India's spinner for the 3rd Test

[Richard]

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.

It's not about them not being on the field - it's about the feeling that "this guy's usurped Colly\Trem\Harmy and he didn't deserve to - Colly\Harmy\Trem have been really, really hard done by here". It's a potential distraction - a disruption to team spirit, and much as I feel team spirit's influence is overstated by some there's no denying that bad team spirit can stop players from performing to their potential. That may or may not have contributed to England's woeful performance in that Headingley Test, but the possibility that it could have was always there.

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.

I don't think it neccessarily is. However, at least Pietersen (who replaced Thorpe) had a hell of a lot better domestic record than Pattinson.

The silliest thing about Pattinson is that he was picked supposedly because he was an expert swing bowler when most of the little consensus we have suggests he's actually nothing of the sort and is much more reliant on seam than swing.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Anyone whos willing to go out to bowl for his country after being hit and broken his jaw deserves more than that. And there was absolutely no need for him to take over the captaincy for the short term period like he did, considering the amount of stress and everything else that comes with being in one of the most important positions in the whole country.

Furthermore, I think its ludicrous to suggest that hes been bowling worse than he always has been. Hes had 2 poor series, bowling on some of the flattest wickets in the world, and thats hardly a crime.

 

[Uppercut]

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.

Firstly, of those pitches Kumble failed on, how many were any more conducive to spin than the one Mishra tore Oz apart on a few days ago? Mishra, with his bigger turn and more flighted stock delivery, will be effective on more pitches than Kumble. In the second innings, he came up with an absolute jaffa almost every over he bowled. They were already five down when he came on, and he was very unlucky not to get Clarke, Haddin or both second time round. There's zero doubt in my mind that had Kumble played, his bowling would not have been half as effective- especially in the first innings. Unless the pitch is going to turn square from day one, in which case Kumble would be more effective even than Warne at his peak, Mishra will be the more effective bowler again.

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.

It's not about whether he has the right to or not. It's about how good a bowler he is, and based on a lot more than that one test, i believe he's superior to Kumble atm. If you think Kumble is more likely to take wickets next week, picking him is fair enough. But weighing up what's fair on him, who has the right to play and who hasn't, is senseless IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

Anyone whos willing to go out to bowl for his country after being hit and broken his jaw deserves more than that. And there was absolutely no need for him to take over the captaincy for the short term period like he did, considering the amount of stress and everything else that comes with being in one of the most important positions in the whole country.

Furthermore, I think its ludicrous to suggest that hes been bowling worse than he always has been. Hes had 2 poor series, bowling on some of the flattest wickets in the world, and thats hardly a crime.

How flat were the pitches in Sri Lanka really, considering that Kumble played all three games and managed 8 wickets at 50.0 when Harbajahan picked up 16 at 28.4, Murali 21 at 22.2 and Mendis 26 at 18.3?

Likewise against SA, the point is more valid but he was still massively outshone by Harbajahan in both tests that he did play.

 

[tooextracool]

It's not about them not being on the field - it's about the feeling that "this guy's usurped Colly\Trem\Harmy and he didn't deserve to - Colly\Harmy\Trem have been really, really hard done by here". It's a potential distraction - a disruption to team spirit, and much as I feel team spirit's influence is overstated by some there's no denying that bad team spirit can stop players from performing to their potential. That may or may not have contributed to England's woeful performance in that Headingley Test, but the possibility that it could have was always there.

Sorry but how many people actually wanted Harmy in the side? I can remember Goughy and myself both recommending that they select Harmison, but the general consensus was that Harmison was a joke and should never come near the England side again at least until after the summer. You of all people suggesting that Harmy not being selected disrupted team harmony smacks of hypocrisy.

I do not believe for one second that England played poorly because of Pattinson, and some of the comments that the cricketers made about him in the press after the game really merits sacking them. How on earth anyone can possibly make a new player feel worse or ill at ease than he already must have been after the way the country turned against him for essentially accepting the selectors phone call is beyond me.

I don't think it neccessarily is. However, at least Pietersen (who replaced Thorpe) had a hell of a lot better domestic record than Pattinson.

The silliest thing about Pattinson is that he was picked supposedly because he was an expert swing bowler when most of the little consensus we have suggests he's actually nothing of the sort and is much more reliant on seam than swing.

You dont think that there is just as much unfairness in the dropping of a player who averages over 45 in intl cricket, just scored over 100 runs without being dismissed in his last 2 innings and was instrumental in saving the test match that he played before that (which helped England win the series)?

Seriously, how on earth is the perceived unfairness of dropping a player like Collingwood who had performed as though he was batting with a baseball bat for the entire summer not as bad as dropping hands down the best English batsman for the past decade for the most important series?

 

[Richard]

Firstly, of those pitches Kumble failed on, how many were any more conducive to spin than the one Mishra tore Oz apart on a few days ago? Mishra, with his bigger turn and more flighted stock delivery, will be effective on more pitches than Kumble. In the second innings, he came up with an absolute jaffa almost every over he bowled. They were already five down when he came on, and he was very unlucky not to get Clarke, Haddin or both second time round. There's zero doubt in my mind that had Kumble played, his bowling would not have been half as effective- especially in the first innings. Unless the pitch is going to turn square from day one, in which case Kumble would be more effective even than Warne at his peak, Mishra will be the more effective bowler again.

Of course, Mishra is more of a sidespinner than Kumble, and it was indeed sidespin rather than topspin that hustled Australia out that game. However I'd not want to state with any real assurance that Kumble wouldn't have been effective - Australia have had huge problems with him in the past, including several of the current batting-line-up.

And BTSOT, they are doing their best to ensure the FSK wicket does indeed turn, plenty.

It's not about whether he has the right to or not. It's about how good a bowler he is, and based on a lot more than that one test, i believe he's superior to Kumble atm. If you think Kumble is more likely to take wickets next week, picking him is fair enough. But weighing up what's fair on him, who has the right to play and who hasn't, is senseless IMO.

Who has the right to play and what is fair is a huge part of who is more likely to take wickets next week. If Kumble is still likely to be effective, him playing is fair; if he's not, him not playing is fair. However I don't believe that you can justify excluding Kumble because you believe that while Kumble might take 6-90, Mishra might take 10-140.

I'm interested, meanwhile, in what else you base Mishra being > Kumble on. I've never seen him before nor read any extraordinarily large amount about him and I'm rather surprised another British Isles resident has either.

 

[Richard]

Sorry but how many people actually wanted Harmy in the side? I can remember Goughy and myself both recommending that they select Harmison, but the general consensus was that Harmison was a joke and should never come near the England side again at least until after the summer. You of all people suggesting that Harmy not being selected disrupted team harmony smacks of hypocrisy.

I may not have been in favour of Harmison being picked ahead of the likes of Tremlett and Hoggard, but if you'd said to me before the Headingley squad was announced "Harmison or Darren Pattinson, which do you want?" I'd have said Harmison without a second thought. Much as I've never rated Harmison as a Test bowler, he had far more of a case to play than Pattinson did.

I do not believe for one second that England played poorly because of Pattinson, and some of the comments that the cricketers made about him in the press after the game really merits sacking them. How on earth anyone can possibly make a new player feel worse or ill at ease than he already must have been after the way the country turned against him for essentially accepting the selectors phone call is beyond me.

Don't disagree with that either, some of the comments seemed insensitive at best.

You dont think that there is just as much unfairness in the dropping of a player who averages over 45 in intl cricket, just scored over 100 runs without being dismissed in his last 2 innings and was instrumental in saving the test match that he played before that (which helped England win the series)?

Seriously, how on earth is the perceived unfairness of dropping a player like Collingwood who had performed as though he was batting with a baseball bat for the entire summer not as bad as dropping hands down the best English batsman for the past decade for the most important series?

I'm not saying that Thorpe being left-out was anything but poor, merely that Pietersen had a hell of a better case than Pattinson did. Nor am I saying Collingwood's being left-out in favour of another batsman would've been completely unjustified, but not in favour of a bowler who basically no-one knew anything much about.

 

[tooextracool]

How flat were the pitches in Sri Lanka really, considering that Kumble played all three games and managed 8 wickets at 50.0 when Harbajahan picked up 16 at 28.4, Murali 21 at 22.2 and Mendis 26 at 18.3?

Likewise against SA, the point is more valid but he was still massively outshone by Harbajahan in both tests that he did play.

He had a bad series in SL, I'll give you that much but everyone goes through the odd bad series. The pitches were flat in general for that series in SL however. The first test pitch was about as flat as any pitch you will see especially in the first innings, and the 3rd test pitch also had very little for the spinners. Galle was the only pitch that offered a lot for the spinners and even though he was outperformed by Harbhajan he did not bowl that badly.

As far as the averages are concerned, Murali can turn a ball on glass so it hardly says much about the pitches and even he struggled to take wickets for the latter 2 tests for that series(and was helped immensely in the first innings of the first test by Mendis at the other end, so much so that everyone in the Indian side rather amusingly tried to go after him).

Mendis took wickets not because he turned the ball but because the Indians couldnt pick him which has little to do with the kind of pitch.

Anyways, there were times that Kumble bowled badly in the series, but hes had poor series like that before and I honestly dont think hes declined significantly as a bowler since the Australia series where he was lauded for some of his performances.

 

[Uppercut]

Of course, Mishra is more of a sidespinner than Kumble, and it was indeed sidespin rather than topspin that hussled Australia out that game. However I'd not want to state with any real assurance that Kumble wouldn't have been effective - Australia have had huge problems with him in the past, including several of the current batting-line-up.

And BTSOT, they are doing their best to ensure the FSK wicket does indeed turn, plenty.

Who has the right to play and what is fair is a huge part of who is more likely to take wickets next week. If Kumble is still likely to be effective, him playing is fair; if he's not, him not playing is fair. However I don't believe that you can justify excluding Kumble because you believe that while Kumble might take 6-90, Mishra might take 10-140.

I'm interested, meanwhile, in what else you base Mishra being > Kumble on. I've never seen him before nor read any extraordinarily large amount about him and I'm rather surprised another British Isles resident has either.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone asked

I got excited about him (along with everyone else) a long time ago, and watched bits of him in ODIs and thought he looked an excellent prospect. His FC stats are fantastic, and i started supporting his inclusion in the test squad properly when Chawla was selected over him for the SA series. The first good look i got from his bowling recently was in the IPL, where he bowled with great control, difficult to pick variations and awesome nerve under pressure. His action, too, has improved a lot- although someone stated above that they dislike it a lot . Since then, he's performed very well for India A and, now, in the test side.

There's an element of a hunch about it, sure. I wouldn't say he's better than Kumble without a doubt, but he's who i would pick on most pitches- it's hard to argue against it on a flat deck. If the Delhi groundsman does indeed make a Kumble-special pitch, all bets are off. But in truth it's only a matter of time until the changeover in power occurs.

 

[R_D]

If Kumble is 100% fit than it has to be him. He's the captain and he's got a good record on Firoz Kotla. But seriously he needs to consider retirement soon....