Robin Uthappa- daredevil or dumb?

[Arjun]

Having seen Robin Uthappa for a fair amount of time (and more, given Dhoni's faith in him), we may get a clear picture of how useful he is. His freakish, daring attempts at strokeplay have helped and harmed the Indian team in the matches he has got. He looks like he can run away with the match, though at times, he runs into something immovable, and it's over, often soon. On his day, he can be an unstoppable force, and a tremendous asset to the team. Would you say he's a daredevil? Or just plain dumb?

 

[chaminda_00]

Does he have to either one? Can't he just be inconsistent.

 

[adharcric]

Haha wtf?

 

[gettingbetter]

I'll be the atypical fence-sitter here and say both. he looks like a good prospect and I think with more experience, he should be able to pick how he decides to play. I must agree, some of his dismissals are just stupid, but I can't see how they are any different to any of the other 'sloggers' out there - this includes Gilchrist, Jayasuriya and co.

 

[ret]

I think that Uthappa is a gr8 prospect .... may be, he needs to hold his nerves a little more to be more successful. I guess it is something that he will learn with time

Don't appreciate the thinking where first how everyone should play and think is sterotyped and second ignores the fact that batting is little like an art and there is some individually to it

I like the positiveness shown by Uthappa. His daredevil attitude probably shows the confidence he has in himself to pull things off

 

[Jono]

Didn't look too dumb in the two CB Series finals, played within himself and did his job.

Just an inconsistent player, can't see how he's dumb. Not like he goes out Ashraful style everytime.

 

[honestbharani]

honestly, I don't think he is anything special. Has some stroke making talent but don't think his technique will hold up, really...


But seems to have an aggressive attitude and Dhoni apparently backs him to the hilt, so I guess he will be around at least for the next couple of years, even if he continues to be as inconsistent as he is right now.....

 

[Jono]

He's proven to be better than Karthik in ODIs Honest, you've gotta admit that now. You just have to.

 

[ret]

honestly, I don't think he is anything special. Has some stroke making talent but don't think his technique will hold up, really...


But seems to have an aggressive attitude and Dhoni apparently backs him to the hilt, so I guess he will be around at least for the next couple of years, even if he continues to be as inconsistent as he is right now.....

Bookish technique is over-rated as technique is what you want it to be .... discussing bookish technique is more like the bench-racers racing BMW M5 and MB E65 AMG based on their specs

 

[Julian87]

I say dumb for trying to hit the ball to square leg too often.

 

[haroon510]

I say dumb for trying to hit the ball to square leg too often.

i like this guy.. very aggrassive player.. i have to say i am a big fan of guys like rohit sharma, Gutam Gambir and robin Othapa and lets hope they get to play test matches.. their present might change my choice and i might like indian team..

 

[honestbharani]

He's proven to be better than Karthik in ODIs Honest, you've gotta admit that now. You just have to.

when did I mention Karthik?


I still think there are other better options than him. I mean, we haven't even tried out Raina yet.


I will always have him at #7 if we are playing 4 bowlers, but if we are playing 5, I think having him and Sehwag among our 5 specialist batsmen is a little too risky. Would rather have someone else in that case.

 

[Burgey]

I think if you have a player who's aggressive and capable of playing some really outlandish shots in attacking the bowlers, you need to just accept that sometimes they're not going to come off, and when they don't come off they'll sometimes look a bit stupid when they get out.

Gilchrist in ODIs was a prime example. He had a licence because of the teams he was fortunate enough to play in, but him getting out having a swipe early was a mostly accepted risk, because you had to take the bad with the exceptionally good, and it seems to me that India's developing a ODI side which is good enough to have a player like Uthappa there. I'd think him more an asset than a liability, even if he keeps playing in the same swashbuckling way.

 

[iamdavid]

I dont rate him.

Not because of his over-the-top aggression, that has its place (Gilchrist, Jayasuria etc) and as has been said you have to take the good with the bad with those sorts of players.

But because of his technique...I just think he's too limited to consistently do well against international standard bowlers. I know his aggression will put bowlers off their game and help him out but c'mon you atleast have to be able to hit the ball both sides of the wicket, and his offside game is very limited, people will learn where to bowl to him. He also has some defensive technical flaws.

I think India has better batsman waiting in the wings, and I pray he dosent get near the test team.

 

[honestbharani]

I think if you have a player who's aggressive and capable of playing some really outlandish shots in attacking the bowlers, you need to just accept that sometimes they're not going to come off, and when they don't come off they'll sometimes look a bit stupid when they get out.

Gilchrist in ODIs was a prime example. He had a licence because of the teams he was fortunate enough to play in, but him getting out having a swipe early was a mostly accepted risk, because you had to take the bad with the exceptionally good, and it seems to me that India's developing a ODI side which is good enough to have a player like Uthappa there. I'd think him more an asset than a liability, even if he keeps playing in the same swashbuckling way.

Also, the thing is he has to be clear about his role. I think we have already seen how it seemed to completely take down a player when they are not sure of their role. Karthik was seen as a finisher, along with Dhoni and he had done well in the tests against England and made a nice little 40 not out in the first ODI. Suddenly he was pushed upto 3 and he hasn't been the same player since. I don't want that to happen with Uthappa.


He seemed to have found his niche as a lower middle order hitter for us, a role which has been lacking in the past few years in our ODI side. Suddenly they have again asked him to open, asked him to tighten up (to his credit, he did do that and got a couple of good opening partnerships going with Sachin, which set us up in both the games) and I am just worried we are trying to turn him into something he is not..... We have seen that happen too many times with our players. Kaif was never going to be a big hitter but we kept playing him at 7 when a much better position would have been for him at 3 or 4. And he still remains a good bet in test cricket, and yet he is often not even talked about when guys like Yuvraj seem to have booked their places in their test sides forever........

 

[Arjun]

Technique- The most over-rated aspect of the game, particularly in India. You don't need seven Rahul Dravid types in the same team. In fact, that can do more harm than good. Looking at some of the top teams in the game, Australia don't have too many 'professors' in their team, and they still get the job done. Pakistan have Afridi alongside Younus and Yousuf. Even technically limited players can be an asset, if used in their best positions. Uthappa may be used best as a rapid-fire opener, rather than one to score centuries and double-centuries regularly.

Batting position- That number seven slot is not meant for specialists. That's one where you either have to smash everything around the park, or just surrender (not a viable option, obviously), and you don't want a specialist batsman there. Uthappa batted as a lower-order hitter, and while he played one good innings, he did nothing of note since then, batting more like Ricardo Powell than a quality frontline batsman. His average suffered, as a result. As an opener, he can afford to play himself in, to get a big score.

Versatilty- Most of the power players of today (almost all of them) have a second skill to fall back on. Gilchrist is the best wicketkeeper in action- or he was, before he retired. Symonds is a more-than-useful stock seamer/spinner. Gayle is a full-time offie who's very effective in the final overs. Afridi is a highly productive leg-spinner. Flintoff is often a frontline pacer, while the seam-up service of Styris and Oram is valuable for the Kiwis. This can go on and on, but in comparison, Uthappa has nothing. If he bats like any of them, he'll have a sub-40 average, which is not good enough for a specialist batsman. If he's short of big scores, he may lose his place to Gambhir or even Jaffer. The big innings is the key.

By far, his best innings was that one in a limited-overs match in Vizag (?) against the West Indies. He looked unstoppable, hitting freely and running hard. The bowlers simply couldn't get him out, and finally, he got out taking one risk too many. He's not one who will throw his wicket away, but one who will try to do near-impossible stunts like hitting two sixes off Brett Lee in an over or running on Ponting's arm.

 

[honestbharani]

You can't be "quality" without having some kind of decent technique.


And the Aussie batsmen you talk about all have perfectly decent techniques. They may not be water tight but it is good enough in most pitches and on most occassions. Uthappa's has too many holes to even suggest that he will be in the same league. It is one thing to score heaps plonking ur front foot down and driving everything in the flat tracks in India, but can't do it everywhere..........

 

[gettingbetter]

Technique- The most over-rated aspect of the game, particularly in India. You don't need seven Rahul Dravid types in the same team. In fact, that can do more harm than good. Looking at some of the top teams in the game, Australia don't have too many 'professors' in their team, and they still get the job done. Pakistan have Afridi alongside Younus and Yousuf. Even technically limited players can be an asset, if used in their best positions. Uthappa may be used best as a rapid-fire opener, rather than one to score centuries and double-centuries regularly.

Batting position- That number seven slot is not meant for specialists. That's one where you either have to smash everything around the park, or just surrender (not a viable option, obviously), and you don't want a specialist batsman there. Uthappa batted as a lower-order hitter, and while he played one good innings, he did nothing of note since then, batting more like Ricardo Powell than a quality frontline batsman. His average suffered, as a result. As an opener, he can afford to play himself in, to get a big score.

Versatilty- Most of the power players of today (almost all of them) have a second skill to fall back on. Gilchrist is the best wicketkeeper in action- or he was, before he retired. Symonds is a more-than-useful stock seamer/spinner. Gayle is a full-time offie who's very effective in the final overs. Afridi is a highly productive leg-spinner. Flintoff is often a frontline pacer, while the seam-up service of Styris and Oram is valuable for the Kiwis. This can go on and on, but in comparison, Uthappa has nothing. If he bats like any of them, he'll have a sub-40 average, which is not good enough for a specialist batsman. If he's short of big scores, he may lose his place to Gambhir or even Jaffer. The big innings is the key.

By far, his best innings was that one in a limited-overs match in Vizag (?) against the West Indies. He looked unstoppable, hitting freely and running hard. The bowlers simply couldn't get him out, and finally, he got out taking one risk too many. He's not one who will throw his wicket away, but one who will try to do near-impossible stunts like hitting two sixes off Brett Lee in an over or running on Ponting's arm.

Agree with you analysis on technique, but what you say about versatility is wrong, a major reason why the Indians have a influx of youngsters is to improve their fielding which Uthappa has done, quite possibly India's best fielder. And there are plenty of great/good ODI batsmen who have sub 40 averages; Dravid, Gayle, Sarwan, Gilchrist, Jayasuriya and many more. This doesn't even touch upon the fact that Yuvraj, Sharma and Gambhir don't even average 40.

 

[Jono]

Also, the thing is he has to be clear about his role. I think we have already seen how it seemed to completely take down a player when they are not sure of their role. Karthik was seen as a finisher, along with Dhoni and he had done well in the tests against England and made a nice little 40 not out in the first ODI. Suddenly he was pushed upto 3 and he hasn't been the same player since. I don't want that to happen with Uthappa.


He seemed to have found his niche as a lower middle order hitter for us, a role which has been lacking in the past few years in our ODI side. Suddenly they have again asked him to open, asked him to tighten up (to his credit, he did do that and got a couple of good opening partnerships going with Sachin, which set us up in both the games) and I am just worried we are trying to turn him into something he is not..... We have seen that happen too many times with our players. Kaif was never going to be a big hitter but we kept playing him at 7 when a much better position would have been for him at 3 or 4. And he still remains a good bet in test cricket, and yet he is often not even talked about when guys like Yuvraj seem to have booked their places in their test sides forever........

By gettin Uthappa to open you reckon we're making him something he's not, when he in fact originally came into the team as an opener? That's odd.

I agree that Uthappa has proven himself to be a perfect lower order batsman (it allows Dhoni to play this new responsible role he likes to as captain), however to say that by having Uthappa open he's been played out of position is false, and not even close to the Karthik example.

Uthappa is a better top order and lower order batsman than Karthik at ODI level. He's proven it already. He's made scores of 41, 30*, 44, 47, 51 and 30 (in a final) against Australia. Its not Sachinesque, but there's something there.

I'm curious Honest, what would your best Indian XI in ODIs be? And where does Uthappa fit in say the team, and squad if he doesn't make India's XI, is he on the fringe or?