***Official*** England in India

[Pratters]

That face of Jones when the ball swung and resulted in 4 boys. His shocked face never ceases to amuse me.

He should be happy at the moving ball!

 

[Nate]

Haha, I`ve got nothing to back up my bagging of Munaf. Well done son.

C`mon England, make this interesting.

 

[RolledOver]

I think England have no chance in this match now.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

No. Why do you assume the same and go hyper?

Assume what? I made my initial point about dropping someone who's failing for someone who may actually not fail. You responded with:

"Actually it is not. Every one is bound to have low scores. If you keep replacing, there is nothing except insecurity and no real team building."

It seemed logical (by the actually it's not) that you were disagreeing with my point. It was hardly an assumption.

I am telling you that there shouldn't be chopping and changing. You select a player and then back him.

Here's a name: Dwayne Smith.
Should he be persisted with in the Test team simply because he has the talent to do well and has done well on occasion?
Here's another name: Mervyn Dillon.
Picked and did well in the past, then started to struggle and was dropped.

The point being how long do you persist with a player who is not performing, regardless of past record? It's all well and good to give a player a good run after selecting him, but you also don't want Gayles and Sarwans to be there, who know they will get picked regardless.

Else Atapattu would have been sacked early in his career. Don't tell me there was no competition for Atapattu because the way he was having a low run of scores in the beginning of his career, there could have been several players who could have scored much more than 0,0,1,0.[/QUPTE]
Hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. Atapattu was the young player trying to break in. He wasn't the player who was already in and struggling to perform.

 

[silentstriker]

Hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. Atapattu was the young player trying to break in. He wasn't the player who was already in and struggling to perform.

But thats even worse. An experienced player, let alone the best batsman your country has ever produced, gets a bigger leash and more chances than a young inexperienced and unproven player.

 

[RolledOver]

India 28 for no loss at lunch, need just 116 at less than 2 runs per over with all the wkts in hand.

Victory will be sweet today!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

But thats even worse. An experienced player, let alone the best batsman your country has ever produced, gets a bigger leash and more chances than a young inexperienced and unproven player.

I don't get it. Did Atapattu replace "the best batsman Sri Lanka ever produced"?

I'm not saying that Tendulkar should be replaced or that someone else could do a better job than he's doing right now. I'm making a point about selection not being taken for granted.

 

[Pratters]

Assume what? I made my initial point about dropping someone who's failing for someone who may actually not fail. You responded with:

"Actually it is not. Every one is bound to have low scores. If you keep replacing, there is nothing except insecurity and no real team building."

It seemed logical (by the actually it's not) that you were disagreeing with my point. It was hardly an assumption.

Well it was an assumption by you and you jumped the gun. I reiterated my point in the next comment.

Here's a name: Dwayne Smith.
Should he be persisted with in the Test team simply because he has the talent to do well and has done well on occasion?
Here's another name: Mervyn Dillon.
Picked and did well in the past, then started to struggle and was dropped.

The point being how long do you persist with a player who is not performing, regardless of past record? It's all well and good to give a player a good run after selecting him, but you also don't want Gayles and Sarwans to be there, who know they will get picked regardless.

Else Atapattu would have been sacked early in his career. Don't tell me there was no competition for Atapattu because the way he was having a low run of scores in the beginning of his career, there could have been several players who could have scored much more than 0,0,1,0.[/QUPTE]
Hardly relevant to the discussion at hand. Atapattu was the young player trying to break in. He wasn't the player who was already in and struggling to perform.

WHY is Atapattu not relevant to the discussion. He was having low scores for a period.

The question you rightly ask is for how long should a player be persisted with. It is some thing we will disagree on. I believe Tendulkar should be persisted with. Some one can believe he should be axed.

But the logic that because he is having low scores he should be dropped doesn't have ground. It is not necessary. A selector or group of selectors may have the gut feeling player X will be perform and they can be proven right or wrong in the future.

 

[Sanz]

I am telling you that there shouldn't be chopping and changing. You select a player and then back him.

So two years of backing isn't enough ? How much more ?

 

[Pratters]

So two years of backing isn't enough ? How much more ?

You believe he should be dropped. Doesn't mean every one else should.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well it was an assumption by you and you jumped the gun. I reiterated my point in the next comment.

Or rather the assumption was yours, because you clearly responded to my point with disagreement. You clearly misinterpreted my point and thus carried your own assumptions. Me responding to you clearly disagreeing with my point only carries the assumption that you interpreted my point correctly.

If the charge is that I made the assumption that you made the correct assumption about my point, then I'm guilty. Either way, you're the first one guilty of assumption.

WHY is Atapattu not relevant to the discussion. He was having low scores for a period.

I think I explained why Atapattu is irrelevant to this discussion. It's pretty clearly stated. Two very different scenarios. Atapattu would be the Kaif of this situation.

I'm interested to hear your response to my original point about axing a player who is not performing increasing the depth of a squad as well as the overall strength of the squad. It seems you've ignored it though. Unfortunate really.

 

[Pratters]

Or rather the assumption was yours, because you clearly responded to my point with disagreement. You clearly misinterpreted my point and thus carried your own assumptions. Me responding to you clearly disagreeing with my point only carries the assumption that you interpreted my point correctly.

If the charge is that I made the assumption that you made the correct assumption about my point, then I'm guilty. Either way, you're the first one guilty of assumption.

You assumed not me. And are responding rather poorly.

When did I state Kaif scoring runs if chosen in place of Tendulkar would be harmful for Indian Cricket?

I did not. Neither did I put any indication in the same direction. So to assume the same and calling it reidculous was in fact the ridiculous part.

I think I explained why Atapattu is irrelevant to this discussion. It's pretty clearly stated. Two very different scenarios. Atapattu would be the Kaif of this situation.

I read your response. Isn't it about persisting with players who you believe are best for the team and will deliver?

I'm interested to hear your response to my original point about axing a player who is not performing increasing the depth of a squad as well as the overall strength of the squad. It seems you've ignored it though. Unfortunate really.

That last bit wasn't needed. If you want to discuss cricket, you talk properly or dont talk at all. I didn't respond because I didn't think it was very relevant and responded over all to your post.

You can increase the depth of the squad yes. But you use this ploy very carefully and not just for the sake of it. Player x has a bad run. You drop him. Player y has a bad run you drop him. You keep dropping players. That would mean no stability. Generally in a batting line up of 5-6 2 players might be going through a poor form. You back them up if you believe he will deliver and do not disturb a combination too much according to me.

 

[Pratters]

Sehwag is looking awful missing every thing by miles.

 

[adharcric]

What was Jaffer trying to do there? Even if it hadn't nipped back in, he was off by miles.

 

[Nate]

Stuff Hoggy.

 

[Pratters]

Stuff Hoggy.

Ya he is bowling superbly.

 

[silentstriker]

So two years of backing isn't enough ? How much more ?

Until he decides to retire. Dropping Sachin = Professional (and quite likely personal) suicide

 

[Barney Rubble]

I've just got up - one word. Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh. Stoopid England batsmen.

Congratulations India on a good victory.

 

[marc71178]

Actually it is not. Every one is bound to have low scores. If you keep replacing, there is nothing except insecurity and no real team building.

But the point is, it's not just the odd low score he's getting.

 

[Pratters]

But the point is, it's not just the odd low score he's getting.

But I haven't said odd low scores.