Do you support Ganguly, Dravid being dropped?

[Richard]

But does he learn from it? Or does it damage him, does he become a lesser player for it? Then, when he reaches 23-24, is he a lesser player than he would've been had he been kept out of international cricket until then?

There's no way of knowing in any given case. All we know is, there's been far more people down the years for whom what I mention happens to them than what you mention.

 

[Jono]

No surprise to see that the people who were wrong, not admit they were wrong.

India's fielding wasn't exactly consistently brilliant, but it was so so so so so so so so much better than it was vs. England in England, and vs. Australia in Australia. There were a few lapses, but the combination of Uthappa, Sharma, Chawla (near the end) etc. was quite telling.

And Richard your argument is so stupid. Dravid and Ganguly would have done as well as Rohit Sharma and Gambhir? Even if that is true (which it isn't because there' no guarantee of that anyway), can you imagine what those two players, and the rest of the youngsters have gained from this series? The experience, the confidence etc.

India don't need Dravid and Ganguly in ODIs, and for those who even dared mentioned Laxman, as much as I love him, he's even further down the track. Time to look for the future.

Sachin can stay though because he is still ridiculously brilliant, and well... yeah because he's still ridiculously brilliant, as he showed in the finals. Can't say the same with regards to Dravid and Ganguly in ODIs.

 

[Jono]

What do India gain more from:

Rohit Sharma making an important 50 to help sow up Game 1 of the finals, or Rahul Dravide performing the same role, as I have no doubt that he would have/could have.

Exactly.

Its pretty simple Richard, stop being so daft. You're annoyingly stubborn in cases like this, its amazing.

 

[Richard]

And Richard your argument is so stupid. Dravid and Ganguly would have done as well as Rohit Sharma and Gambhir? Even if that is true (which it isn't because there' no guarantee of that anyway)

The point is that all evidence points that way. It's not a case of "would have", no-one's ever said that. It's a case of "if Gambhir can do it, why on Earth would anyone suspect Ganguly couldn't have?"

can you imagine what those two players, and the rest of the youngsters have gained from this series? The experience, the confidence etc.

We'll only see that in the upcoming years. It's insane the way people talk as if it's now certain that these players will go from strength to strength.

No surprise to see that the people who were wrong, not admit they were wrong.

Incidentally, I love the way people are now talking as if anyone was against the selection of all youngsters, to try and prove those who argued for Ganguly and Dravid above Gambhir and Sharma wrong. Who was it that said Praveen Kumar, Ishant Sharma, Sreesanth and Pathan (never mind Uthappa and Yuvraj Singh) shouldn't have been picked? I can't think of anyone.

Well, actually I said Ishant Sharma's selection for the Test series wasn't the wisest. And while he didn't exactly tear the turf up, he did at least do better than I was expecting.

 

[Jono]

Its not about whether you believed Ganguly and Dravid didn't deserve to be dropped. They probably didn't 'deserve' it, but as I've said many times, you pick the team that is the best for the current circumstances, and for the future of your cricket team. You don't pick it on who deserves to play, and who doesn't... not at international level. Maybe at club level for the guy that comes to training every week, and is the first to arrive and last to leave, always trying his guts out, but it doesn't work at int'l level.

India chose a team, it worked out to be the best for their current series, and is a hell of a lot more likely to help the future of Indian cricket than if Ganguly and Dravid had been there.

Oh and another thing, Gambhir scored runs throughout the series, and Rohit played some crucial knocks. Going by that argument, all evidence pointed to Yuvraj Singh (who is a better ODI batsman than Dravid and Ganguly) having a great series, and he didn't. All evidence pointing to an occurence means crap all in cricket, because there are no guarantees, and assumptions and ifs mean nothing.

What does mean something is that India have gained so much out of this series when many didn't even expect them to make the final. They had one player above 30, and beat Australia on their own turf. On top of that, they did it with all the controversy going around... pretty good effort don't ya think Richard?

 

[Pratters]

No surprise to see that the people who were wrong, not admit they were wrong.

Don't see how India winning the series proves the people who didn't agree with the team policy were wrong. Ganguly averaged 44 in 2007 in 32 matches. He and Tendulkar at the top would could have added a lot of solidity. I don't mind people having an alternate view to mine and I don't understand why people get so worked up on this issue if people do not agree with them on the topic.

 

[Jono]

1) Pratyush, if India had a shocking series, got belted in most games, and failed to make the finals, do you honestly believe those that criticised India's youth selection with the batsman wouldn't have claimed that they were right after all? Come on get real here. You were already gloating during India's first ODI vs. Australia saying India were going to collapse for less than 150 or something similar. Not to mention the amount of crap that was thrown at the young Indian team after their 20/20 performance (which meant **** all).

2) What you're not understanding is that if Ganguly and Tendulkar added solidity to India's top order, what would that have gained? A CB Series victory? That's awesome, but this team did that, and on top of that, they gave great experience to their young players who would have learnt so much. You can't buy that,

 

[Richard]

Its not about whether you believed Ganguly and Dravid didn't deserve to be dropped. They probably didn't 'deserve' it, but as I've said many times, you pick the team that is the best for the current circumstances, and for the future of your cricket team. You don't pick it on who deserves to play, and who doesn't... not at international level. Maybe at club level for the guy that comes to training every week, and is the first to arrive and last to leave, always trying his guts out, but it doesn't work at int'l level.

If your selection is about picking the best team, the way most people claim it always is, then good selection involves the selection of the players who most deserve selection. It is as simple as that. The best team is composed of the players who most deserve selection.

If you want to pick a team other than the best one with an eye to "the future", that's your prerogative. I often say you should have an eye to the next World Cup in ODIs, something I seem to recall you disagreeing with before now. It's funny how roles have been reversed for the time being.

India chose a team, it worked out to be the best for their current series, and is a hell of a lot more likely to help the future of Indian cricket than if Ganguly and Dravid had been there.

It did indeed work-out well for the current series, but you cannot say it worked-out "best". You cannot know that had Ganguly and Dravid played, things would not have gone better still, any more than I can know they would have.

The biggest reason it did indeed work-out well, meanwhile, was because of Praveen Kumar and Ishant Sharma, who I think most people would have picked, and the surfaces, which were completely out of India's control.

Oh and another thing, Gambhir scored runs throughout the series, and Rohit played some crucial knocks. Going by that argument, all evidence pointed to Yuvraj Singh (who is a better ODI batsman than Dravid and Ganguly) having a great series, and he didn't. All evidence pointing to an occurence means crap all in cricket, because there are no guarantees, and assumptions and ifs mean nothing.

You see, that's just silly IMO. So the fact that Yuvraj had a shocking series means his selection was a bad one? No, of course it doesn't. No-one could possibly have foreseen how poorly Yuvraj did, nor could they have foreseen how well Gambhir would do.

It is this, not hindsight, which is the correct way to judge how good a selection was. A good selection and a selection that pays-off are most certainly not the same thing.

What does mean something is that India have gained so much out of this series when many didn't even expect them to make the final. They had one player above 30, and beat Australia on their own turf. On top of that, they did it with all the controversy going around... pretty good effort don't ya think Richard?

Yes, I do. When have I so much as once said otherwise on that note?

 

[ret]

IMO, Dravid and Ganguly should hv been dropped after the WC07

the Indian performances in overseas ODIs had been bad of late .... the resigning of Dravid from captaincy, a gr8 move for Ind cricket, opened the doors for change. Even though, he played some useful innings, Dravid record in ODIs over the past 12 months has been pathetic .... Ganguly appears to hv faired well but we all know how he got his runs

I had come to a point where I was pondering to not follow ODIs as long as Dravid and Ganguly were in the team .... I m glad that 20T WC win happened and now this victory, which, hopefully, will make these two focus squarly on tests

of the big 3, I would only root for a place for Sachin in the ODIs and he is more likely to play WC11

 

[Pratters]

1) Pratyush, if India had a shocking series, got belted in most games, and failed to make the finals, do you honestly believe those that criticised India's youth selection with the batsman wouldn't have claimed that they were right after all? Come on get real here. You were already gloating during India's first ODI vs. Australia saying India were going to collapse for less than 150 or something similar. Not to mention the amount of crap that was thrown at the young Indian team after their 20/20 performance (which meant **** all).

Who threw crap at the young India T20 team. I was at the semi final and the final in South Africa and loved every moment of their performance there. I don't recall throwing crap at the T20 team. I remember posting how it was a solid team and giving reasons for it. I wouldn't call 'it wouldn't surprise me if India was out for less than x' gloating. Even Bhogle didn't think India would make much in the game, but I digress. Even if India had failed badly in the series, people who supported the selection policy would say, it doesn't matter as it helps in the long term team building which is a poor defence. India's success in the finals, to a large degree, depended on two brilliant performances by Tendulkar, Rohit Sharma and the bowlers (and I have had little issue with bowling selections). What did Gambhir do in the finals (with all due respect to him because I believe that he is a good player with a very good head on his shoulders). What did Uthappa do in the finals. Score a 17 and a 30. Ganguly couldn't have done that and more to help India in it's pursuit? Heh.(I am pointing this to show how our batting could have failed in the finals and having a player like Ganguly could have added strength to it, not to point a finger on Gambhir or others) If a player performs, like Gambhir has in this series, or Sharma has, select him. Just don't offer spots for free. I am not in favor of and will never be in favor of so many unproven players in the first XI until absolutely necessary. I am never against bringing youngsters but I would phase it differently, and certainly not removing some one like Ganguly who has been performing.

2) What you're not understanding is that if Ganguly and Tendulkar added solidity to India's top order, what would that have gained? A CB Series victory? That's awesome, but this team did that, and on top of that, they gave great experience to their young players who would have learnt so much. You can't buy that,

It could very well have resulted in a series loss as well which would be harmful to the young players equally like they are so pumped up that they have won here. We could keep phasing in the talented youngsters in the squad while keeping some one like Ganguly. It wouldn't have stopped Gambhir or Sharma finding a spot in the XI for instance. Add to that, it could have added to the solidity at the top.

I don't get why some people start jumping on their seats when others don't agree with them on this issue. As I have maintained right from the start, I don't have a problem with others holding the other view, but I don't agree with that view. Every one is not the same and every one wont hold the same opinions. Any way, I have debated on the team policy a fair bit in the tour thread before and do not want to go into an endless debate here.

 

[Cevno]

1)Dropping ganguly and dravid also helped build team morale and gave dhoni a chance to stamp his authority on the team unlike when he was with them at home against australia.

2)What also is being overlooked is the running between the wickets element.When australia tried to build pressur a quick run was around the corner but with lax,dra and gan the quick runs are not possible and in a tight situation they build pressure on themselves and on others.

3)I still think in terms of just cricketing skills one of ganguly or laxman should have been kept ,so we could have had a bit more experience.

4)I have to hold my hands up and say i was not convinved about gambhir and he has started proving me wrong.Hope it continues.

 

[ret]

Below r Ganguly's stats against major sides in the last 12 mts, i.e. between 4 Mar 2007 and 4 Mar 2008

- v Australia
5 games
127runs
86 HS
31.75 Avg

Now remove that HS of 86 from the total and you get a pathetic 41 from 4 games!!

- v Pakistan
4 games
89 runs
39 HS
22.25 Avg

Again remove that 39 HS, and u get 50 runs from 3 games .... Even that 39 is not a gr8 score, but just acceptable

- v South Africa
3 games
73 runs
42 HS
24.33 Avg

source

For a senior player in the squad that doesn't make a good example, IMO .... and are we going to fight for his inclusion on the basis of his perfos against B'desh, Bermuda, Ireland, etc? .... And after his exclusion, along with Dravid's, the young Ind team has come a long way right from winning the 20T to winning the CB series

 

[jeevan]

I was against the dropping of Ganguly because of the stable opening partnership (which Uthappa provided in the last few games, finally) and because of the possibility of an extra seamer (which playing 5 bowlers also provides). Given that the alternative moves seem to be paying off, it turned out to be a gamble that has paid off.

Admittedly, since India was a weak ODI side for the CB series with or without Ganguly, the downside was small, any way. (As of the time of the team selection, definitely were the weak side). Initially, Sehwag who was Ganguly's "replacement" opener, did an ordinary job. So Dhoni had to do some tweaking.

I still believe that Uthappa is a better #7 (which is a crucial role and was missed in the second final for sure) and India can keep experimenting with openers (against BD). Praveen Kumar is worth a try since that leaves 5 bowlers and the rest of the batting order the same.

Dravid OTOH, although he had become a fabulous finisher, had a couple of people to step in to his shoes. One was Dhoni, who since the T20I tournament has been taking on Dravid traits as a middle order bat (and that is meant as a compliment of the best kind). Second was Rohit Sharma, his temparament and technique seem to make him the new Dravid in ODIs (and not the new Tendulkar).

 

[Richard]

I still believe that Uthappa is a better #7

Seriously? Uthappa's batted at the top of the order all his life as far as I'm aware, why would you want to try and force him into a role he's never done before now?

It's not like he's performed it with distinction.

 

[Manee]

TBH, I still think exactly the same, really. Rohit Sharma remains what he was before the series - a hugely promising player who so far hasn't delivered that much. Dravid could have done as well as him, without doubt.

Rohit Sharma is a very good fielder. This fielding has saved the team runs which perhaps he may have not scored, it also builds intangible pressure too. Furthermore, he has cemented his spot in the ODI side by showing a few very good innings which extends further than what was previously a promising start. Rahul Dravid may have been able to achieve the same, but Rohit builds toward the future in two ways. Literally, he can be a star for the future and less literally, if he does turn out to not be international class, he acts as a catalyst to perhaps find one of our 2011 middle order batsmen.

As for Gautam Gambhir, if you'd suggested to me before this tournament that Gambhir (who averaged 22.46 against ODI-standard teams before this tournament) would do two-and-a-half times better than he had prevously, I'd have put you in a straitjacket. If Gambhir can average 55, Ganguly certainly could have.

I must admit that I did not predict Gambhir would strike two hundreds and a fifty based on your reasons. He has not done well and is still very shaky and consistently 'cracks' under pressure resulting in a advance hoik shot. However, at three, he is more capable to play such shots without falling to the brand new ball. He was previously in limbo, not being able to stonewall the powerplays nor be capable of hitting through them, but at three he can bat through the innings - a valuable trait when you are surrounded by naturally agressive players (not when you are surrounded by defensive players - England, anyone?).

Why, then, did India do so much better in Australia than they had at home? Of course, they should've prepared seaming surfaces at home! And of course, picked Praveen Kumar and Ishant Sharma.

The first is a flippant remark, but it is not improbable that the success of Ishant in Australia, RP Singh in Australia and England and Zaheer in England could lead to a major change in Indian pitches. BTW Richard, did I rant about the importance of picking Praveen Kumar here on CW, it may have just been on other forums.

Amazing that those two seam-bowlers, and seam-friendly surfaces, have been the biggest difference between India going from being outclassed by Australia to bettering them. I don't imagine too many people would have thought that. I certainly wouldn't have.

C'mon, you cannot discount the runs and pressure which poor fielders (and the resulting ethos) created.

i would say give rohit sharma a place in test team ahead of yuvraj as and when required....

No! It was silly to pick Yuvraj because of lack of FC experience and you want to pick Rohit after just 20 games (and a poor season)?

India's fielding wasn't exactly consistently brilliant, but it was so so so so so so so so much better than it was vs. England in England, and vs. Australia in Australia. There were a few lapses, but the combination of Uthappa, Sharma, Chawla (near the end) etc. was quite telling.

Yes. It is a shame though that India have no good outfielders (they all have weak arms and are not quick to set off) to aid the good infielders. Is it just me, but has Gambhir been making many, many errors as of late, he seems to be a very poor fielder.

It's not like he's performed it with distinction.

Is it possible to do so?

 

[ret]

Dhoni's comments after the CB win

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/cbs/content/current/story/341046.html

When the squad was picked Dhoni had strongly recommended the presence of youngsters. While that gamble has now proved successful, he said he never doubted that it was the only way ahead. "Even if we had lost this tournament, we should have stuck with the young boys. This will be the team's core."

^ that says a lot

 

[jeevan]

Seriously? Uthappa's batted at the top of the order all his life as far as I'm aware, why would you want to try and force him into a role he's never done before now?

It's not like he's performed it with distinction.

The finisher job? It was a makeshift arrangement when first tried out, but his match winning knock at the Oval was so good, that he has played 10 or so matches since, and has had 2 or 3 more very good knocks (two resulted in losses any way, but he made it close from a hopeless situation).

So 3 or 4 solid knocks out of ~ 10 tries (40+) in ODIs at #7 is good. Also now that Dhoni at #5 or 6, tends to have to put down anchor - his strike rate tends to be very valuable.

 

[adharcric]

Err, eh? I'm certainly not going to be changing my mind about Gambhir because of 1 series. It'll take far more than that. Ganguly > Gambhir, easily, and I very much doubt that'll ever change. You're allowing yourself to get caught-up in the moment if you're changing your mind there. I wondered if I should wait a day before digging this. A single good series doesn't magically change Gambhir from crap to brilliant.

In any case, is Gambhir really such a remarkable fielder? Sharma's pretty good, yeah, but the two best ones are Yuvraj Singh and Uthappa, who any fool would have picked for this series anyway.

Ganguly > Gambhir? Of course, but I'm not sure Ganguly would have done what Gambhir did this series. Ganguly's been subpar against Australia for a while and Gambhir this series batted with maturity that we've rarely ever seen from him before. Your argument to suggest that Ganguly > Gambhir so Ganguly would've scored 450 runs this series is well, just stupid. Gambhir was the top run-scorer in a series that featured pretty strong bowling attacks, that means a lot. He's obviously not a great batsman after just one great series, but he's certainly promising now. Yes, he's a good fielder as well.

There's so much more to say about how Dravid's and Ganguly's exclusion may have helped Dhoni's captaincy but I'll stay away from that for now. Looking back, I'd still take Ganguly over Sehwag (of course, Dhoni being uncomfortable with having folks like Ganguly and Dravid around in the field probably played a large part in that move too) but now that it's been done, it's time to move on. Hope these two retire from ODI cricket rather than trying to force a fruitless comeback campaign and focus on test cricket, where they are really needed.

 

[Sanz]

Below r Ganguly's stats against major sides in the last 12 mts, i.e. between 4 Mar 2007 and 4 Mar 2008

- v Australia
5 games
127runs
86 HS
31.75 Avg

Now remove that HS of 86 from the total and you get a pathetic 41 from 4 games!!

- v Pakistan
4 games
89 runs
39 HS
22.25 Avg

Again remove that 39 HS, and u get 50 runs from 3 games .... Even that 39 is not a gr8 score, but just acceptable

- v South Africa
3 games
73 runs
42 HS
24.33 Avg

source

For a senior player in the squad that doesn't make a good example, IMO .... and are we going to fight for his inclusion on the basis of his perfos against B'desh, Bermuda, Ireland, etc? .... And after his exclusion, along with Dravid's, the young Ind team has come a long way right from winning the 20T to winning the CB series

Not that I prefer one way or another, but that's really a very stupid way of looking at stats. Why would anyone want to take the best inning out ? Yeah take out Gambhir's centuries and let me know what he averages in the series. Take out tendulkar's scores in the finals and tell me what he averages. Take out the best performances of every player in the series and then check their averages out.

 

[Sanz]

Who threw crap at the young India T20 team. I was at the semi final and the final in South Africa and loved every moment of their performance there. I don't recall throwing crap at the T20 team. I remember posting how it was a solid team and giving reasons for it. I wouldn't call 'it wouldn't surprise me if India was out for less than x' gloating. Even Bhogle didn't think India would make much in the game, but I digress. Even if India had failed badly in the series, people who supported the selection policy would say, it doesn't matter as it helps in the long term team building which is a poor defence. India's success in the finals, to a large degree, depended on two brilliant performances by Tendulkar, Rohit Sharma and the bowlers (and I have had little issue with bowling selections). What did Gambhir do in the finals (with all due respect to him because I believe that he is a good player with a very good head on his shoulders). What did Uthappa do in the finals. Score a 17 and a 30. Ganguly couldn't have done that and more to help India in it's pursuit? Heh.(I am pointing this to show how our batting could have failed in the finals and having a player like Ganguly could have added strength to it, not to point a finger on Gambhir or others) If a player performs, like Gambhir has in this series, or Sharma has, select him. Just don't offer spots for free. I am not in favor of and will never be in favor of so many unproven players in the first XI until absolutely necessary. I am never against bringing youngsters but I would phase it differently, and certainly not removing some one like Ganguly who has been performing.

But Pratyush, India had fielded proven players in the World Cup and we were miserable. We fielded Proven players in the past Tri-Series in the Australia and never succeeded. So IMO it was only fair that the selectors gave chance to youth and it did pay off despite our first string bowling attack not available.

If we leave out Ganguly's past record and only consider his current performance and form and compare it to Gambhir's, I dont feel he(Ganguly) adds more value to the team. Gambhir is not unproven, he has played good amount of international cricket and I think it was a great move by Dhoni and selectors to give him the responsibility and what a way to deliver. It may come out as an opinion on hindsight but when I saw Gambhir's name in the team I had expected him to get more responsibility. Rohit Sharma is a young talent and from what I had seen of him, I definately would have wanted him in the ODI side at any cost. Someone like Sehwag who has so much international experience couldn't make it to the final XI. Dravid's case is different, IMO his non-selection has more to do with non-cricketing reasons.

It could very well have resulted in a series loss as well which would be harmful to the young players equally like they are so pumped up that they have won here. We could keep phasing in the talented youngsters in the squad while keeping some one like Ganguly. It wouldn't have stopped Gambhir or Sharma finding a spot in the XI for instance. Add to that, it could have added to the solidity at the top.

Who are the youngsters that you wouldn't have wanted in the present team ? Uthappa ? I dont see anyone else who didn't deserve his place in the XI.