Cricket Player Manager
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Has Ranji Trophy experience lost its relevance?

  1. #16
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,380
    So whom would you consider from the Ranji Performers' League, beyond this series? I'd plump for Jaffer, Badrinath, Mishra, Kartik, LR Shukla and Vinay Kumar. If Irfan is fit again, he'd be in ahead of the useless sixth batsman. In this season, Rahane, Rohit and Yusuf Pathan are in line for fifty games. India needs an all-rounder or at least a supply of bowlers who can bat, but Joginder Sharma is behind the others in bowling and balance, and lacks refinement. Manoj Tiwary and Robin Uthappa are a long shot, though Uthappa as backup keeper has a chance.
    "Talent is nothing without opportunity"
    "You're not remembered for aiming at the target, but hitting it"

    Twenty20 used to be boring.

    Sponsored...by...nothing!!!

  2. #17
    Cricketer Of The Year Manee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    8,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    So whom would you consider from the Ranji Performers' League, beyond this series? I'd plump for Jaffer, Badrinath, Mishra, Kartik, LR Shukla and Vinay Kumar. If Irfan is fit again, he'd be in ahead of the useless sixth batsman. In this season, Rahane, Rohit and Yusuf Pathan are in line for fifty games. India needs an all-rounder or at least a supply of bowlers who can bat, but Joginder Sharma is behind the others in bowling and balance, and lacks refinement. Manoj Tiwary and Robin Uthappa are a long shot, though Uthappa as backup keeper has a chance.
    I wouldn't rate Jaffer too highly. I think he has the ability to average 30 in Test cricket but not much more. His off stump awareness is pretty poor and generally, he hasn't really excelled. I think he could be relied on to score runs when bowling is poor or conditions are flat, though, more so than Mukund or Vijay can.

    You seem to rate Mishra but he was poor against West Indies and was flattered somewhat by tail wickets and the fact West Indies cannot play spin; he was also poor against England with his no balls and 'hit me' balls. Murali Kartik has played in England for a while. If you want someone with experience of conditions. He has performed far better in England than in India and would have been the ideal pick. For the selectors to ignore someone who has been playing and doing excellently in England was most silly. Just in 2010 he took 5 five wicket hauls! He has 17 FC fifties and averages 19.60 in FC cricket so he could have extended the tail.

    I supported Badrinath greatly due to his record and perhaps he will be good in Test cricket but he looked very suspect against Russell's short ball. So I will not call him the savior yet. He should be given a go in Test cricket though. I do not think Shukla has played enough recently to be an option. His FC bowling record is also poor which means he will be as good as a part time bowler which begs the question of whether he is worth it as an all rounder. Joginder is conversely only useful at Test level potentially for his bowling, his batting would be number 9 level, imo. He has one hundred and no fifties in the past 3 years . One area of concern is that he averages 28 with the ball for North Zone compared to 19 for Railways, which supports the popular view that he is a bully of poor batting and struggles against better batsmen. Would love to have a look at him against top Test batsmen but I don't think we'll ever see it.
    The speed at which a fielding team gets through the innings is overrated.

  3. #18
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,380
    Jaffer, Mishra and Badrinath are the best of the next, so you'll have to bear with their problems- and work to sorting them out. Jaffer's got better with time, and did well in his 2006 comeback, until the South Africans came home. Badrinath has got international games only in splinters, unlike the likes of Kohli, Raina, Yuvraj, Rohit and Pujara. That's not enough to decide, when these others have been found wanting after a stretch of games- except Pujara, who's in the same dinghy as Badrinath, but without the fabulous domestic record. Mishra is an attacking bowler, so if something goes wrong, he will bowl a few pies- hang on, even Ojha's good deliveries turn pies when the batting is confident- likewise Bhajji's. I'm not lumping Ashwin here, as though he's useful as an all-rounder in the Irfan mould, he's not yet finished 50 FC games.

    Shukla falls back in FC because of his average under 40, but honestly, for a six/seven spot, that shouldn't matter. What does is that he bowls a lot of overs, within the first ninety, and bowls seam-up, so the top two pacers have adequate support. He can send down as much as thirty overs an innings. You can't expect that from Raina- he's not good enough with the ball, and overbowled, will struggle with the bat as well. Shukla's also a good fielder. All of this will mean nothing if Irfan returns or they somehow squeeze out more from Praveen Kumar, but as an interim Test player, he should make it.

    Joginder is way behind a few other contenders, lacks refinement and is struggling with the bat lately. His runs add up nicely, but you already have a better batting all-rounder (Shukla AND Yusuf), a better seamer who can score runs (Praveen) and a frontline bowler who can score lots of runs (Harbhajan), as well as a more useful all-rounder yet to get a cap (Ashwin) and Irfan, fitness pending. Recent performances won't get him too far ahead.

    We agree on Kartik, though he'd be left best for Tests.

    What's your opinion on Manoj Tiwary? He's a versatile, well-rounded selection for a batsman, but patchy and a little less refined, but his stats pages open up some unusual deductions.

  4. #19
    Cricketer Of The Year Manee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    8,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    Mishra is an attacking bowler, so if something goes wrong, he will bowl a few pies- hang on, even Ojha's good deliveries turn pies when the batting is confident- likewise Bhajji's. I'm not lumping Ashwin here, as though he's useful as an all-rounder in the Irfan mould, he's not yet finished 50 FC games.
    Ojha is not too bad. His average in Tests is over 40, but I think this is mainly due to him playing on some very flat pitches in Sri Lanka. His control and flight is good and I think he can be a high quality Test spinner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    Shukla falls back in FC because of his average under 40, but honestly, for a six/seven spot, that shouldn't matter.
    It absolutely should matter. Any half decent batsman in India has a FC average over 40, from Yuvraj to Raina, to Rohit to Kohli to anyone who has had any success with the bat at international level for India. Averaging under 40 in India is not the same as averaging under 40 in England.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    What does is that he bowls a lot of overs, within the first ninety, and bowls seam-up, so the top two pacers have adequate support. He can send down as much as thirty overs an innings. You can't expect that from Raina- he's not good enough with the ball, and overbowled, will struggle with the bat as well. Shukla's also a good fielder. All of this will mean nothing if Irfan returns or they somehow squeeze out more from Praveen Kumar, but as an interim Test player, he should make it.
    Shukla may bowl a lot of overs but he hasn't taken a lot of wickets. He hasn't taken more than 8 wickets in a FC season since 2001/2. That is poor. To be a genuine all rounder, you should be able to be a front line seamer for a domestic side. Even batting all rounders like Kallis or Shane Watson could play as bowlers in domestic teams. They both play as fifth bowlers which is the role Shukla would play and they show the standard of a fifth bowler who can bat. You could perhaps compare him to Collingwood who is statistically poor with the ball in Tests but then his contribution with the ball can be considered negligible, tbh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    a better seamer who can score runs (Praveen)
    Praveen's batting is the level of a number 10 of a good Test team. He cannot convert domestic to international performances as he lacks the technique to play quick bowling or good bowling. We need a genuine number 8 and ideally someone at 9 who can bat too. If we are to put an all rounder in the team, it should be at 8 to shorten the tail, not at 7 to shorten the front line batting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    What's your opinion on Manoj Tiwary? He's a versatile, well-rounded selection for a batsman, but patchy and a little less refined, but his stats pages open up some unusual deductions.
    3 ODIs and 26 runs. I am skeptical about his ability against top quality bowling. He should be in line behind Rohit, Raina, Pujara, Rahane and Badrinath, imo.


  5. #20
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Manee View Post
    Ojha is not too bad. His average in Tests is over 40, but I think this is mainly due to him playing on some very flat pitches in Sri Lanka. His control and flight is good and I think he can be a high quality Test spinner.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Manee View Post
    It absolutely should matter...Averaging under 40 in India is not the same as averaging under 40 in England.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Manee View Post
    Shukla may bowl a lot of overs but he hasn't taken a lot of wickets. He hasn't taken more than 8 wickets in a FC season since 2001/2. That is poor. You could perhaps compare him to Collingwood who is statistically poor with the ball in Tests but then his contribution with the ball can be considered negligible, tbh.
    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.

    Shukla has played over a hundred games, and lacked refinement early on, but now, as a (former) captain of Bengal, he's a batting mainstay and is also quite tidy with the ball. His last three seasons were good with the ball, and for all of his shortcomings, he's far ahead of Raina, Yuvraj, Kohli and Rohit Sharma, who cannot be risked as full-fledged bowling options. Yusuf Pathan, on the other hand, would be sufficient, except that he's a slow bowler like them. He's also had a fantastic last three seasons with bat and ball, but doesn't quite fit in the Test scheme of things- then again, worth the push, but if you want balance, Shukla's the man.
    Quote Originally Posted by Manee View Post
    Praveen's batting is the level of a number 10 of a good Test team. He cannot convert domestic to international performances as he lacks the technique to play quick bowling or good bowling. We need a genuine number 8 and ideally someone at 9 who can bat too. If we are to put an all rounder in the team, it should be at 8 to shorten the tail, not at 7 to shorten the front line batting.
    Once again, look at what's good enough for India. A Number 10 in other teams may be a sufficient Number 8 for India. The Indian bowling is too weak to play less than five bowlers- in fact, too weak to even save a match at times. While I don't advocate playing Praveen as a frontline batsman, I'd plump for five Praveen clones in the bottom five. He's not terrible with the bat, and can get better with practice and experience. While Praveen and four poor tailenders is risky, Praveen, Harbhajan, Mishra (or Ashwin), Vinay (or by a long shot, Pankaj Singh) and the only poor tailender is a good choice. Let's not forget, all of these are merely replacements for Irfan Pathan, who's struggling with injuries. And also better than Joginder Sharma.
    Quote Originally Posted by Manee View Post
    3 ODIs and 26 runs. I am skeptical about his ability against top quality bowling. He should be in line behind Rohit, Raina, Pujara, Rahane and Badrinath, imo.
    That's three spaced-out ODIs. Hardly adequate to judge the player. He made his debut in 2008, and got two more games only this year, and one as opener. That's not a proper yardstick. Of course, he's behind Badrinath, Rahane, Rohit and Mazumdar, but he's played a little more than most others, and surely should compete with Pujara. His record in List-A is less impressive, but in FC, he's quite good. May be a Test specialist.

  6. #21
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,380
    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.

  7. #22
    Cricketer Of The Year Manee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    8,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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.

  8. #23
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Manee View Post
    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.

  9. #24
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,380
    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.

  10. #25
    Cricketer Of The Year Manee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    8,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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.

  11. #26
    Cricketer Of The Year Manee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    8,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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.

  12. #27
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,380
    Quote Originally Posted by Manee View Post
    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.

  13. #28
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Arjun View Post
    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.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  14. #29
    International Coach
    Suicide Bob Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not really needed on CW
    Posts
    13,022
    Yeah but they've got 2 very capable bowling All Rounders

  15. #30
    Cricketer Of The Year Arjun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Posts
    8,380
    Quote Originally Posted by marc71178 View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Name Game.
    By yaju in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1109
    Last Post: 09-12-2011, 08:43 AM
  2. Where should i improve
    By ash chaulk in forum Battrick
    Replies: 408
    Last Post: 05-06-2008, 06:59 AM
  3. CricketWeb Money Makers...
    By vic_orthdox in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1596
    Last Post: 12-03-2007, 10:09 PM
  4. Surrey 2002: A Cricket Captain Diary
    By SIX AND OUT in forum General
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-02-2005, 09:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •