• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Hemang Badani Vs D Mongia

J

Jumno

State Regular
Badani played in the 2004 vb series tourney, odi series at home against England, series in Zimbabwe odi, TV 5 cup 2003. Tri series in Sri L 2001.

As far as I can recall, he played two knocks under pressure in the vb series and TV 5 cup final, anchored the innings and almost won them that infamous Flintoff shirt game against England in Mumbai, anchored the innings against Zim 2004. His knock in the final game Vs NZ in Sri L 2001.

I did feel Badani batting at number 7 rather than D Mongia would've given more consistency, balance and someone who could play under pressure. Badani could bowl too.

India did prefer D Mongia, 2003 WC, champions trophy 2006.

Your thoughts
 
Last edited:
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

International Coach
I think Lakshiratan Shukla could had been a great alternative to bat at 7; he was a proper all rounder.
 
J

Jumno

State Regular
Badani definitely would've been more useful and added more security in the batting line up for the 2007 wc. He played good against strong opponents and under pressure.

Cant believe Mongia was given more chances, based on a hundred against a minnow?
 
M

ma1978

International Debutant
Never forgiven India for choosing Dinesh Mongia over VVS for the 2003 World Cup. Feel VVS would have made a difference in that final.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
I would say Mongia might have only been preferred due to being a serviceable limited overs spinner, but he was barely used, at just under 2 overs bowled per match, so meh.
 
J

Jumno

State Regular
It was either VVS, Mongia or Badani, but Badani had a decent career, and could also bowl.

I still don't understand how they could pick Mongia didn't seem up to scratch with the bat consistently, might as well have played Banger, who proved himself in that WI run chase of 315.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Could Badani really bowl at all though? He only had 30 overs under his belt at ODI level at an average of 50, which is baaad.
 
J

Jumno

State Regular
Maybe Mongia was preferred due to the 5th bowling option.

Still a poor choice to include in the squad, despite having Sehwag, Tendulkar, Yuvraj who could also bowl.

Kinda makes me laugh really.

VVS the far superior batsman and Badani too, I still believe would've been better than the Mongia. Badani adds security, stability, balance with his batting skills, getting runs.
 
ankitj

ankitj

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Badani clearly.

Mongia shouldn't have got as many chances. He didn't have more than 2 shots.
 
J

Jumno

State Regular
The question is, why was D Mongia preferred over VVS and Badani?

I'm sure VVS played in that NZ odi series before the 2003 world cup and India had the WI odi series at home before that.

After the 2003 world cup, VVS and Badani both played in the TV 5 cup and VB series 2004.
 
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Yup, we get it @Jumno , Mongia's selection probably a very poor choice.

Then again, these were selection mistakes made about 20 years ago, so maybe we can just let it go now mate... :p
 
J

Jumno

State Regular
shortpitched713 said:
Yup, we get it @Jumno , Mongia's selection probably a very poor choice.

Then again, these were selection mistakes made about 20 years ago, so maybe we can just let it go now mate... :p
Click to expand...
It's true mate. I still like to analyse over it and reflect things.

He surely can't have been selected as a 5th bowling option, we had Sehwag, Yuvi, Tendulkar, Ganguly who could bowl part time.

VVS and Badani were better specialist batters, batting options.

He was probably selected on the basis he could bowl as a 5th/6th bowling option who could bat in their eyes.

So the conclusion is, he was just a poor choice.
 
Last edited:
shortpitched713

shortpitched713

Cricketer Of The Year
Jumno said:
It's true mate. I still like to analyse over it and reflect things.

He surely can't have been selected as a 5th. Owling option, we had Sehwag, Yuvi, Tendulkar, Gangly who could bowl part time.

VVS and Badani were better specialist batters, batting options.

Very poor choice.
Click to expand...
Mongia's domestic limited overs bowling stats were much better than any of these guys though. I think they probably brought him into to team thinking they were bringing in a genuine batting all-rounder. But he was found out at the highest level as barely mediocre with the ball. From there he did "just enough" with the bat at some times to avoid being dropped, by selectors who would rather "double down" on their bad choice than cut their losses and blood in players they were less certain about. So a combination of laziness, incompetence, and stubbornness leading to a rather questionably long run for an inadequate fringe player. In South Asia, this is a tale as old as international cricket, lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top