Do you support Ganguly, Dravid being dropped?

[social]

I have not encountered him much over my time at CW till now. I can't believe how some one can be so blindly biased. It is funny to be honest.

I'm biased because I'm trying to help India

If I was biased I'd be saying "pick the same team, they're doing just great"

 

[Pratters]

I've read your posts and, like many, disagree

Like many? Many think that the selection policy is right. Many feel that it is wrong. However, that is irrelevent. What is relevent is that your logic it is a losing combination and thus needs changing doesn't even scratch the surface.

BTW, I played with Border, (he was my first grade captain), Waughs, McDermott etc etc etc etc many times and was in 2 state squads for years during the 80s so I think I know a little bit about the Oz cricket scene during the 80

Who are these etc etc etc? Benaud, Miller and Bradman? Who you played against means zilch any way. It is no secret that the Australians backed a few players and formed an excellent side.

If I was biased I'd be saying "pick the same team, they're doing just great"

Err, can't you read?

I am not even interested in a debate with you, let alone a nonsense debate like this given how you have shown how one eyed you are towards Australia right through the India-Australia test series.

Where am I saying you are biased towards India or suchlike? Shows every thing about how you can add two and two to make 0.

Any way, I have had enough of this, as I said earlier, pointless debate. If any one wants to read on why I don't like the Indian selection policy here, it is in the Commonwealth thread. This isn't constructive debate and social wont end it and so I will do it. Can't be arsed about this nonsense debate to say the least.

 

[Richard]

Seems to me that you are the typical Indian fan who picks favourite players and demands that they be selected irrespective of results

on so many levels. 1, "typical" Indian fans are nothing of the sort; 2, even if they were, any fool can tell P is not amongst them. If they read a decent number of his posts, that is.

Hate to tell you sunshine but your "best" team would be rank outsiders anyway

Err, no, they wouldn't. A team such as: Ganguly, Uthappa, Dravid, Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh, Dhoni, Pathan, Harbhajan Singh, Rudra Pratap Singh, Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth could easily challenge any side in The World. Easily.

 

[Manee]

Don't think Gambhir is particularly talented at all TBH, I cannot ever see a future for him at Test or ODI level. He just seems to lack so many things, I mean I've seen plenty of worse techniques and I've seen batsmen clearly less capable. But if baffles me how he has such a good First-Class average, it really does. I've seen more than enough of him at both international levels.

To be honest, his FC performances warrent a Test selection in the near future, but I agree that he is not good enough in ODIs and has been given FAR too many chances. Strangly, he is a very good T20 batsman though.

Karthik I don't ever see being a ODI-class batsman. I simply cannot believe he continues to get picked in ODI squads. He never deserved to play his first ODI and has never done anything throughout his career to deserve to continue to play them. It'd be bad enough if it was as a wicketkeeper-batsman; as a specialist batsman, it's sheer madness. There must be a good 20-odd, probably many more, better options.

I agree. Dinesh Karthik should not play ODIs.

Incidentally, I highly doubt Uthappa will amount to that much in Test-cricket either.

I don't think anyone can judge that until it is seen how they perform at Test level. His FC average is not brilliant, but some batsmen (Trescothick for example), up their game in Test cricket.

 

[jeevan]

It truly will be ridiculous if Sehwag replaces Ganguly. Sehwag should have been dropped from ODIs for good a fair while ago.

Sehwag will never, ever be a patch on the player Ganguly was and is in the one-day game.

I agree about Ganguly being the better bat, ever and even at this point in time. (if you missed my early posts, I am peeved at Ganguly being dropped).

Except, I think, in the present squad & circumstance Sehwag is probably the best choice to open batting with Sachin. Think he is better than Gambhir, both fire very intermittently but when Sehwag does get lucky, it is a sight to see usually.

Uthappa has made the finisher spot his own I think, will be easier to find a good opener for India than the ice cool presence of mind that he has. He seems to shuffle across to every ball, at the bottom of the innings this allows him to improvise. At the top it seems to be a weakness. Yuvraj at 4, Dhoni at 5 , Uthappa at 6 has worked well a few times by now.

 

[Manee]

A team such as: Ganguly, Uthappa, Dravid, Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh, Dhoni, Pathan, Harbhajan Singh, Rudra Pratap Singh, Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth could easily challenge any side in The World. Easily.

I could not disagree more (well, I could, but I love the hyperbole) with that team being world beaters. Tendulkar is a fantastic opening batsman in ODIs and only a very good middle order batsman. Why would you want to shift the best ODI opener of all time when he is in good form?

The fielding in that side would be awful. Ganguly and Dravid are horrible. RP Singh and Zaheer Khan are also terrible. I am not saying that you should drop the aforementioned players, but there should be at least one more good fielder. I would like to get in a Suresh Raina in the middle order, who can also score quickly as well as being a good fielder, Mohammad Kaif would be a similar option, who can bat at seven and act as a finisher.

The bowling is poor too. RP Singh is a poor ODI bowler, in my opinion, based on past performances and how laughably expensive he is (in Test and ODI cricket), with the new ball. He goes for way over 5 an over far too often. I am of the belief that you can only have one of him and Sreesanth in a team and I feel that Sreesanth is far better at the wicket taking role with a strike rate of just 29.1 in 2007. I would have Praveen Kumar in, instead of RP Singh. Zaheer Khan is wholly uninspiring in ODIs too. With an average of 34.90 in 2007 and 42.44 in 2006, he simply does not take enough wickets - although I'd have him in my team, a bowling attack with him in it will not likely be world beaters.

 

[Pratters]

on so many levels. 1, "typical" Indian fans are nothing of the sort; 2, even if they were, any fool can tell P is not amongst them. If they read a decent number of his posts, that is.

That line from him wasn't there earlier. Neither was the Ponting point I raised to show how utterly biased he is which is retorted by him by saying Ponting saying it in the press conference regarding his claimed catch is a figment of my imagination. I see that he is adding cheap shots by editing his posts later and all.

Edit: I am not accusing Ponting of being a cheat or a dobber here for any one who might get that impression.

 

[social]

Like many? Many think that the selection policy is right. Many feel that it is wrong. However, that is irrelevent. What is relevent is that your logic it is a losing combination and thus needs changing doesn't even scratch the surface.



.

Just how is it flawed?

The team recently lost to Australia - check

It has been losing for an extended period of time - check

The chances are that it would have lost, given recent performances, even had they picked a couple of the experienced players - check

Seniors setting good example by ahderence to fundamentals, e.g fitness, fielding and running between wickets - nope

This being the case, change is long overdue

You talk about Australian selection policy without having a clue to what's behind it.

1. Win - chances are there wont be any changes unless a player has an extended run of outs

2. Isolated loss - see 1

3. Series of defeats - all bets are off

India's ODI team is at 3

It would be nice to think that young players could be gradually introduced but when certain seniors are setting horrible examples AND the team is losing, sometimes it's better to bite the bullet (especially in a series as meaningless as this)

Stop being so emotional and see it for what it is

 

[social]

That line from him wasn't there earlier. Neither was adding the Ponting point I raised to show how utterly biased he is is retorted by saying Ponting saying it in the press conference regarding his claimed catch is a figment of my imagination. I see that he is adding cheap shots by editing his posts later and all.

Yep, I'm a genius - I edited a post after you replied but somehow the server recorder it at an earlier time

Amazing stuff - call me Bill Gates or stop making stuff up

 

[Richard]

To be honest, his FC performances warrent a Test selection in the near future, but I agree that he is not good enough in ODIs and has been given FAR too many chances. Strangly, he is a very good T20 batsman though.

Well TBH, while his First-Class record certainly warranted a chance, having watched him a fair few times now (and read from others who've done the same) I can say with a fair amount of safety that he won't make a Test-class batsman any time soon. There are several other openers who have already played Tests I'd prefer to see (Chopra being highest on that list, Wasim Jaffer too) as of now, and I'd also be in favour of anyone else who hasn't who has a decent (40+ batting average for starters) domestic record who hasn't yet played.

It saddens me greatly to see cases like S Sriram who never got a Test chance despite a First-Class average of, at one point, over 60, while average players like Gambhir (I know their times don't exactly coincide - but see D Gandhi or V Rathour for other examples) get chances and sometimes lots of chances.

I don't think anyone can judge that until it is seen how they perform at Test level. His FC average is not brilliant, but some batsmen (Trescothick for example), up their game in Test cricket.

Well aside from the fact that I feel Trescothick hasn't actually upped his game at all, merely benefited from let-offs in a way virtually no other batsmen tend to...

Batsmen who perform at international level having not performed at domestic level are very rare indeed. There is the odd case (David Gower would probably be the best one) but they're not even close to regular enough to justify picking a player with an average\poor domestic record because "Gower could perform at international level without having done at domestic, so this guy I'm picking now might do too". To pick a player who has not been successful domestically ahead of one who has (and, obviously, hasn't been proven poor in Tests) is pure folly.

 

[Pratters]

Yep, I'm a genius - I edited a post after you replied but somehow the server recorder it at an earlier time

I replied to your post at 8.57 PM (which you made at 8.47 PM).

Then you edited your original post at 9.03 PM.

It is not called being a genius. It is called lying.

 

[Richard]

I could not disagree more (well, I could, but I love the hyperbole) with that team being world beaters. Tendulkar is a fantastic opening batsman in ODIs and only a very good middle order batsman. Why would you want to shift the best ODI opener of all time when he is in good form?

The fielding in that side would be awful. Ganguly and Dravid are horrible. RP Singh and Zaheer Khan are also terrible. I am not saying that you should drop the aforementioned players, but there should be at least one more good fielder. I would like to get in a Suresh Raina in the middle order, who can also score quickly as well as being a good fielder, Mohammad Kaif would be a similar option, who can bat at seven and act as a finisher.

The bowling is poor too. RP Singh is a poor ODI bowler, in my opinion, based on past performances and how laughably expensive he is (in Test and ODI cricket), with the new ball. He goes for way over 5 an over far too often. I am of the belief that you can only have one of him and Sreesanth in a team and I feel that Sreesanth is far better at the wicket taking role with a strike rate of just 29.1 in 2007. I would have Praveen Kumar in, instead of RP Singh. Zaheer Khan is wholly uninspiring in ODIs too. With an average of 34.90 in 2007 and 42.44 in 2006, he simply does not take enough wickets - although I'd have him in my team, a bowling attack with him in it will not likely be world beaters.

Well TBH RPS was only a thin-air name, there are several who'd probably be better bets I suppose. He, Zaheer Khan and S are none exactly proven class in ODIs, but there aren't that many better options (Munaf Patel aside, and he's more promise than current class). I wouldn't mind having Kaif in below Yuvraj Singh instead of one of the seamers I suppose, not at all in fact. Pathan at eight is a powerful unit indeed.

As regards Tendulkar, I honestly feel he'd do a far better job in the middle than Uthappa would. Uthappa is poor anywhere other than at the top of the order, and while he's obviously not as good in the Powerplays as Tendulkar, I feel the difference at the top is smaller than the difference lower down. Best ODI opener ever though Tendulkar may be, I've long been in favour of him batting at four in the format TBH.

The fielding may be poor, but I think there's more than enough batting calibre to make-up for that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Strangly, he is a very good T20 batsman though.

Or, perhaps less strangely, he's only played 13 Twenty20 games and benefited from a good patch of form when he played the majority of them. Making judgments about how good players are at Twenty20 cricket based on 10 games or so is ludicrous, and I'd actually back OD stats (presuming they were over a longer period of time) as a better judge of Twenty20 ability than a patch of 10 or so games. Not that I particularly care if players are good at Twenty20 cricket or not; it just irks me. Watching a player play one day cricket and four day cricket and observing his strengths and weaknesses will tell you a lot more about how good he will be in Twenty20 cricket than his stats over 10 Twenty20 games.

 

[social]

I replied to your post at 8.57 PM (which you made at 8.47 PM).

Then you edited your original post at 9.03 PM.

It is not called being a genius. It is called lying.

Sorry, thought you were talking about a later post

However, the edit was more about questioning re Ponting - guy never said it, so why make the claim?

 

[social]

Err, no, they wouldn't. A team such as: Ganguly, Uthappa, Dravid, Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh, Dhoni, Pathan, Harbhajan Singh, Rudra Pratap Singh, Zaheer Khan, Sreesanth could easily challenge any side in The World. Easily.

Had the chance and they cant

India are ranked where they deserve to be and have made changes - this is not rocket science

 

[Richard]

Had the chance and they cant

The fact that they didn't... once... doesn't for a second show that they can't. It's simplistic bordering on stupid to make that assumption.

 

[social]

The fact that they didn't... once... doesn't for a second show that they can't. It's simplistic bordering on stupid to make that assumption.

God you're a pedant

India's ODI rsults over an extended period of time show that they're not a very good team

In other words, they need to make a change.

It's simplistic bordering on stupid to suggest otherwise

 

[Richard]

India's results show nothing of the sort. Results don't show whether or not change is needed; players' performances show that. Unless a player's performance has been requistitely poor, you don't drop them. Neither Ganguly's nor Dravid's have been AFAIC.

 

[social]

India's results show nothing of the sort. Results don't show whether or not change is needed; players' performances show that. Unless a player's performance has been requistitely poor, you don't drop them. Neither Ganguly's nor Dravid's have been AFAIC.

Sorry, I was wrong.

No changes are needed as India are a great ODI team

They rarely win but they're great nonetheless

Sounds like an argument Steve Maclaren should've used

 

[Richard]

I couldn't care less if they're not a great team, neither I nor anyone else said they were.

I said they weren't anywhere near poor enough to merit the decisions that have been made here. And, yes, that is true, they're not. Ganguly and Dravid are better ODI players than those they've replaced.