Taking a step back: should more players get a second (or more) chance?

[Arjun]

Kaif gets a chance now..

thoguh doubt he will be in the final eleven..if u ask me i will pick him ahead of yuvraj

Neither should make the XI except when the pitch is green as the outfield.

As for Chopra, he's better placed than all openers bar Sehwag and Gambhir. He's a capable limited-overs batsman, unlike Jaffer, he's steady, unlike Uthappa, and he's been scoring more than a few runs for India A in both forms of the game. At this stage of his career, he's a much better player than when he was picked for India. With Tendulkar likely to miss more than a few games (and many exhibition matches or series likely to be held), Chopra may be counted in as an option.

 

[biased indian]

Neither should make the XI except when the pitch is green as the outfield.

As for Chopra, he's better placed than all openers bar Sehwag and Gambhir. He's a capable limited-overs batsman, unlike Jaffer, he's steady, unlike Uthappa, and he's been scoring more than a few runs for India A in both forms of the game. At this stage of his career, he's a much better player than when he was picked for India. With Tendulkar likely to miss more than a few games (and many exhibition matches or series likely to be held), Chopra may be counted in as an option.

So who should replace tendulkar in the X1 ????

 

[Arjun]

So who should replace tendulkar in the X1 ????

The bowler. Unless you're not too satisfied with Laxman or Ganguly or even Dravid.

 

[adharcric]

The bowler. Unless you're not too satisfied with Laxman or Ganguly or even Dravid.

Pathan?

 

[Goughy]

It varies greatly, really. Some blokes average 50+ & have failed at test level (Ramps, Hick) & some under 40 and succeed (Vaughan, Tres).

40+ is usually considered a benchmark, but the way they're scored matters a lot & runs in high profile games never hurts either. Someone once remarked (might have been Mike Selvey) that "televised runs count double & runs in finals treble".

Without wanting to sound boring, 44 is what the cut off should be from players being a 'gut decision' to 'earning it'. Based on some work I did.

Its changing a little now (with some poor Test cricket nations) but it is still a simple rule of thumb that an English player will average less in Test cricket than FC cricket. Vaughan and Tres are mentioned and they are exceptions but both were high profile players despite their poor averages. Vaughan was viewed as potentially the best England batsman in a generation and Tres was in a terrible slump but had been a big U19 player and had a big rep. Only a guy like Collingwood has really taken an ordinary FC record and moderate political backing and succeeded at Test level. This could be simply down to maturing at the time of his post 2005 call up.

2nd chances are all well and good but 3 things are equally important. Did they deserve the call up in the first place and b) Were they given a fair crack of the whip first time around and 3) are there solid indications they have improved and have earned a 2nd chance.

Nothing wrong with a guy getting a 2nd chance. In fact its often wise, but there needs to be something to indicate improvement. McKenzie and Ramprakash would be 2 such examples.

Both had enough chances early (though both were messed around to a certain extent) but have matured into players far improved than their previous incarnations.

As has been mentioned, Sidebottom is an interesting example as he shouldnt have been picked first time around. It was only injuries and loss of form that got him included and it is open for discussion whether he was one of the top 5 Yorkshire seamers, let alone in the nation.

 

[bond21]

Michael Clarke aswell, although not quite the same.

He was dropped, went back to FCC and worked on hitting the ball on the ground and got heaps of runs, a few double centuries, then he came back to the test team not long after and is a better batsman for it.

 

[gettingbetter]

Without wanting to sound boring, 44 is what the cut off should be from players being a 'gut decision' to 'earning it'. Based on some work I did.

Its changing a little now (with some poor Test cricket nations) but it is still a simple rule of thumb that an English player will average less in Test cricket than FC cricket. Vaughan and Tres are mentioned and they are exceptions but both were high profile players despite their poor averages. Vaughan was viewed as potentially the best England batsman in a generation and Tres was in a terrible slump but had been a big U19 player and had a big rep. Only a guy like Collingwood has really taken an ordinary FC record and moderate political backing and succeeded at Test level. This could be simply down to maturing at the time of his post 2005 call up.

2nd chances are all well and good but 3 things are equally important. Did they deserve the call up in the first place and b) Were they given a fair crack of the whip first time around and 3) are there solid indications they have improved and have earned a 2nd chance.

Nothing wrong with a guy getting a 2nd chance. In fact its often wise, but there needs to be something to indicate improvement. McKenzie and Ramprakash would be 2 such examples.

Both had enough chances early (though both were messed around to a certain extent) but have matured into players far improved than their previous incarnations.

As has been mentioned, Sidebottom is an interesting example as he shouldnt have been picked first time around. It was only injuries and loss of form that got him included and it is open for discussion whether he was one of the top 5 Yorkshire seamers, let alone in the nation.

What has that got to do with picking someone the 2nd time?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Without wanting to sound boring, 44 is what the cut off should be from players being a 'gut decision' to 'earning it'. Based on some work I did.

Its changing a little now (with some poor Test cricket nations) but it is still a simple rule of thumb that an English player will average less in Test cricket than FC cricket. Vaughan and Tres are mentioned and they are exceptions but both were high profile players despite their poor averages. Vaughan was viewed as potentially the best England batsman in a generation and Tres was in a terrible slump but had been a big U19 player and had a big rep. Only a guy like Collingwood has really taken an ordinary FC record and moderate political backing and succeeded at Test level. This could be simply down to maturing at the time of his post 2005 call up.

2nd chances are all well and good but 3 things are equally important. Did they deserve the call up in the first place and b) Were they given a fair crack of the whip first time around and 3) are there solid indications they have improved and have earned a 2nd chance.

Nothing wrong with a guy getting a 2nd chance. In fact its often wise, but there needs to be something to indicate improvement. McKenzie and Ramprakash would be 2 such examples.

Both had enough chances early (though both were messed around to a certain extent) but have matured into players far improved than their previous incarnations.

As has been mentioned, Sidebottom is an interesting example as he shouldnt have been picked first time around. It was only injuries and loss of form that got him included and it is open for discussion whether he was one of the top 5 Yorkshire seamers, let alone in the nation.

Not totally convinced nowadays. Strauss, Vaughan & Collingwood all average more in tests than overall. Of the other current top six Bell & KP are broadly comparable, leaving only Cook with a significantly better FC average.

Taking away Bangladesh would only really hurt Bell's figures too.

 

[Richard]

Strauss, with the (as of this post) whole 0.74 difference, fits into the "broadly comparable" compartment surely?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Strauss, with the (as of this post) whole 0.74 difference, fits into the "broadly comparable" compartment surely?

Yeah, if you like. Still an exception to Goughy's rule of thumb either way.

 

[aussie]

It varies a great deal i guess, one can't give a straightfoward reason to this question IMO.

But i think it depends on the strenght of your team, you look at Australian batsman like Bevan & Law who had indifferent starts to their test careers but couldn't have gotten a chance to get that second chance at the test level given the strenght of the Australian batting line-up over the past decade. Then there is Katich who IMO was clearly a victim of circumstances in the 2005 Ashes now has had fantastic season in OZ & deserves another chance & i expect him to really cash in.


With England you have the Sidebottom situation where he made a surprising debuted when he was clearly not international quality ahead some better option ATT. But now 5+ years on he has shown his worth. Then there is Ramprakash who at a late age is dominationg county attacks & there is a big call for him to be recalled. I personally would probably give him a go but i'd bet my last dollar if things had gone well for England post 2005 Ashes this debate wouldn't be happening. We would just be commending his feat but knowing very well he was a matter of the past.

NZ's Sinclair is another example had great start but over the years has looked out of his depth @ the international level. But from my recollection on NZ sides since 2000 he would never had been a first team player in the middle order anyway. So again it all comes to to team strenght.

I'm sure other sides have many other examples, but its not a straightfoward question...

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Bismah Ul-Haq

 

[NZTailender]

Bismah Ul-Haq

Undiagnosed dyslexia for mine.

 

[Richard]

Bismah Ul-Haq

Bismah-ul-Haq (sic) for my money.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I had it how it was written by Geg originally.

 

[Richard]

I know you did - my money was that Geg wrote "Bismah-ul-Haq" but meant "Bismah-ul-Haq (sic)".

Y'know, pun on "Bismallah"? May be wrong, though, of course.

 

[DaRick]

It varies a great deal i guess, one can't give a straightfoward reason to this question IMO.

But i think it depends on the strenght of your team, you look at Australian batsman like Bevan & Law who had indifferent starts to their test careers but couldn't have gotten a chance to get that second chance at the test level given the strenght of the Australian batting line-up over the past decade. Then there is Katich who IMO was clearly a victim of circumstances in the 2005 Ashes now has had fantastic season in OZ & deserves another chance & i expect him to really cash in.


With England you have the Sidebottom situation where he made a surprising debuted when he was clearly not international quality ahead some better option ATT. But now 5+ years on he has shown his worth. Then there is Ramprakash who at a late age is dominationg county attacks & there is a big call for him to be recalled. I personally would probably give him a go but i'd bet my last dollar if things had gone well for England post 2005 Ashes this debate wouldn't be happening. We would just be commending his feat but knowing very well he was a matter of the past.

NZ's Sinclair is another example had great start but over the years has looked out of his depth @ the international level. But from my recollection on NZ sides since 2000 he would never had been a first team player in the middle order anyway. So again it all comes to to team strenght.

I'm sure other sides have many other examples, but its not a straightfoward question...

Uhh...Stuart Law barely had a test career, mate. He also scored 54*, albeit on a Perth pitch where every Australian batsman (including 20-yr old debutant Ricky Ponting) was cashing in.

Simon Katich's average, I agree, was partially depressed as a result of some very good bowling. Like I told you, though, that doesn't excuse him from averaging 20 for the series. By the standards of a specialist batsman (no sane person would call him an all-rounder), that's shocking, no matter how good the bowling.

 

[shortpitched713]

I know you did - my money was that Geg wrote "Bismah-ul-Haq" but meant "Bismah-ul-Haq (sic)".

Y'know, pun on "Bismallah"? May be wrong, though, of course.

Which is really pronounced "Bismillah" if you cared to know.

 

[gettingbetter]

I wouldn't mind knowing your opinion (I guess I already know it), but the likelihood of the likes of Plunkett, Mahmood, Tremlett and Ali finding there way back into the English teams.

 

[Richard]

The only one I'm undecided on is Kabir Ali. Always thought he had some potential, but he's just never quite managed to make the step-up he needed to. He's always had accuracy enough to hit dangerous areas, but not quite enough of it to be able to bowl as economically as would be ideal. He's always been able to take buckets of wickets on favourable pitches and when batsmen go recklessly after him, but I've never been able to shake off the feeling that he'd be cannon-fodder on non-seaming pitches (especially with a non-swinging ball - not that he's that much of a swing bowler anyway) against particularly good batsmen.

Basically, he's somewhat of a (much) lesser early-days Waqar Younis.

Tremlett I hope gets fit (been hoping that for quite a while of course...) and plays more Test cricket, and becomes an excellent bowler; Plunkett and Mahmood I hope we never see either of them at Test or ODI level again as I don't believe either are so much as county-standard bowlers.