Print

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

[toney]

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.

There is a settings change to disable this.

[dextrous]

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.

This is going back and assigning logic to an act that gives Indian selectors way too much credit.

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:

No, that is not the issue here at all. It doesn't matter if either of them do well in this discussion -- we are talking about the merits of selection. We are talking about the merits of selection. SG is 33, not 35.

Also, you say SG hasn't performed -- he batted in ONE test and looked better than almost everyone out there. Has he batted on featherbeds with no pressure? So to say he hasn't performed trivializes the matter and undermines the conditions in which he batted hunder.

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.

And wasn't it just last series that someone got injured right on the eve of the test?! And Ganguly, arguably the best batsman in the country after the current line-up should've been in the squad to cover.

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

In theory, anyone can perform, any given day, does that make them suddenly better than someone else?
Why do they deserve a spot ahead of SG? Better FC record?
Better FC recrord this year?
Better ODI record?
Why?

And do explain how Dravid opening the batting caused India to lose -- didn't it have something to do with the 600 runs scored by Pakistan 

[Blwe_torch]

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.

This is going back and assigning logic to an act that gives Indian selectors way too much credit.

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:

No, that is not the issue here at all. It doesn't matter if either of them do well in this discussion -- we are talking about the merits of selection. We are talking about the merits of selection. SG is 33, not 35.

Also, you say SG hasn't performed -- he batted in ONE test and looked better than almost everyone out there. Has he batted on featherbeds with no pressure? So to say he hasn't performed trivializes the matter and undermines the conditions in which he batted hunder.

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.

And wasn't it just last series that someone got injured right on the eve of the test?! And Ganguly, arguably the best batsman in the country after the current line-up should've been in the squad to cover.

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

In theory, anyone can perform, any given day, does that make them suddenly better than someone else?
Why do they deserve a spot ahead of SG? Better FC record?
Better FC recrord this year?
Better ODI record?
Why?

And do explain how Dravid opening the batting caused India to lose -- didn't it have something to do with the 600 runs scored by Pakistan 

Great post Dex~!
The entire selection process has been a great farce!
Gone are the golden days of merit based cricket...when SG was in charge.
Now, it is GC's personal agenda..which is paramount!

[tombaan]

Former India wicketkeeper More said there was no room for sentiment on Ganguly.

"It is a tough call. Every cricketer goes through this. I have also gone through this. Whether you play one Test match or 100 Test matches, it doesn't matter. You give 100 per cent to India. We discuss all 15 players, not just one player. We're selecting the India team, not a school team," he said

[Jai]

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.

There is a settings change to disable this.

A bit more help/explanation may be helpful.

[dextrous]

go to profile
Look and Layout Preferences
uncheck the thing that says notify when someone has posted

[ramshorns]

Gone are the golden days merit based cricket...when SG was in charge.

Not Entirely true.  VVS was ommited from WC03.  You mean to say Bangar, Patel, Mongia deserved a place ahead of him based on merit.  VVS fans exactly felt the same way then the way SG fans are feeling today.  Sure SG deserved a place today in the 15 IMO.  But your other statement does not cut it out for me.

[dextrous]

Gone are the golden days merit based cricket...when SG was in charge.

Not Entirely true.  VVS was ommited from WC03.  You mean to say Bangar, Patel, Mongia deserved a place ahead of him based on merit.  VVS fans exactly felt the same way then the way SG fans are feeling today.  Sure SG deserved a place today in the 15 IMO.  But your other statement does not cut it out for me.

VVS had a very poor ODI average then. But that has been debated quite a bit here anyway. And did SG have anything to do with VVS's removal?

[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)?

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.

12 or 13? When did you see a team picking those numbers for a home match? Never. The right number has always been 14 imo. Now coming back to your points:

a) I myself have said that Kaif may perform well in the very next test although he has been a disappointment so far. But then, by the way SG had batted in Kotla and Karachi, the same is applicable to SG too. But the main issue is you select a player based on form and not what he'd have done in the next match. Kaif to my mind hasn't done anything special in Ahmedabad and in the ODI series in Pakistan. Now put SG in Kaif's place and answer me honestly do you really believe that SG with those performances like Kaif would have got a call for the Nagpur test? Like there's no guarantee for SG getting runs, there's no guarantee for others getting runs either. Players are not selected based on any guarantee. Those Azhar days of guarantee is over. One has to judge a player by his performance and not by his age. If he's still good enough, he should play. Raina playing a few more ODIs and getting the much needed experience may be more useful to him in the future.

b) Hold on dude, I didn't put VRV or anyone else down. I merely mentioned VRV's figure in today's match. If performance was the key, then surely Munaf hogged the highlight today and then Paul. You comments that Munaf's performance will be noticed is alright but you never know which way it may go. If VRV gets to play and grabs his chances, then Munaf will miss out and he has every reason to feel sad after today's performance. I watched only one game of Challenger and didn't watch VRV, but heard a lot of good things about him, but then he got injured and also he seems to be inconsistent. Remember the SG century on greentop at Rajkot against VRV?

c) Listen, RD is the captain of the current side. Everyone told him not to open the innings. He didn't have to do that if he was not comfortable. Nobody forced him to. However, it was nice of him not to push SG or anyone else in that position and for that hats off to him. He and Sehwag may have been succesful on flat tracks in the first two tests, but I will not buy the logic that Jaffer or Gambhir would have saved us the blushes in the Karachi test just because they have the 'specialist openers' tag against their names. Don't tell me that we didn't lose any test match on such kind of tracks playing specialist openers. So that's pure BS. I don't disagree with you that RD should play in positions where he feels most comfortable. As a captain, it's his call and he should be bold enough to make such calls. But the fact still remains that SG deserves a place in the XV irrespective of whether he fits into the playing XI or not.

[flute202020]

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.

CLR, you seem to be getting increasingly aggressive these days about SG(megalomaniac, laugh & puke etc.   ). To me, its a simple cricketing decision(not that I neccessarily agree with it)..no evidence or indication to come up with raw personal aggression or megalomania type of comments. BTW, las I checked, SG was actually commended for having raw aggression

[ramshorns]

VVS had a very poor ODI average then. But that has been debated quite a bit here anyway. And did SG have anything to do with VVS's removal?

On that note I can say SG has a poor test average.  Look you can spin it any which way you want.  Your man SG once on record admitted and I quote "Leaving Laxman from the WC Squad was a big mistake", that too not spontaneous but in a personal column.  Also for the sake of argument what average did Patel or Bangar had at that time.  None.  

[kban1]

ramshorns:

I have made this point before but SG did in fact want VVS in the ODI squad -- the fact that he was overruled by  selectors is a different matter.

[ramshorns]

ramshorns:

I have made this point before but SG did in fact want VVS in the ODI squad -- the fact that he was overruled by  selectors is a different matter.

Kban1, Sure I do remember that and also we agreed that we do not know what exactly happended given the close door affairs.  Also all I was responding was merit ruled roost during SG's days at the helm wheather it was his decision or not.  And I had an objection to that saying that was not the case always, case in point VVS exclusion over you know who?? I named them already.

[Cover Point]

VVS had a very poor ODI average then. But that has been debated quite a bit here anyway. And did SG have anything to do with VVS's removal?

Looks up SG's average over the last couple of years sans Bang and Zim. And Wasnt SG the captain when VVS was removed. So you blame GC and RD for SG's travails but the same cant be true the otherway. Talk about double standards!

[kban1]

CP:

Please read the exchange between ramshorns and me. Merit or averages aside, when VVS was dropped for the WC, SG made his pitch for VVS (although overruled) --not comparable to SG being dropped and people pointing the finger of suspicion towards GC.

[ramshorns]

CP:

Please read the exchange between ramshorns and me. Merit or averages aside, when VVS was dropped for the WC, SG made his pitch for VVS (although overruled) --not comparable to SG being dropped and people pointing the finger of suspicion towards GC.

Kban1, Though I have to believe you on that one nothing concrete came out after the VVS dropping for 1-2 years to the best of what I have read and listened, till SG made the statement I quoted.  Anyways it was a distant memory, nontheless difficult to put behind for VVS fans and believers in merit.

[kban1]

ramshorns:

after the world cup, VVS was not in the ODI team for only one series played in Bangladesh --the TVS cup. Since then VVS regained his ODI spot. The next series was against Aus at home followed by the Indian tour to Aus. In both the ODI series against Aus VVS played. So really, not  a 1-2 yr gap as you suggest --he was not in 1 ODI series during which Mongia was given another run before being left out due to not satisfactory performance.

[ramshorns]

ramshorns:

after the world cup, VVS was not in the ODI team for only one series played in Bangladesh --the TVS cup. Since then VVS regained his ODI spot. The next series was against Aus at home followed by the Indian tour to Aus. In both the ODI series against Aus VVS played. So really, not  a 1-2 yr gap as you suggest --he was not in 1 ODI series during which Mongia was given another run before being left out due to not satisfactory performance.

Kban1: You misunderstood me.  I am not talking about his post WC inclusion.  But the issue itself of dropping VVS for WC via the quote of SG came after 1-2 years of him dropping.  Please read my post again. 

[j]

I think GC is god's gift to Indian Cricket. Hail Daalu, SG, Shastri, Venkat etc who decided to bring him in and add SG on top of this list who introduced and backed GC . I think this one decision by SG was by far his best among all he has taken for indian cricket's betterment.

[kban1]

ramshorns:

sorry, I mised the point you were making. I re read the post --I see what you were saying in terms of SG publicly saying he wished VVS had been selected.

[j]

VVS had a very poor ODI average then. But that has been debated quite a bit here anyway. And did SG have anything to do with VVS's removal?

On that note I can say SG has a poor test average.  Look you can spin it any which way you want.  Your man SG once on record admitted and I quote "Leaving Laxman from the WC Squad was a big mistake", that too not spontaneous but in a personal column.  Also for the sake of argument what average did Patel or Bangar had at that time.  None.  

RamS - VVS did deserve to be in WC2003 but not anymore. After RDB and 4-1 victory over pak, it is now "youth wave" in India. Sirf Jawaan Khoon chahiye

[ramshorns]

ramshorns:

sorry, I mised the point you were making. I re read the post --I see what you were saying in terms of SG publicly saying he wished VVS had been selected.

No Problem, Kban1.

[ramshorns]

RamS - VVS did deserve to be in WC2003 but not anymore. After RDB and 4-1 victory over pak, it is now "youth wave" in India. Sirf Jawaan Khoon chahiye

J, I agree with these good results VVS has to sit out.  But one thing mark my words he will give it a best shot in the domestics and perform and see how it goes.  That is what I like about him.

[j]

RamS - VVS did deserve to be in WC2003 but not anymore. After RDB and 4-1 victory over pak, it is now "youth wave" in India. Sirf Jawaan Khoon chahiye

J, I agree with these good results VVS has to sit out.  But one thing mark my words he will give it a best shot in the domestics and perform and see how it goes.  That is what I like about him.

Yaar uske Ghutno ka kuch karo. Tel him to do Bhastrika, Lom-Vilom, Kapal Bhanti etc. He must pay a visit to Baba Ramdev.

[ramshorns]

RamS - VVS did deserve to be in WC2003 but not anymore. After RDB and 4-1 victory over pak, it is now "youth wave" in India. Sirf Jawaan Khoon chahiye

J, I agree with these good results VVS has to sit out.  But one thing mark my words he will give it a best shot in the domestics and perform and see how it goes.  That is what I like about him.

Yaar uske Ghutno ka kuch karo. Tel him to do Bhastrika, Lom-Vilom, Kapal Bhanti etc. He must pay a visit to Baba Ramdev.

Yes DR. J.  Will do.