Future captain of Team India

[silentstriker]

Do you think Dravid should go scot-free for the WC debacle.

Yes, because two games (limited over games at that) are completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, India won in WI 1-0 , where it should have won 3-0.

Haha, India doesn't win for 35 years in a country. They finally win, on the back of two magnificient half centuries (Dravid's best knocks IMO) from their captain, and they should have won 3-0? When does India EVER win 3-0 overseas? I mean seriously. Under whose captaincy have we won 3-0 overseas in any sort of consistent basis? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[silentstriker]

So the decision to bat first against Bangladesh was a good one ?

Didn't Bashar said he would have batted too?

Decision to pick Virender Sehwag was a good one ?

No. He should have listened to Chappell.

 

[ramkumar_gr]

Yes, because two games (limited over games at that) are completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.



Haha, India doesn't win for 35 years in a country. They finally win, on the back of two magnificient half centuries (Dravid's best knocks IMO) from their captain, and they should have won 3-0? When does India EVER win 3-0 overseas? I mean seriously. Under whose captaincy have we won 3-0 overseas in any sort of consistent basis? Don't be ridiculous.

Yes, I take that back. But the scoreline should have been 3-0, such was the domination shown by India in that series.

 

[Sanz]

Didn't Bashar said he would have batted too?

No He didn't.

Habibul Bashar: " The boys did a good job. We would have bowled first if we had won the toss. Mashrafee did a brilliant job and Rasel did a great job too. The spinners came on and did a terrific job. Tamim Iqbal batted really well. Hope he continues like this. Rahim did a brilliant job. He has a good technique and plays the new ball well. This win has given a fair chance to qualify to second round. This is a great day for Bangladesh cricket. We would like to dedicate this win to our friend Manjural Islam."

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wc2007/engine/match/247464.html?innings=2;view=commentary

 

[Sanz]

Haha, India doesn't win for 35 years in a country. They finally win, on the back of two magnificient half centuries (Dravid's best knocks IMO) from their captain, and they should have won 3-0? When does India EVER win 3-0 overseas? I mean seriously. Under whose captaincy have we won 3-0 overseas in any sort of consistent basis? Don't be ridiculous.

Ridiculous is you, yes we didn't win for 35 years in that country, but does that deny the fact that we had a chance to win the series 3-0 ? Yes it has never been done in the past, does that mean that it should never be done.

Do you know why 1971 tour stands out ? Because we did something we had never done, unfortunately Dravid's team did not do something we have never done against a very wekk WI team.

 

[SJS]

Short answer is that it wasn't a bad choice. People have to reliase that if you play good enough cricket you can win whether or not you win or lose the toss.

If India make runs, you wouldn't even consider it a bad decision. It's always easier to have a "smart" opinion after the event.

Look at the Manchester test where Mark Taylor chose to bat first, and Steve Waugh hit centuries in each innings. Did Taylor make the wrong choice? No, frankly I don't give a toss about who gets to bat or bowl first..


Don't blame Sehwag either, He actually batted well in 2 of the 3 innings, so YES it was a good decision to pick him. He averaged the best for the entire team, do you even watch Cricket mate? Blame Uthappa or Dhoni who were both shocking.

Absolutely. Spot On.

And if India is going to lose to Bangladesh because they bat first or second (irrespective of whether they won the toss or not) then we should stop calling Bangladesh as minnows and stop considering India's loss to them as a shock anyway.

Because what we are saying is that if Bangladesh had won the toss and put India in, we could condone India losing the test.

Ridiculous and brainless argument.

 

[Sanz]

Absolutely. Spot On.

And if India is going to lose to Bangladesh because they bat first or second (irrespective of whether they won the toss or not) then we should stop calling Bangladesh as minnows and stop considering India's loss to them as a shock anyway.

Because what we are saying is that if Bangladesh had won the toss and put India in, we could condone India losing the test.

Ridiculous and brainless argument.

So much your brainy argument, if you had actually watched the game, you would have noticed that India actually WON the toss and no I dont consider Bangladesh a minnow and I am not shocked at the loss as you have been assuming.

I am merely saying that Rahul's decision to bat after winning the TOSS was a wrong one, which you may disagree but you have no right to call my argument as RIDICULOUS and BRAINLESS because you have a different opinion and because you have assumed too much about my post.

And lastly we are talking about ODIs not TESTs. Learn to read before posting intelligent arguments.

 

[Sanz]

I don't think the batting order or the selection policy should be blamed on the captain by any means.

Picking the final XI is a captain's decision and so is deciding the batting order. I dont think Selectors have any say in that. Infact, if it was upto selectors, Virender Sehwag wouldn't have made it to the world cup squad.

The toss - yes. However I would have done the same, given the fact that the spin-dominted Bangladesh attack would generally be more suited to bowling in the second innings, especially in the predicted slow West Indian conditions. We saw this with the match South Africa and Smith has received criticism for bowling first.

Indian batsmen are much better players of Spin then the SAffies, so I dont think it is a valid comparison.

 

[Prince EWS]

So much your brainy argument, if you had actually watched the game, you would have noticed that India actually WON the toss and no I dont consider Bangladesh a minnow and I am not shocked at the loss as you have been assuming.

I am merely saying that Rahul's decision to bat after winning the TOSS was a wrong one, which you may disagree but you have no right to call my argument as RIDICULOUS and BRAINLESS because you have a different opinion and because you have assumed too much about my post.

And lastly we are talking about ODIs not TESTs. Learn to read before posting intelligent arguments.

I'm sure the word "test" was a typo. As for your rant about SJS not reading your post properly and thinking that Bangladesh won the toss, I call you on "pot-kettle syndrome." Either you didn't read his post properly, or you could do with a read of this page.

 

[Prince EWS]

Picking the final XI is a captain's decision and so is deciding the batting order. I dont think Selectors have any say in that. Infact, if it was upto selectors, Virender Sehwag wouldn't have made it to the world cup squad.

I'm quite sure that Chappell and, to a lesser extent, the selectors, would have had much more input into who made the final XI and which order they batted in than Dravid.

Indian batsmen are much better players of Spin then the SAffies, so I dont think it is a valid comparison.

Regardless of that, Bangladesh's main bowling threat is quite clearly their spin attack. Nullifying that somewhat by batting first is a perfectly legitimate tactic IMO.

 

[Sanz]

I'm sure the word "test" was a typo. As for your rant about SJS not reading your post properly and thinking that Bangladesh won the toss, I call you on "pot-kettle syndrome." Either you didn't read his post properly, or you could do with a read of this page.

Well His If's and Buts are assumptions at best and did I not say that he has 'assumed' too much about my post ?

 

[Prince EWS]

Well His If's and Buts are assumptions at best

No they aren't, actually. If anything, your ifs and buts about what would have happened if Dravid had changed the batting order or batted second are the assumptions. SJS's ifs and buts were merely applying your logic to other scenarios to point out its intrinsic flaws - no assumptions were made on his part in that regard.

did I not say that he has 'assumed' too much about my post ?

Your post had one valid point, and I didn't argue it - that was it. Restating it now doesn't make any of your other points any more valid. He assumed that you thought the Bangladesh loss was a shock which you ultimately didn't - agreed.

 

[Sanz]

I'm quite sure that Chappell and, to a lesser extent, the selectors, would have had much more input into who made the final XI and which order they batted in than Dravid.

Selection committee doesn't decide the batting order of an XI unless, Chappell sure did along with the captain and I have always blamed him for that.

Regardless of that, Bangladesh's main bowling threat is quite clearly their spin attack. Nullifying that somewhat by batting first is a perfectly legitimate tactic IMO.

And did India really nullify that ? NO we gave 6 wickets to the spinners, in addition we also 4 wickets to Masharafe. I dont think it's a legitimate tactic at all.

 

[Hoppy1987]

yuvraj singh?

 

[Prince EWS]

Selection committee doesn't decide the batting order of an XI unless, Chappell sure did along with the captain and I have always blamed him for that.

Given the politicised and controlled nature of Indian cricket, I'd be highly surprised if the selectors didn't decide upon a recommended first choice eleven for the World Cup. More specifically relating to Sehwag, if they didn't want him in the eleven and yet they knew Chappell would favour him once he had complete authority, they simply would have left him out of the squad altogether to ensure he wasn't picked. Knowing the support Sehwag had from Chappell and Dravid, picking him in the squad sent the clear message that they wanted him in the eleven - especially given the lack of any backup specialist batsmen in the squad.

And did India really nullify that ? NO we gave 6 wickets to the spinners, in addition we also 4 wickets to Masharafe. I dont think it's a legitimate tactic at all.

Hindsight is great, isn't it? The logic and theory behind the tactic was fine - it fell apart when put into practice though because India simply didn't play well enough.

 

[Sanz]

No they aren't, actually. If anything, your ifs and buts about what would have happened if Dravid had changed the batting order or batted second are the assumptions. SJS's ifs and buts were merely applying your logic to other scenarios to point out its intrinsic flaws - no assumptions were made on his part in that regard..

Umm..Our batting order has been uncertain under Dravid's captaincy and that's an assumption ?

 

[Prince EWS]

Umm..Our batting order has been uncertain under Dravid's captaincy and that's an assumption ?

No, the assumption is that India would have performed better with a more certain batting order.

 

[Sanz]

Hindsight is great, isn't it? The logic and theory behind the tactic was fine - it fell apart when put into practice though because India simply didn't play well enough.

I never said India played well, but that doesn't mean that Rahul led very well. For me, India didn't play well at all and Rahul's captaincy wasn't much better either.

Unlike a few like SJS and SS who think there is nothing wrong with Rahul's captaincy and If one raises a simple question about it, it becomes a brainless and ridiculous argument.

It's like Vaughan's captaincy, England sure didn't play well but at the same time Vaughan's captaincy has not been much better either.

 

[Sanz]

No, the assumption is that India would have performed better with a more certain batting order.

That's your assumption, not mine.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's your assumption, not mine.

No, it was yours. If India would not have performed better with a more certain batting order, there is no point in complaining about a problem-free uncertain batting order. Yet you have anyway, which indicates that you believe India would have performed better if not for it.