gettingbetter
State Vice-Captain
Beats me, the man must of saw something that he liked. Don't really like him reporting my games though.
-
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.
Why are India ignoring Sehwag for test matches ?
- Thread starter Salamuddin
- Start date
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Heck, even Lillee saw something he liked. It's not completely unreasonable to have done (though most people saw the wrong thing AFAIC). But I've long since despaired of him amounting to anything - you don't go for as long being as hopeless as he has then get better often if ever.
gettingbetter
State Vice-Captain
I've heard this story many a times Rich - Hayden, Flintoff, Shah and co. In all honesty though, I am not condoning what Chappell said in regards to Harmison, but I really didn't mind Harmison from 2002-2005. I can't really see what else England could of have done and possibly even now with the lack of quality bowling options.
You may suggest a few county pros, but I don't think the tricks that they possess would be much chop.
Either way, any chance of me seeing a faux-Richard-English bowling attack, I'm probably getting your ODI bowlers mixed up with your Tests one - you didn't suggest Dimi for a test birth did you?
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Nope, certainly not.
Ironically, Harmison has actually probably had a few more notable times in ODIs than Tests.
You're certainly not alone in not-minding Harmison for a certain time. You lot, though, I regret to say are all badly mistaken: there is one part of Harmison's career, a very short one of 7 Tests, that's of any note. Exclude those games, and his average for England against Test-standard sides as of this post is 38.65. Simply awful. And it's certainly not good in the 2nd half of 2004, 2004\05, 2005, 2005\06 or any time in 2002 and 2003 either. I'm not out-and-out suggesting X was a better possibility, merely that people went hopelessly OTT in their heralding of him.
As regards Shah and ODIs: I can't believe anyone is still currently arguing that he's an established player.
Ironically, Harmison has actually probably had a few more notable times in ODIs than Tests.
You're certainly not alone in not-minding Harmison for a certain time. You lot, though, I regret to say are all badly mistaken: there is one part of Harmison's career, a very short one of 7 Tests, that's of any note. Exclude those games, and his average for England against Test-standard sides as of this post is 38.65. Simply awful. And it's certainly not good in the 2nd half of 2004, 2004\05, 2005, 2005\06 or any time in 2002 and 2003 either. I'm not out-and-out suggesting X was a better possibility, merely that people went hopelessly OTT in their heralding of him.
As regards Shah and ODIs: I can't believe anyone is still currently arguing that he's an established player.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
One streaky 195?
His scores vs. Aus in Aus in 2003/04:
45
0
47
47
195
11
72
47
His overall average vs. Aus is 49.76.
I'd just like to point out that I don't feel Sehwag should make India's best Test XI. But he should be on the tour to Australia IMO. People forget that 2-3 years ago he was arguably our best batsman with Dravid. There were times when he'd be scoring runs when no one else could.
If past performance in Australia is a primary selection criterion, then Ajit Agarkar clearly should not only be in the squad but also in the playing XI. He too had a good tour with one exceptional performance. And we have far more deficiencies there than in the batting where we have perhaps six batsmen doing well consistently this year.
Unlike Sehwag, Agarkar has not even been given chances.
Unlike Sehwag, Agarkar has not even been given chances.
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
Agree with Jono. Say wahtever you want to about Sehwag's current form or about his selection for Australian tour, I really dont have any strong opinions on his selection or non-selection. But let's not denigrate his performances in the past. And comparing AA's situation to Sehwag's is a joke.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Hmm, no way was he > Laxman. You could make a case for him being > Ganguly, and certainly Tendulkar (who, obviously, only turned-up in the final Test). Even though he shouldn't have got the 195, his consistency in that series, as I mentioned earlier, was admirable, and the starts, as with Trescothick in The Ashes 2005 (another who got no massive scores, benefited from let-offs and scored more than he should have, but still got quick 30s and 40s at the top of the innings), undoubtedly helped his side out greatly.
Unless, of course, your last paragraph related to the 3 years of 2002-2005\06 in general rather than purely the Australia tour in 2003\04.
Correct, past performance in Australia cant be the basis of selection (for Sehwag). Agarkar example was to illustrate exactly that. Sehwag as a batsman was/is better than Agarkar was/is as a bowler. That's why he's been given special chances (selected for Pakistan ODIs) which an ordinary player doesnt get - even when there is a mini-crisis in that department. He didnt take them. Nor the domestic FC ones (in which he is doing poorly).
He needs to do something at this point in time to merit selection, and it is not obvious to select him ahead of , say Chopra. There are sufficient recent examples (Ganguly, especially Zaheer, even perhaps Pathan) on what to do to earn your spot back.
ps last series, Sehwag too had one noteworthy scorecard entry.
Last edited:
shortpitched713
International Captain
Karthik shouldn't be ahead of a candied yam.
gettingbetter
State Vice-Captain
Those seven games could be akin to the 'period' Flintoff had to suddenly become a less than great, but better than good all-rounder. Don't really know where that gets us, but my genereal philosphy in life is understanding. And I understand where you are coming from. Turn it around and I don't think Flintoff is half of what people say of him (fit or unfit) and in general I'm not all that much of a fan. But like I said to you in my post before this one - I'd like to see who you would put in place of Harmison - Lewis? Ali? Mascerenhas? Clarke?
If they aren't there, what do you do?
In regards to Shah, he's probably been the best English batsman in the last 6 months, and consdiering that you guys all quite awful in the shorter format, I don't really understand what you are complaining about.
Just another question - would you drop Shah at this moment in time?
Craig
World Traveller
Yes.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I almost feel it's a pointless question - I know he's highly unlikely to be dropped at this point in time, so I almost don't bother thinking about "do I want him dropped?" If he were to have another bad series in New Zealand - certainly something I think fairly likely given a fully fit attack - then yes, I would.
A bit like Shah - I always knew Harmison was not going to be dropped. There's only been 1 occasion in his career where he's ever been dropped, and that was after debut. The one other time it might have happened was the end of summer 2003, but just at the wrong (some might say right) time he got 4-33 in the last innings of the summer, then came said 7 Tests. If that hadn't happened, I would have been disgusted if he'd got into the winter touring parties.
I'd never have Mascarenhas in a Test; Kabir Ali and Jonathan Lewis have never convinced me completely, they're both too inconsistent; and I'm not entirely sure which Clarke you refer to - the only Clarke I can think of in English cricket is a batsman, Rikki. Those I'd have had ahead of him were people who were, sadly, by that time not has-beens but people who weren't what they once had been; Caddick, Cork, Craig White, Gough.
The bowling cupboard has been pretty bare of late.
As regards Flintoff, I've never rated him particularly highly as a batsman, but as a bowler there's no disputing he's been way better for far, far longer than Harmison was. Basically since the last Sri Lanka tour he's been getting the figures, and though I thought they flattered him on that tour, and on the West Indies one that followed, and in the summer, and in South Africa, from the Second Test of The Ashes he was superlative and usually has been when not obviously hampered by his ankle ever since. But as a batsman, as I say - there's been 3 occasions (summer 2003, summer 2005 and India tour 2005\06) where he's scored runs against decent attacks. And many besides where he's failed.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Yeah not talking about the Australian tour alone. Just that period you mentioned where only Dravid and Sehwag looked like they could get the ball off the square.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I wonder y u weren't upto the avatar challenge, then?
shortpitched713
International Captain
As a rule I tend not to do over-specific challenges, mostly just on match results.I wonder y u weren't upto the avatar challenge, then?
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
ah... not willing to put ur avatar where your mouth is, I guess...
shortpitched713
International Captain
Well I can't do a proper avatar challenge in any case. Still got till May with a Punter one.ah... not willing to put ur avatar where your mouth is, I guess...
gettingbetter
State Vice-Captain
Sorry about the 'Clarke', I meant Glen Chapple - I don't know how that happened. Either way, the bowlers you mentioned, don't you think they are past it?
As for Flintoff, I agree that he doesn't really impress as often as he should with the bat, but his bowling isn't all that as what people say it is. I don't know how you are analysing him, but are you removing the first 20 or so Tests of his career? In saying that though, he has come along better around 2005-2006, but thats not enough for me to call him, I don't exactly know the word - but a wicket-taking/intimidating bowler.
Harmison better than Flintoff? I don't really want to debate that, but what is your critical reasoning for him have a lower average than Flintoff (I know that you don't care all that much for averages though). I've been generally more impressed with Harmison than Flintoff, take away the last year or two though.
As for Flintoff, I agree that he doesn't really impress as often as he should with the bat, but his bowling isn't all that as what people say it is. I don't know how you are analysing him, but are you removing the first 20 or so Tests of his career? In saying that though, he has come along better around 2005-2006, but thats not enough for me to call him, I don't exactly know the word - but a wicket-taking/intimidating bowler.
Harmison better than Flintoff? I don't really want to debate that, but what is your critical reasoning for him have a lower average than Flintoff (I know that you don't care all that much for averages though). I've been generally more impressed with Harmison than Flintoff, take away the last year or two though.