnt play him in the 11 because he is not in the best of form, but yeah he can acquaint himself with this team and how it works, and we might find him ready later on in the series. I havent seen Munaf bowl, but his "stats" impress me, that doesnt cut it though. I cant make a judgment. Anyways he is surely in the frame if he's
a) selected in a BP XI with selectors watching
b) he takes a 5-fer.
A call-up isnt too far

3) are you trying to make me buy that baloney? that RD batting in a position where he is not comfortable (and subsequently failed in the important game) wasnt a mistake? You cannot hide logic behind a mountain of runs in drawn games, dude. It was a CLEAR error, the circumstances behind it irrelevant. He is our most important player; he should damn well play in the position most familiar to him.