Kumble was a different kettle of fish, he rarely used flight in his bowling, he bowled flatter and quicker and got wickets with his top spinner.
The situations with Hayden & Hussey are different from Dravid. They where out of form for less than & year, while Dravid was out of from since IND where in here 2007. Only in NZ recent & 2009 IPL has he began to show back SOME signs of his old self.
Exactly. If he was Australia he wont have been dropped before he got the chance to regain form in tests again, given his age. IND reallyhonestbharani said:
Which is the problem with INDs bench strenght, one of those guys really should be stepping up at this stage, as the era of Big 4 is coming to and end.honestbharani said:
Kaif wasn't test quality. I don't know about Rahane & Pujara so wont comment. I have seen Tiwary & Pandey though.honestbharani said:
Right - so Hayden's year included 16 Tests, 30 innings without a century (5 fifties) and 841 runs @ 30.04
Your stats picking. Between IND 04 to NZ 05, their was no reason for Hayden to be dropped although he was not in form. During the Ashes when he was technically exposed, thats when he his position was in serious threat. So even if he didn't save his career with the Oval hundred - AUS had an immediate replacement in M Hussey or Jaques to replace him.
I dont know where you got this from. As i said Dravid was out of form from ENG 07 to AUS 08. That like 23 tests, after his woeful performance vs AUS 08, he really should have been dropped - if he where AUS he would have been. But given IND next generation aint stepping up ATM, IND have been forced to contiously back the great man.
Haa..lame, you can't play that bias card with me. The facts are in your face..
Well i wont call you stupid, cause your not. All i was saying there is that i like what i saw of Vijay in the 4th test vs AUS. But it was only one test, if history is guide with Indian openers, it would be wise to take a very conservative view when judging them as test quality as not.
Awesome topspinner, bounces plenty.
Err its impossible to know whether the players on the bench are test class or not if they dont get an opportunity to play. It doesn't mean that you dont have good bench strength though. India has a whole bunch of batters and bowlers in domestic cricket who are setting the domestic scene on fire and are ready to replace the fab 4 when they leave.
The fact that Yuvraj was the best they could find to fill in for Ganguly doesn't fill me with confidence though tbh.
Yuvraj was picked not because of a lack of options, he was picked because of the pressure from the public as a result of his limited overs success as well as his FC runs. Of course, that doesn't mean that it was the right move, it was clearly a product of poor selection, especially when players like Badrinath, Rahane, Pujara, Tiwary, heck even Kohli and Rohit Sharma have been floating around domestic cricket. Badrinath has almost certainly been unfortunate given that he is far more experienced and older than some of the others mentioned.
Oh right, I assumed your touring related to touring Aus, not England - can't decide who you support, seems to change with each series.
Indeed the facts are in my face, but they don't paint the story you claim they do. If Dravid was out of form, then how can Hayden or Hussey not have been?
Yuvraj isn't in the top five of the best people to fill in. Selectors are morons. Yuvraj is not a Test cricketer. But apparently, they still have not figured this out.
The Indian batting bench strength is perfectly acceptable actually. I'm not worried about the batting.
Aside from Yuvraj, who we all know isn't Test class, who are these people who've played Tests and not stepped up?
WTF haaa. Oh i now see what this is, this is not a cricket debate, this is personal. I keep telling you stop studying who i support & why i support them. You got a problem complain
In those 10 matches he batted 20 times and scored a ton and 4 fifties in his 554 runs @ 32.59
Hayden & Hussey where indeed out of form. But neither up until they reach the respective Ashes series of 05 or 09, where in such horrific form that it was evident that they really should have been dropped.
Aussie accusing someone of stats picking. A bit like King Alfred criticizing someone for leaving the cakes in the oven too long.
That's the weirdest logic of all time.
Its clear India's bench strenght is extremely talented, that clear. But are they ready for test cricket ATM to replace the Big 4 - no. We have seen that pretty clear in recent years as Ganguly & Dravid have had various trotts.silentstriker said:
I'm not sure when i agree with this. When Yuvi debuted in 2003 it was because of ODI form & FC runs, not lack of options. In the early 2000s he was being talked up, just like how Sharma is being now.tooextracool said:
Well firstly, i am still willing to reserve my judgement on Yuvraj. Since he could do a Hooper & come good one day in tests.silentstriker said:
Didn't they have domestic form behind them?. The example i gave before with AUS & Mark Waugh in 2002, he had a similar bad trott & AUS dropped him immediately for the 02/03 Ashes for a ready made replacement in Lehmann.
Yes IND where in their right to back the Dravid given his record. But clearly after his form vs AUS/ENG 08 had reached a low point. Especially that AUS bowling attack which was awful, the selectors could have picked Badrianth who has been talked up for a good two years now as a test player.silentstriker said:
There is big difference between stats picking & using stats to show facts. I do the latter. Some people on CW like yourself unfortunately, just philosophically dont believe in using stats as a guide to judging any cricketer. Which is disappointing approach that i can't help you with.
I'm not asking for help, but if you need help understanding why your brand of "facts" are ridiculed from all four corners of the Globe I'll see what I can do.