Are Tendulkar and Ponting done? Is it time to call it a day?

[Jono]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Frankly, he was a passenger in the side for far too long and other players could have done better.

When? Name the period, name the tests, and name who you would have replaced him with.

I was at the ground for the Australian series, and for the first two tests he was our only batsman who could get it off the square.

[silentstriker]

Would have dropped him around this period - averaged 35 even including 248* vs. Bangladesh (28 without Bangladesh): All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

As for who I would have replaced him with? I'd have to look at the FC averages during that time, I can't quite remember who was in form. Probably Badrinath I'd think.

[Contra]

^ Ahaha... you left out Sachin's 241* vs Aus and 194 vs Pak during the start of 2004, how convenient.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

As for dropping - if you don't perform, you need to be dropped. If you score runs again, you should be picked again! It's really that simple. Frankly, he was a passenger in the side for far too long and other players could have done better. If he had found his form again in FC cricket, I'd have no problem with immediately putting him into the team again. I don't see why anything except performance should be the criteria for selection. Obviously, you don't want to drop someone after a couple Test matches, but I don't believe in sacrificing the next Test match in order to potentially win one a year from now.

You're taking your philosophy to the extreme though.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Contra

^ Ahaha... you left out Sachin's 241* vs Aus and 194 vs Pak during the start of 2004, how convenient.

Well no ****. If I include his whole career, he averages 50+ and I'd pick him for the next ten years. We're talking about stretches of being in form vs out of form.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

You're taking your philosophy to the extreme though.

I certainly think someone who has contributed as much as Ponting, Dravid, or Tendulkar need to be given more chances than someone like Yuvraj for example. Primarily because despite their streak, their past performance probably makes it likely that they'll snap out of it. But there's obviously a line that people draw at some point - I just tend to draw it a little earlier than others. I think a streak of 12-15 Tests is about the maximum for even a great player.

And as I keep reiterating - dropping for me isn't a permanent thing. I don't have this obsession with constantly bringing in 19 year old batsmen hoping they'll be good for the next 15 years. If someone is 35, is dropped and starts scoring again, I have no problem with picking them. I have no problems with Ganguly coming back into the side after he was dropped for example.

[Contra]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Well no ****. If I include his whole career, he averages 50+ and I'd pick him for the next ten years. We're talking about stretches of being in form vs out of form.

how does one define form though? I mean take that Mumbai test vs Aus for example, beyond a point you can't expect any random player to play a an innings like the one he did in the second innings of this test 4th Test: India v Australia at Mumbai, Nov 3-5, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

I also remember him missing the Windies 06 tour (which had some of the flattest wickets).

What is your cut off in terms of test matches before a player who isn't performing gets dropped?

[Jono]

Then you have the situation where your replacement comes in, has 3 tests, barely has a chance to cement himself and Sachin is tearing up FC cricket and replaces him.

That really achieves nothing.

You also have the situation where your replacement comes in, averages 35, but again, Sachin is tearing up FC cricket. Do you drop the n00b?

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Contra

What is your cut off in terms of test matches before a player who isn't performing gets dropped?

No hard and fast rule but see above.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Jono

Then you have the situation where your replacement comes in, has 3 tests, barely has a chance to cement himself and Sachin is tearing up FC cricket and replaces him.

That really achieves nothing.

You also have the situation where your replacement comes in, averages 35, but again, Sachin is tearing up FC cricket. Do you drop the n00b?

I'd give any player more than 3 Tests, unless it's ridiculously bad. If he averages (say) 35 after two series (say 6-8 Tests?), and someone proven like Sachin is tearing up domestically, I'd drop him. If he is doing much better, he stays.

[Jono]

Yeah but you think McGrath is overrated so I'm inclined not to listen to you.

[silentstriker]

Touche.

[Fusion]

Originally Posted by Jono

Yeah but you think McGrath is overrated so I'm inclined not to listen to you.

This gives me immense joy.

[silentstriker]

Every cell in my body is screaming in pure hatred towards you.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Contra

^ Ahaha... you left out Sachin's 241* vs Aus and 194 vs Pak during the start of 2004, how convenient.

So a couple of good innings should give someone 3 years grace when they're totally underperformance then, interesting theory that.