IPL hurting the international game

[DIRK-NANNES]

Oh God, woo down with the quoting and responding to of each line

 

[aussie]

You are just spouting BS mate. You really are. Sehwag averaged nearly 60 after 3500 runs of FC cricket before he was picked in test matches. And guess where he started his test career? As a middle order batsman and he scored a century.

Did i not just say this?.

He was a genuine test quality batsman who was picked on his FC performances alone.

So your argument that he was picked for tests based on his ODI performance, does not hold any water.

Sehwag was not a test quality batsman in the little period he batted in middle-order in tests. I remember him battign @ 7 vs ENG 01 & looked like wild slogger, didn't think he would last & certainy couldn't see him batting as an opener ATT. He basically looked like a ODI cricket.

Even as an opener up until AUS 07/08, Peth hundred. His opening record was basically told a story of FTB. (flat track bully)

In the last year he has looked more assured. But i still reckon quality fast-bowling could still fail him.

It does not matter that he converted into opening and his ODI performances were no real factors based on which the switch happened in tests.

It does matter, given the amount of failures IND had as openers since Gavaskar. I doubt many IND in ENG 2002 would have thought Sehwag would do so well as a test opener, given his technical issues. It was a fluke that payed of brilliantly.

 

[Flem274*]

blah blah blah blah

Excessive quoting of that kind should be a bannable offence, especially when its between two people who will never agree. Seriously, just quote normally and write your bit underneath. Far easier to read.

 

[Prince EWS]

blah blah blah blah

Excessive quoting of that kind should be a bannable offence, especially when its between two people who will never agree. Seriously, just quote normally and write your bit underneath. Far easier to read.

You want me banned?

 

[Flem274*]

You want me banned?

You actualy do it?

Haven't noticed tbh, must just be far more readable.

 

[Pigeon]

Did i not just say this?.

You are talking nonsense. You started with arguing in favor of ODIs and you don't know where yourself going.

Sehwag was not a test quality batsman in the little period he batted in middle-order in tests. I remember him battign @ 7 vs ENG 01 & looked like wild slogger, didn't think he would last & certainy couldn't see him batting as an opener ATT. He basically looked like a ODI cricket.
Even as an opener up until AUS 07/08, Peth hundred. His opening record was basically told a story of FTB. (flat track bully)

Very convenient. So if a guy scores tonloads on arguable flat tracks, then he is not test class?

Also seems like Melbourne 195 during the 2003-04 did not register?

In the last year he has looked more assured. But i still reckon quality fast-bowling could still fail him.

Sorry mate, but he made a triple hundred against an attack that featured the greatest fast bowler in the planet right now, Dale Steyn.

It does matter, given the amount of failures IND had as openers since Gavaskar. I doubt many IND in ENG 2002 would have thought Sehwag would do so well as a test opener, given his technical issues. It was a fluke that payed of brilliantly.

So what? He performed well, that's all that counts. There is nothing to suggest that he'd not have done well in test cricket, nor to suggest that he was not picked on the basis of FC.

 

[Prince EWS]

You actualy do it?

Haven't noticed tbh, must just be far more readable.

Back when I was more anal, yeah. Normally just say my bit and leave these days.

 

[Flem274*]

Back when I was more anal, yeah. Normally just say my bit and leave these days.

I'd noticed.

Need to attract Howsie or Leslie back so you have someone to fight with.

 

[Pigeon]

Aussie just a friendly advice mate.

First let yourself be sure that what you are really arguing, instead of simply arguing everything that's poste. Sometimes it's just shameful to realise to have wasted time on debating with someone who's entire point of debating is just to argue, and in that woefully goes circular till he ends up contradicting the same point he started out with.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd noticed.

Need to attract Howsie or Leslie back so you have someone to fight with.

Howsie still has one account here TBH.

 

[Flem274*]

Howsie still has one account here TBH.

Leslie doesnt? What's you ban him for? Supporting ND?

 

[aussie]

Almost all of them you mentioned came through FC setup than ODI setup.

Yes, but they failed to translate that FC form into test macthes. Which proves that standard of batting they bowled to in the 90s where poor.

Mishra coming good of late. Is a bit like Swann for ENG. He played years in a average FC competition & fortunately for IND he has proven to be test quality.

I read your argument somewhere above that Academies should also serve as a supplement for FC structure. Anyway pace bowling never has been the best strength of Indian cricket including it's FC. So well it helped, what's your point? And Ishant had excellent FC figures to back him before he was selected.

That the MRF pace foundation had more of an effect in Ishant & the increase of other IND pace bowlers in this 2000 era, coming through to test cricket more so than FC performances.

I'm sure the likes of Mohanty, Kuruvilla, Bose (who toured ENG in 06), Doda Ganesh had strong FC performances before selected. But they didn't transfer it to test cricket.

Which is the second part of the point im making. Which is due to the poor FC standard in IND, PAK, SRI, NZ, WI, Even the top performers tend to found wanting at test level for certain positions.

That is why these nations tend to pick either on talent of based on ODI performances. Because in ODIs a players may adapt to intensity of intl battles much better than a season FC performer in a poor FC structure.

Duh. Those big boys have occupied the chunk of middle order for about 14 years, and not one of them came through ODIs and relied only on FC games to support their credentials.

I am at a loss to understand you mate. Either my comprehension is really bad, or your english is.

Because you split the points in two. All two statements is making one point.

Yes Tendy, Dravid, Azhar, Laxman, Ganguly occupied the middle order all these years. What i saying is the few times they got injured or had to miss a test their replacements have proven to be poor, which shows overall the FC structure is poor.


Look at AUS in the 90s for example. AUS had settled top &middle order, but you many players like Law, Cox, Lehmann, Siddons, Love etc who could have played test for other nations quite easily. You can't say that about the back-up batsman IND have had to the BIG 4 over the last 15 years.

---do--- (What's the point you are making? I fail to understand how it can be linked to due to policy of picking players on their ODI performances).

My apologies if i wasn't clear intially. But as i said above. The generally crust of the point that i'm making is due to poor FC structures over the years in IND, PAK, SRI, NZ, WI (over the last 15 years mainly).

The tend to pick players or for tests - or the players that tend to succed in tests - are either ones natural talent or based on ODI performances.

With this particular example. INDs failure to produce openers since Gavaskar, who can translate FC form to tests performances. Which in turn lead them to taking the risky option of chosing `Sehwag based on ODI form clearly proves this.

Precisely. Why then are you saying SL does not pick it's players based on FC performances? Samara was a good FC player, never played ODIs to be picked for tests.

Just saying in SL people indeed get picked based on their FC performances than ODI performances,

As i just explained. Due to poor standard of FC cricket in SRI. In their short but fairly successful test history so far. They have more average players than top players, translating FC form to tests.

Only Murali & Vaas have been true quality bowlers. Malinga & Mendis may be big boys of the future but its still early days. Most of the other quicks & spinners to have played for SRI have been moderate to poor.

In the batting also its pretty much the same thing outside the obvious big boys.

Natural talent as evidenced by his performances in FC.

So was Monty Panesar. You knows his story.

Kaneria was picked on has much natural talent as Dwayne Smith was picked for WI. Kaneria was looking very good intially, but he was worked out & has played county cricket in ENG againts blokes who cant play leg-spin. Thus while taking big wickets for Essex it hasn't helped him, but weakened him as a test bowler.

Pray, tell me how this "natural talent" is identified?.

Based on performances in a solid FC structure.

Well, to say they have not dominated test cricket, so has not England or South Africa. In fact only 2 teams can really claim to have dominated test cricket, Australia and West Indies.

In the 1950s, England won 39 tests, lost 22 and drew 22. A win % of less than 50%. Surely WC stuff?.

England where the best team in the world during the 1950s check your cricket history, thats is facts. England from NZ 1951 to Ashes 1958/59 where unbeaten.

In the 1960s, SA played 7 series, won 2, lost 2, and drew 3. WC stuff?.

I said LATE 60s. Starting from their 1965 tour to ENG & those two famous series wins vs AUS (They couldn't play WI, IND, PAK for obvious reaons).

SA if they where not banned due to aparthied its pretty clear up until WI started dominating cricket from 1976, SA had a better team than AUS & ENG in the early 70s. So i'm pretty sure they would have dominated test cricket for that period. Since the Currie Cup FC competition in SA was of top quality.

Nothing to do with FC. Mark Ramp, and Graeme Hick are two prime examples from the fabled county structure. It has more to do with player mental makeup than quality of domestic structure.

It has everything to do with the FC structure. Since the mental & technical issues that affected Hick & Ramps was due to lack of facing quality bowling in ENG FC competition.

Oh and throw in Dave Hussey of Australia also.

Hussey has not played test cricket sir. Plus if you are refering to his moderate ODI performances to date for AUS. Thats mainly due to circumstances he came into the AUS side under recently. D Hussey would make most test nations around the world without question except for SA & IND (although he could rival Yuvraj for the # 6 spot).

 

[aussie]

Haha... So does not ODIs either.


No they don't. As I have conclusively proven above.

Well i just rebutted those "conclusive" points of yours. Time for round 3...

 

[aussie]

You are talking nonsense. You started with arguing in favor of ODIs and you don't know where yourself going.

Very convenient. So if a guy scores tonloads on arguable flat tracks, then he is not test class? .

Of course not. Especially when everytime he comes againts quality pace attacks in testing conditions he looks like a walking wicket.

Also seems like Melbourne 195 during the 2003-04 did not register?.

A flat deck againts a poor AUS attack. The only top innings Sehwag got againts pace was Chennai 04 (his best innings IMO) & the 317. But those where still flat decks.

If you remember after the 317, the next test on a green Ahmedabad wicket, Steyn bowled him between bat & pad. Exposing that long standing weakness of his & for the remainder of the series SA had him covered.

Sorry mate, but he made a triple hundred against an attack that featured the greatest fast bowler in the planet right now, Dale Steyn.

See above.

So what? He performed well, that's all that counts. There is nothing to suggest that he'd not have done well in test cricket, nor to suggest that he was not picked on the basis of FC.

He was picked in the test side intially for test side based on runs in the middle-order in FC cricket right. IND at the time did not have a settle opening pair in test.

Theirfore after getting a few months opening in ODIs he was given the chase to open in ENG 2002, after no FC experience & generally looking like a slogger in ODIs. That was clearly seen as a risky option, since 9/10 times players with such techniques generally would fail as an opener.

Sehwag though given the flat decks & poor bowling attack this era. Ended up proving to be the perfect opener. He clearly is an IND great & will go down as the second best opener after Gavaskar. But fact remains he has generally been a FTB & unless he scores runs againts a top pace attack in testing conditions, he has a big black mark on is record.

 

[Cruxdude]

Of course not. Especially when everytime he comes againts quality pace attacks in testing conditions he looks like a walking wicket.

A flat deck againts a poor AUS attack. The only top innings Sehwag got againts pace was Chennai 04 (his best innings IMO) & the 317. But those where still flat decks.

If you remember after the 317, the next test on a green Ahmedabad wicket, Steyn bowled him between bat & pad. Exposing that long standing weakness of his & for the remainder of the series SA had him covered.

See above.

He was picked in the test side intially for test side based on runs in the middle-order in FC cricket right. IND at the time did not have a settle opening pair in test.

Theirfore after getting a few months opening in ODIs he was given the chase to open in ENG 2002, after no FC experience & generally looking like a slogger in ODIs. That was clearly seen as a risky option, since 9/10 times players with such techniques generally would fail as an opener.

Sehwag though given the flat decks & poor bowling attack this era. Ended up proving to be the perfect opener. He clearly is an IND great & will go down as the second best opener after Gavaskar. But fact remains he has generally been a FTB & unless he scores runs againts a top pace attack in testing conditions, he has a big black mark on is record.

Well if you are implying Sehwag is just a FTB you are wrong. He has 2 centuries in NZ when the entire team was struggling against the swing in 2002, a 200 in Srilanka out of 300 odd against Mendis, Murali on a turning track, centuries in England a century in SA on debut.

On a swinging pitch against a good fast bowler most people struggle. Ponting has had his stumps blown out and so has Sachin. That does not make him a FTB.

He has a problem against bouncers to his chest but since his comeback he seems to better at playing it.

Currently he will walk into any of the test teams around.

 

[aussie]

Well if you are implying Sehwag is just a FTB you are wrong. He has 2 centuries in NZ when the entire team was struggling against the swing in 2002,

Haa, i'll let this one pass as an honest mistake.

a 200 in Srilanka out of 300 odd against Mendis, Murali on a turning track,.

That was a great innings yea, but Sehwag never really had a problem againts spin. Againts quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditions. Sehwag has never made big runs.

centuries in England a century in SA on debut.

Both where generally average ENG & SA attacks.

On a swinging pitch against a good fast bowler most people struggle. Ponting has had his stumps blown out and so has Sachin. That does not make him a FTB.

Both Ponting & Tendy have made runs againts top pace attacks in testing conditions. There is no comparison with Sehwag.

He has a problem against bouncers to his chest but since his comeback he seems to better at playing it.

Not really. He handled it well in that only test in AUS. But SA exposed him againts in the Ahmedabad & Kanpur tests.

His other BIG weakness is given his lack of footwork. He leaves a big gap between bat & bad when driving, which leads him to being bowled alot. AUS 04 & SA 08 got him out like that alot.

But on flat decks given his superb hand-eye co-ordination. He doesn't get bowled like that.

Currently he will walk into any of the test teams around.

Yea, but thats besides the point. He still has that "FTB" cloud hanging over him. Hayden had it from IND 2001 - Ashes 05. But he managed to correct that.

 

[Cruxdude]

Haa, i'll let this one pass as an honest mistake.

I was mentioning the one dayers. You may scoff at onedayers but if you look at the scorecard you would understand. He scored 112 in an Indian score of 200/9.

6th ODI: New Zealand v India at Auckland, Jan 11, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

2nd ODI: New Zealand v India at Napier, Dec 29, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Regarding the debut match, the SA attack comprised of Pollock, Ntini, Klusener, Kallis, Hayward. That is a pretty good attack that too for a 'slogger' on his debut in SA. The english attack was Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff and Cork. Not too bad either.

I believe he has done enough to be regarded as more than a FTB.

 

[aussie]

I was mentioning the one dayers. You may scoff at onedayers but if you look at the scorecard you would understand. He scored 112 in an Indian score of 200/9.

6th ODI: New Zealand v India at Auckland, Jan 11, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

2nd ODI: New Zealand v India at Napier, Dec 29, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com.

Yes top innings. But its a different beast from test cricket. He unfortunately has never replicated that in tests.

Regarding the debut match, the SA attack comprised of Pollock, Ntini, Klusener, Kallis, Hayward. That is a pretty good attack that too for a 'slogger' on his debut in SA.

That was the weakest SA attack IND sides have encounted in all their tours to the republic since 1992. The only good bowler ATT was Pollock. All the rest where either young & erratic - Hayward, Ntini or passed their bests as bowlers - Klusener & Kallis.

IND struggled in that series, since they still where horrible tourist back then.

The english attack was Hoggard, Harmison, Flintoff and Cork. Not too bad either.

Nah that was a moderate ENG attack. Hoggard was average in those days, he hadn't peaked until post Ashes 05. Flintoff was now learning to be a test bowler. Harmo was young a wild. Cork & White where well passed their peaks as bowlers.

I believe he has done enough to be regarded as more than a FTB.

Unfortunately not, he just doesn't have any major runs againts top-quality pacers - bowling friendly conditions - in tests.

 

[Pigeon]

Yes, but they failed to translate that FC form into test macthes. Which proves that standard of batting they bowled to in the 90s where poor.

No, it says nothing about the Indian FC situation. FYI, India has perhaps the best batting talent pool than anywhere in the world.

Mishra coming good of late. Is a bit like Swann for ENG. He played years in a average FC competition & fortunately for IND he has proven to be test quality.

Rubbish. Mishra is not even comparable to Swann. Mishra is 25, Swann is 31+. Mishra is a result of his own personal effort with the FC exposure he got.

That the MRF pace foundation had more of an effect in Ishant & the increase of other IND pace bowlers in this 2000 era, coming through to test cricket more so than FC performances.

I'm sure the likes of Mohanty, Kuruvilla, Bose (who toured ENG in 06), Doda Ganesh had strong FC performances before selected. But they didn't transfer it to test cricket.

Another rubbish argument. Even the best FC structures throws up guys are not test standard. More of selection issue rather than inherent fault of FC cricket.

Anyway, I don't care really. You started the argument stating that India selects its players from ODIs which is rubbish. Stick to the topic.

Which is the second part of the point im making. Which is due to the poor FC standard in IND, PAK, SRI, NZ, WI, Even the top performers tend to found wanting at test level for certain positions.

Isn't that true for other countries as well?

That is why these nations tend to pick either on talent of based on ODI performances. Because in ODIs a players may adapt to intensity of intl battles much better than a season FC performer in a poor FC structure.

NO.. You are just being stupid without suggesting a batch of players who were selected on ODI form than FC form.

Yes Tendy, Dravid, Azhar, Laxman, Ganguly occupied the middle order all these years. What i saying is the few times they got injured or had to miss a test their replacements have proven to be poor, which shows overall the FC structure is poor.

Load of crap. Suggest examples mate or you are making yourself look abysmally stupid.

Look at AUS in the 90s for example. AUS had settled top &middle order, but you many players like Law, Cox, Lehmann, Siddons, Love etc who could have played test for other nations quite easily. You can't say that about the back-up batsman IND have had to the BIG 4 over the last 15 years.

No, Law, Cox, Siddon, Love etc were all as good as the backup batsmen for India during the period. Till they play test cricket, there is no way they can be compared to others who did not play test cricket.

My apologies if i wasn't clear intially. But as i said above. The generally crust of the point that i'm making is due to poor FC structures over the years in IND, PAK, SRI, NZ, WI (over the last 15 years mainly).

NO

The tend to pick players or for tests - or the players that tend to succed in tests - are either ones natural talent or based on ODI performances.

NO
(atleast as far as SL and Ind are concerned. Atleast make an effort to give examples)

With this particular example. INDs failure to produce openers since Gavaskar, who can translate FC form to tests performances. Which in turn lead them to taking the risky option of chosing `Sehwag based on ODI form clearly proves this.

England has not produced a SINGLE world class batsman since Gooch. (criteria - ability to average > 50). Does that mean England's FC structure is terrible? Oh and don't give me the Pietersen argument. The groundwork in that lad's case was done in SA.

Just saying in SL people indeed get picked based on their FC performances than ODI performances,

As i just explained. Due to poor standard of FC cricket in SRI. In their short but fairly successful test history so far. They have more average players than top players, translating FC form to tests.

Dude, they are ranked NO.3 in test cricket right now. I agree that they don't possess the gunpower to shine abroad, but give credit when it's due. They are damn damn good at home.

Only Murali & Vaas have been true quality bowlers. Malinga & Mendis may be big boys of the future but its still early days. Most of the other quicks & spinners to have played for SRI have been moderate to poor.

Says nothing. FC structure does not throw up world champions anywhere. They just produce test standard cricketers. They convert themselves into world class by performing at the top stage.

So was Monty Panesar. You knows his story.

Monty? Had he been an Indian, he wouldn't have made even the second XIs of major Indian FC teams. Give me a break.

Kaneria was picked on has much natural talent as Dwayne Smith was picked for WI. Kaneria was looking very good intially, but he was worked out & has played county cricket in ENG againts blokes who cant play leg-spin. Thus while taking big wickets for Essex it hasn't helped him, but weakened him as a test bowler.

Yeah, blame the Eng FC structure for lack of competition then.

Based on performances in a solid FC structure.

Exactly. Now what's a solid FC structure?

England where the best team in the world during the 1950s check your cricket history, thats is facts. England from NZ 1951 to Ashes 1958/59 where unbeaten.

It is NOT a fact. The only good teams during that period were WI and Aus. To be the no. 1 among 3 good teams for 5 years is like suggesting ---> Go check your stats. A winning ratio of less than 50% does not qualify a team as world champs.

I said LATE 60s. Starting from their 1965 tour to ENG & those two famous series wins vs AUS (They couldn't play WI, IND, PAK for obvious reaons).

Without them playing even half of the test world, you qualify them as World Champs??

SA if they where not banned due to aparthied its pretty clear up until WI started dominating cricket from 1976, SA had a better team than AUS & ENG in the early 70s. So i'm pretty sure they would have dominated test cricket for that period. Since the Currie Cup FC competition in SA was of top quality.

No. There is a HUGE difference between Might have been and Was. Go figure.

It has everything to do with the FC structure. Since the mental & technical issues that affected Hick & Ramps was due to lack of facing quality bowling in ENG FC competition.

Yeah. I agree. That means the Eng FC structure is as flawed as any other structure in the world.

Hussey has not played test cricket sir. Plus if you are refering to his moderate ODI performances to date for AUS. Thats mainly due to circumstances he came into the AUS side under recently. D Hussey would make most test nations around the world without question except for SA & IND (although he could rival Yuvraj for the # 6 spot).

Sorry mate. He won't make it to the test teams of SL, Pak, Ind or SA. Perhaps would make it to NZ, WI, Ban, and Eng. He is yet to face a good spin attack in such conditions, so he can never be considered test class without having done so. Nor he is exceptionally brilliant in other conditions to warrant his spot in the team. (Like Ponting being dire in India, but is exceptionally great otherwise and hence is a sure test champ)

 

[Pigeon]

Well i just rebutted those "conclusive" points of yours. Time for round 3...

No you haven't. Just posting a pile of rubbish does not translate into posting victories.