Jaffer+Karthik = incumbents
Chopra= based on performance
Gambhir= based on performance
Sehwag= based on past international experience, had an inconsistent domestic run.
Sehwag got a call-up to the squad, a bit surprisingly, upon the insistence of Anil Kumble and ahead of Chopra. (Sehwag wasnt even shortlisted initially). It was one of the few unconventional moves by Kumble. The rest, as they say, is history. What Sehwag did with the chance was quite up to him, and based on it will walk into any current team (except perhaps the fantasy teams of aussie & some others) that cap put a couple of decent conventional batsmen around him. [ Since his return, in 20 tests he averages 60 at an SR of 92 and this includes a series in NZ, bugaboo country for him. At least 4 match-impacting knocks and that does not include his triple.]
From that list of 5 above - Gambhir is doing extremely well too. The other 3 would also be fine in some of the other test teams, fair to say. (Chopra in particular would be a solid anchor and could pair up well with almost any one but Cook). So India not having opening depth in 2007 is not a good assesment. Might have been true of several years prior to that.
p.s. At the time, I myself was aghast at his selection (over Chopra). And in retrospect, as mistaken as mistaken can be.
One thing people haven't mentioned: there are more better batsmen. There are many more teams than there ever were and there's more class batsmen.
Last edited by Ikki; 29-12-2009 at 02:52 AM.
My point was that this era is unique in that you can play against two bonafide minnows, one of which shouldn't even be playing test cricket.
Another thing to note is that there are far less draws this decade. So you could say past batsmen had the advantage in that their era adopted a less aggressive batting style and created situations where more runs could have been made.
Last edited by Ikki; 29-12-2009 at 03:45 AM.
It is a combination of better pitches,better batsmen and a decline in the quality of the bowlers.I am sure that someone like Martin Crowe would have averaged well over 50 against the bowling around these days.
In the 80's when i first started watching cricket everybody seemed to have 2 top quality bowlers in their sides where as today you struggle to find a handful worldwide.No disrespect to the likes of Paul Harris and Mitchell Johnson but they are very poor in comparison to some of the bowlers from years ago.
Take the currentEngland team (i know they don't average over 50 but the point still applies),are Cook,Collingwood and Strauss that much better than the likes of Lamb,Gatting and Atherton who all averaged in the 30's when there were better bowlers around.
Quality bowlers in themselves too do not restrain Sehwag on his day (which is often enough for us). Practically every one of the good ones of this decade has seen the business end of atleast one 150+ score from him and Warne, Murali in particular have been plundered with no respect.
Flat pitches obviously help him, since every time he scores, it is discovered that there was one. So just 1/3 of the mitigating factors applies to him.The criterion of 4000 more runs with the same ingredients as the first 6000 seems fair. If Sehwag gets the rest the same way he has gotten the last 2000, even aussie will have the hardest time making reasons up. (Not outs are also a non-factor in Sehwag's average compared to almost any one else.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)