***Official*** England in India

[Sanz]

Sanz excalimed Tendulkar should be dropped cos he isn't scoring well. I said by that logic every one would be dropped. Then I retorted that by that logic you do not build a team.

And how can EVERYONE be dropped by that logic ? Tendulkar has not been performing for close to two years (injury or not) and that's enough reason to drop him, he has been given enough opportunities based on his reputation and I dont think he deserves any more of those especially when we have some young batsmen in form. If a batsman is out of form, he should be persisted with for a while, but If some guy is out of form for close to two years then I dont think he deserves his spot.

It's not Chopping, its dropping a guy who is not performing consistently. You do not build a team by carrying a out of form guy only on the basis of his reputation.

 

[Sanz]

Theres a certain limit to backing though, i wonder if Dravid had gone through the same stuff that Tendulkar has, and had a similar runless period would the same leniency be granted to him...

Remember Dravid was dropped from ODIs and he wasn't even out of form.

 

[Pratters]

And how can EVERYONE be dropped by that logic ?

Because every one is bound to perform poorly like they are bound to perform well..

 

[Sanz]

Because every one is bound to perform poorly like they are bound to perform well..

First of all you should try to put your point more clearly, the above is as ridiculously vague as one can write. Did you mean everyone from the current team or everyone at some point in his career ?

If Rahul Dravid is performing poorly for four-five series- then yes he should be dropped, but the fact is that Rahul has been a solid performer for the last 5-6 years and hence he cant be dropped. Yuvraj has been performing well, so he cant be dropped, Jaffer is new plus has had few excellent scores, so he cant be dropped, Pathan has been invaluable with the bat and decent with the ball, so cant be dropped, Kumble has been great, so cant be dropped, Munaf bowled great, so cant be dropped, Dhoni was great in last series and despite having an ordinary series with the bat, he has had a good series as a keeper hence cant be dropped. Harbhajan had a poor pak series and people are already talking about dropping him, Sehwag has been bit inconsistent but still not enough to be considered for dropping.

Consistent Underperformers have been Laxman, Gambhir, Zaheer, Agarkar, Kartik and guess what Laxman is out of the team and there is a good chance that he will remain out for a while, Gambhir is out as well, Zaheer - Out, Agarkar - Out, Kartik - Out. If Bhajji doesn't get his act together then very soon he will be OUT as well. Only exception is Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar.

In any case - I still dont understand how 'EVERYONE' could be dropped.

 

[Pratters]

First of all you should try to put your point more clearly, the above is as ridiculously vague as one can write. Did you mean everyone from the current team or everyone at some point in his career ?

In any case - I still dont understand how 'EVERYONE' could be dropped.

..

At points in the careerof players they would be dropped. How do you bet against them being secluded from the test team in the future? Do not say domestic scores to break back into the team because a player may make tons of runs domestically but still be ignored.

Some times a dropping proves useful or appears to prove useful. Dravid dropped from one dayers. He rocked back didn't he. Laxman another example. But a Sehwag has been persisted with and performed. So it wouldn't be right to say it would have bene right to drop him. I am sure a similar comparison to Tendulkar's runs can be made with another player.

When a comparison is made do we take 10 matches, 15 matches or 20 matches, 1, 1.5 or 2 years? Every one will feel differently and also differently regarding specific players. For example people will not want to give a Gambhir as big a run as say a Dravid. But it will still be unclear.

I am not in favour of chopping and changing. Doesn't mean a big player can/should never be dropped. Do not feel I am being harsh please. When Ganguly was captain and won the series in Pakistan, I said he should be dropped back then. There was Yuvraj and he couldn't fight with a Yuvraj I felt. I feel Tendulkar can fight and make more scores than a Kaif.

See you can believe that Tendulkar or player X should be dropped given poor performances. But some one else can feel has has it to go on. It depends on the gut feeling regarding the future, your selection plans and variables which are talked about in selecting a team. Whether to chose a Kaif or a Tendulkar for example in this case.

The past scores of a player is only 1 of the factors.

 

[silentstriker]

Steve Waugh and Mark Waugh couldn't take their selection for granted toward the end of their careers. I don't see why it should be any different for players like Tendulkar, Lara etc etc. if they're not performing.

Because Tendulkar is not Steve Waugh or Brian Lara. Though perhaps similar in cricketing ability, in India...Tendulkar's popularity immense. And I don't mean Andrew Flintoff-in-England immense, but Bradman-in-Australia immense.

Theres a certain limit to backing though, i wonder if Dravid had gone through the same stuff that Tendulkar has, and had a similar runless period would the same leniency be granted to him...

No, it wouldn't be granted to him. And no, it shouldn't be granted to him. Just like it wasn't granted to Ganguly (even though he struggled more than Tendulkar has).

 

[Pratters]

Because Tendulkar is not Steve Waugh or Brian Lara. Though perhaps similar in cricketing ability, in India...Tendulkar's popularity immense. And I don't mean Andrew Flintoff-in-England immense, but Bradman-in-Australia immense.

Popularity should mean nothing in selection matters. They might though all over cricketing history. No doubt.

 

[steds]

Tendulkar's in the same position David Beckham is, but English socey fans have to put up with the fact he isn't going to be dropped, so you should do the same with Sachin.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Again you ASSUME I am saying this cos of Tendulkar and go hyper saying I am assuming you to be anti Tendulkar.

It's not an assumption. It's an opinion. Hence "I think".

This is where I sigh and bow out. You take win.
Debating with you is impossible, because apparently I'm not capable of having opinions now.

 

[silentstriker]

Popularity should mean nothing in selection matters. They might though all over cricketing history. No doubt.

Perhaps it shouldn't. But in the end, you play for the fans.

If Tendulkar scores at an average of 40, and his replacement were to score at 48...I'll take the 40. Illogical? Perhaps, but thats just the way it is.

 

[Pratters]

It's not an assumption. It's an opinion. Hence "I think".

This is where I sigh and bow out. You take win.
Debating with you is impossible, because apparently I'm not capable of having opinions now.

This is exactly what I call you talking with disrespect.

I thought i showed you ample respect and even asked you courteously. You obviously didn't even want to listen to an alternate view point.I am glad you have bowed out. Let me say it isn't about bowing in or out though.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

This is exactly what I call you talking with disrespect.

I thought i showed you ample respect and even asked you courteously. You obviously didn't even want to listen to an alternate view point.I am glad you have bowed out. Let me say it isn't about bowing in or out though.

What disrespect? Did I not engage in this debate for a few pages?
Where exactly did I indicate that I don't want to listen to your opinion?
You're the one who went off accusing me of "assumptions" when I was the one who addressed your point. I never disrespected you. If you felt disrespected, that's due no fault of mine.

 

[Pratters]

What disrespect? Did I not engage in this debate for a few pages?
Where exactly did I indicate that I don't want to listen to your opinion?
You're the one who went off accusing me of "assumptions" when I was the one who addressed your point. I never disrespected you. If you felt disrespected, that's due no fault of mine.

When I asked you to forget the same because we wont agree who assumed and pointed out clearly my stand and tried to reason out with your stand you made an issue with a think digression. As I said it is not about moving in or out.

 

[Sanz]

Perhaps it shouldn't. But in the end, you play for the fans.

If Tendulkar scores at an average of 40, and his replacement were to score at 48...I'll take the 40. Illogical? Perhaps, but thats just the way it is.

Not Only Illogical, it is also absurd, unfair and patronizing.

 

[Sanz]

..At points in the careerof players they would be dropped. How do you bet against them being secluded from the test team in the future? Do not say domestic scores to break back into the team because a player may make tons of runs domestically but still be ignored.

So with that logic, no player should be dropped ever, right ?? And I believe performance in the domestic cricket gets you into the national team, obviously you are allowed to believe otherwise. Care to tell us (If domestic cricket isn't the criteria) what is the criteria used behind drafing guys into the national team ?

But a Sehwag has been persisted with and performed. So it wouldn't be right to say it would have bene right to drop him. I am sure a similar comparison to Tendulkar's runs can be made with another player.

You are so wrong about Sehwag, here is his performance in test series since WC 2003 (minus minnow) :- 73.5, 18.66, 41.50, 90.66, 87.33, 42,71, 109.50, 58.00, 44.25. I think except one series vs. Sri Lanka he has had a phenomenal run. Only an insane can compare his phenomal run since the world cup 2003 to Tendulkar's mediocre run of runs.

I am not in favour of chopping and changing. Doesn't mean a big player can/should never be dropped. Do not feel I am being harsh please.

It's not Chopping and changing, it is simply giving others chance to perform when someone is underperforming. Tendulkar rode his reputation to stay in the team for 2 years, IMO he should now earn his place.

 

[Pratters]

So with that logic, no player should be dropped ever, right ?? And I believe performance in the domestic cricket gets you into the national team, obviously you are allowed to believe otherwise. Care to tell us (If domestic cricket isn't the criteria) what is the criteria used behind drafing guys into the national team ?

When did I say no player should be dropped. I said quite the opposite. Any one can be dropped. Stop lying. Domestic cricket isn't the only criteria. Trescothic didn't havea great FC record. Players despite good FC record get ignored. More said Ganguly wont be chosen despite how much he scores in the tenure of this selection committee.

 

[Goughy]

Perhaps it shouldn't. But in the end, you play for the fans.

I doubt that.

Fans maybe 4th on the list.
Any good athlete plays for their team and teammates 1st, themselves second, national pride 3rd and the fans maybe 4th and only 4th because any cannot think of anything else to but above them.

Few if any go out thinking I'm going to give the fans what they want rather than what the team, teammates and coach want. If they do they do not last long.

Look at the Kallis Dravid selfish thread. They are not accused of being selfish by some (again I disagree with them being labled selfish) because they are not putting the fans first but because thay do not put the team first.

 

[Pratters]

You are so wrong about Sehwag, here is his performance in test series since WC 2003 (minus minnow) :- 73.5, 18.66, 41.50, 90.66, 87.33, 42,71, 109.50, 58.00, 44.25. I think except one series vs. Sri Lanka he has had a phenomenal run. Only an insane can compare his phenomal run since the world cup 2003 to Tendulkar's mediocre run of runs.

I said over career any one. Not World Cup 2003 to bring across every one would have been dropped. Sehwag's Test debut was in Nov 2001. Also it is about the larger picture of players going through bad runs, getting dropped. In a shorter incomplete career player X may not have had such a bad run. Over a career, I repeat.

 

[Pratters]

Tendulkar rode his reputation to stay in the team for 2 years, IMO he should now earn his place.

It is your opinion. I have no issues with it.

 

[Sanz]

I said over career any one. Not World Cup 2003 to bring across every one would have been dropped. Sehwag's Test debut was in Nov 2001. Also it is about the larger picture of players going through bad runs, getting dropped. In a shorter career player X may not have had such a bad run.

Sehwag never had a 2 year run draught in his career. If he did then he should have been dropped. If he hits goes 3-4 series in a row averaging 30 odd then he should be dropped.

I dont care if Tendulkar had a 15 year career or 1 year career, the fact is that he has not been performing and his place in the team team should be questioned, he shouldn't be an automatic selection, not anymore based on his last 2 years' performance.