Do you support Ganguly, Dravid being dropped?

[social]

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.

Pick old, out of form players that have consistently been part of a losing team

OR

Select youngsters and invest in the future

IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

 

[Richard]

Yeah, why not pick 2-year-olds... after all, you need to invest in the future.

 

[social]

Yeah, why not pick 2-year-olds... after all, you need to invest in the future.

Couldnt do much worse. India did lose to England

 

[Richard]

You could, actually. In ODIs you either decide to play your best team ATT or you plan for the next World Cup - no further ahead. India are doing neither - ergo, shockingly poor selection.

 

[social]

You could, actually. In ODIs you either decide to play your best team ATT or you plan for the next World Cup - no further ahead. India are doing neither - ergo, shockingly poor selection.

You do realise that the next WC is in 2011

Why else do you think a youth policy is in place?

 

[Richard]

Err, it clearly isn't, I've said that several times. They're simply picking bad teams, it's nothing to do with aiming for WC2011, else Tendulkar would have been omitted along with Ganguly and Dravid.

 

[social]

Err, it clearly isn't, I've said that several times. They're simply picking bad teams, it's nothing to do with aiming for WC2011, else Tendulkar would have been omitted along with Ganguly and Dravid.

Tendy's going on until 2011

Next excuse

 

[Richard]

Haha, yeah, sure he is.

If Tendulkar is, so are Ganguly and Dravid.

 

[social]

Haha, yeah, sure he is.

If Tendulkar is, so are Ganguly and Dravid.

Only Tendy is guaranteed selection

I keep repeating - it's not rocket science

 

[Richard]

Tendulkar is far from guranteed selection, he's no more or less likely to still be fit and good enough to play than Ganguly or Dravid are.

 

[social]

Tendulkar is far from guranteed selection, he's no more or less likely to still be fit and good enough to play than Ganguly or Dravid are.

He's in form, he's fit, and he's declared his availability

Dravid was dropped last year and has done nothing to justify a recall

Ganguly is out of form, a shocking fieldsman, and apparently doesnt get on with Dhoni

Do the math

 

[Manee]

Err, it clearly isn't, I've said that several times. They're simply picking bad teams, it's nothing to do with aiming for WC2011, else Tendulkar would have been omitted along with Ganguly and Dravid.

A selection move can have more than one motive.

 

[Richard]

But the question over picking "old" players in ODIs always requires it to be one or the other of those.

 

[Richard]

He's in form, he's fit, and he's declared his availability

Dravid was dropped last year and has done nothing to justify a recall

Ganguly is out of form, a shocking fieldsman, and apparently doesnt get on with Dhoni

Do the math

Tendulkar can't declare his availability, the tournament is 3-and-a-half years away. So therefore no-one else can declare Ganguly or Dravid unavailable. The only thing that makes any sense would be to make a guess about the availability of all, and make it the same for all 3.

Both Ganguly and Dravid have had a few low scores but are far from out-of-form enough to override careers of brilliance. If the team is picked on merit right now, both are patently in it.

 

[Manee]

But the question over picking "old" players in ODIs always requires it to be one or the other of those.

No it doesn't. You want to build to the future and yet you cannot drop a player who is playing well.

 

[Richard]

As I've said - "the future" is something you should never stop building for - but not in the form of picking players inferior to what you currently have. If it's a case of building not for the unspecified, vague "future" (which is completely stupid) but a specific target (ie, the next World Cup) then you do it completely. There's no point at all in going half-measures.

India don't appear to be doing this, so therefore the tactic that would seem to make sense would be picking the best ODI team here and now. Or, more worrying still, they think they're actually doing that by dropping Ganguly and Dravid.

 

[Perm]

I disagree with Richard's base theory on only selecting ODI players if they are going to make the next World Cup, which is one reason I'm so against Ganguly being dropped. The argument being put forward by social is pretty weak too, you should never, ever select a markedly inferior player purely because he is younger than an extremely classy batsmen who is in good form.

 

[social]

I disagree with Richard's base theory on only selecting ODI players if they are going to make the next World Cup, which is one reason I'm so against Ganguly being dropped. The argument being put forward by social is pretty weak too, you should never, ever select a markedly inferior player purely because he is younger than an extremely classy batsmen who is in good form.

Like who?

Surely not the guy averaging 30 who is also one of the worst fieldsman in international cricket

Unfortunately, at his age, Ganguly cannot afford down periods and, as predicted by many, he's having one in Australia and has paid the price

Selectors have basically looked at his batting contribution and deducted the cost to the team of his fielding and disruptive nature.

Better players than him have been left out (Bevan anyone?) for the sake of the future

 

[Perm]

Like who?

Sourav Ganguly, obviously.

Surely not the guy averaging 30 who is also one of the worst fieldsman in international cricket

Since when has fielding determined how classy a batsmen is? AFAIK it never has. Also, the guy averages 44 since his return to ODI cricket, and since you think Test form is so important, averages 52 against Test standard sides since his return to the Test side.

Unfortunately, at his age, Ganguly cannot afford down periods and, as predicted by many, he's having one in Australia and has paid the price.

Yeah, he hasn't scored as many runs as he should have in the TEST matches against Australia. That has almost no bearing on whether or not he is in good ODI form.

 

[Captain Cricket]

What would you have to say about his strike rate though? That surely needs work.