***Official Australia in India***

[Precambrian]

Last year is not a 'historical record'. We have plenty of people who plundered several hundred runs last year, give them a go before you elevate Rohit Sharma. To be seen as a very good Test batsman, he'd have to exceed his FC average by about 10+, a most unreasonable request, regardless of circumstance other than lack of games, which is moot here. Talent can count for perhaps entire ODI selections, but in Test matches and series, you need the consistency of runs - something which has not been proven.

Nope. I'd agree had he been a 25 or 26 yr old (like Yuvi), wherein he'd have had the time to play sufficient number of FC game, and more or less stabilised his average. Rohit has hardly had time to do that in his short career. However his class is apparent. And it is beyond doubt that he has grown immensely as a batsman in the last year. It's just that he's had a bad run of form recently. And with the board game, he's proved he has overcome that. And he was probably the best batsman in view.
I don't subscribe to the theory that stats be given priority in front of talent and recent form, esp in the case of youngsters.

On a side note, given Ponting's abysmal record in India, he's still touring. Why? Trust is placed on his immense talent and ability, rather than his records.

 

[Jakester1288]

On a side note, given Ponting's abysmal record in India, he's still touring. Why? Trust is placed on his immense talent and ability, rather than his records.

Because he is a class batsmen, and that is totally obvious. Not to mention that he is the captain, and the batsmen who comes in at the first fall of a wicket, and steady's or continues to pound the attack, depending on the situation. He was taking on Chawla in the tour match to restore confidence in his team that they can win, and in himself that he can play a decent spinner (I wouldn't call Chawla good or great yet, but probably will in time). He played a good knock, and Clarke played a good supporting role, getting some valuable match practice.

So are you saying Zaheer Kahn shouldn't be picked fir India because his average is over 40? Obviously not, every person on here has named him in the line up.

 

[Precambrian]

Because he is a class batsmen, and that is totally obvious. Not to mention that he is the captain, and the batsmen who comes in at the first fall of a wicket, and steady's or continues to pound the attack, depending on the situation. He was taking on Chawla in the tour match to restore confidence in his team that they can win, and in himself that he can play a decent spinner (I wouldn't call Chawla good or great yet, but probably will in time). He played a good knock, and Clarke played a good supporting role, getting some valuable match practice.

So are you saying Zaheer Kahn shouldn't be picked fir India because his average is over 40? Obviously not, every person on here has named him in the line up.

Bleh, i was telling tat records hardly matter if proficiency is evident.

Btw, agree with all your points except one. It was Ojha whom Ponting took on, with success. But he struggled mostly against Chawla, trying to sweep him without success, and failed to pick his googly many times. But overall and against other bowlers, he did appear confident. But then, what really matters is the test matches. The pressure will be a million times higher in that as compared to the practise game.

 

[Top_Cat]

Nope. I'd agree had he been a 25 or 26 yr old (like Yuvi), wherein he'd have had the time to play sufficient number of FC game, and more or less stabilised his average. Rohit has hardly had time to do that in his short career. However his class is apparent. And it is beyond doubt that he has grown immensely as a batsman in the last year. It's just that he's had a bad run of form recently. And with the board game, he's proved he has overcome that. And he was probably the best batsman in view.
I don't subscribe to the theory that stats be given priority in front of talent and recent form, esp in the case of youngsters.

On a side note, given Ponting's abysmal record in India, he's still touring. Why? Trust is placed on his immense talent and ability, rather than his records.

Said trust has been built up over the course of about 10 years of Test cricket, though. Ponting literally and metaphorically has 'runs on the board' (the metaphorical ones saved him after the 2001 tour), Rohit has potential and lots of it. Still a big difference.

That said, anyone who watches Rohit can see he has a ton of talent. What no-one can be sure of, though, is whether he can play with the same freedom in a Test as he did in a no-pressure tour game and, if he can't, whether he has the ability to then take the foot of the gas and play with patience, etc. Tour match runs shouldn't be taken lightly but nor should they form the basis of a Test selection without seriously convincing circumstances.

If the current Indian line-up do less than well against the Aussies in the first couple of Tests, Rohit should be up for selection for sure.

 

[Top_Cat]

Bleh, i was telling tat records hardly matter if proficiency is evident.

Btw, agree with all your points except one. It was Ojha whom Ponting took on, with success. But he struggled mostly against Chawla, trying to sweep him without success, and failed to pick his googly many times. But overall and against other bowlers, he did appear confident. But then, what really matters is the test matches. The pressure will be a million times higher in that as compared to the practise game.

See, that's weird that you'd use the pressure argument for Ponting and why he might fail but ignore it for Rohit.

 

[Jakester1288]

Bleh, i was telling tat records hardly matter if proficiency is evident.

Btw, agree with all your points except one. It was Ojha whom Ponting took on, with success. But he struggled mostly against Chawla, trying to sweep him without success, and failed to pick his googly many times. But overall and against other bowlers, he did appear confident. But then, what really matters is the test matches. The pressure will be a million times higher in that as compared to the practise game.

I thought he did take on Chawla in the second innings.

I must be mistaken.

 

[Furball]

I'm not supporting either team, may the best side win in my book, but I do hope Pointing scores a couple of centuries and plays well. If only so that in 20 years time we won't have to put up with people saying 'But how can he have been the best if he didn't score runs in India?'. It's quite tedious already, I can't imagine what another couple of decades would do to me.

If Ponting fails in India again then there's no debate.

 

[Precambrian]

See, that's weird that you'd use the pressure argument for Ponting and why he might fail but ignore it for Rohit.

It seems you got both posts mixed due to the common factor: mention of Ponting. Actually in the second one, i was not making a comparison, but a lite-critique of his performance in the practise game. Wierd you got them mixed up.

 

[Precambrian]

I thought he did take on Chawla in the second innings.

I must be mistaken.

I am afraid you are. In the first innings, it was Chawla all the way. In the second, Ponting looked distinctly uncomfortable against Chawla. And just when Chawla was getting into a rhythm, Tea break intervened, post which Ojha and Yuvi bowled more at Ponting. And when Chawla was brought in again, Ponting was seen again tentatively pushing at the ball, and survived a close shout. Just when Chawla was getting on top, Ponting talked to Yuvi and the game was called off.

But that said, Ponting did play Ojha quite beautifully. The 4 sixes he hit off him were beautifully timed, and underlined he's more comfortable against finger sinners than wrist ones (barring Bhajji of course)

 

[Top_Cat]

It seems you got both posts mixed due to the common factor: mention of Ponting. Actually in the second one, i was not making a comparison, but a lite-critique of his performance in the practise game. Wierd you got them mixed up.

You said of Ponting;

But then, what really matters is the test matches. The pressure will be a million times higher in that as compared to the practise game.

.....to apparently argue that his tour match runs mean little due to the pressure (or lack thereof). Yet, for Rohit, apparently the tour match runs are a relevant indicator as to how well he'll do in the Tests;

And it is beyond doubt that he has grown immensely as a batsman in the last year. It's just that he's had a bad run of form recently. And with the board game, he's proved he has overcome that. And he was probably the best batsman in view

So which is it? Do the tour match runs mean anything with respect to the Tests or not?

 

[Precambrian]

You said of Ponting;

But then, what really matters is the test matches. The pressure will be a million times higher in that as compared to the practise game.

.....to apparently argue that his tour match runs mean little due to the pressure (or lack thereof). Yet, for Rohit, apparently the tour match runs are a relevant indicator as to how well he'll do in the Tests;

And it is beyond doubt that he has grown immensely as a batsman in the last year. It's just that he's had a bad run of form recently. And with the board game, he's proved he has overcome that. And he was probably the best batsman in view

So which is it? Do the tour match runs mean anything with respect to the Tests or not?

Duh. Read my post again sir. It is plain bloody obvious test matches are the pinnacle, and other forms cannot match to it in terms of skill and temperament, to state the contrary would be plain travesty.
However, stating that conclusion, doesn't mean that i believe tour games are of no use. Hell no, they are of immense use in build up to a series, to get one more time in the middle, to get match form, and importantly to acclimatise to the local conditions. And in case you somehow refuse to read both posts independently, the fact is that for Rohit, who is vying for the test spot, this game is actually much bigger, as he gets to play almost a full test side, and that too the World Champions. His current objective is to perform well to earn a test place, and that should be pressure enough. At his age, and given the circumstances in which he has to prove himself, this tour game itself could be almost a test match from HIS perspective.

Now to Ponting. He's class, and needs nothing to prove himself in a practise game. While he had mixed results against the spinners, it actually means nothing as he'll up against a much different set of guys, who vary significantly from the youngsters in terms of experience and skill in the test matches. So Ponting would have taken the game for the twin purposes, work himself to some form, and adapt to the conditions. Even if he got a double century, or bagged a double duck, he'd still be playing the first test. So in those terms he'd viewed the tour game in a different perspective.

To sum it up, tour games have diff levels of importance attached to them by different players, and test games remain the pinnacle.

 

[pup11]

Hayden inspired by tension with Harbhajan.

Good to see Haydos not losing head.

 

[Precambrian]

Hayden inspired by tension with Harbhajan.

Good to see Haydos not losing head.

Save it for the series.

 

[pup11]

Selectors in a spin over slow bowling.

Aussie selectors need to get their acts together as picking a side is no longer as easy at it was before.

 

[pasag]

For all the talk of spinners, reckon Sharma might be the one to do serious damage for India.

 

[silentstriker]

Did he actually refer to himself in the third person? What an idiot. They deserve each other.

 

[silentstriker]

For all the talk of spinners, reckon Sharma might be the one to do serious damage for India.

Hmm, I don't think he'll be more important than Kumble and Harbhajan in India. In a place like NZ, SA or England, he'd be more useful for sure. Hayden and Ponting will look to target him, and I think they'll succeed.

 

[Top_Cat]

Did he actually refer to himself in the third person? What an idiot. They deserve each other.

Haha, love watching your Haydos hate. It's so entertaining.

Personally, the bowlers aren't going to have a huge impact on this series. Only Lee is coming into it with any serious form, Harbhajan the smokey. Either way, it'll be a battle of the batterers. Whoever batters the oppo bowlers the best will win.

 

[silentstriker]

Haha, love watching your Haydos hate. It's so entertaining.

LOL. While it is no secret what I think about Hayden, referring to yourself in the third person is a universal sign of douchebaggery. (And I think I've done it before on these forums .)

Personally, the bowlers aren't going to have a huge impact on this series. Only Lee is coming into it with any serious form, Harbhajan the smokey. Either way, it'll be a battle of the batterers. Whoever batters the oppo bowlers the best will win.

Yea, I have to agree. I think Lee will be leading the wicket charts at the end of the series.

 

[pasag]

Hmm, I don't think he'll be more important than Kumble and Harbhajan in India. In a place like NZ, SA or England, he'd be more useful for sure. Hayden and Ponting will look to target him, and I think they'll succeed.

That's the common theory, but I think Sharma is the dark horse here that may do the damage whilst everyone is worrying about the spinners.