***Official Australia in India***

[G.I.Joe]

Yes, but not as well as Chopra IMO. Jaffer was found wanting when the ball was moving around a lot, or if the pitch had bounce. Chopra is more suited to handle top class bowling.

And yes, taking the shine off the ball is the #1 thing that is needed by Sehwag's partner. The runs are a bonus. Gambhir, though I hope I am wrong, will be too hit and miss overseas. People forget, Jaffer also has double centuries.

Chopra > Jaffer > Gambhir IMO.

But there isn't much to choose between the performances of Chopra and Jaffer against Australia.

 

[ret]

I think Chopra was already good enough to do that, and now has gotten better. If I have a choice between someone averaging 45 with big scores but gets out cheaply often, vs. a consistent scorer who doesn't make as many big scores but always gives his team a good start (say average 40), I'll pick the latter. Indian middle order is usually strong, and we tend to lose wickets in bunches against good opening bowling. I think if we can see off the new bowlers, our middle order just becomes so much better at everything we do, that it's worth sacrificing a few extra runs at the top.

if the middle order is strong then it can take care of strong opening bowling if wickets fall early .... you are probably advocating someone who takes the shine off because you know deep down that the middle order is not that good enough to take on good opening bowling and thats why you need someone at the top to give it protection rather then someone who can impact a game on his own

And lets not forget that against SA, SL despite the openers getting good starts the middle order failed. If he had someone who was good enough to take the shine off at the top rather than ppl who put on big totals then India probably would have lost both the series than one

 

[silentstriker]

if the middle order is strong then it can take care of strong opening bowling if wickets fall early .... you are probably advocating someone who takes the shine off because you know deep down that the middle order is not that good enough to take on good opening bowling and thats why you need someone at the top to give it protection rather then someone who can impact a game on his own

Yes, you are correct. Indian middle order is much weaker against top quality opening bowling than it is against spinners and bowlers like that. Once the ball stops swinging, or spinners come on, the Indian middle order will more than make up for any scoring problems by the opener. I think in India's case, we have to look for people who can protect the middle order a little bit, and allow them to play to their strengths. Really, that's what all teams should try to do - play the game to their strengths as much as possible.

 

[silentstriker]

But there isn't much to choose between the performances of Chopra and Jaffer against Australia.

I watched every ball of both series - Chopra was clearly better.

 

[silentstriker]

And lets not forget that against SA, SL despite the openers getting good starts the middle order failed. If he had someone who was good enough to take the shine off at the top rather than ppl who put on big totals then India probably would have lost both the series than one

You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes, it is possible for the middle order to fail. Imagine that.

We are talking about what their best chance of success is. If you think they are better at facing opening bowlers in their first spells compared to spin, then we just disagree and there is no point in arguing.

 

[Precambrian]

I watched every ball of both series - Chopra was clearly better.

Yeah, no doubt about that. Chopra is massively better than Jaffer. Personally I would like to get in Vijay for the sheer surprise value. Provided it is visibly a flat track.

M. Vijay
V. Sehwag
V Laxman
S Tendulkar
S Ganguly
R Dravid
M Dhoni
H Singh
Z Khan
I Sharma
A Mishra.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I watched every ball of both series - Chopra was clearly better.

I've watched both series' too, illusion IMO. Chopra doesn't have the stats to back up his crease occupancy claims.

In all matches played against Australia, Chopra averages 16 runs per innings while occupying the wicket for 34 balls each outing. The corresponding figures for Jaffer are 8 and 29.

16 and 8 are both pathetic averages, and the difference between occupying the wicket for 34 balls and 29 isn't too great either.

Chopra doesn't fare too well on seaming pitches too. Remove Sydney, Adelaide and Bangalore from the records, and Chopra averages 17 off 24 balls. Jaffer averages 11 off 37 balls. Jaffer actually occupies the crease longer than Chopra against Australia on bowler friendly wickets.

Now it is not my contention that Jaffer is great shakes, I don't want him near the team. But I fail to see the adulation Chopra has built up with similar figures as Jaffer. You might as well include both in an Indian wheel of opening mediocrity.

 

[ret]

You are arguing for the sake of arguing. Yes, it is possible for the middle order to fail. Imagine that.

We are talking about what their best chance of success is. If you think they are better at facing opening bowlers in their first spells compared to spin, then we just disagree and there is no point in arguing.

i would rather have guys like Gavaskar, Sehwag and Gambhir who are good enough to go on and get big ones and make an impact in a game then select guys to protect middle order

no amount of protection is good enough, if the players are not up to it. Give Chopra to B'desh and see if that does anything for BD's middle order. Give Sehwag, Gambhir, Hayden, or even Smith, Jayasuriya to BD and they could win a few games for it!!!

there was a time not so long ago when seamers were played just to take the shine off the ball for spinners!!! see the difference guys like Zak, Ishant and Munaf make, if you pick them to not just take the shine off but to also pick up wickets

if you are picking openers and seamers to take the shine off for middle order and spinners respectively then you know where a cricket team is heading

You should always be picking players who can make an impact in a game

 

[silentstriker]

Justice Albie Sachs's text on why the appeal was rejected

It's very fair and the reasoning is sound.

Still very annoyed with Katich not being pulled up though.

 

[howardj]

Justice Albie Sachs's text on why the appeal was rejected

It's very fair and the reasoning is sound.

Still very annoyed with Katich not being pulled up though.

I can see this being a huge blow up over the next 36 hours.

Hope I'm wrong, but I think this final Test match is in jeopardy.

 

[silentstriker]

I can see this being a huge blow up over the next 36 hours.

Hope I'm wrong, but I think this final Test match is in jeopardy.

Nah. The match will go on just fine.

The BCCI can and should complain about Katich. They cannot really claim anything on Gambhir. The punishment was fair.

The relevant part:

[15] I will deal first with the request for a postponement. Gautam Gambhir correctly states that the principle governing the procedure to be followed is that of Natural Justice. This in turn requires procedural fairness, and what is fair in any particular case will depend on the circumstances. Two relevant factors in the present matter are that he was able to see the video at the hearing on 30 October, and that he pleaded guilty to the charge of breach of the Code of Conduct. There were accordingly no disputes of fact, and the only issue in this appeal is whether the penalty is disproportionate in all the circumstances, particularly bearing in mind the provocation to which he had been subjected.

[16] In considering the proportionality of the penalty, I am prepared to accept that he had been the victim of prolonged and persistent verbal abuse by members of the Australian team, culminating in a moment of anger that led to his unfortunate lapse. I would add in his favour that the manner in which Shane Watson had raised an arm as he ran past for the first run, could have been taken by him as a mocking gesture, and thereby could have served as the last provocative straw. Furthermore, I accept, as the umpires did, that the actual contact was not serious.

[17] The points he wishes to make have already been made, and for purposes of this appeal I fully accept their veracity. In this context, further delay would leave him (and the selectors, and the public) in the unenviable position of not knowing where he stood in relation to the upcoming Test match, without any corresponding benefit as far as the appeal is concerned. Similar considerations apply in relation to his request for an oral hearing. The right to be heard in terms of natural justice does not necessarily imply the right to an oral hearing. In a case where important questions of fact are in dispute, it would ordinarily be correct to hear the appellant speaking and answering questions in his or her own voice. In other matters, given the great distances and the time differences usually involved, and the desirability of speedy resolution, it would ordinarily be reasonable to rely on written submissions only.

[18] No explanation has been offered as to why the request for oral hearings and the right to legal representation are made at the last minute. Nor is it clear how acceding to them would in any material way contribute to a better resolution of this matter.

[19] The fact is that on the evidence before me, I am already satisfied that the probabilities strongly favour the submission that Gautam Gambhir was, as he claims, subjected to inordinate verbal provocation by the fielders; that the raising by Shane Watson of his arm could have been seen by him as an aggressive gesture; and that the physical contact, while deliberate, was not heavy. The only question before me is whether these factors, taken together, make the 1 Test match ban unduly severe.

[20] In this respect, I cannot ignore the fact that this was the second time within a year that Gautam Gambhir had been found guilty of losing his cool while setting off on a run, the first having been nearly a year ago when he collided with the Pakistani player Shahid Afridi. A perusal of the documents in that matter makes it clear that his claim of an accidental collision was not accepted, and a fine of 50% of the match fee was imposed.

[21] Furthermore, cricket is not a contact sport. Small collisions can lead to big ones. Players must constantly be on guard to avoid physical contact with opposition players. The risk of accidental collision must be cut down. Deliberate collision can never be condoned, however grave the provocation.

[22] At the same time, it is not only physical argy-bargy that must be minimised. Constant verbal assaults are also unbecoming, and also bring the game into disrepute, the more so if their intention is to break the player's concentration and provoke a loss of temper. To my mind, these 'verbals' as they are euphemistically called, whether they involve swearing or not, provide a kind of tension and aggression inconsistent with the spirit of cricket. Yet even if a case can be made out that the time has come to consider whether sledging has any place in cricket at all, one form of unbecoming conduct cannot justify another. However severe the verbal assaults on them may be, players are obliged not to give vent to their anger through physical retaliation. They must respond with their prowess as cricketers, and not with the furious muscle of out-of-control anger. Even a hint of physical retaliation must be strongly dealt with. And captains and umpires should be astute not to allow any badgering which raises the temperature and encourages undue ire.

[23] Accordingly, while not without sympathy for Gautam Gambhir, I cannot find that the penalty imposed on him is so disproportionately severe that I should intervene. He concedes that what he did was unacceptable. It was not the first time. Millions of people saw it. Though his excellence does not require him to be better-behaved than mediocre players, it does not give him immunity from the rules of the Code of Conduct. The cricketing world is entitled to expect from him and all cricketers the highest standards. The rules against actual or threatened violence against opponents must be strictly enforced. The appeal must fail. The penalty stands.

 

[JBH001]

Before I consider whether the punishment was over harsh, can I ask what the punishment was for Watson, and whether anything is going to happen to Katich?

If not, I have to wonder if Sunny is not right sometimes, after all.

 

[GIMH]

I watched every ball of both series - Chopra was clearly better.

Nah, not having this, you must have missed at least one

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmmmmmm........... I wonder if Gambhir pleaded guilty to elbowing Watson deliberately under the assurance he'd just get a fine.

 

[pasag]

One wonders if the Australians target certain younger members of the Indian team because they know they're going to lash out and possibly get fined or banned with an over the top comeback.

 

[GIMH]

If so, it's a fair tactic tttt

 

[Top_Cat]

One wonders if the Australians target certain younger members of the Indian team because they know they're going to lash out and possibly get fined or banned with an over the top comeback.

Haha, how dare you suggest such a thing!

 

[pasag]

Haha, how dare you suggest such a thing!

Haha, get the feeling though that they're planning this sort of stuff when they should be discussing bowling tactics. Probably got dossiers 50 pages thick on each Indian's mental status but when it comes to their batting weak points....

 

[four_or_six]

One wonders if the Australians target certain younger members of the Indian team because they know they're going to lash out and possibly get fined or banned with an over the top comeback.

Hmm, nah, I'm not sure about that. Gavaskar was accusing Watson of being 'sly' but that doesn't seem like a good description of him at all. I think more likely he was just being uncouth.

 

[silentstriker]

Before I consider whether the punishment was over harsh, can I ask what the punishment was for Watson, and whether anything is going to happen to Katich?

If not, I have to wonder if Sunny is not right sometimes, after all.

Watson had 10% of his match fee taken away. Katich was not called up at all.

And no, I automatically discard what Sunny says, before evaluating it for veracity.