Do you support Ganguly, Dravid being dropped?

[Richard]

Your underrating of Ganguly borders on the comical of times.

 

[Richard]

i think its a great decision beause they do have a lot of talented young batsmen (Karthik Gambhir Uthappa etc.)

Don't think Gambhir is particularly talented at all TBH, I cannot ever see a future for him at Test or ODI level. He just seems to lack so many things, I mean I've seen plenty of worse techniques and I've seen batsmen clearly less capable. But if baffles me how he has such a good First-Class average, it really does. I've seen more than enough of him at both international levels.

Karthik I don't ever see being a ODI-class batsman. I simply cannot believe he continues to get picked in ODI squads. He never deserved to play his first ODI and has never done anything throughout his career to deserve to continue to play them. It'd be bad enough if it was as a wicketkeeper-batsman; as a specialist batsman, it's sheer madness. There must be a good 20-odd, probably many more, better options.

Incidentally, I highly doubt Uthappa will amount to that much in Test-cricket either.

 

[social]

Your underrating of Ganguly borders on the comical of times.

Averaging 30 in the current series, costs his team a minimum of 10 runs per game in the field, notoriously bad trainer, he's mid 30s and wont be around for the next wc - cant see any reason to pick him tbh

 

[Richard]

What have the current (Test) series and the next WC got to do with each other?

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you completely underestimate the difference between FC and OD cricket.

Anyway - Ganguly has batted superbly since his return to Test and ODI cricket. Comments like "he's on borrowed time" are laughable, nothing more.

 

[social]

What have the current (Test) series and the next WC got to do with each other?

Oh, that's right, I forgot, you completely underestimate the difference between FC and OD cricket.

Anyway - Ganguly has batted superbly since his return to Test and ODI cricket. Comments like "he's on borrowed time" are laughable, nothing more.

1. Everything according to the Indian selectors - that's why they've been dropped

2. Ganguly, who slowly but surely has become a walking wicket on this tour despite facing India-like conditions in 3 of the 4 tests, is suddenly capable of scoring runs against Lee with a new white ball bwuhahahahahahahaha

3. Anyone that saw Ganguly play for the last year (and I assume you havent judging by your comments) knows that nothing has changed - still cant field and still requires an inordinate amount of luck to score runs on anything other than a belter that bounces more than knee height

 

[Pratters]

I don't agree with the policy the selectors have adopted. Disagree quite strongly actually and have talked on it at length in the Commonwealth thread.

 

[social]

I don't agree with the policy the selectors have adopted. Disagree quite strongly actually and have talked on it at length in the Commonwealth thread.

So you're obviously suggesting that they continue with a losing formula

 

[Pratters]

So you're obviously suggesting that they continue with a losing formula

You are obviously ignorant.

 

[social]

You are obviously ignorant.

WC?

Australia in India?

Both humiliating experiences with the old guard

Selectors have taken the path of least resistance and changed the team whilst it's on the other side of the world

At least they're looking to the future and not continuing to bash their head up against a brick wall

 

[Pratters]

WC?

Australia?

Both humiliating experiences with the old guard

Selectors have taken the path of least resistance and changed the team whilst it's on the other side of the world

Who knows? They might even win something

Err, you miss the point. I am not talking about the past results. You are ignorant in the sense that you generalise so stupidly.

 

[social]

Err, you miss the point. I am not talking about the past results. You are ignorant in the sense that you generalise so stupidly.

Then how do you base your selections if not on past results?

Dravid and Ganguly are in poor form

The Indian ODI team is poor.

The selectors have taken steps to chnage a trend

You should be happy that they're looking to the future

 

[Richard]

1. Everything according to the Indian selectors - that's why they've been dropped

And Indian selectors are well-known (as, really, are selectors from most if not all places) for being bastions of stupidity.

2. Ganguly, who slowly but surely has become a walking wicket on this tour despite facing India-like conditions in 3 of the 4 tests, is suddenly capable of scoring runs against Lee with a new white ball bwuhahahahahahahaha

Ganguly hasn't become a walking wicket, he's just had 3 bad innings after 4 good ones. And yes, he'd be more than capable of scoring against Lee or anyone else with a new white ball and has done for years and years and years.

3. Anyone that saw Ganguly play for the last year (and I assume you havent judging by your comments) knows that nothing has changed - still cant field and still requires an inordinate amount of luck to score runs on anything other than a belter that bounces more than knee height

Nope, an impossible amount has changed, everyone who's watched Ganguly in the last year has spotted that, and probably many who haven't, too. About the only ones who probably haven't are rabid Ganguly-haters. His scoring areas haven't changed, but his former weaknesses have been eliminated. Ganguly is an inestimatably better batsman the last year in Test cricket than he'd ever been before. His ODI form, too, has been about as good as any time.

 

[Pratters]

Then how do you base your selections if not on past results?

The Indian ODI team is poor and the selectors have taken steps to change it.

You should be happy that they're looking to the future

Do I need to tell you how the losing forumula bit is so ****ing ignorant on your part? The Australian team went through a phase when they kept on losing in the 80s. That didn't mean that Border kept chopping and changing the side just because of it. Your logic is very much general and a simplistic way to counter people who are not happy with the policy the selectors have adopted. It doesn't even scratch at the surface. I have my firm reasons why I am not happy with the policy and am not interested in general retorts which are hardly reasons to go either way.

 

[social]

Do I need to tell you how the losing forumula bit is so ****ing ignorant on your part? The Australian team went through a phase when they kept on losing in the 80s. That didn't mean that Border kept chopping and changing the side just because of it. Your logic is very much general and a simplistic way to counter people who are not happy with the policy the selectors have adopted. It doesn't even scratch at the surface. I have my firm reasons why I am not happy with the policy and am not interested in general retorts which are hardly reasons to go either way.

ZZZZZZ

WC: first round exit

SA: 0-5

Eng (including second string bowling attack): 3-4

Australia (missing several players): 2 - 4

The Indian team is long overdue for an overhaul

And fyi, Australia tried everyone with a heartbeat in the 80s but finally decided to stick with YOUNG players in the hope that they'd eventually come good

 

[Pratters]

ZZZZZZ

WC: first round exit

SA: 0-5

Eng (including second string bowling attack): 3-4

Australia (missing several players): 2 - 4

The Indian team is long overdue for an overhaul

And fyi, Australia tried everyone with a heartbeat in the 80s but finally decided to stick with YOUNG players in the hope that they'd eventually come good

Besides the point I made. BTW fyi, your logic is flawed. They decided to stick with young players but they were losing right? Had Australian cricket adopted your logic, they would have chopped and changed those players. Thankfully they didn't.

Also, fyi, India went the young players route even before but it failed poorly. Going for options for the sake of it doesn't make sense. Terming them as losing formulas and thus needing change shows a very poor understanding of the game. I am surprised that you do not even understand Australian cricket history given how biased you are towards Australia. Had you understood it properly, you would have also understood that changing sides for the sake of it doesn't make any sense and Australia was sensible enough to not go down that route.

Please don't disturb me with your drivel again. I am not even interested in a debate with you, let alone a nonsense debate like this given how you have shown how one eyed you are towards Australia right through the India-Australia test series.

ZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[Richard]

Please don't disturb me with your drivel again. I am not even interested in a debate with you, let alone a nonsense debate like this given how you have shown how one eyed you are towards Australia right through the India-Australia test series.

You only noticed now?

 

[social]

Besides the point I made. BTW fyi, your logic is flawed. They decided to stick with young players but they were losing right? Had Australian cricket adopted your logic, they would have chopped and changed those players. Thankfully they didn't.

Also, fyi, India went the young players route even before but it failed poorly. Going for options for the sake of it doesn't make sense. Terming them as losing formulas and thus needing change shows a very poor understanding of the game. I am surprised that you do not even understand Australian cricket history given how biased you are towards Australia. Had you understood it properly, you would have also understood that changing sides for the sake of it doesn't make any sense and Australia was sensible enough to not go down that route.

Please don't disturb me with your drivel again. I am not even interested in a debate with you, let alone a nonsense debate like this given how you have shown how one eyed you are towards Australia right through the India-Australia test series.

ZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Your argument would hold some semblance of logic if India had been even moderately successful.

Fact is, they havent - you've obviously zzzzzzzzzzzzz'd through that

Therefore, they need to change

Seems to me that you are the typical Indian fan who picks favourite players and demands that they be selected irrespective of results

And dont try to rewrite history, Australia tried literally everybody and only settled on a side once the WC was in sight because it was too late to blood anyone else.

India is simply trying to do the same by giving youngsters a chance whilst there is a few years to sort out the wheat from the chaff

Finally, what harm can it do?

So what if they dont qualify for the finals. Hate to tell you sunshine but your "best" team would be rank outsiders anyway

 

[Pratters]

Your argument would hold some semblance of logic if India had been even moderately successful.

Fact is, they havent - you've obviously zzzzzzzzzzzzz'd through that

Therefore, they need to change

Seems to me you are biased towards certain players rather than a team

And dont try to rewrite history, Australia tried literally everybody and only settled on a side once the WC was in sight. Even then, they were regarded as having no hope (and wouldnt have won it without Gatting's self-destruction)

And fyi, the Australian test team was a revolving door until the late 80s. Even Steve Waugh was not a permanent member of the side until '91

Success has nothing to do with it. You don't don't chop and change just because a side is not successful, certainly not like India has done here.

Fact is, you didn't even read my posts in the Commonwealth game thread on why I disagree with the selectors and posted a stupid retort to a comment I made on the thread. I am not against changing players, just not like the Indian selectors have done here and I have my reasons for them.

At least you admit that you are deeply biased towards Australia. That is a start. For some one who was claiming the Ponting catch was a catch and not a drop even though Ponting said that it was a drop, that is a huge step.

I am not changing any history. I don't think that you are even aware or read about the selection decisions during the Border era.

 

[Pratters]

You only noticed now?

I have not encountered him much over my time at CW till now. I can't believe how some one can be so blindly biased. It is funny to be honest.

 

[social]

Success has nothing to do with it. You don't don't chop and change just because a side is not successful, certainly not like India has done here.

Fact is, you didn't even read my posts in the Commonwealth game thread on why I disagree with the selectors and posted a stupid retort to a comment I made on the thread. I am not against changing players, just not like the Indian selectors have done here and I have my reasons for them.

At least you admit that you are deeply biased towards Australia. That is a start. For some one who was claiming the Ponting catch was a catch and not a drop even though Ponting said that it was a drop, that is a huge step.

I am not changing any history. I don't think that you are even aware or read about the selection decisions during the Border era.

I've read your posts and, like many, disagree

You dont want wholesale change

That's fine is there's any success on the horizon. Unfortunately, recent results paint a far bleaker picture

FYI, I played with Border, (he was my first grade captain), Waughs, McDermott etc etc etc etc many times and was in 2 state squads for years during the 80s so I think I know a little bit about the Oz cricket scene during that time. He was loyal to people once they had proven themselves (like Steve Waugh) but the side chopped and changed all the time until they had some success

BTW, where does Ponting ever say that he dropped the catch off Dhoni - methinks that this is a figment of your imagination