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.i think its a great decision beause they do have a lot of talented young batsmen (Karthik Gambhir Uthappa etc.)
Averaging 30 in the current series, costs his team a minimum of 10 runs per game in the field, notoriously bad trainer, he's mid 30s and wont be around for the next wc - cant see any reason to pick him tbhYour underrating of Ganguly borders on the comical of times.
1. Everything according to the Indian selectors - that's why they've been droppedWhat have the current (Test) series and the next WC got to do with each other?
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you completely underestimate the difference between FC and OD cricket.
Anyway - Ganguly has batted superbly since his return to Test and ODI cricket. Comments like "he's on borrowed time" are laughable, nothing more.
So you're obviously suggesting that they continue with a losing formulaI don't agree with the policy the selectors have adopted. Disagree quite strongly actually and have talked on it at length in the Commonwealth thread.
You are obviously ignorant.So you're obviously suggesting that they continue with a losing formula
WC?You are obviously ignorant.
Err, you miss the point. I am not talking about the past results. You are ignorant in the sense that you generalise so stupidly.WC?
Australia?
Both humiliating experiences with the old guard
Selectors have taken the path of least resistance and changed the team whilst it's on the other side of the world
Who knows? They might even win something
Then how do you base your selections if not on past results?Err, you miss the point. I am not talking about the past results. You are ignorant in the sense that you generalise so stupidly.
And Indian selectors are well-known (as, really, are selectors from most if not all places) for being bastions of stupidity.1. Everything according to the Indian selectors - that's why they've been dropped
Ganguly hasn't become a walking wicket, he's just had 3 bad innings after 4 good ones. And yes, he'd be more than capable of scoring against Lee or anyone else with a new white ball and has done for years and years and years.2. Ganguly, who slowly but surely has become a walking wicket on this tour despite facing India-like conditions in 3 of the 4 tests, is suddenly capable of scoring runs against Lee with a new white ball bwuhahahahahahahaha
Nope, an impossible amount has changed, everyone who's watched Ganguly in the last year has spotted that, and probably many who haven't, too. About the only ones who probably haven't are rabid Ganguly-haters. His scoring areas haven't changed, but his former weaknesses have been eliminated. Ganguly is an inestimatably better batsman the last year in Test cricket than he'd ever been before. His ODI form, too, has been about as good as any time.3. Anyone that saw Ganguly play for the last year (and I assume you havent judging by your comments) knows that nothing has changed - still cant field and still requires an inordinate amount of luck to score runs on anything other than a belter that bounces more than knee height
Do I need to tell you how the losing forumula bit is so ****ing ignorant on your part? The Australian team went through a phase when they kept on losing in the 80s. That didn't mean that Border kept chopping and changing the side just because of it. Your logic is very much general and a simplistic way to counter people who are not happy with the policy the selectors have adopted. It doesn't even scratch at the surface. I have my firm reasons why I am not happy with the policy and am not interested in general retorts which are hardly reasons to go either way.Then how do you base your selections if not on past results?
The Indian ODI team is poor and the selectors have taken steps to change it.
You should be happy that they're looking to the future
ZZZZZZDo I need to tell you how the losing forumula bit is so ****ing ignorant on your part? The Australian team went through a phase when they kept on losing in the 80s. That didn't mean that Border kept chopping and changing the side just because of it. Your logic is very much general and a simplistic way to counter people who are not happy with the policy the selectors have adopted. It doesn't even scratch at the surface. I have my firm reasons why I am not happy with the policy and am not interested in general retorts which are hardly reasons to go either way.
Besides the point I made. BTW fyi, your logic is flawed. They decided to stick with young players but they were losing right? Had Australian cricket adopted your logic, they would have chopped and changed those players. Thankfully they didn't.ZZZZZZ
WC: first round exit
SA: 0-5
Eng (including second string bowling attack): 3-4
Australia (missing several players): 2 - 4
The Indian team is long overdue for an overhaul
And fyi, Australia tried everyone with a heartbeat in the 80s but finally decided to stick with YOUNG players in the hope that they'd eventually come good
You only noticed now?Please don't disturb me with your drivel again. 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.
Your argument would hold some semblance of logic if India had been even moderately successful.Besides the point I made. BTW fyi, your logic is flawed. They decided to stick with young players but they were losing right? Had Australian cricket adopted your logic, they would have chopped and changed those players. Thankfully they didn't.
Also, fyi, India went the young players route even before but it failed poorly. Going for options for the sake of it doesn't make sense. Terming them as losing formulas and thus needing change shows a very poor understanding of the game. I am surprised that you do not even understand Australian cricket history given how biased you are towards Australia. Had you understood it properly, you would have also understood that changing sides for the sake of it doesn't make any sense and Australia was sensible enough to not go down that route.
Please don't disturb me with your drivel again. 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.
ZZZZZZZZZZZ.
Success has nothing to do with it. You don't don't chop and change just because a side is not successful, certainly not like India has done here.Your argument would hold some semblance of logic if India had been even moderately successful.
Fact is, they havent - you've obviously zzzzzzzzzzzzz'd through that
Therefore, they need to change
Seems to me you are biased towards certain players rather than a team
And dont try to rewrite history, Australia tried literally everybody and only settled on a side once the WC was in sight. Even then, they were regarded as having no hope (and wouldnt have won it without Gatting's self-destruction)
And fyi, the Australian test team was a revolving door until the late 80s. Even Steve Waugh was not a permanent member of the side until '91
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.You only noticed now?
I've read your posts and, like many, disagreeSuccess has nothing to do with it. You don't don't chop and change just because a side is not successful, certainly not like India has done here.
Fact is, you didn't even read my posts in the Commonwealth game thread on why I disagree with the selectors and posted a stupid retort to a comment I made on the thread. I am not against changing players, just not like the Indian selectors have done here and I have my reasons for them.
At least you admit that you are deeply biased towards Australia. That is a start. For some one who was claiming the Ponting catch was a catch and not a drop even though Ponting said that it was a drop, that is a huge step.
I am not changing any history. I don't think that you are even aware or read about the selection decisions during the Border era.