Are Tendulkar and Ponting done? Is it time to call it a day?

[silentstriker]

You're taking your philosophy to the extreme though.

I certainly think someone who has contributed as much as Ponting, Dravid, or Tendulkar need to be given more chances than someone like Yuvraj for example. Primarily because despite their streak, their past performance probably makes it likely that they'll snap out of it. But there's obviously a line that people draw at some point - I just tend to draw it a little earlier than others. I think a streak of 12-15 Tests is about the maximum for even a great player.

And as I keep reiterating - dropping for me isn't a permanent thing. I don't have this obsession with constantly bringing in 19 year old batsmen hoping they'll be good for the next 15 years. If someone is 35, is dropped and starts scoring again, I have no problem with picking them. I have no problems with Ganguly coming back into the side after he was dropped for example.

 

[Contra]

Well no ****. If I include his whole career, he averages 50+ and I'd pick him for the next ten years. We're talking about stretches of being in form vs out of form.

how does one define form though? I mean take that Mumbai test vs Aus for example, beyond a point you can't expect any random player to play a an innings like the one he did in the second innings of this test 4th Test: India v Australia at Mumbai, Nov 3-5, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

I also remember him missing the Windies 06 tour (which had some of the flattest wickets).

What is your cut off in terms of test matches before a player who isn't performing gets dropped?

 

[Jono]

Then you have the situation where your replacement comes in, has 3 tests, barely has a chance to cement himself and Sachin is tearing up FC cricket and replaces him.

That really achieves nothing.

You also have the situation where your replacement comes in, averages 35, but again, Sachin is tearing up FC cricket. Do you drop the n00b?

 

[silentstriker]

What is your cut off in terms of test matches before a player who isn't performing gets dropped?

No hard and fast rule but see above.

 

[silentstriker]

Then you have the situation where your replacement comes in, has 3 tests, barely has a chance to cement himself and Sachin is tearing up FC cricket and replaces him.

That really achieves nothing.

You also have the situation where your replacement comes in, averages 35, but again, Sachin is tearing up FC cricket. Do you drop the n00b?

I'd give any player more than 3 Tests, unless it's ridiculously bad. If he averages (say) 35 after two series (say 6-8 Tests?), and someone proven like Sachin is tearing up domestically, I'd drop him. If he is doing much better, he stays.

 

[Jono]

Yeah but you think McGrath is overrated so I'm inclined not to listen to you.

 

[silentstriker]

Touche.

 

[Fusion]

Yeah but you think McGrath is overrated so I'm inclined not to listen to you.

This gives me immense joy.

 

[silentstriker]

Every cell in my body is screaming in pure hatred towards you.

 

[marc71178]

^ Ahaha... you left out Sachin's 241* vs Aus and 194 vs Pak during the start of 2004, how convenient.

So a couple of good innings should give someone 3 years grace when they're totally underperformance then, interesting theory that.

 

[Black_Warrior]

For me you only drop a great player who is out of form when you have a replacement...I am not sure India has a replacement..Apart from Kohli, I don't rate any of the new Indian batsmen too highly.. and Kohli is already in the team...so not sure who would be Tendulkar's replacement.

Ponting's on the other hand is a different case, Australia have tons of batsmen who are good enough and Ponting has to go now. I would give him one more test.

 

[Prince EWS]

For me you only drop a great player who is out of form when you have a replacement...I am not sure India has a replacement..Apart from Kohli, I don't rate any of the new Indian batsmen too highly.. and Kohli is already in the team...so not sure who would be Tendulkar's replacement.

Ponting's on the other hand is a different case, Australia have tons of batsmen who are good enough and Ponting has to go now. I would give him one more test.

If anything I think the complete opposite of all that is true.

The batting depth in this country at the moment is terrible. I'd be all for dropping Ponting if I thought there was a ready made replacement for him, but there's not. There's no question in my mind that he's still one of the best six bats in the country, and that's true even if he doesn't score many runs against the best attacks anymore, because no other bastard is going to either.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

If anything I think the complete opposite of all that is true.

The batting depth in this country at the moment is terrible. I'd be all for dropping Ponting if I thought there was a ready made replacement for him, but there's not. There's no question in my mind that he's still one of the best six bats in the country, and that's true even if he doesn't score many runs against the best attacks anymore, because no other bastard is going to either.

I think it says it all that both Ponting and Hussey have been persevered with through terrible runs of form because the selectors know there isn't anyone better to replace them. Gone are the days when the likes of Mark Waugh got dropped when they probably had something to offer still simply because they had so many options at that time. What Australia would give for a 25 year old Stuart Law and Brad Hodge right now.

 

[centurymaker]

So a couple of good innings should give someone 3 years grace when they're totally underperformance then, interesting theory that.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=start;spanmax2=31+mar+2005;spanmin2=1+dec+2003;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

he didn't look as good as before, although he still managed to produce enough runs from
dec 2003 to mar 2005
Note I have included his full tour of AUS and excluded his 248* in Bangladesh.


no tests for 9 months and then
super slump- dec 2005 to jan 2007

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

and then a poor showing in the world cup only made matters worse...
this was the point where he deserved to be dropped imo.

 

[Black_Warrior]

If anything I think the complete opposite of all that is true.

The batting depth in this country at the moment is terrible. I'd be all for dropping Ponting if I thought there was a ready made replacement for him, but there's not. There's no question in my mind that he's still one of the best six bats in the country, and that's true even if he doesn't score many runs against the best attacks anymore, because no other bastard is going to either.

To start with

Mark Cosgrove | Australia Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

and

Usman Khawaja | Australia Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

and

Phillip Hughes | Australia Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo


You have to do tweaking of course..
Clarke has to move to 4. Watson has to come back and the myth that he is an all rounder and not a batsman has to be shattered once and for all.

So you have Watson and Clarke and 3 and 4 so you have your two best batsmen in those positions..which allows you to try a new player at 5 or 6..if you are going for Hughes than Cowan at 3, Watson at 5.

Not to mention that a certain Mr Katich was unceremoniously dropped for no reason!!

 

[Prince EWS]

To start with

Mark Cosgrove | Australia Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

and

Usman Khawaja | Australia Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

and

Phillip Hughes | Australia Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo


You have to do tweaking of course..
Clarke has to move to 4. Watson has to come back and the illusion that he is an all rounder and not a batsman has to be shattered once and for all.

So you have Watson and Clarke and 3 and 4 so you have your two best batsmen in those positions..which allows you to try a new player at 5 or 6..if you are going for Hughes than Cowan at 3, Watson at 5.

Not to mention that a certain Mr Katich was unceremoniously dropped for no reason!!

Hughes and Khawaja both have serious technical issues that they're working on. Given Hughes in particular is in the process of completely changing his technique, I don't think recalling him to Test cricket midway through that process is going to help at all, especially since it's already been tried once before and completely confused the bloke.

Cosgrove has been blacklisted; he's not going to be selected. Katich has retired now so he's not relevant here.

If Ponting was dropped we'd end up with someone like Bailey or Doolan in the side, or Quiney retained when Watson returned, and as much as I'll admit Ponting has severely declined I'm still firmly of the opinion that he's better than those blokes.

 

[GIMH]

Batting stocks seem to be a problem throughout international cricket tbh

 

[morgieb]

Batting stocks seem to be a problem throughout international cricket tbh

India have a few good uns....

....which makes their retention of Yuvraj even more baffling.

 

[GIMH]

Pujara is the biz for sure, but the India fans don't seem awfully confident in the alternatives to Tendulkar and Yuvraj

 

[morgieb]

But yeah it is a shame. A few years back Australia probably had 10 batsmen alone that could've been guns for another country.