"I want a defensive partner"

[biased indian]

although i do hope that most people realise that his true test will come only 2 years later(or whenever they play an away series outside the sub continent)

if u play more games by that time and build up u r confidence u could play any where if u have some talent in u

eg sehwag.

 

[biased indian]

There is no difference - a team has 11 members, it's in the laws of the game.

so if it is said that the selector is going to select the team for an overseas trip means they are selecting 11 players

 

[Neil Pickup]

Squad/Team...

 

[marc71178]

so if it is said that the selector is going to select the team for an overseas trip means they are selecting 11 players

If there's a tour, the selectors are still there - they don't pick 15 people then sit back.

 

[Deja moo]

There is no difference - a team has 11 members, it's in the laws of the game.

marc , youre going on technicalities here.

I think he's used the word 'team' instead of 'squad'.

 

[Deja moo]

If there's a tour, the selectors are still there - they don't pick 15 people then sit back.

That maybe the case in Zimbabwe.

Not in India. The team management ( read coach + senior players) select the playing 11. The selectors have no role in that.

The selectors are not independent to select the squad of 14 too. The captain and coach sit with the selectors while selecting the 14.

 

[Arjun]

Are the Indian selectors too quiet? They need to make a statement about fielding of the players, which should be of a very high quality if they have to be a top team. They should also issue warnings to underperforming players. That's what the Australian selectors do. It keeps the players active all the time. They are more powerful than the captain, when it comes to selecting a team. Their Indian counterparts get pushed around by the captain far too much.

 

[biased indian]

If there's a tour, the selectors are still there - they don't pick 15 people then sit back.

atleast in india thats happening

 

[Arjun]

A lot of successful players these days (Trescothick, Harmison, Flintoff and most NZ batsmen) don't have a proper foundation in FC/List A cricket, reflected in their averages. For instance, Trescothick was a bits-and-pieces player in Somerset, playing in the lower order. Yet, they are successfull- Flintoff, in particular, failed for 4 years, and was in good form only recently. Chopra, on the other hand, has been playing FC cricket for 6 years and had a very healthy batting average, till he was in the selectors' plans. That is a rock-solid foundation that he has. Besides, if those players failed so many times when they started and finally succeeded, why not Chopra?

Chopra's critics don't realise it. He may not be converting his starts, but he did maintain a healthy average in the NZ series. Even in the first Test in Brisbane, he was there when Ganguly entered, and built a partnership. If he does not get more runs, it is just a matter of bad luck. Besides, he was following orders- to blunt the ball. If they told him to score runs, he would. He plays for the team- that's a lot better than the likes of Das, Ramesh, Williams and Jaffer, who just played for their places, like strugglers. Any captain would want to have him in a team.

 

[Dasa]

^Agree with that entirely. He does what's required of him perfectly, without any question. Perfect team man (also shown in his fielding, the commitment he has).