***Official*** England in India

[honestbharani]

A good win for INdia. England played well, and it is really not the injuries or the missing players that cost them this game. Cook has done admirably well stepping in for Tresco and Collingwood and Bell (I think) have batted better than Vaughan would have. Jones is the tough loss, though. Seeing what Munaf did, I think Jones would have been very very useful, but nothing is for certain really. No one knows how well he has been bowling post injury and it is possible that he would have lost a bit of pace and nip. England's batters are just not going on with their starts. India must be thankful that both the spinners looked somewhat nearer to their best in the second innings of England. Munaf bowled well and hopefully will serve India just as well as he did today for a long time. Don't want him going down the Simon Jones route. All in all, a very interesting test match, I thought.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Neither it would translate well into the real world.


See, that is how you use smileys in posts.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Jones is injury-prone anyhoo (regardless of the terrible slide in Australia) fingers-crossed for Munaf. Unfortunate, but I feel it could be a Bond situation with Jonah; promises so much but his career might be curtailed through fragility.

 

[Jono]

Its so sad as well, because we need bowlers like Jones and Bond in today's cricketing world of sucky bowlers.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I agree it is sad. Imagine a world without Lillee, Holding, McGrath, Hadlee, careers ruined by injury. All-time greats of course but who's to say Bond and Jones wouldn't join them, injury-free? What is the cause of it, modern over-training? Or just bad luck. Do the older members here remember luckless bowlers from the past who promised great things? Derailing a little but hey, we have three days to killl .

 

[aussie]

that bloke Munaf was impressive as was sreesanth in Nagpur, looks good for India. For Mumbai England willl need to establish some way to combat Kumble or else i cant see them not losing.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

I thought Dravid did well today against Fred, long off and long on cut out the straight loft which Kumble is susceptible to, and is the main way of attacking him as he bowls wicket-to-wicket looking for the LBW mainly. This meant playing across the line had to be done, which Fred was wont not to do not surprisingly. Having said that when Harmo arrived I think he should've cut loose straight away and taken them on, he's capable of so much given a leash, but I reckon the captaincy bore down on him a little and he didn't want to throw it away (which is exactly what he did when Monty arrived). Anyone else feel he stalled the onslaught? There was a violent 100+ there in my book, I still think India would've got 220 but one never knows.

 

[Sanz]

1) Pathan should have been out for 8

2) Wasn't Sanz who wrote Munaf off?

1. All these Should-have, Could-Have, would-have is BS, fact is he scored a fifty.

2. I didn't write Munaf off, First session his bowling was ordinary and I was wondering what all the hype was about. I still refuse to jump the Munaf Patel band-wagon and would rather wait for atleast a year.

 

[Sanz]

Until he decides to retire. Dropping Sachin = Professional (and quite likely personal) suicide

So Sachin should be allowed to stay in the team no matter how sucky his performance is ?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

You assumed not me. And are responding rather poorly.

You disagreed with my point Pratyush. You misinterpreted my point. It's a logical assumption that my point was interpreted correctly considering that you disagreed with it.

That said, clearly I'm not going to win this argument because you're clearly not reading my posts properly and therefore I MUST be responding poorly, right? Impossible.

I read your response. Isn't it about persisting with players who you believe are best for the team and will deliver?

And when those players you believe will deliver don't? Do you continue to play them with the hope that 20 innings down the line they blaze a double hundred? Aren't the failures in between relevant at all? Is this not a team concept we're looking at?

That last bit wasn't needed. If you want to discuss cricket, you talk properly or dont talk at all. I didn't respond because I didn't think it was very relevant and responded over all to your post.

What are you on about?? It is unfortunate because I invested thought into the point and you ignored it. Stop trying to stir things where there's nothing.

You can increase the depth of the squad yes. But you use this ploy very carefully and not just for the sake of it. Player x has a bad run. You drop him. Player y has a bad run you drop him. You keep dropping players. That would mean no stability. Generally in a batting line up of 5-6 2 players might be going through a poor form. You back them up if you believe he will deliver and do not disturb a combination too much according to me.

When have I endorsed dropping anyone for the sake of it? You drop a player for not performing, not for the sake of it. That has always been my point.
Also, I've never suggested that it be a largescale sacking.

You seem to be placing ideas in my post and then getting upset by them. You're arguing against a point that I never made.

 

[GIMH]

Bring in Anderson for the next test in place of Plunkett, as someone said earleir in the thread, Plunkett and Blackwell have contributed about 10 runs, if that, from number 8, so we won't miss any batting in the tail really will we, and at the end of the day with our batting once again pretty shoddy, we need to worry more about restricting the opposition's total, Anderson will, I believe, take wickets if selected.

 

[Pratters]

You disagreed with my point Pratyush. You misinterpreted my point. It's a logical assumption that my point was interpreted correctly considering that you disagreed with it.

That said, clearly I'm not going to win this argument because you're clearly not reading my posts properly and therefore I MUST be responding poorly, right? Impossible.

I did read your post. It was an assumption and it wasn't logical as I didn't state whether player X should be dropped or not. Just retorted to the logic which was given - player x is having low scores and thus should be dropped. Please try and understand this.

 

[Pratters]

And when those players you believe will deliver don't? Do you continue to play them with the hope that 20 innings down the line they blaze a double hundred? Aren't the failures in between relevant at all? Is this not a team concept we're looking at?

Yes. We are totally looking at the concept and future belief that it will work with the past performance as just one of the factors.

 

[Pratters]

When have I endorsed dropping anyone for the sake of it? You drop a player for not performing, not for the sake of it. That has always been my point.
Also, I've never suggested that it be a largescale sacking.

You seem to be placing ideas in my post and then getting upset by them. You're arguing against a point that I never made.

What is your point? Sorry I am unable to understand or decipher it if it isn't what I see it to be. I don't understand your points to the retortion I made initially which resulted in your first comment at all then.

 

[marc71178]

This meant playing across the line had to be done, which Fred was wont not to do not surprisingly. Having said that when Harmo arrived I think he should've cut loose straight away and taken them on, he's capable of so much given a leash, but I reckon the captaincy bore down on him a little and he didn't want to throw it away (which is exactly what he did when Monty arrived). Anyone else feel he stalled the onslaught? There was a violent 100+ there in my book, I still think India would've got 220 but one never knows.

I don't think Flintoff can be blamed - he has really surprised me with his batting this series - every innings better than his entire series last time!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I did read your post. It was an assumption and it wasn't logical as I didn't state whether player X should be dropped or not. Just retorted to the logic which was given - player x is having low scores and thus should be dropped. Please try and understand this.

You disagreed with my point! Is it not logical to assume that you understood my point to be able to say whether you agree or not?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

What is your point? Sorry I am unable to understand or decipher it if it isn't what I see it to be. I don't understand your points to the retortion I made initially which resulted in your first comment at all then.

I don't think I can state it any clearer than I did. I think you're just blinded by the assumption that my point is Anti-Tendulkar. Once again, my point has nothing to do with Tendulkar in particular, but rather the situation of no player being granted automatic selection to the point of his selection being taken for granted. Steve Waugh and Mark Waugh couldn't take their selection for granted toward the end of their careers. I don't see why it should be any different for players like Tendulkar, Lara etc etc. if they're not performing.

 

[Pratters]

You disagreed with my point! Is it not logical to assume that you understood my point to be able to say whether you agree or not?

I maintain what I said. To your second statement, yes it is logical. I am retorting with the same view. I am not understainding your retorts that I am not reading your points though. Which is why I reuested to explain your point again so that maybe I can understand better what you are triyng to say.

 

[Pratters]

I don't think I can state it any clearer than I did. I think you're just blinded by the assumption that my point is Anti-Tendulkar.

Again you ASSUME I am saying this cos of Tendulkar and go hyper saying I am assuming you to be anti Tendulkar.

Can we close this and discuss the point cos we wont agree you assumed? Thank you.

Sanz excalimed Tendulkar should be dropped cos he isn't scoring well. I said by that logic every one would be dropped. Then I retorted that by that logic you do not build a team.

When you asked regarding your digression regarding what about bench strength, I explained it too.

See I am NOT saying you cannot drop a player with such scores. Hell you can even drop him when he is playing well if you feel some one is going to do a better job strongly. It is the selector's feeling. We can have different points of view on it and you can view it differently and I can view it differently.

I do not think it is illogical that player X can be retained even if he is scoring poorly. That and only that is my stance. If you have a point against it I can explain further why I feel the same. Forget Tendulkar.

Steve Waugh and Mark Waugh couldn't take their selection for granted toward the end of their careers. I don't see why it should be any different for players like Tendulkar, Lara etc etc. if they're not performing.

I agree. No one can take their places for granted. But if the selectors think he can play, and some fans believe he can play despite poor scores it isn't flawed thinking either.

It is about who you back when. It may sound ridiculous to some at times but only time can bear if it was justified or not.

 

[cricketboy29]

Theres a certain limit to backing though, i wonder if Dravid had gone through the same stuff that Tendulkar has, and had a similar runless period would the same leniency be granted to him...