Request Your Custom Title Now!
I disagree with basically everything in this post.Far too many poor fielders in this squad. When all of them happen to be seam options, you're carrying at least two poor fielders a match. While Kumar offers a marginal advantage with the bat, Nehra and Munaf offer nothing. Both Ishant and Sreesanth are at least average fielders, and largely better than these two, and while Nehra and Munaf can be included if they're far better with the ball, they're not. In fact, Nehra's comeback stats are worse than Ishant's overall figures, while Munaf is one flat deck away from ending up like the Ishant that got dropped. It will be a task to hide both of them in the field, as batting sides are smart enough to exploit this weakness, even when the side is otherwise full of good or average fielders. This may be enough to field three spinners (Yusuf included) in a few matches, but it's a longshot.
Given India's bowling weakness and the presence of seven (or eight) options here, it will make sense to play five bowlers. Four of these seven (Chawla, Ashwin, Praveen and Harbhajan) can score runs, so when they add up, it will be crucial. If five bowlers is too risky, play Yusuf as a bowler. He's done well as an all-rounder in the past year, and he's a far better contender than the part-time salad mix that Dhoni serves batting sides to build partnerships each time, or any batsman getting a lot of overs and losing a lot of runs.
Pretty sure the rule is - or at least used to be - that you can permanently replace a player in your squad if he's injured, but he can't come back. So India couldn't just play Saha for a game and then bring Dhoni back for the next one. Otherwise all the teams would just travel with 20 anyway and do as they pleased.Anybody know what the ICC rule for calling up a replacement mid WC is?
Because i think India are gambling on home advantage ,and the replacement keeper being ready in 1 day if Dhoni gets injured.
That seems the most logical explanation.