***Official*** England in India

[Arjun]

Preferred Indian XI:

• Sehwag
• Gambhir
• Laxman
• Tendulkar
• Dravid (C)
• Dhoni (WK)
• Munaf Patel (RFM)
• Irfan (LMF)
• Harbhajan (OB)
• Kumble (LBG)
• RP Singh (LFM)
• RESERVE: Powar (OB)
• RESERVE: Jaffer
• RESERVE: Sreesanth (RFM)
• RESERVE: Yuvraj

Maybe the selectors can keep Irfan out of this Test series till he fixes his action and gets some extra pace at the MRF Pace Academy. They can try out someone like Munaf or Joginder or Sachin Rana, a stock medium-pacer who can also score runs– that's more value addition in the team than Ganguly or Yuvraj. They better not make a mess with opening the innings this time...........

 

[Barney Rubble]

A feature article, written by myself, will soon be up on the main page about England's choice of spinners for this tour. Make sure you check it out.

 

[Jono]

Will do Barney.

And do not forget, THERE IS ONLY ONE SHANE WARNE. if Panesar does get carted and returns half as well as Warne did [preferably without help of drugs] he will be an English spinning legend.

LOL!

 

[Arjun]

Let's talk of the Indian bowling combination here.

• The complaint about the three left-arm seamers is a bit stale. If the Indian team can play three right-arm seamers for so many years, and if South Africa can have five right-arm seamers, why not three left? Anyway, it's better to play a third left-arm seamer rather than one right-arm seamer who's woefully short of power and bowls utter rubbish.
• They have to have five bowlers if they have to take 20 wickets in a match. Playing just one of Kumble and Harbhajan weakens the attack, while two seamers can't be enough to force more wickets. A third seamer with adequate batting ability should make it. That player can replace one of Ganguly and Yuvraj, neither of whom count for much in a match as a sixth batsman.
• Should Irfan skip this series? He's bowling at JP Yadav's pace, and Yadav lost his place in the ODI side because he lacked pace. He can use the time off to correct his action and grip, so that he can retrieve that pace he lost at the start of 2005. The big issue, however, is his bowling in helpful conditions is quite effective and given enough support, he can be a factor. Not to mention, he's a very important pick in ODI's.
• RP Singh has bowled well in the series so far, but he too is just another seam-up bowler, and will struggle in conditions that are not so helpful. Likewise Zaheer, who is bowling a few k's slower than in 2002, and a lot less effective. These bowlers are all reasonably good on their own, but without pace, they will struggle to get those 20 wickets. They need to rush in someone with extra pace to get that extra edge. Sreesanth or VR Singh or especially Munaf Patel should make his debut for India in this Test series.

 

[marc71178]

They have to have five bowlers if they have to take 20 wickets in a match. Playing just one of Kumble and Harbhajan weakens the attack, while two seamers can't be enough to force more wickets. A third seamer with adequate batting ability should make it. That player can replace one of Ganguly and Yuvraj, neither of whom count for much in a match as a sixth batsman.

By that logic, replace the entire top order because they didn't do enough either.

 

[adharcric]

They have to have five bowlers if they have to take 20 wickets in a match. Playing just one of Kumble and Harbhajan weakens the attack, while two seamers can't be enough to force more wickets. A third seamer with adequate batting ability should make it. That player can replace one of Ganguly and Yuvraj, neither of whom count for much in a match as a sixth batsman.[*][/list]

They can't play five bowlers until those bowlers are good enough to get 20 wickets on a less-than-helpful pitch. Not only will we fail to get 20 wickets because we'll have 5 poor specialist bowlers instead of 4 of them, we'll also weaken the batting. Until India gets a genuine pacer in the ranks (Munaf, VRV or even Sreesanth if he looks consistent), gets Pathan and Zaheer to bowl at full pace and replaces non-performers like Agarkar with other options, it doesn't matter how many of these bowlers we play. If you're facing 3 guys who bowl tops at 130 kmph, facing an additional one of those isn't such a great task for the opposing batsmen. Pathan is a genuinely effective swing bowler and playing like an all-rounder, so he has to stay but improve his bowling dramatically. RP Singh is young and fiery, and he needs to be persisted with. But Zaheer and Agarkar are veterans and we have plenty of swing bowlers around the country, Gagandeep .. Paul .. Balaji. If these guys can't bowl close to 85 mph with good line and length for us, they're of no use. We need variety, desperately.

 

[Arjun]

Four bowlers of the available quality are only effective up to a point, after which they're only bowling dud overs. The fifth bowler will cut out those dud overs, and may get an extra wicket or two. Look at Test attacks with five bowlers, and you'll find they're more effective than those with four.

Reducing the batting lineup by one won't make much of a difference, unless the one you drop is Sehwag or Sachin or Dravid or Laxman. If that fifth bowler can score at least 20 runs regularly, that will be enough for the team, because you then have Irfan at seven or eight contributing another 20 on an average. But the main objective of a selection is not so much extra runs or extra wickets, as much as extra value. We're looking at versatility here. Even a medium-pace version of Ashley Giles will fit nicely in this Indian team.

Would you have Irfan and Zaheer out of action until they're bowling at full pace? Given the Indians have just lost a Test series despite both playing in the side and bowling at medium pace, it may not be a bad idea. Both need to work on their bowling and add extra pace. Waqar Younis said Zaheer is thinking like a medium-pacer (Sanjay Bangar, perhaps?) and should think like a fast bowler instead. That's a good point, since Zaheer is at his best when he's blasting the ball into the batting side, rather than holding up one end to dry up the runs. Given the lack of pace in this attack, it may even seem logical to bring Bangar back into the team, since he can also score extra runs. Even then, the team would benefit a lot more if Zaheer starts thinking (and bowling) like Shoaib Akhtar.

 

[marc71178]

Funny how the 2 batsmen who "don't add value" were the batsmen who scored more than any other Indian in the match...

 

[Arjun]

Funny how the 2 batsmen who "don't add value" were the batsmen who scored more than any other Indian in the match...

If they really added any value, the Indians would have won the match.

 

[Scaly piscine]

If they really added any value, the Indians would have won the match.

So does that mean Lara or Hadlee don't add any value when they played for their country because their sides continued to lose a lot of the time?

 

[Arjun]

So does that mean Lara or Hadlee don't add any value when they played for their country because their sides continued to lose a lot of the time?

Lara and Hadlee were their teams' best players and genuine match-winners, not mere extras who performed when it didn't matter.

 

[GIMH]

re

So because India appeared to be onto a lost cause, it didn't matter and the players were just to give up were they? What happened to fighting to the end? Do you not believe in it?

 

[marc71178]

If they really added any value, the Indians would have won the match.

You what?

What about the top 4 who failed? A 341 runs margin cannot be blamed on the 2 batsmen who actually scored runs.

 

[adharcric]

If they really added any value, the Indians would have won the match.

Please, that's rubbish. How can you blame Yuvraj and Ganguly when Sehwag and Dravid didn't do crap for us in the third test. Unless you want to say that Ganguly's inclusion forced Dravid to open, which is why the batting collapsed. Thus it's Ganguly's fault ...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If they really added any value, the Indians would have won the match.

A team played Pakistan, not two players. If the rest of the TEAM batted half as effectively as Yuvraj at least, India would have at least competed in that Test match. You seem to under-rate just how difficult it is to put in a matchwinning performance. Simply because neither could win the match for India does not mean that their success should be discredited. That's like saying "you were excellent, but we fell short so you fall short".

 

[Arjun]

Please, that's rubbish. How can you blame Yuvraj and Ganguly when Sehwag and Dravid didn't do crap for us in the third test. Unless you want to say that Ganguly's inclusion forced Dravid to open, which is why the batting collapsed. Thus it's Ganguly's fault ...

Yes, I agree, the top four were rubbish, but what did Ganguly and Yuvraj ever do to make up? It does not matter whether they scored 20, 40 or 60, they didn't do enough to make up for the failures of the top four.

Now look at the other team. They had one batsman less. Yet everyone from one to seven scored over 50. Two of them were not even specialists. Akmal wasn't even in that list. Now look at the Indians, who lost by 341 runs, with SIX specialist batsmen. And one of them, no two, maybe three, isn't scoring enough runs to make a difference, and doesn't even bowl enough overs to support the four bowlers. Clearly, there not adding even half as much value as one Shahid Afridi. The team would be better off with one slam-bang hitter who bowls eighteen overs an innings (getting a few extra wickets) than one specialist batsman who won't score a double century even on an Antigua deck.

 

[Arjun]

A team played Pakistan, not two players. If the rest of the TEAM batted half as effectively as Yuvraj at least, India would have at least competed in that Test match. You seem to under-rate just how difficult it is to put in a matchwinning performance. Simply because neither could win the match for India does not mean that their success should be discredited. That's like saying "you were excellent, but we fell short so you fall short".

It may be difficult to put up a match-winning performance, but it happens. The ones who do are not even rated too highly– after all, many branded Younis Khan and Mohammed Yousuf as mere flat-track heroes. Then we hear so much about India's strong, much-vaunted, star-studded batting lineup, who have never won a Test series overseas, or even in Sri Lanka. Is it so far beyond them to put up match-winning performances? Not if you go by what has been spoken or written about them.

You mentioned TEAM, but if you look at the Indian XI, you would only find the BEST BATSMEN AND BOWLERS, and not a team in the true sense. They have decent bowlers, no doubt, but when you need a burst of wickets, do you get it? Not from this pace-starved bunch. Moreover, they have to slog it out in every match without adequate support, unlike England or New Zealand or Pakistan, who always have one value-add player bowling a chunk of overs, giving the strikers some rest and taking some extra wickets. The batsmen can score runs, but not when it matters– now, how commonly do we hear that? But when one of them needs to bowl a few overs, they don't last longer than six or seven, while the strike bowlers, worn out and tired, continue bowling, without a hope of getting a wicket.

This is why someone like Sanjay Bangar is more valuable than that sixth batsman. He'll bowl enough overs at a good line and length (so, isn't this more important to most of you than raw pace?) for enough time, helping the strike seamers attack more freely. He'll also score a chunk of runs at seven or eight (and also at the top of the order, which is very good), which will add value to the side, along with Irfan's runs. Not to mention, on the back of a good start, he can smash a few big ones. The same can be said of Ashley Giles, and he's doing quite well for England that way. A mere value-add player is their frontline spinner, and not too bad. So why can't a similar player be picked as India's third seamer?

 

[adharcric]

It may be difficult to put up a match-winning performance, but it happens. The ones who do are not even rated too highly– after all, many branded Younis Khan and Mohammed Yousuf as mere flat-track heroes. Then we hear so much about India's strong, much-vaunted, star-studded batting lineup, who have never won a Test series overseas, or even in Sri Lanka. Is it so far beyond them to put up match-winning performances? Not if you go by what has been spoken or written about them.

You mentioned TEAM, but if you look at the Indian XI, you would only find the BEST BATSMEN AND BOWLERS, and not a team in the true sense. They have decent bowlers, no doubt, but when you need a burst of wickets, do you get it? Not from this pace-starved bunch. Moreover, they have to slog it out in every match without adequate support, unlike England or New Zealand or Pakistan, who always have one value-add player bowling a chunk of overs, giving the strikers some rest and taking some extra wickets. The batsmen can score runs, but not when it matters– now, how commonly do we hear that? But when one of them needs to bowl a few overs, they don't last longer than six or seven, while the strike bowlers, worn out and tired, continue bowling, without a hope of getting a wicket.

This is why someone like Sanjay Bangar is more valuable than that sixth batsman. He'll bowl enough overs at a good line and length (so, isn't this more important to most of you than raw pace?) for enough time, helping the strike seamers attack more freely. He'll also score a chunk of runs at seven or eight (and also at the top of the order, which is very good), which will add value to the side, along with Irfan's runs. Not to mention, on the back of a good start, he can smash a few big ones. The same can be said of Ashley Giles, and he's doing quite well for England that way. A mere value-add player is their frontline spinner, and not too bad. So why can't a similar player be picked as India's third seamer?

You're going a little too far with this "you haven't done well enough because you weren't able to do the job of your 3 failing teammates as well as your own and win us the match". Ganguly and Yuvraj came in after our acclaimed top-order (Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar ... the first 3 would make it into most world XIs and the 4th is a test legend) had failed miserably.

They didn't get 2 centuries apiece, but they did reasonably well, made decent contributions. You can't blame Ganguly or Yuvraj for the fact that Sehwag and Dravid didn't make runs. Likewise, you can't blame Ganguly or Yuvraj for the fact that our "pace attack" lacked penetration. In fact, Ganguly did get the first wicket. Just because Yuvraj's century couldn't save the match doesn't mean that his innings was worthless. If Dhoni and Pathan had also made centuries and it became a draw, that would make Yuvraj's century a match-saving knock right? But he still would've played the same exact century.

You're also ignoring the fact that our batsmen played against Akhtar, Asif and Razzaq, and the opposition played against 3 left-arm medium pacers who couldn't do much on this day for some reason. Make no mistake, our batsmen played poorly even though the opposition bowlers bowled well. But take that into consideration when comparing the batting of Pakistan and India.

On to the idea of bringing in a "value-addition" like Bangar, Munaf, Joginder, etc.. I agree with you there. This guy needs to be pacy though, unless we have a pacy option like Sreesanth or VRV in the attack as well.

 

[Arjun]

Let's look at Yuvraj Singh now. ON yesterday's Sportscenter on ESPN, both Ravi Shastri and Wasim Akram think he has enough talent to play as a frontline batsman in the Test and ODI side. We're not talking of that extra batsman to beef up the batting. We're talking of a potential frontrunner here. He's an elegant strokeplayer, and a hard hitter, and now he's also moving his feet well. He is also a very good fielder at point, so that's some value addition– he doesn't even have to bowl too many overs either. The question now comes in– should they have Yuvraj in the deep end? Maybe.....

 

[adharcric]

Indeed he does deserve to be in both the Test and ODI sides. Before we go to 5 bowlers and force ourselves to bench both Yuvraj and Ganguly or use a makeshift opener, I'd like to see a change in quality rather than quantity in our pace attack.