India's spinner for the 3rd Test

[Jono]

In an ironic way... thank God Mishra didn't necessarily clean up Australia in the 2nd innings too. Otherwise it would have been pretty much impossible to drop him if he took 9-10 wickets. Lucky Australia capitulated before he even got the ball in hand.

Its tough to drop him, but I think you have to if Kumble is 100% fit. But boy, if Kumble returns in place of Mishra, he better damn well take wickets in Delhi.

Best outcome is if Kumble is just still injured tbh.

 

[Uppercut]

Was reading an article on cricinfo there on whether Kumble deserves to be dropped after what he's done, whether it's fair to treat an established player and legend that way. Likewise it asked whether one can drop a player who has just taken seven wickets on debut and bowled fantastically. All i can say is, i completely disagree with the sentiments.

One question, and one question only, should be asked when choosing the team for the third test: Which player is most likely to get us a result? If they think Kumble, he should be picked. If they think Mishra (which i do), he should be picked. Kumble or Mishra's feelings ought not to come into it whatsoever.

 

[Richard]

Not as simple as that. Kumble is a distinguished player and the thought that he's been left-out when he wanted to play could very easily offer a considerable distraction and result in any number of players playing below their capability.

 

[Uppercut]

Not as simple as that. Kumble is a distinguished player and the thought that he's been left-out when he wanted to play could very easily offer a considerable distraction and result in any number of players playing below their capability.

I can't tell whether you're serious or not.

 

[tooextracool]

For some reason I strongly dislike Mishra's action, but he bowls with beautiful drift and uses flight quite well. Also, I find it surprising that he gets as much turn as he does despite bowling with a top spin action.

With regards, to the title, Kumble has to play, but surely even he can see that his time is running out?

 

[Richard]

I can't tell whether you're serious or not.

Absolutely 100%. You heard the Pattinson comments last summer, didn't you? His inclusion unsettled many players, both in the team and out of.

Angus Fraser, someone who's "been there", was saying the exact same thing yesterday at the conclusion of the game.

Should Mishra be left-out, he's not being dropped. You can only be dropped if you've been picked as a first-choice.

 

[tooextracool]

If you honestly believe that Pattinson was responsible for players playing below their usual ability, you have got to be deluded.

 

[Uppercut]

Absolutely 100%. You heard the Pattinson comments last summer, didn't you? His inclusion unsettled many players, both in the team and out of.

Angus Fraser, someone who's "been there", was saying the exact same thing yesterday at the conclusion of the game.

Should Mishra be left-out, he's not being dropped. You can only be dropped if you've been picked as a first-choice.

Looking at the Headingley game, that has to be just an excuse. England lost the game in their first innings because they kept driving everything when the ball was swinging and each and every one edged behind the wicket/onto their stumps. It was either a tactical balls-up or a failure to deal with pressure. Anderson and Flintoff bowled excellently but were met by determined play from Prince and De Villiers. Pattinson's and Broad's bowling was mediocre because they're mediocre bowlers. From then on, the game was lost.

Pattinson's only negative impact was that of a mediocre bowler replacing a batsman when they had no need for a five-man attack. I don't for one second buy that the England team batted like **** because they had someone new in at number 11. If you're a selector right now thinking "Mishra's the better bowler, but the other players might inexplicably play badly if Kumble doesn't come back" you need a new job IMO.

 

[Richard]

If you honestly believe that Pattinson was responsible for players playing below their usual ability, you have got to be deluded.

Not neccessarily Pattinson being responsible - more the fact that their old "chums" like Collingwood, Harmison etc. were hard-done-by.

 

[Richard]

If you're a selector right now thinking "Mishra's the better bowler, but the other players might inexplicably play badly if Kumble doesn't come back" you need a new job IMO.

Why? Your job is to pick the team which will play best. If you think Kumble being dumped without damn good reason (and there isn't) would unsettle the team, you should pick him.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah England players have found excuses for everything that they have done (or havent been able to do rather) for the last year and a half. Dont think any of them should be taken with anything more than a grain of salt, and its one of the reasons why Vaughan no longer being captain is a good thing.

 

[duffer]

Anil is certain to play and it's pretty certain the pitch is beig doctored just for him too.

 

[tooextracool]

Not neccessarily Pattinson being responsible - more the fact that their old "chums" like Collingwood, Harmison etc. were hard-done-by.

Again like I said, there is absolutely no logic behind that. I cannot honestly fathom how the selection of Pattinson has an impact on the likes of Cook or Bell or any of the batsmen, because, well if it does then none of them should be playing cricket. Being swayed by other selections in the side or rather by your best mate not playing is exactly the sort of thing that no one in the side should be doing. England played poorly in the Headingly test because, guess what, they were poor and the batting has been nothing but a joke for a long time before that test match. Pattinson's selection merely gave them an excuse to make up as a reason for their failure and is devoid of any logic.

 

[Richard]

Anil is certain to play and it's pretty certain the pitch is beig doctored just for him too.

Dunno about doctored, as that pretty much never happens any more (wasn't exactly common ITFP), but I'd love nothing more than to see a pitch ideal for him at The FSK.

 

[Uppercut]

Why? Your job is to pick the team which will play best. If you think Kumble being dumped without damn good reason (and there isn't) would unsettle the team, you should pick him.

Why do you need a damn good reason to "dump" Kumble? He's bowled and captained very badly for three straight series, and when another leggie gets the chance he bowls infinitely better than Kumble has in a long, long time. And when another captain gets the chance he captains infinitely better than Kumble ever has. You're not "dumping" him, he's getting pushed out by a combination of a very, very good captain and a very, very good bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

Why do you need a damn good reason to "dump" Kumble? He's bowled and captained very badly for three straight series, and when another leggie gets the chance he bowls infinitely better than Kumble has in a long, long time. And when another captain gets the chance he captains infinitely better than Kumble ever has. You're not "dumping" him, he's getting pushed out by a combination of a very, very good captain and a very, very good bowler.

I am of the un-australian opinion that players who have offered as much as Kumble has to India that they deserve to leave on their own merit. However, if they abuse that privelege then they should be pushed. Kumble should realize that there is little point in playing on after this winter, or even after this series.

 

[Richard]

Again like I said, there is absolutely no logic behind that. I cannot honestly fathom how the selection of Pattinson has an impact on the likes of Cook or Bell or any of the batsmen, because, well if it does then none of them should be playing cricket. Being swayed by other selections in the side or rather by your best mate not playing is exactly the sort of thing that no one in the side should be doing. England played poorly in the Headingly test because, guess what, they were poor and the batting has been nothing but a joke for a long time before that test match. Pattinson's selection merely gave them an excuse to make up as a reason for their failure and is devoid of any logic.

I seem to remember Corey's discussion with you about the matter. Much as they "shouldn't" feel disheartened by their mates being hard-done-by, you'll have to go a long way to find a player who won't feel such a thing, and when you eventually find someone the chances are he won't be that good.

I don't disagree that Pattinson's selection for that Test provided a convenient excuse for some failings that had nothing to do with his selection, nor that trying to find short-term excuses for long-term problems has been epidemic in recent times. But I do think that Pattinson's selection was poor for more reasons than that he didn't bowl that well.

 

[Richard]

Why do you need a damn good reason to "dump" Kumble? He's bowled and captained very badly for three straight series, and when another leggie gets the chance he bowls infinitely better than Kumble has in a long, long time. And when another captain gets the chance he captains infinitely better than Kumble ever has. You're not "dumping" him, he's getting pushed out by a combination of a very, very good captain and a very, very good bowler.

When was the last time Kumble bowled on a surface that helped his bowling?

He's always been pitch-reliant. He may have had some of such things in SL - I don't know, I didn't watch the series, though I do know that SSC and PSS in Colombo don't usually offer much to bowlers of any description - but he certainly didn't have any in South Africa or England, nor in the last 2 Tests against Pakistan, nor in Australia, nor in the Bangalore game, and the 1 Test in the home South Africa series that would've helped him he missed. I'm not absolutely sure Kumble is ready to be pensioned-off currently - I certainly don't think there's a convincing case for it. Someone who dismissed 3 top-order batsman who were batting with other top-order batsmen at the time of dismissal on debut as an injury replacement player doesn't for mine have an extraordinary case to remain in the team.

 

[Uppercut]

I am of the un-australian opinion that players who have offered as much as Kumble has to India that they deserve to leave on their own merit. However, if they abuse that privelege then they should be pushed. Kumble should realize that there is little point in playing on after this winter, or even after this series.

I'm of the other opinion. I don't think the selectors owe Kumble anything. There's not one of us one the entire forum who, gifted with Kumble's ability, wouldn't have done precisely what he has for the past 20 years- play a lot of cricket at as high a level as he can manage, and get paid for it.

No disrespect to the man, who i've vigorously defended at times in the past. But giving a good send-off to a great player comes secondary to winning cricket matches.

Of course, if you think Kumble will perform better than Mishra for the next test, none of this is relevant.

 

[tooextracool]

I seem to remember Corey's discussion with you about the matter. Much as they "shouldn't" feel disheartened by their mates being hard-done-by, you'll have to go a long way to find a player who won't feel such a thing, and when you eventually find someone the chances are he won't be that good.

Its not about not feeling such anything, after all they are human. However, such a selection is hardly likely to result in them playing more abysmally than they usually do. I dont ever remember underperforming because my best mate wasnt playing or anything along those lines whenever I played, and I cannot imagine how it would be different for anyone else. If these guys can stay on the field for 8 hours a day without their wives and kids and go on tours away from their family, one would think that they should be able to put the fact that their best mate isnt playing behind them on the cricket field.

I don't disagree that Pattinson's selection for that Test provided a convenient excuse for some failings that had nothing to do with his selection, nor that trying to find short-term excuses for long-term problems has been epidemic in recent times. But I do think that Pattinson's selection was poor for more reasons than that he didn't bowl that well.

I find that the selection of Pattinson really to be overdone. It was a bad selection yes, but its nowhere near some of the howlers that the England selectors have pulled in recent years and its not like he had been doing nothing in domestic cricket. He had been bowling quality sides out for division one in county cricket, albeit for a short period of time, and he was a swing bowler who fit the Headingly mould. Honestly how is that worse than dropping Thorpe for the Ashes in 2005? or picking G. Jones for what seemed like an eternity.