• 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.

Australia's Need, India's Riches

Bun

Banned
Haha Chappelli trying hard to justify younger brother.

Last time he did iirc was in 07 and ended up with egg on his face, reg Tendulkar.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
He'd have a much stronger case if anyone had nailed down the sixth batting spot in the Indian line up.

Why shunt aside proven class when the tyros can't hold down the place that's free-ish?
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
The most important match is the next one. If someone is doing badly enough that you think another guy gives you a better chance to win the match - you make that change. Otherwise you don't. Age shouldn't be a factor.
 

Bun

Banned
TBH Pujara I believe has done enough to merit a longer run, and would've been first choice but for his injury.

But overall it's a massive lol article.
 

Dissector

International Debutant
Well age matters at the margins. If you have a 37 year old and a 25 year old and you are not sure who is better, you pick the younger man. As it happens, Dravid is a marginal selection right now so I think India should seriously consider replacing him with perhaps Kohli.
 
Last edited:

Isura

U19 Captain
The most important match is the next one. If someone is doing badly enough that you think another guy gives you a better chance to win the match - you make that change. Otherwise you don't. Age shouldn't be a factor.
awta. I hate the age argument for picking test teams. There's no leadup to big tournaments like OD/T20 world cup.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Can see his point in a way but Laxman and Tendulkar are as good as ever only Dravid has dropped off, if he said Ponting should go for Australia for Khawaja then you could see his overall point but looks a bit like he is just having a dig at India for the sake of it as at present he can't bag England over anything.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The most important match is the next one. If someone is doing badly enough that you think another guy gives you a better chance to win the match - you make that change. Otherwise you don't. Age shouldn't be a factor.
There are limitations to that, especially in the field. Cricket's not like American sports where blokes have specific jobs they never deviate from (kicker in gridiron, pitcher in baseball, etc.) Every player fields every inning and every bowler has to bat (not every inning, of course). If a batter or bowler is slowing down with age to the point where they're going to be a liability in the field or barely able to hold a bat, you might have to consider a change to a young, springy bloke who may be a slightly worse player but who will develop. Thinking specifically of Dravid here.

Certainly is a tough balance to strike but fielding is massively important in cricket. History is full of teams who had gun batters/bowlers but weren't consistent winners as well as teams who had journeymen but won games, the difference being in the field.

EDIT: That said, I don't think Australia's woes right now are because they didn't give young blokes a go in the Test side. They clearly did; Clarke, Hughes, Cullen, Watto, etc. were all picked young in an effort to ease the transition from the gun generation to the pop-gun generation. Not to mention, the blokes who were picked older didn't demand selection before their time. The problem of quality blokes not coming through has happened further down the chain, I reckon and then there's other selection issues.....
 
Last edited:

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's a good point, Top Cat.. Dravid's reflexes in the slips have slowed down a bit, but he's still one of our safest pairs of hands there, so for now, I think he's OK.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I don't mind the article, though I strongly disagree with its contention. Its a different viewpoint and he's not the only one suggesting that some of the younger players deserve a go.

Where he falls down though is not having the balls to say that Dravid should be dropped. He didn't tackle the fact that Sachin and VVS are in career best form. That's a fairly big omission. But if we imagine that Chappell is not ******** and knows that they are playing brilliantly, the only player droppable is Dravid. He should have mentioned it.

I'm pretty sure that Chappell has previously called for Dravid dropping, even after he made a century in the first test vs NZ. I remember him saying it proved nothing. So its even more baffling that he didn't say Dravid had to go.

On top of that, as Brumby says, his point falls away by the fact that Yuvraj and Raina have failed to lock down the number 6 spot following Ganguly's retirement.
 
Last edited:

TumTum

Banned
Don't think age reduces your catching ability though.

It looks pretty bleak for Dravid. The difference between him and Ponting despite their similar averages in recent times, is that Ponting has manged to string a few games where he has looked good before getting out but Dravid has really looked awful of late.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Dravid was good in 2009 and in the home series against NZ last year. He's generally struggled to produce in tough conditions, or against reasonably challenging attacks recently, like Tendulkar in his slump. The WI tour will be important for him because he will have a big responsibility to anchor the inexperienced Indian batting lineup.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Dravid will return to WI with good memories. Captained us to a crucial away win in 2006 including playing two brilliant twin 50s in the deciding test of the series. Didn't have Tendular in that series either.
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The article was fairly tame by his standards, I reckon. The Chappell family are so zealously pro-youth, they probably reckon the old farts hanging on to 3-5 in the line-up are the reasons why no-one has nailed down the number 6 slot i.e. no incentive to be awesome in that spot because no matter what you do, you're not going to move up the order until they retire.

Plus, the concepts of paying one's dues and waiting your turn are anathema to those pricks. If you have to work hard at your game over time just to stay in the team, you probably weren't good enough to begin with and why don't you **** off so the guy who was immediately good enough can take his rightful spot? You're either a gun or you're not.
 
Last edited:

Xuhaib

International Coach
this article would make sense if all the young Indian batsman were consistently making full use of the opportunities presented to them atm apart from Kohli none of them have consistently scored runs when they have been given the chance as long as senior pros are getting the scores there is no reason to replace them.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeh, really has highlighted as a difference between India and Australia that which is really a similarity. One side is doing well, the other side is doing poorly but in both sides, the replacements haven't been good enough to knock the incumbents out of the team.

This is why I reckon India are in real trouble, much like Australia, once the big names retire. Just like the new crop of Aussie bats, very few of the names mooted as the next generation by Chappell is, prima facie, of the type who could bat out a session if the ball is hooping. Can hit long balls and out-Dilscoop anyone, though.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
over looking the India part, our youth isn't the problem. i'm not sure what Ian means by youth - i assume sub 25 - but our problem is the 25-30 part, not the sub 25 part. We've got a few good young batting prospects, indeed pretty much the same amount as we have 25-30 prospects.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
over looking the India part, our youth isn't the problem. i'm not sure what Ian means by youth - i assume sub 25 - but our problem is the 25-30 part, not the sub 25 part. We've got a few good young batting prospects, indeed pretty much the same amount as we have 25-30 prospects.
Indeed. I always thought the problem was that we've missed an entire 'generation' of batsmen who have failed to really kick on or progress to the heights climbed by our previous greats.
 

Top