India's opening pair

[Tom Halsey]

Also, his average is 28, but it is a very consistent 28, seeing as he has very few low scores.

Consistent suggests to me someone who can be relied upon, and thus he is a solid player.

That does, however, mean he doesn't go on with his starts.

 

[Richard]

how can you say that he wont be successful opening the batting in tests? if it hasnt been tested than theres no way you can prove that he is going to fail and indeed if he averaged even 15 runs lower at the top as he did at 4 he would still be a success as an opener.

No, I can't prove he's going to fail, I never even remotely suggested I could.
And it's strange how you realise that averaging 40 as a Test-opener would still be a success, yet you fail to realise that 38 at four in ODIs is...???

rubbish......yuvraj might just have a very bright future in the indian side while tendulkar is probably past his prime anyways so it makes sense to bat tendulkar at the top where he might even do better than at 4! its better for the team because then everyone else gets to bat in their rightful positions. and even if tendulkar fails at the top he can move back down to 4 any time he wants!can the same be said about yuvraj if he fails at the top??

If Yuvraj has a very bright future he'll play again when Tendulkar and Ganguly have retired in 7 or 8 years' time.
All of Australia's best players of the last 10 years except Mark Waugh and Gilchrist have had to wait their turn. Simply because there weren't the places available.
If Yuvraj fails at the top of the order it's the selectors' fault, not his, for picking him in the wrong place. If that means he doesn't get picked again when a middle-order place becomes available, that's equally poor selection.

 

[marc71178]

No, I've explained why I'm not - Tendulkar has batted at four in ODIs plenty, and has achieved success few have achieved there.

He has also opened on 4 times as many occasions and has achieved far more success there than at 4 (49.70 is a lot more than 38.29, or will you come up with some theory to dispute that?), and also more success than I would suggest any other ODI player in history.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I can't prove he's going to fail, I never even remotely suggested I could..

so why should it not be tried then especially considering that there is back up in that even if he doesnt succeed he can go back to no 4?

And it's strange how you realise that averaging 40 as a Test-opener would still be a success, yet you fail to realise that 38 at four in ODIs is...

because averaging 42 as an test opener is pretty good considering it is the toughest position to bat in and it would definetly solve the openers problem that india have been having for a while. 38 in ODIs is not brilliant, its just ordinary.

If Yuvraj has a very bright future he'll play again when Tendulkar and Ganguly have retired in 7 or 8 years' time.
All of Australia's best players of the last 10 years except Mark Waugh and Gilchrist have had to wait their turn. Simply because there weren't the places available.

how does this make any sense? yuvraj is batting in the wrong position and i dont remember players like darren lehmann and simon katich made to open the batting because they had a settled middle order. its quite conceivable that yuvraj will fail as an opener and then never be in the reckoning as a test match player

If Yuvraj fails at the top of the order it's the selectors' fault, not his, for picking him in the wrong place. If that means he doesn't get picked again when a middle-order place becomes available, that's equally poor selection.

yes it is the selectors fault, which is why if you look at some of my earlier posts you will see that ive said that they should play a specialist opener in chopra. my point was that if they pick yuvraj then to accomodate him in the side tendulkar should open!

 

[Richard]

He has also opened on 4 times as many occasions and has achieved far more success there than at 4 (49.70 is a lot more than 38.29, or will you come up with some theory to dispute that?), and also more success than I would suggest any other ODI player in history.

When have I disputed that?
All I've said is that if you ask me Tendulkar's more use averaging 38 at four than he is averaging 49-50 at the top.

 

[Richard]

so why should it not be tried then especially considering that there is back up in that even if he doesnt succeed he can go back to no 4?

Because I believe it likely he'll fail if he opens.
I think that would be a waste, especially in such an important series.

because averaging 42 as an test opener is pretty good considering it is the toughest position to bat in and it would definetly solve the openers problem that india have been having for a while. 38 in ODIs is not brilliant, its just ordinary.

No, it's very extraordinary. Not many people manage to average 38 in ODIs.
42 as a Test opener, apart from not being by any stretch of the imagination likely IMO, is far less good than 57-8 at four, when Yuvraj would probably average about 30 there anyway.

how does this make any sense? yuvraj is batting in the wrong position and i dont remember players like darren lehmann and simon katich made to open the batting because they had a settled middle order. its quite conceivable that yuvraj will fail as an opener and then never be in the reckoning as a test match player

Which will be poor selection - far better to make him wait his turn like Lehmann and Katich... and Langer, and Hayden, and Ponting, and Stephen Waugh, and Martyn.

yes it is the selectors fault, which is why if you look at some of my earlier posts you will see that ive said that they should play a specialist opener in chopra. my point was that if they pick yuvraj then to accomodate him in the side tendulkar should open!

Yes, I sort of realised that by now.
I've said they should play a specialist opener in Sriram, personally.

 

[Tom Halsey]

because averaging 42 as an test opener is pretty good considering it is the toughest position to bat in and it would definetly solve the openers problem that india have been having for a while. 38 in ODIs is not brilliant, its just ordinary.[/B]

Explain. You haven't even said why.

Infact, I'd say 38 in ODI's is better than 42 in Tests, because you have to play much more agressively, and risk giving you're wicket away.

 

[Tom Halsey]

if they pick yuvraj then to accomodate him in the side tendulkar should open!

No, because the team is more important than accomodating one man.

The team is better if Tendulkar does not open. If that means putting Yuvraj in an unhelpful batting spot, so be it - the team is more important.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's very extraordinary. Not many people manage to average 38 in ODIs.

And how many manage to average a shade under 50?!

 

[tooextracool]

Because I believe it likely he'll fail if he opens.
I think that would be a waste, especially in such an important series.

i think he will succeed, and it would actually be better for the team if he opens the batting because they can have the right balance in the side.

No, it's very extraordinary. Not many people manage to average 38 in ODIs.

and how many people average 50 in ODIs ?onely one that i can think off

42 as a Test opener, apart from not being by any stretch of the imagination likely IMO, is far less good than 57-8 at four, when Yuvraj would probably average about 30 there anyway..

rubbish, you cant possibly say that yuvraj will average 30 especially after the potential that he has shown in the recent series.

Which will be poor selection - far better to make him wait his turn like Lehmann and Katich... and Langer, and Hayden, and Ponting, and Stephen Waugh, and Martyn.

have i disputed that? IMO the best lineup was the one in australia with chopra and that doesnt need to be changed at all.

Yes, I sort of realised that by now.
I've said they should play a specialist opener in Sriram, personally.

im sure chopra is ahead in the selectors mind and in most other peoples mind

 

[tooextracool]

Explain. You haven't even said why.

Infact, I'd say 38 in ODI's is better than 42 in Tests, because you have to play much more agressively, and risk giving you're wicket away.

no 42 opening the batting(assuming its uniform both home and away) is far better than what any other indian opener would average in that spot anyways. personally i think he'll average over 50 because he has the technique and experience to open the batting. also it opens up a spot for yuvraj and so accomodates everyone in their rightful positions and gives the side balance

 

[tooextracool]

No, because the team is more important than accomodating one man.

The team is better if Tendulkar does not open. If that means putting Yuvraj in an unhelpful batting spot, so be it - the team is more important.

yes which is why yuvraj shouldnt even be in the side in the first place. the specialist opener in chopra should never have been dropped, and the side would be perfect anyhow.
the point is that if yuvraj played, the team would anyways be disturbed because someone would be batting in the wrong position. and believe me its far more likely that yuvraj will fail at the top than sachin will i can assure you.

 

[Richard]

And how many manage to average a shade under 50?!

Even fewer - when have I ever said Tendulkar has not been exceptional at the top of the order?
All I have been doing in this instance is disputing that 38 is "ordinary".

 

[Richard]

i think he will succeed, and it would actually be better for the team if he opens the batting because they can have the right balance in the side.

Yes, I gathered you think he would succeed - I think he will fail, and I think that will destabilise the team.

and how many people average 50 in ODIs ?onely one that i can think off

Yes, when have I disputed that? All I've said is 38 is most certainly not ordinary.

rubbish, you cant possibly say that yuvraj will average 30 especially after the potential that he has shown in the recent series.

I can - and I have.
You just don't think he will - but I do.
Because you think he won't doesn't mean I "can't" think he would.

have i disputed that? IMO the best lineup was the one in australia with chopra and that doesnt need to be changed at all.

No, you haven't, but you didn't seem to see what I was saying WRT all those Australian batsmen, so I tried to explain.

im sure chopra is ahead in the selectors mind and in most other peoples mind

If so, that's very poor as far as I'm concerned, having in mind a proven failure ahead of someone with as phenominal a record as Sriram who somehow hasn't played a Test yet.

 

[marc71178]

I think the SRT poll rather succintly sums this argument up.

 

[Richard]

I don't, personally.
Because the opinions of this board aren't the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, when have I disputed that? All I've said is 38 is most certainly not ordinary.

no the point is that nobody wants a good batsman in that position....quite frankly im sure that ganguly,yuvraj or even kaif is capable of averaging 38 in that position but how many people in this indian side or anywhere in the world are capable of opening the batting and averaging 50?

If so, that's very poor as far as I'm concerned, having in mind a proven failure ahead of someone with as phenominal a record as Sriram who somehow hasn't played a Test yet.

and chopra isnt a proven failure except in your defective eyes, that thought harmison,steve waugh,attapattu,jonty rhodes and several other players were also proven failures.....

 

[deeps]

far better to make him wait his turn like Lehmann and Katich... and Langer, and Hayden, and Ponting, and Stephen Waugh, and Martyn.

interesting u include stephen waugh in that list......considering he waited a whole of approx 5 first class matches and was 20 years old....

 

[Andre]

All of Australia's best players of the last 10 years except Mark Waugh and Gilchrist have had to wait their turn. Simply because there weren't the places available.

These 2 guys are key examples of players having to wait their turn! Mark had to wait 5 years after Steve to make his debut despite scoring truckloads at domestic level, and Gilly started his domestic career in 1992 or 1993 and had to move states to even become part of the frame.

 

[Richard]

interesting u include stephen waugh in that list......considering he waited a whole of approx 5 first class matches and was 20 years old....

Wait from his debut time to making himself a fixture in the side and performing as he did from that point onwards.