***Official England in India***

[SJS]

People said that about Gavaskar, and Sachin came along 2-3 years after. Then Dravid came along. I'm not saying we'll find another Sachin, because its doubtful that we will. But guess what, we never won anything outside the subcontinent all during the nineties. Not a single Test, let alone a series.

I'm not worried about batting replacements to be honest. I think we'll find people who'll do a creditable job, average somewhere in the forties, maybe one will average fifty, and that'll be good enough.

What is more important are our bowling stocks, especially fast bowling stocks, and that'll decide our future as a team.

1. I never talked about winning a series or not.

2. I never said anything about bowlers.

3. Finding one player to replace one player is not what I was talking about. That can happen finding four players suddenly doesn't just happen out of the blue. You would see those players on the horizon. all of them cant be 14/15 year old wonders like Tendulkar. if they are going to be in their early twenties, you will have heard of them.

4. Dravid and Ganguly came a good seven years after sachin. That can happen. i am not talking of seven years. I am saying there is no one to replace them when they go.

5. Between 1983 and 1996 we had 7 absolutely top class players making their debuts - eight if one counts the short but brilliant career of Kambli.

1983 : Siddhu
1984 : Azhar
1987 : Manjrekar
1989 : Tendulkar
1993 : Kambli
1996 : Dravid Ganguly and Laxman.

Of the last three, Ganguly would have debuted much earlier but for some attitude related problesm. these three had been around the first class circuit for some time and were making waves. Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman were 23, 24 and 22 respectively.

Against 8 players (or 7 if you please) in 13 years we have had NONE in the last 12 years ! Sehwag, an opener made his debut 7 years ago.

I had done a similar study here of the Australian bowling debuts and retirements over the previous twenty year or so to predict in 2004 or 2005 that by end of 2008 Australia will have nothing left in their bowling ranks and many people responded as you have done. The result is before us.

replenishment mist keep taking place. Replacements, even if they dont find place in the side, should be seen in the domestic circuit. Yes we see batsmen but we dont see the caliber of Dravid, SRT and Laxman. Thats all my point was.

Australia too will find bowlers but McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and now Lee wont be replaced in a hurry.

We will survive and probably do quite well in Tests since bowling is so crucial in the longer version but to replace the "fab four" we will take much longer Unless there are four thirteen year old geniuses under some Achrekar Sir in some corner of the country who will suddenly be available in 2010.

 

[SJS]

And it is not as if in the last 12 years we havent tried any new batsmen in the middle order. Inspite of these four, seven middle order batsmen have been tried by india in the last decade. The best of those are Kaif and Yuvraj both in performance and in the number of matches played. We know where those two stand in comparison to these four. Thats what the problem is. You will find batsmen, just as we found Kaif, Yuvraj, Badani, etc and maybe one of them will be fabulous (though we didnt find even one in the last ten years) but to find four fabulous players over the next two years is asking for the moon.

 

[silentstriker]

I'm saying you don't need to. That's all. Tendulkar has been modest by is standards, Dravid in a dire trot, Ganguly and Laxman their usual hot-n-cold selves, and we've been doing much better than the nineties.

Of course, I am only looking at it from a winning a cricket game perspective, not from replacing a talent with an equal talent point of view. So I don't think I disagree with you.

 

[Richard]

When did Ravi Shastri debut?

 

[sirdj]

When did Ravi Shastri debut?

1982?

edit: cricinfo says v/s New Zealand at Wellington, Feb 21-25, 1981

 

[FBU]

Going back to Shah, I know it was only a practice game, but really, it made no sense for Harmison and Anderson to bat in his place. Not only might England have made a decent fist of their target, but more importantly, he'd have had some time in the middle. I can only assume he was feeling a bit off colour. He didn't bowl either, and while he's not likely to bowl a lot on the tour, he could have had a couple of overs.

In both these matches England were unable to bowl the side out and you think we should just have gone in with just 2 fast bowlers. What would be the point of giving Shah a couple of overs. His economy rate is 6.63. Anyway Shah had some time in the middle, over two and a half hours in the first match.

 

[Precambrian]

Blood him in place of whom??Seriously we must refrain from introducing newbies just for the sake of it..i mean which spot according to you is free in the shorter format?

When Dravid goes, in the Tests.

ODIs can be a stepping stone.

 

[gettingbetter]

When Dravid goes, in the Tests.

ODIs can be a stepping stone.

After Dravid (assuming that Badrinath replaces Ganguly) you got, Kaif, Raina, Rohit, Kholi, Yuvraj and a few others.

And as another poster said, if his domestic stats support his selection in the Test team, there is no reason whatsoever that ODIs should be used as a stepping stone.

 

[Precambrian]

Why not? Instead of being thrust into top-pressure Tests, he can be given a dose of it in the ODIs.

 

[gettingbetter]

There appears to be enough young Indian talent around. If there is a vacancy and there are no other possible replacements, why not. Bit India's ODI unit seems rather solid (and youthful) add to the fact that they tried a few players who suceeded in the IPL in some ODI tournament and they didn't go all that well.

 

[Sanz]

Against 8 players (or 7 if you please) in 13 years we have had NONE in the last 12 years ! Sehwag, an opener made his debut 7 years ago.

Where was the room in the middle order to make an assumption that India didn't produce batsmen of the caliber of at least Sidhu, Kambli, Ganguly and Manjrekar ? I agree we dont have any Tendulkar or Dravid waiting as replacements but I think we have the talent to replace the likes of Ganguly(only as batsman) and there are batsmen in domestic cricket who are as good as the likes of Sidhu, Manjrekar etc.

The only place we had was in the opening slot and we found players like Sehwag and Gambhir, in wicket keeping we certainly have a better options now than we had in 90s with Nayan Mongia, MSK Prasad, Vijay Dahiya and Deep Dasgupta.

 

[honestbharani]

1. I never talked about winning a series or not.

2. I never said anything about bowlers.

3. Finding one player to replace one player is not what I was talking about. That can happen finding four players suddenly doesn't just happen out of the blue. You would see those players on the horizon. all of them cant be 14/15 year old wonders like Tendulkar. if they are going to be in their early twenties, you will have heard of them.

4. Dravid and Ganguly came a good seven years after sachin. That can happen. i am not talking of seven years. I am saying there is no one to replace them when they go.

5. Between 1983 and 1996 we had 7 absolutely top class players making their debuts - eight if one counts the short but brilliant career of Kambli.

1983 : Siddhu
1984 : Azhar
1987 : Manjrekar
1989 : Tendulkar
1993 : Kambli
1996 : Dravid Ganguly and Laxman.

Of the last three, Ganguly would have debuted much earlier but for some attitude related problesm. these three had been around the first class circuit for some time and were making waves. Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman were 23, 24 and 22 respectively.

Against 8 players (or 7 if you please) in 13 years we have had NONE in the last 12 years ! Sehwag, an opener made his debut 7 years ago.

I had done a similar study here of the Australian bowling debuts and retirements over the previous twenty year or so to predict in 2004 or 2005 that by end of 2008 Australia will have nothing left in their bowling ranks and many people responded as you have done. The result is before us.

replenishment mist keep taking place. Replacements, even if they dont find place in the side, should be seen in the domestic circuit. Yes we see batsmen but we dont see the caliber of Dravid, SRT and Laxman. Thats all my point was.

Australia too will find bowlers but McGrath, Warne, Gillespie and now Lee wont be replaced in a hurry.

We will survive and probably do quite well in Tests since bowling is so crucial in the longer version but to replace the "fab four" we will take much longer Unless there are four thirteen year old geniuses under some Achrekar Sir in some corner of the country who will suddenly be available in 2010.

And it is not as if in the last 12 years we havent tried any new batsmen in the middle order. Inspite of these four, seven middle order batsmen have been tried by india in the last decade. The best of those are Kaif and Yuvraj both in performance and in the number of matches played. We know where those two stand in comparison to these four. Thats what the problem is. You will find batsmen, just as we found Kaif, Yuvraj, Badani, etc and maybe one of them will be fabulous (though we didnt find even one in the last ten years) but to find four fabulous players over the next two years is asking for the moon.

Agree with you, SJS..


But I also agree with Sanz and SS... I think we have batsmen who can average in the 40s, perhaps 2 int he 40s, a guy in the late 30s and a guy in the 50s (presumably Rohit Sharma).. That kind of a middle order, backed by good bowling and fielding along with good openers (Sehwag and Gambhir) and a good wicket keeper/batsman (Dhoni) can still be good enough for us to be consistently around the top 3 sides in world cricket, which should be our aim, really..


AS you yourself said, you cannot hope to have batsmen of the class of Laxman, Dravid, and Sachin at the same time and then hope guys of similar class come in straight after they call it quits... The aim now should be for us to lower our expectations a bit from the middle order and hope that the better output from the openers, wicket keeper and bowlers (and fielders, hopefully) will compensate that loss enough for us to remain amongst the best sides in the world..

 

[biased indian]

For Uk Guys

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/the-ashes--how-they-might-line-up-1010910.html?ino=19

The Independent is leading newspaper rite ....they dont have a picture of Haddin(have look at the link)

and thier austrlian ashes side of 2009 is a joke

 

[Precambrian]

For Uk Guys

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/the-ashes--how-they-might-line-up-1010910.html?ino=19

The Independent is leading newspaper rite ....they dont have a picture of Haddin(have look at the link)

and thier austrlian ashes side of 2009 is a joke

That guy in the link curiously looks like Hussey. When did he keep?

 

[biased indian]

That guy in the link curiously looks like Hussey. When did he keep?

he did keep in the warm up match in india dont have any idea about any test though

 

[SJS]

Agree with you, SJS..


But I also agree with Sanz and SS... I think we have batsmen who can average in the 40s, perhaps 2 int he 40s, a guy in the late 30s and a guy in the 50s (presumably Rohit Sharma).. That kind of a middle order, backed by good bowling and fielding along with good openers (Sehwag and Gambhir) and a good wicket keeper/batsman (Dhoni) can still be good enough for us to be consistently around the top 3 sides in world cricket, which should be our aim, really..


AS you yourself said, you cannot hope to have batsmen of the class of Laxman, Dravid, and Sachin at the same time and then hope guys of similar class come in straight after they call it quits... The aim now should be for us to lower our expectations a bit from the middle order and hope that the better output from the openers, wicket keeper and bowlers (and fielders, hopefully) will compensate that loss enough for us to remain amongst the best sides in the world..

Oh yes. I never said we are in serious trouble as a cricketing nation. We do have a large pool of cricketers to chose from and with the good bowling attack we have assembled and the opening pair of Sehwag and Gambhir give us two strengths we have lacked almost throughout the period when the "fab four" were at their prime. If our opening bowlers and opening batsmen conundrum was resolved around 2000, we would have had a great chance to be world number one. Unfortunately, we seem to have resolved both those major issues when these guys are past their best or in the process of hanging up their boots.

Its quite possible that a less than great middle order PLUS a great opening pair and a balanced attack will mean a stronger overall side than we have had in the last 15 years. With the decline in Australia at the same time, we may remain high in the rankings list and will, I thinkl. But that is not something I have ever denied.

I think we will have a very good Test side if we start inducting the youngsters today with a clear idea as to who is the "lambi race ka ghoda" and persist with them. Hopefully by the time these three hang up their boots, the others will, one by one, have strengthened their places in the side.

As I see it, we should induct Rohit Sharma immediately as a replacement for Ganguly and tell him he is going to play the entire series (or two). Drop Dravid if he does not score real big runs in the domestic season while the ODI's against England are on and replace him with Yuvraj or Viraat Kohli or Badrinath (whosoever seems to be in better form).

That will bring two guys, one for a longer period and the other depending upon his performance and that of Dravid.

Within the next year, we should have a good idea which two (between Yuvraj, Kohli, Badri, Rohit and even Murali Vijay) should be considered near fixtures in the side.

This will also give exposure to the others and the selectors a better idea of their suitability at this level in the longer version. It will also give time to prepare two more in 2010-11 time frame. It can be done and I think thats the way it probably will be.

But my point remains, we will get a good Test side but we wont have, two years from now a middle order of the claliber we have had in the last fifteen years. Thats all I was saying to start with.

By the way, probably our strongest and yet balanced side of all time will be seen in the coming year. If Rohit Sharma comes good and Rahul strikes form (or whoever replaces him we could have a very impressive side for two years or so. Here is a squad for South Africa

1. Sehwag
2. Gambhir
3. Laxman
4. Tendulkar
5. Dravid
6. Rohit
7. Dhoni
8. Harbhajan
9. Zaheer
10. Mishra
11. Ishant
12. Yuvraj/Badrinath
13. Viraat Kohli/M. Vijay
14. Sreesanth
15. Munaf Patel
16. RP Singh

Looks impressive. Then after a year or so, you could have lost at least two more seniors and the two batsmen who are sharing the reserves spots could be in. It can be done.

BUT Yuvraj, Rohit, Badri and Kohil do not sound like they are going to be like Sachin, Dravid, Laxman and Saurav

 

[biased indian]

1. Sehwag
2. Gambhir
3. Laxman
4. Tendulkar
5. Dravid
6. Rohit
7. Dhoni
8. Harbhajan
9. Zaheer
10. Mishra
11. Ishant
12. Yuvraj/Badrinath
13. Viraat Kohli/M. Vijay
14. Sreesanth
15. Munaf Patel
16. RP Singh

Think that isde has 1 fast bowlers too maany take either sreesath or munaf of and find a good WK then i am ok with the side..and think we will be bettr of with not taking yuvraj to SA for test series

 

[SJS]

Think that isde has 1 fast bowlers too maany take either sreesath or munaf of and find a good WK then i am ok with the side..and think we will be bettr of with not taking yuvraj to SA for test series

Thats because it is sixteen. I wanted to make it fifteen and leave out one fast bowlers but then didn't want to rack my brain trying to think who to drop between Sreesanth, Munaf and RP

Yes if it has to be 16, we need to drop one of these three and bring in Murali Kaarthik

 

[SJS]

I'm saying you don't need to. That's all. Tendulkar has been modest by is standards, Dravid in a dire trot, Ganguly and Laxman their usual hot-n-cold selves, and we've been doing much better than the nineties.

Of course, I am only looking at it from a winning a cricket game perspective, not from replacing a talent with an equal talent point of view. So I don't think I disagree with you.

Completely agree with all that

 

[tooextracool]

I've said it before - I'm a better bowler than he is.

These 12-a-side games, as I've said several times recently, you might have noticed, are something I don't pay the slightest attention to. But yeah, if Shah was just the 12th-man, did not field and did not bat, it would've made sense to either a) play 11-a-side (preferable) or b) give someone else a go.

The 12-a-side game is not much different from the (rather pathetic) super-sub rule that was going around for a while. Whilst it is not as official as a 11-a-side game, its nowhere near as bad as 13- and 14-a-side games.