silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Fair enough then. I still think it should be up solely up to to McCullum.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Champions League Expanded from Eight to Twelve Teams
- Thread starter silentstriker
- Start date
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Not sure about Dravid & Laxman or even Ganguly. So won't say for sure.
Tendulkar was obviously a special talent, that just picked as 16 year in 89. So FC success or not doesn't really matter with him.
Sehwag just transformed into a roll as an opener. I dont think many would though he would become one or even last in the Indian test team after that 100 on debut @ 7.
Kumble is a spinner. India always produce great spinners that at least would do well @ Home & win test, so he is irrelevant. More relevant would be to mention Kapil Dev & the lack of quality fast-bowlers that have not been produced.
Yuvraj aint no legend.
What about the cases of Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Azharruddin
Other nations i mentioned like WI & NZ. Well of course the decline of WI cricket is closely linked to the decline of their FC competitions. Since 2000 when Gayle & Sarwan where selected, pretty much every WI player has been selected on talent instead of solid FC form. (Nash being the exception for obvious reasons).
NZ. Martin Crowe their greatest bat was selected on talent, Vettori...damn the list could go on b...
So going back to original comment which lead to us going slightly OT:
Its not a matter of your personal preference or mine.silentstriker said:
Fact is all 3 formats have an role to play. It would be madness to end ODI's & for the nations with poor FC structures to use that as a guide to pick players for test cricket.
Smith
Banned
I usually ignore the anti BCCI tirade here, but this merits a reply for it's absurdity.
In the current test team :
V sehwag - Picked on account of strong domestic performances
G Gambhir - Initially picked due to his performances in domestic cricket, then dropped, then came back through IPL
R Dravid - Purely domestic cricket. He was a non entity in ODDs.
S Tendulkar - Was fast tracked to test cricket following his Bradmanly run in domestic cricket.
VVS Laxman - A strong domestic cricketer who merited his selection. He has not done much of note in ODIs or IPL
Yuvraj Singh - The exception.
M S Dhoni - Selected for sterling performances in Duleep Trophy in 2003-04
H Singh - Again a strong domestic performer rewarded
Z Khan - Ditto
A Mishra - Ditto
I Sharma - Ditto
So that makes it 10/11 and by all means India is one of the top 3 test teams in the world right now.
reply for the above post:
The selectors did not find Tendulkar falling down from a tree. He was phenomenal in FC cricket and that is the only reason he was selected. Your logic is like saying Phil Hughes got into the present Aussie team not because of his FC performances but talent.
BTW Sehwag made his 100 at No.6 and not No.7, which is a perfect place for a debutant. He was averaging 59 from 33 FC matches when he made his debut. That he was such a good player that he did not mind the switch to opening is hardly relevant to the discussion about FC structure in India.
Last edited:
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Hold uppp, clear it uppppp. No anit-BCCI retoric on my part ever. So take chill pilll yo...
Sehwag is a bit of a lucky case really. I dont think many people seeing him debut @ 6 could have seen him becoming the most successfull Indian opener being Gavaskar. But even so up until his hundred @ Perth he was still seen to be a major FTB.
The fact that he has shone in the role, proves that the domestic structure is poor because openers like Das, Ramesh, Ghandi, Chopra, Jaffer with big FC runs have come & failed.
Yes. No doubt since he returned SRI 08 he has looked good. Although it must be said he hasn't been fully tested by a strong pace-attack yet though. So i still consider this phase a purpe patch,because even Jaffer was having a good time until AUS 07/08.
I know, never argued this. Although with Laxman looking back at his younger days vs AUS in 98 & 99/00 he did look a bit iffy really. I remember his 167 @ Sydney...its almost a carbon copy to Yuvraj's lara like hundred vs PAK in 07/08. Didn't really expect him to step up....but of course he did come that special 281 in 01.
So?. He still isn't a great test bat. Wayyyyyy behind his ODI batting credentials...
As i mentioned before. India always produce great spinners, that has never been a problem in history. This luxury means that at least @ home they know where their 20 wickets are coming from even if some of those same spinners aren't as effective overseas.
Zaheer was garbage in test up until ENG 07. So his FC from leading up to his test debut is irrelevant.
Sharma definately looks the part, but i was under the impression he was fast tracked from Under 19 level. Feel free to correct me with the relevant facts...
Yea i haven't debated this. But the FC form of Tendy before is debut is sort of irrelevant because not often a 16 year old does what he does. So it was clear back then that he was a special talent.
You can't doubt it wasn't risky, he could have probably turned into Hazan Raza or sum. But the world of cricket is glad that didn't happen.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
I could be wrong but won't Otago earn more money from the McCullum compo then for winning the NZ Twenty20 comp?
He salary would be slightly better for NSW, but not massively like his IPL salary.
GGG
State Captain
Yep my money is on him sticking with Otago, from what I have heard of the guy is he is a proud Dunedinite and loyal.
Smith
Banned
I would be really chilled if you start writing in English brother.
1. Sehwag had almost 3k runs in just 3 years of domestic cricket @ 60 when he debuted. The fact that he debuted at No. 6 is no undermining of his skills. Remember even Ricky Ponting was a No. 6 batsman for a big part of his initial career.
2. a. So, just because India could not find a solid opening combination means the entire First class structure is dead? How about then saying the Aussie First class system is defunct because they are unable to find a good spinner after Warne? How about saying the English First Class structure is **** because they are yet to unearth a genuinely world class batsman in the last two decades except for the borrowed talent from South Africa? How about the South African structure being called inept because they are not able to find a spinner of the quality they had in plenty before the dark days of the 70s and 80s?
2. b. That Sehwag made opening his slot points more to his adaptability. There is no doubt that had we possessed a player like Murali Vijay when Sehwag made his debut, he would still be playing at No.6, and perhaps moved up the order just like Ponting did. You conveniently forget that Simon Katich, who had such a brilliant second coming, is also a "converted" opener. Does his continued selection means Aussies don't have the FC structure to produce quality openers?
Jaffer never had a good time a stretch anytime during his career. He was continually getting selected despite his obvious shortcomings because Bombay, his team, has a big political influence in the BCCI. All of Jaffer's knocks had come on flat beds and he never ever looked convincing against any top quality attacks.
With Gambhir, the picture is different. After he was dropped, he went back to domestic cricket and grilled out big tons, adapted to the T20 format and made a big impact there, got selected in ODIs and made his mark there also, and got finally called into the test squad where he just destroyed the Australian, the No.1 team, attack. When that was done, people called him he was good just in subcontinent, on cue came the sterling performances in New Zealand. There is hardly anything you can find fault with his performances over the last few years (Since 2007 to be precise), and he is miles away from Jaffer.
Everyone looks iffy when they debut, don't they? Even Ricky Ponting took a while to really get going (his elevation to No. 3 did the trick in my opinion).
He is in the team for his wicket keeping and that is precisely why he is batting at No. 7 in tests. His record there is not as flash as ODIs, but that points out more to his extremely brilliant ODI record than a terrible test record. His average of 38 is still very good for a guy batting at No.7 especially when the 6 above him are no shmucks (well, except Yuvraj of course). If you are hinting at calling Dhoni a failure in tests, and find some absurd logic to link it to the FC structure then you are not making any sense. Actually I would consider Dhoni as the posterboy of the success of Indian FC system. For a kid who languished in the rural hinterlands of Jharkand, one of the poorest states in India, and who was just another guy in a billion about 7 years back, he could have ended up being just another face. To his credit he persevered and performed, and despite Jharkand being a Division 2 team perennially, he got selected just due to his performances in the domestic tournaments.
So what is the point you are making? What about Ishant Sharma who came up through the same conditions and is now one of the best pace bowlers in test cricket?
Your strange logic of linking players' performances in selected part of their career and linking it to overall direness of Indian FC system is abysmally poor when it comes to making sense. So I do not want to press you on further here.
Sharma got test call up only after he performed well in FC matches.
Of course, he could have become a Hazan Raza. But he did not right? The same is true for any FC structure on the face of earth right? Look at Phil Hughes, assume he goes, god forbid, the Kambli way, would you call it a failure of the Aussie FC system? FC system is designed to throw up a bunch of potentials and not the finished product. Because a player is never the finished product ever during his career. He is constantly learning, adapting, and improving himself.
Have to agree with Aussie. Given that most Indian players see international duty by the time they're 21 or 22, there's not a 5 year or 7 year track FC record to go by.
Dhoni at 24 and Dravid at 23 when they first played internationally are almost the late bloomers among the recent bunch of players. Every one else I can think of (incl Laxman & Ganguly) were in by 22.
Dhoni at 24 and Dravid at 23 when they first played internationally are almost the late bloomers among the recent bunch of players. Every one else I can think of (incl Laxman & Ganguly) were in by 22.
biased indian
International Coach
Precamith
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
In Indian cricket history, in over 70 years only Gavaskar, Sehwag, Merchant, Shastri, Engineer, Sidhu, Srikkanth, Mankad, Roy, Chauhan (spell check), Gaekwad have had success as openers.
Only Gavaskar is truly considered great. Blokes like Mankad & Shastri although successfull where makeshift.
In an Indian All-time XI you would only consider Gavaskar, Sehwag, Mankad & Merchat as your options, which clearly shows that historically openers have been a problem for India. I thought this was obvious.
Since 1876 Australia WC spinners have been O'Reilly, Grimmett, Benaud & Warne. So its not a case as if producing great leg-spinners has been a regularity in Australian cricket.
So this has zero relevance to India's FC structure which is average in many area's. Since genereally Australia FC system is strong, if it wasn't they wouldn't have dominated test cricket over various times in test cricket history.
True. But the problem with England FC structure, is a grassroots problems TBH, in that flare players like Lara, Tendy, Ponting, Richards aren't nutured from young. Even the most average players who get to test level i.e Crawley, Hick etc have a FC runs behind them before they get selected.
You would never see an English batsman or bowler debut like @ 19 like Asian nations.
Haa. Got your history wrong dawgy. Before being banned in 1970, SA WC spinners where Tayfield & Faulker, plus you could give a shout out to Reggie Schwartz & Bert Volger (spell checks). But basically thats about 2 in 80 years.
In the 20 year isolation they had Allan Kourie & Denys Hobson. Who where pretty good.
Yes since re-admission no WC spinner. But SA FC cricket since about the 1960s in Currie cup cricket has always been strong, no comparison to India yo.
More so luck, because up until his hundred @ Perth 07/08. Many still reckoned he was a major FTB & would get worked out by good bowling attacks.
Debatable. Vijay did look good in the last test match vs Australia, but so did Darren Ganga in back 2 back test hundreds vs Aus in 03. Not saying Ganga is a better player/same level as Vijay....but i dont such a example is valid, when we haven't really seen Vijay play much
If you want to look back in hindsight like that. Circa 2001/02, i still reckon India may have risked opening with Sehwag.
Australia do have good openers currently. Jaques & Rogers who could make teams like NZ, SRI, PAK, WI & SA/ENG (jaques) right now.
Katich opening shows his versatily. If he was batting in the middle order even he would still be making runs, because his record breaking FC season for NSW was not as an opener.
I dont know about the behind the scenes stuff. But i was under the idea that he got back into the Indian team vs ENG 06 on the back of big domestic runs for years, after being drop 4 year earlier. The Indian on this site ATT, had no issue with him.
Yes for the period he made runs it was againts poor attacks on flat decks. But it was a good enough purple patch (similar to what Gambhir is in right now) before he did fail in AUS, he was backed ahead of Sehwag.
- The Australian attack was inexperienced, in Indian condtions, injury raved & poorly structured by the selectors.
Lee was coming off an injury, Johnson although bowled better than his figures suggested was not the same bowler he was not same bowler he was not. Clark got his elbow injury during the series, McGain injured, Krejza not selected earlier & White's crazy selection.
Not saying better selection could have made Australia win. But months out before, it was always likely that Australia where going to loose in India really. So that Australian attack Gambhir destroyed in Indian conditions isn't nothing to go crazy about.
In NZ, although the Kiwis fought. The attack didn't have much penetration, the wickets where flat. Jaffer would have done the same.
Only thing the praise Gambhir about is his batting in SRI, which proves he is a fantastic player of spin really. He still has not yet faced a top-attack in testing conditions.
All im saying with Dhoni is that his test match batting credentials is way behind that of his ODI performances. Againts good bowling attacks in testing conditions he is still very likely to be a walking wicket as was shown in AUS 07/08 & to a level in ENG 07.
If lets say Irfan Pathan had evolved into a top young all-rounder today. It would be crazy to bat Dhoni in the top 6. Since India are highly unlikely to get a Gilchrist, Sanga, Stewart etc like performances like out of him in tests with the blade.
I admit, i was not thinking when i linked that to his FC performances. But actually your brought him up, so weirdly you kind of dragged me into commenting on him.
My main argument is as you would have read above with Silentstriker, is that IND FC structure along with those of WI, NZ, SRI, PAK are not sound like AUS, ENG, WI & SA. Thats why they are have never been able to dominate test cricket in the game's history.
NOTE: With West Indies FC structure i am referring to modern day of course.
In 70 odd years Indian have produced 1 truly great fast-bowler.
The preparation of pitches to suit the spinners has been a detriment to top-fast bowlers being produced. This is like obvious yo...
See above...
No. All that can be said is that he was worked out overtime. He came into the Australia team based on solid FC performances, Australia 95% of the time pick players on solid FC performances, rather than raw talent.
If Tendy was Australian he would not have debuted at 16.
Also looking at the examples also of past Australian openers like Langer, Hayden. You could say the strenght of the FC system enabled them to go back to FC cricket after their intial failures & come back strong. You don't see Indian doing that...
Yes. But the you can't throw up a kid into the big leagues over & over like what Indian & other nations have been doing for years & expect it to lead to you to success in test cricket. It wont work.
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
You can't really have a go at a country of picking players on talent or ODI/T20 performances when they are playing as well as they are now. To an extent Australia and South Africa have done similar things. The likes of De Villiars, Duminy, Steyn, Smith, Boucher, Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Ponting, Johnson, Siddle, Lee, McGarth, Warne, Clarke and Hughes were all basically picked on talent when other more experience FC players were overlooked.
Yeah there are other likes Hussey, Langer, Hayden, Katich, Clark, Prince and Amla that were picked on the back of lots of FC runs and wickets. But large percentage of top line International players were picked intially on talent, or runs in the shorter form.
The counter arguement is the performances of guys like Vandort, Chamara Silva, Hick and Ramps who were picked after a mount of FC runs and failed. Balance is the key. India probably go overboard on talent, but they are moving more towards FC/domestic performances over just talent.
Yeah there are other likes Hussey, Langer, Hayden, Katich, Clark, Prince and Amla that were picked on the back of lots of FC runs and wickets. But large percentage of top line International players were picked intially on talent, or runs in the shorter form.
The counter arguement is the performances of guys like Vandort, Chamara Silva, Hick and Ramps who were picked after a mount of FC runs and failed. Balance is the key. India probably go overboard on talent, but they are moving more towards FC/domestic performances over just talent.