How much longer can Badrinath be kept out?

[Perm]

Until one of Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly or Laxman have a form slump sufficient to warrant one (or more) of them being dropped. Even then, he'd be behind Yuvraj Singh.

 

[Manee]

Until one of Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly or Laxman have a form slump sufficient to warrant one (or more) of them being dropped.

This is the issue at hand though, how long should a drop in form be? Shorter than otherwise with someone like Badrinath waiting in the wings?

 

[honestbharani]

This is the issue at hand though, how long should a drop in form be? Shorter than otherwise with someone like Badrinath waiting in the wings?

I think it is generally obvious that it is the rule...

Juz look at how a couple of bad tests spelt doomsday for Dinesh Karthik.. It was only because someone as good as Yuvi was waiting outside. Otherwise, he would have a got a test or two more...


I don't see Sachin or Sourav getting dropped again, even if they go through AAesque form slumps... So Badri will have to wait for either to retire or wait for Dravid or Laxman to have a real form slump...... REal tough on him.

 

[jeevan]

I think it is generally obvious that it is the rule...

Juz look at how a couple of bad tests spelt doomsday for Dinesh Karthik.. It was only because someone as good as Yuvi was waiting outside. Otherwise, he would have a got a test or two more...


I don't see Sachin or Sourav getting dropped again, even if they go through AAesque form slumps... So Badri will have to wait for either to retire or wait for Dravid or Laxman to have a real form slump...... REal tough on him.

Has Sachin ever been dropped? Can't recall, though he's missed a few through injury.
Also , a year ago Ganguly had said he had 18 months of cricket left in him. Certainly doesnt look like it, but if that was his frame of mind he may retire if he goes through a slump.

 

[shortpitched713]

Just bump Laxman. Thats what India's been doing for the last x number of years. Sure he may be in good form now, but he is a bit inconsistent. And he isn't as vital a piece of the team as Ganguly is. At least, thats what I would do.

 

[Craig]

How old is Badrinath.

If he was going to get picked for one form, wouldn't it be ODIs first?

 

[Perm]

Just bump Laxman. Thats what India's been doing for the last x number of years. Sure he may be in good form now, but he is a bit inconsistent. And he isn't as vital a piece of the team as Ganguly is. At least, thats what I would do.

Hmm let's drop the guy who is averaging 61 this year, just because there is the common misconception that he isn't important.

 

[Perm]

How old is Badrinath.

If he was going to get picked for one form, wouldn't it be ODIs first?

S Badrinath

There are more holes in the ODI team and more of an opportunity for Badrinath, but it would be a shame to see him get picked in the format he is weaker in (but still quite good), as the possibility of failure would usually mean that the chance to prove himself as a Test player is unlikely.

 

[Craig]

People are idiots when they believe that is somebody doesn't suceed in ODIs first or at all, then they are not up to the mustard Test-wise. If that was the view then Michael Vaughan shouldn't be playing Tests or the same with Michael Slater.

Got an impressive T20 record for mine.

 

[Perm]

People are idiots when they believe that is somebody doesn't suceed in ODIs first or at all, then they are not up to the mustard Test-wise. If that was the view then Michael Vaughan shouldn't be playing Tests or the same with Michael Slater.

Got an impressive T20 record for mine.

It's because of the ill-educated masses, they (in conjunction with the selectors) would prohibit Badrinath from having a chance to play Test cricket if he failed in a few ODIs. As I said, this is usually the case, but not always.

 

[Jamee999]

Nah, Badrinath is called S as well as Sreesanth.

Sreesanth is actually just called Sreesanth. That's his name.

 

[Perm]

Sreesanth is actually just called Sreesanth. That's his name.

Fairly sure you're wrong.

 

[Arjun]

This is what's wrong with cricket in India. Far too much emphasis is laid on individual performances, with little attention to the impact on the match and the team result. We talk about the Indian middle-order doing well, but what has the Indian team gained from this? Not too many Test victories, just a whole lot of drawn matches. And few Test victories abroad.

Likewise, what has any team figuring Badrinathan gained? How much have they won? Someone mentioned Zimbabwe and Kenya earlier- where are they and where are Australia and South Africa or even England and NZ? While Indian FC teams are so much stronger, we've only seen a whole lot of drawn matches. I know, these are a lot of questions, but we have to understand how much a team gains. If they gain a lot from the existing unit, stay with it. If they gain a lot more from such a change, go ahead.

As for age, it's a useless number now, even if it is India. We've seen Mike Hussey, as one of our friends said, enter at 30 and average over 100 in the first few matches. We've seen Stuart Clarke chip a lot off batting sides entering over 30. Most of the better batsmen of our time have entered in their 30's or late 20's, so it's not too bad. Even Yuvraj, unreliable in his early years, has now become a batting mainstay in his late 20's. Dhoni made his debut as late as 24 and is now one of India's better batsmen. Badri can wait a little. The longer the wait, the better the first few matches.

 

[Jono]

Haha, what have India gained?

Umm away test victories and series victories?

Nah nevermind those.

 

[SJS]

Badrinath, does not warrant a place in the current Indian side. Nothing unfair has been done to him at least so far in his career. Everyone knows that as does Badrinath I am sure.

He is not in the squad of sixteen and no one is claiming (anyone whose opinion counts or is heard or respected) that his being out of the squad is a gross injustice. Besides the batsmen in the side, there are players like Gambhir, Chopra, Parthiv Patel (even as pure batsman), Suresh Raina, Robin Uthappa, Rohit Sharma who are sitting out and have not insignificant claim over being close to the fringes of the squad.

In such a situation to talk of the claim of Badrinath and to ask How much longer can Badrinath be kept out? is laughable. It sounds as if whats being claimed is that he has already been kept out for far too long.

His time may come - may not come. It will depend upon the vacancies in the team, the claims of others and Badrinath's own continued good form. Thats all there is to it.

 

[Craig]

Score more runs then everybody else and therefore he will bump himself up the list.

 

[silentstriker]

He should be kept out until he is good enough to do a better job than someone who is already on the team. Yuvraj is clearly next in line once someone in our middle order departs or is dropped, and there might be a couple more ahead of him.

So the answer is: he can be kept out forever and it wouldn't be all that unfair.

 

[aussie]

Agreed that this bloke should wait until one of the famnous 4 starts failing to come in. But in a year time maybe less (after a possible drubbing in Australia) India could be faced with a situation where all could be gone one time then you have to draft in batsmen wild. Interesting period in Indian cricket coming up..

 

[Richard]

If Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly all retire at once (or as good as at once) it doesn't bother me. If the Yuvraj Singhs, Badrinaths, Rainas et al are good enough, they'll come in and perform. If they're not, they won't. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Richard]

Sreesanth is actually just called Sreesanth. That's his name.

Fairly sure you're wrong.

Shanthakumaran () FTW. Akhil has just about drummed it into me I think.