Kaif should be dropped from the Indian Team.

[V Reddy]

I feel if any batsman is to bat at 7 with top-6 remaining the same then it should be Kaif only. He is a great fielder and also a quick runner . Batting wise he is just as good as Badani and Rohan. He should only be replaced with either a keeper like Karthik but then also i would drop a guy like Laxman if he isn't going to bat at 3.

 

[FRAZ]

I guess Kaif must be given No. 4 position . Boy this guy has a great technique for sure .

 

[Arjun]

Any side that picked a player with no ability with bat or ball doesn't deserve to do well IMO.

And no, Rikki Clarke doesn't count.

At least SOME batting ability is required, as with Australian and South African players. Not all players in these teams are legends with bat or ball, but they can all field well. Rikki Clarke is no Jonty Rhodes on the field, nor can he bat well enough for the top 6.

Good question about Dinesh. He is another talented batsman, but not positive enough. Besides, the full 14 only needs 7 batsmen and with the new-found form of Laxman, the Asia Cup not withstanding, and six places already occupied, he is not really needed. He had a disastrous World Cup, he is not the most active runner between wickets (A slow runner like Laxman is a harder runner) and he does not hit enough big shots. Still some time till he returns to the team, though he would be better for Tests.

No specialist batsman is needed at 7. It has to be a bowler who can bat, or a wicketkeeper who can score runs. There are all-rounders for the Indian team to choose and play, but it's a different matter altogether if they don't. Opportunistic strategists would play them.

 

[marc71178]

I guess Kaif must be given No. 4 position . Boy this guy has a great technique for sure .

Another one at number 4.

At this rate they'll have no openers or number 3, 5 batting at number 4, then a number 6 and the bowlers!

 

[Richard]

peronally, I think Ganguly is vastly overrated, and would rather see Kaif playing for India than him

So all the runs Ganguly has scored over the length of time he has scored them make him overrated?
Against Kaif who hasn't scored many runs at all?

 

[Richard]

What about Dinesh Mongia, does he have a future in the Indian side, if a player of his obvious ability cannot get into the side then the only reason i can see for India not being world beaters is mental frailty,

I agree, Dinesh Mongia is a fantastic player, especially in one day matches (as he proved at Old Trafford last Tuesday against Warickshire)

What does everyone see in Dinesh Mongia???????
The guy averages 27.78 in 48 ODIs, and if that wasn't bad enough it drops to 23.49 if you take away just one innings which can be explained as a fluke judging by what's come around it.

 

[Richard]

Argh this is going to hurt.

I have to eat my words and admit that Kaif isn't doing the job that the team wants from him. I don't think he's a number 7 batsman, he's a 4 or 5 but with India's current ODI batting line up, there's simply no room for him. His fielding skills are exceptional, and when he is on fire (Natwest Tropy 2002, 4th ODI against Pakistan 2004) he has the ability to win a match for India, but it's just not consistent enough.

That hurts so much because Kaif was one of my favourite players in 2002/03 But one or two knocks doesn't make a career, and doesn't solidify a spot in the team.

It certainly looked, after that 111* (summat like that???) against Zimbabwe in the 2002 Champions Trophy, as though Kaif was going to be a fixture in the side for some time to come.
Sadly, since then he's been very, very poor, whether at seven or four.

 

[steds]

What does everyone see in Dinesh Mongia???????
The guy averages 27.78 in 48 ODIs, and if that wasn't bad enough it drops to 23.49 if you take away just one innings which can be explained as a fluke judging by what's come around it.

which innings was the fluke? THe 159* against Zimbabwe? What about the 55* off 50 balls against South Africa in the TVS cup last year? Or his 74 in Bridgetown? Or his highest first class score of 308*?

 

[marc71178]

Once you've been here a while Steds, you'll learn that if Richard doesn't like someone he'll quote misleading stats that remove any good performances and then claim that he's right based on flawed figures.

 

[delkap]

ATM, I will agree as well.. Kaif hasn't done much over past year or so.. He has talent, but the inconsistency is really getting to the point of being unbearable.. I strongly believe Badani to be the guy to replace him.. He never did anything wrong, yet has been sidelined completely.. Maybe once Kaif gets his act together, he (Kaif) can return..

As for Mongia, He seems to hv improved since being dropped, playing in Eng county, but still that bowling (English county) is not a international standard anyway..
IMO he and Badani should be given an extended run.. in the team, on an alternate basis maybe.. In the long run, I think Mongia has the capability of hitting big shots compared to Badani.. But Badani is a better batsman IMO more in the vein of Laxman..

And finally if Laxman, too goes on with his current ways.. 5 faliures and a century, maybe both Badani and Mongia ought to play.. Although I hv no doubt Laxman is by far the best played among these 4 (VVS, Badani, Mongia, Kaif)

 

[FRAZ]

Another one at number 4.

At this rate they'll have no openers or number 3, 5 batting at number 4, then a number 6 and the bowlers!

Will you be more pacific logically .

 

[Deja moo]

 

[mkamdar]

I do not see how people are crying our for Dinesh Mongia. Don't y'all remember his frustrating performances in the world cup? I used to applaud when he was out. I really like Kaif's effort and coomitment to fielding, but he is just not cutting it in batting. You do not deserve your spot in the team because every tenth inning or so, you have a good performance. Badani is a good fielder and a better run scorer. I also liked what I saw from Rohan Gavaskar in his short stint. I have not seen enough of Sanjay Bangar to form any solid opinion. Perhaps the answer is to have Parthiv in at no. 7 or Dinesh Karthik at no. 7 and as a specialist keeper. Perhaps Rayudu needs to be given a shot. Are there any other guys in the A team who merit consideration?

 

[Anil]

My sentiments exactly. But the fielding's really going to suffer if he's dropped

if the quality of our fielding depends so much on just one player, we have a biiig problem in that dept...besides you just can't afford to pick a player based just on his fielding unless he is a jonty or a logie or something....

 

[Richard]

Once you've been here a while Steds, you'll learn that if Richard doesn't like someone he'll quote misleading stats that remove any good performances and then claim that he's right based on flawed figures.

And you have not once provided any reasons as to why it is not valid to remove the instances I've removed.
You've simply stated time and again "you can't do that because I say it's misleading and flawed".

 

[Richard]

which innings was the fluke? THe 159* against Zimbabwe? What about the 55* off 50 balls against South Africa in the TVS cup last year? Or his 74 in Bridgetown? Or his highest first class score of 308*?

The 159* against Zimbabwe. Given that it takes his average up by over 4.
His highest First-Class score doesn't mean a thing as to one-day-internationals.
The fact that the other performances are outnumbered does mean something.
If you simply picked-out the occasions where Don Bradman had failed you could argue that he wasn't by a massive distance the greatest batsman who's played the game.
It is how consistently you succeed which determines how good you are. Otherwise no-one would bother with averages.

 

[marc71178]

So why cherry pick numbers out of the averages then?

 

[Richard]

I don't.
Cherry-picking is random removal, I remove things in a stratified way.
If something doesn't fit the trend, I remove it.
And you certainly cannot describe the removal of things at the start as cherry-picking, because it isn't - it's looking at things from a point at which things changed onwards.

 

[tooextracool]

so since the 47 average in 98 doesnt fit the ramprakash trend maybe we should remove that too?

 

[Richard]

And since the year-by-year average is simply a misleading guide to his actual form maybe we should ignore it altogether.