Summed it up quite well. Karthik deserves another run but I'm afraid he'll never be seen as a permanent option because he's a manufactured opener who doesn't cash in on the flat tracks. Chopra has a great technique, has learned how to make big scores at a good rate and is awesome in the field. He's my man.Hmm, let's see:
Wasim Jaffer - A 'weak attack' and/or 'flat track' bully. Has a fatal technical flaw against outswingers on a good length or fuller outside the offstump (see Brett Lee). Lose him.
Gautam Gambhir - Sadly, a minnow-basher. He did well at #3 in Australia...but that was in the ODI format. I wouldn't recommend his return just yet.
Aakash Chopra - Infinitely better at seeing off the new ball than Wasim Jaffer and did act as a good foil to Sehwag - until October 2004, anyway.
Dinesh Karthik - Hmm...his average has been propped up by runs against Bangladesh. That being said, though, his average against Australia should be ignored (Mumbai 2004) and he has managed runs against a strong bowling line-up in South Africa and an average-to-above average bowling line-up in England. He didn't cash in against Pakistan, but I'm still tempted to pick him.
Rahul Dravid - No. He has a near-perfect technique, but you'd be compromising a strength to cover a weakness.
Irfan Pathan - Certainly not.
I'd go for either Karthik or Chopra, myself. If they're looking for someone to play a Jaffer-like role, then Chopra. If not, then I think Karthik should get a run. Due to the difference in circumstances, I'm not gonna vote on this one.
Pretty much sums-up my feelings. Jaffer and Gambhir all have some stuff to recommend them, but Chopra seems the best batsman. So far he hasn't really demonstrated this at Test level and I remain less than certain he would if given another chance. But he probably deserves one more than the rest.Hmm, let's see:
Wasim Jaffer - A 'weak attack' and/or 'flat track' bully. Has a fatal technical flaw against outswingers on a good length or fuller outside the offstump (see Brett Lee). Lose him.
Gautam Gambhir - Sadly, a minnow-basher. He did well at #3 in Australia...but that was in the ODI format. I wouldn't recommend his return just yet.
Aakash Chopra - Infinitely better at seeing off the new ball than Wasim Jaffer and did act as a good foil to Sehwag - until October 2004, anyway.
Dinesh Karthik - Hmm...his average has been propped up by runs against Bangladesh. That being said, though, his average against Australia should be ignored (Mumbai 2004) and he has managed runs against a strong bowling line-up in South Africa and an average-to-above average bowling line-up in England. He didn't cash in against Pakistan, but I'm still tempted to pick him.
Rahul Dravid - No. He has a near-perfect technique, but you'd be compromising a strength to cover a weakness.
Irfan Pathan - Certainly not.
I'd go for either Karthik or Chopra, myself. If they're looking for someone to play a Jaffer-like role, then Chopra. If not, then I think Karthik should get a run. Due to the difference in circumstances, I'm not gonna vote on this one.
Mid-series? You choose teams for the result of the series, in an attempt to win. Jaffer's career comes second.Pretty much sums-up my feelings. Jaffer and Gambhir all have some stuff to recommend them, but Chopra seems the best batsman. So far he hasn't really demonstrated this at Test level and I remain less than certain he would if given another chance. But he probably deserves one more than the rest.
Personally though I'd give Jaffer the last Test, see if he does a Strauss. Never a massive fan of making what's likely to be a career-ending drop mid-series.
Then say that then Richard.And picking someone for an odd Test at the end of a series (as would happen should Chopra be parachuted into the fray now) isn't often terribly constructive either.
Chopra may be a better batsman, but Jaffer has been playing the SAfrican bowlers and will have become to an extent accustomed to them, while possibly lacking the capability to deal with them.
If it was obvious, I'd say "drop him now". And clearly, being 0-1 down at home is a situation which calls more than most for desperate measures. But I'm not 100% convinced Chopra would neccessarily have a better chance of doing the job this upcoming game than Jaffer.
No doubt a loose one, but it has to stop. This meaningless policy will do only harm, no good, and there will be no stability at the top of the order. There may be a whole lot of better options (Gambhir, in particular, is certainly a lot better) but since you picked Jaffer, and he succeeded, and he's a genuine opener, you're stuck with him. He should never have got a game again for India in the England series, but they picked him, he came good, he kept that average high, so they have to stick with him.STOP THIS REVOLVING DOOR, COLONEL, BEFORE THE BUILDING FALLS APART!!!
The crazy thing that causes me to every time I think of it is that Chopra and Gambhir open for Delhi, while Sehwag bats down the order. Very rare is the successful manufactured Test opener who remains a down-the-order batsman for his domestic team, though Michael Vaughan did it very briefly.Not convinced with Karthik or Jaffer. I'm a big Gambhir supporter on these boards, so I'm voting for him, but if Chopra gets the next spot I hope he does all he can to cement his place. Either way, both Gambhir and Chopra play very often with Virender Sehwag as they are both from Delhi so they both have an excellent understanding and relationship between them.
Delhi's batting positions should be taken with a pinch of salt. Sehwag used to bat down the order, then established himself as an opener in ODI's and then Tests. Youngster Dhawan opened for India U-19 and now bats at four. Chopra has batted occasionally at four, so they keep rotating their openers with four options, often three, with Sehwag out on national duty.The crazy thing that causes me to every time I think of it is that Chopra and Gambhir open for Delhi, while Sehwag bats down the order. Very rare is the successful manufactured Test opener who remains a down-the-order batsman for his domestic team, though Michael Vaughan did it very briefly.