• 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.

Has Ranji Trophy experience lost its relevance?

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Let's add another piece here. Why not have top overseas players in their country's off-seasons playing for Indian state teams? Let's make it like the English (and now Kiwi and Aussie) events, with overseas professionals performing for the states. That will add some much-needed quality to this event, which largely misses its Indian stars due to national commitments.
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
Let's look at what's best specially for India. They're best served with an attacking spinner like Kartik or Mishra, both of whom have suffered due to flat decks and spaced-out matches. Mishra, for instance, may not be as good as Graeme Swann, but he's surely a lot better than someone who's only played a fraction of cricket (at any level) as he has, and he also adds to the balance (attacking spinner, capable tailender) a lot more. Both Ojha and Ashwin have a long (two seasons, maybe) way to go before being serious India contenders, which brings us back to the whole aspect of Ranji experience. Two seasons down, they may be in.
Ojha has 201 FC wickets, that is enough experience for me. What is best served for India is a spinner who can bowl well on flat pitches, that is what is most common these days. Someone like Ojha who can earn wickets in the air and bowl tight spells is what we need more than someone who can go for four or five an over regularly like Mishra.

This is not the top five. This is six or seven. Ideally you don't want that position to be too active. If you do, you have a weak top five. If you have a strong top five, a specialist at that position is wasted. A batsman at six/seven has to be a full-time bowler or keeper. That gets in Shukla and Yusuf.
Okay, are you talking about ODIs or Tests? If you are talking about Tests, the idea that number six should not be a full time batsman is nonsense.

Let's again look at what's good for India. Collingwood would make a wonderful all-rounder for India, and he's not too bad for England either. Steady top-six batsman, steady overs of medium-pace to support the bowling, will be optimal for India. Two proper spinners playing, with a good seam-up support for Zaheer and Ishant, will suit India best.
Collingwood has 17 wickets in 68 Tests. He bowls 4 overs per Test match. That is next to nothing. That is practically nothing.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Ojha has 201 FC wickets, that is enough experience for me. What is best served for India is a spinner who can bowl well on flat pitches, that is what is most common these days. Someone like Ojha who can earn wickets in the air and bowl tight spells is what we need more than someone who can go for four or five an over regularly like Mishra.



Okay, are you talking about ODIs or Tests? If you are talking about Tests, the idea that number six should not be a full time batsman is nonsense.



Collingwood has 17 wickets in 68 Tests. He bowls 4 overs per Test match. That is next to nothing. That is practically nothing.
That's the problem again- we seem to ignore Ranji/Duleep experience when selecting Ojha ahead of Mishra. Ojha has only played a fraction of domestic games, so he hasn't played on as much of a variety of surfaces as Mishra, and he's struggled against zonal sides. Two more seasons, and he may add more to his arsenal and learn more tricks and tactics, to make him useful. Besides, India needs attacking frontline spinners, which he isn't. We're talking of dropping Harbhajan, because he's struggled to pick wickets, but Ojha isn't better. Attacking spinners are the way to go for India.

Let's just optimise the positions in the playing XI. India's strength is still its batting, while bowling is an area of genuine weakness. The sixth batsman cannot knock back the deficit runs that the bowlers give away, when they're out of steam by their 20th over. The sixth batsman is almost redundant when the top five have a good time on a flat deck. In a team whose batting is so much stronger than bowling, a batsman so low in the order should also be a bowler or keeper. It's a question of balance and making your team most functional, so if the sixth batsman is also a full-fledged bowler, he's good for India.

While the Collingwood example was a long shot for FC games, India can use someone like Gayle, who's got 72 Test wickets and is a fully-functional defensive bowler. Here, Shukla is a weaker option, but because he's a seam-up bowler, he fits India's plans better. If you want a better all-rounder, Yusuf is the best pick, but will you risk it? It has its advantages and shortcomings, but give it a go.

Let's also look at England's bottom five. Bresnan, Broad and Swann are capable run-scorers for England, and there are a few outside the pool as well. Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand also have it. Maybe India should look at that as a factor for picking bowlers? There are capable bowlers in India, and while Zaheer and Harbhajan are better, they are at least as good as the poor talienders bowling for India- I'd pick Vinay Kumar ahead of Sreesanth without a second thought, and consider Pankaj Singh ahead of Munaf.

Goughy must surely eat his words for deriding Indian domestic cricket- his choice, RP Singh, has fallen flat.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
The Times of India thinks youngsters are the way to go. The BCCI should cancel their subscription for a while. India isn't at the bottom of the pile. They've tasted top status, and need to reclaim it sooner than later, which won't happen with this bunch. Rohit and Rahane are still a season away, and need to establish themselves at number four, not six, which is a dreadful position for a specialist batsman new to the team.

The Times of India also thinks Varun Aaron and Umesh Yadav should play for India. Hang on, have you seen their stat sheets? Dreadful. They haven't even tasted five domestic seasons, and you're talking them up as prospects? It's good to see that they're keen on bowling very fast, but need to bowl faster than they are now if their poor accuracy is anything to go by.
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
That's the problem again- we seem to ignore Ranji/Duleep experience when selecting Ojha ahead of Mishra. Ojha has only played a fraction of domestic games, so he hasn't played on as much of a variety of surfaces as Mishra, and he's struggled against zonal sides. Two more seasons, and he may add more to his arsenal and learn more tricks and tactics, to make him useful. Besides, India needs attacking frontline spinners, which he isn't. We're talking of dropping Harbhajan, because he's struggled to pick wickets, but Ojha isn't better. Attacking spinners are the way to go for India.
I do not think there is much of a distinction between attacking and defensive spinners. I think the more important distinction is between spinners who are in form and spinners who are out of form. I am not ignoring Ranji/Duleep experience, I just think the distinction between 50 FC matches and 104 FC matches is too important. Ojha may have not done well in zonal, but he has done well for India A and BP XI and Hyderabad do play in the Super League.

Let's just optimise the positions in the playing XI. India's strength is still its batting, while bowling is an area of genuine weakness. The sixth batsman cannot knock back the deficit runs that the bowlers give away, when they're out of steam by their 20th over. The sixth batsman is almost redundant when the top five have a good time on a flat deck. In a team whose batting is so much stronger than bowling, a batsman so low in the order should also be a bowler or keeper. It's a question of balance and making your team most functional, so if the sixth batsman is also a full-fledged bowler, he's good for India.
Disagree massively. Number six should be not be far in batting ability from the top five. All the great teams have had great batsmen who have averaged high at six.

While the Collingwood example was a long shot for FC games, India can use someone like Gayle, who's got 72 Test wickets and is a fully-functional defensive bowler. Here, Shukla is a weaker option, but because he's a seam-up bowler, he fits India's plans better. If you want a better all-rounder, Yusuf is the best pick, but will you risk it? It has its advantages and shortcomings, but give it a go.
I'm not sure that a fifth bowler is necessary. Yusuf is an interesting one though, he has been in excellent form, but given his suspicious technique, I'd like to see him sustain it for a bit more.

Let's also look at England's bottom five. Bresnan, Broad and Swann are capable run-scorers for England, and there are a few outside the pool as well. Australia, South Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and New Zealand also have it. Maybe India should look at that as a factor for picking bowlers? There are capable bowlers in India, and while Zaheer and Harbhajan are better, they are at least as good as the poor talienders bowling for India- I'd pick Vinay Kumar ahead of Sreesanth without a second thought, and consider Pankaj Singh ahead of Munaf.
I do think it should be a factor. We're hardly saying to drop Mcgrath for Brett Lee. We are just saying that when there are bowlers of similar ability, it is worth getting in the one who can bat a bit. However, I do think Munaf deserves a sustained go, like Sreesanth received, before we drop him.
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
The Times of India also thinks Varun Aaron and Umesh Yadav should play for India. Hang on, have you seen their stat sheets? Dreadful. They haven't even tasted five domestic seasons, and you're talking them up as prospects? It's good to see that they're keen on bowling very fast, but need to bowl faster than they are now if their poor accuracy is anything to go by.
Yes. Yadav and Aaron are promising. They're both decidedly quick for their age. Talking them up as prospects for the next year is premature though.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Yes. Yadav and Aaron are promising. They're both decidedly quick for their age. Talking them up as prospects for the next year is premature though.
Guess what, Varun Aaron has been named as a replacement for Ishant Sharma. I hope he doesn't end up like Munaf or VRV Singh. Very premature, as pitches in England become flat for ODIs, and most Indian bowlers are sitting ducks on flat decks. He'll need a lot more support than what he's likely to get- fancy an Indian bowler making his debut in a four-man attack in ODIs, with next to no support.

Mishra/Ojha/Kartik- I still believe Pragyan Ojha is still far from world class, let alone World #1 class. He's looked very average, pedestrian and flat, and only more sessions of domestic/touring reserve cricket will help him. Picking him in the Test team when he could have stayed with Surrey and learnt so much about playing in England has done more harm than good. He's largely very average, in comparison to fellow rushed-newcomer Ajantha Mendis, who's learnt the hard way that he has a lot more to cover before he's an international regular ahead of senior Rangana Herath.

While I push for Kartik at least as much as for Mishra, dropping Mishra when he's out of form is nothing but shambolic management. He's one of your best spinners, after Bhajji and MK, so you're supposed to get him up to top form when he's not in it. If you replace him with Ojha, and he's out of form later, you've just gone backwards. India's frontline spinners should have impressive strike rates, which isn't Ojha's forte at present. Nor is it Harbhajan's, it seems, so we're talking of dropping him. Actually, Indian spin isn't in such good shape, with Bhajji on notice, Kartik out of favour, Mishra a poor match or two away from being dropped and the others still very raw and underdone.

Six-seven-special-

Every team that's doing well has someone in the top six capable of bowling or wicketkeeping. It's often the one at six, as he has a lot less batting to do. The only exception is Australia, who could rule the roost with very strong bowling and a batting side that could race away to massive totals. SA have Kallis at three. Windies had Gayle at the top, like Lanka had Sanath. NZ had Cairns, then Styris and Oram. Lanka now have Matthews. England had Flintoff, and now the option of Prior. Pakistan had Razzaq/Afridi at their best. Teams that played four bowlers with no top-six support, like most Indian sides, the current NZ/Pak side as well as some Lankan sides, have struggled.

Even in this Indian side, nobody has made #6 his own. It's a thankless position. He's got little to do on a good day, and has to bail the team out often, like VVS Laxman. You can't expect it from newcomers like Raina or Pujara or Rahane or Rohit or what-have-you. They need to establish themselves first. Let them come to #4, earn that spot, and then they make it.

Four, five, seven-eight-nine-

A fifth bowler is crucial for India now. Look at how much overs they send down an innings, it's over 25, when it should be no more than 20, like their English counterparts. Not only do they lose their strike power later on, but they're also in line for injury- like it happened with Harbhajan, Praveen and Ishant. Too much bowling, too little support, so call in the fifth.

But for that, you need to stretch your batting a little. I'd say India's batting is much superior to its bowling, so they can (rather have to) take the risk- and risk cover comes in domestic bowlers who have good batting records. Ashwin, Praveen, Vinay, Mishra, Kartik, Joginder and by a long shot Pankaj Singh are capable, albeit limited, lower order contributors. Add their contributions and you have a strong tail. If bowling is a worry, look, those stragglers in the Test side are not better bowlers- they're poor tailenders.

Munaf Patel

We'll discuss his problems in that other thread I started, but to sum it up, I don't really see the point in persisting with someone who's played little FC cricket, was picked purely on pace, but has lost all of it and gets nothing to his place in the side, when Pankaj adds more to his place.

Yusuf Pathan

We'll throw this open to discussion here. He's got a phenomenal Ranji/Duleep record, especially in the last four seasons- far better than his IPL record, for which he's famous. While not tagged a batting or all-round hopeful, he's a top-six batsman for Baroda who can also get you wickets. He's the Gayle/Sanath/Matthews/Oram of this circuit. Yes, his technique is suspect, but the support staff can work on it- he's not infinitely worse than any Indian batting prospect- but makes his effort count. Give it a go.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Every team that's doing well has someone in the top six capable of bowling or wicketkeeping. It's often the one at six, as he has a lot less batting to do. The only exception is Australia, who could rule the roost with very strong bowling and a batting side that could race away to massive totals.
Erm I'd say the current England team is also an exception to that.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Erm I'd say the current England team is also an exception to that.
They've been contemplating dropping Morgan, then Bopara, for the fifth bowler. Bopara is no slouch with the ball either- puts his hand up for bowling duty, unlike any Indian batsman.

I'd like to know an England fan's opinion on how much county (or non-Test) experience matters when they assemble a team for England. Most England players have loads of domestic/reserves experience, although some, like Cook, made their England debut three years after their FC debut. The only exception is Stuart Broad, who's still played less than fifty non-Test FC games, or James Anderson, a clear example of a youth player rushed into the frontline- but he still has serious FC experience outside Tests, unlike some Indian players eight years into representing the country.

It's a good thing, and India, who've mocked England and Australia for their 'Dad's Army' teams, need to build a similar team of he-men, not the bonny-boys we see representing India because of their youth.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
They've been contemplating dropping Morgan, then Bopara, for the fifth bowler. Bopara is no slouch with the ball either- puts his hand up for bowling duty, unlike any Indian batsman.
No, they haven't. The media have kept trying to suggest they should, but the selectors have never seriously thought it.

I'd like to know an England fan's opinion on how much county (or non-Test) experience matters when they assemble a team for England. Most England players have loads of domestic/reserves experience, although some, like Cook, made their England debut three years after their FC debut. The only exception is Stuart Broad, who's still played less than fifty non-Test FC games, or James Anderson, a clear example of a youth player rushed into the frontline- but he still has serious FC experience outside Tests, unlike some Indian players eight years into representing the country.
That's a direct result of 16 FC games a year, even someone like Taylor will be relatively experienced at a young age when he finally makes his debut.

Personally I'd place far more relevance on the Lions than County Championship results, but I've long said that I don't feel a successful county cricketer should be called up just on his figures.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
That's a direct result of 16 FC games a year, even someone like Taylor will be relatively experienced at a young age when he finally makes his debut.

Personally I'd place far more relevance on the Lions than County Championship results, but I've long said that I don't feel a successful county cricketer should be called up just on his figures.
Here in India, a top Ranji player in a team that goes the distance will eventually get a maximum of twelve FC games, taking into account his team making the finals of Ranji and Duleep, and him making the Irani squad as well.

While A-team experience is also important, it's best suited for those who are young and have barely finished a few seasons of domestic cricket. Older players who've done it already should be considered for Board XI selection, or on the bench in Tests and active in tour games, or playing in an overseas league. Unfortunately, the India A team (counterpart of the Lions) is often plagued with selectoral blunders, and some tokenism also exists- clear example in the son of a BCCI office-bearer making the squad.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Looking at three successive Ranji seasons, you'll find that there's a very strong top six you can create with the top players here. Badrinath, Rahane and Rohit Sharma have bossed the last two seasons and had it good in the one before too. Jaffer and Dhawan have done well in these seasons and would make competent openers. For the wicketkeeper, you've got options in Dinesh Karthik and Robin Uthappa, who's recently taken to wicketkeeping. All fo them have recent form and FC experience on their side.

The bowling, though, is a bit dicey. We have one-season wonders doing well lately, then vanishing in the next season. I'm not too enthusiastic ofIqbal Abdulla, Bharghav Bhatt, Mithun and Unadkat being India bowlers at all. Among the longer-lasting ones, you have Ashwin, Vinay Kumar, Murali Kartik, Pankaj Singh (last season), Irfan Pathan (pre-2010 injury), Praveen Kumar, Joginder Sharma (taking his Tier-II form to Tier-I) and a whole lot of top bowlers having just one good season and two decent ones to round off three good seasons. To confuse matters a little, you have Yusuf Pathan, who's only had top-20 records in batting and bowling, but striking a neat balance. Of these, while Praveen and Ashwin are India prospects, they've not played so much. While the top six of a Ranji/Duleep XI is strong, and you can get some good balance, the bowling lineup isn't so steady.

There's not much consistency in the bowling stats, as there's been the effect of national duty, teams getting knocked out or just plain injury in the last three seasons. While I would prefer players picked between ages 25-35 and over 50 (or even 60) FC matches, I'm not at all enthusiastic about JP Yadav being in the fray- he should have been in five years ago, but he's past it now.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Now Rahane, Tiwary and Badrinath- three Ranji performers, make the Indian ODI squad. Something's going right here.

Then again, look at who's winning the titles, and you'll find three out of five going to Mumbai. Yet Mumbai are barely represented in the Indian team, while plenty of players from Delhi/UP, and even a few from one-semi wonders seem to make it. Maybe there's something to think about here.
 

Arjun

Cricketer Of The Year
Has the IPL made the Ranji Trophy and other domestic events (not counting the silly SMAT20 and Challenger trophies) irrelevant? Let's look at it.

The IPL is still largely T20. That's not proper cricket, and demands a completely different skill set. Then again, the players who play in the IPL are top international players, while you don't even get top Indian players in the Ranji Trophy. The pitches make little difference, but there's little to no awareness of what's necessary at the top. You have bowler-friendly pitches that help someone like sub-120k JP Yadav run through batting sides, when better bowlers get smashed in the IPL. Several top Ranji players struggle in the IPL, and also at the international level. However, the IPL is also very long and you have either a lot of clustered games or wide gaps. The IPL should be tapped so that domestic players are used to facing top internationals, while the Ranji Trophy will take care of five-day skills and also long-term match fitness. The BCCI has done nothing to tap the potential of the IPL, gleefully exploited by the Australians, who have built a second and future line here.

Then there's this Pujara-mania. Why do people keep calling for (just) his inclusion at the drop of a hat? You have Badrinath, who's played twice as many with a massive average. You have Rahane, who's won titles for Mumbai in first-class cricket. You have old hands like Mazumdar and Manhas, as well as Jaffer to open. All of them are a lot more accomplished than Pujara. There's also Tiwary, who's as good as Pujara, and has a very good conversion rate- thirteen centuries and ten fifties- in over sixty FC games. While Pujara isn't a poor choice as certain IPL stereotypes, Badrinath, Rahane and Mazumdar should be in ahead, while Tiwary is also an alternative. If technique is an issue, you have a coach and the BCCI can call upon anyone they please to sort it out- like they did before they became this monstrously rich board.
 

Top