***Official*** England in India

[Jono]

yeah maybe, but its exactly that which will mean India will never become the world number one team. Winners look to the future, losers look to the past, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that Sachin is about 5 years past his best and sinking pretty quickly

5 years past his best? Explain.

 

[Sanz]

5 years past his best? Explain.

According to Swervy's calendar there are four months in a year.

 

[Jono]

According to Swervy's calendar there are four months in a year.

That's the only explanation it would seem.

Otherwise, Swevy means Sachin has been past his best since 2001. Well every player has their peak of their career, and 2002 may not have been Sachin's peak, but none the less in 2002 he scored 1392 runs at 55.68, including four 100s and five 50s. By Golly, if that's past your best then I'm all for it. Not to mention in 2002, his ODI stats read an average 52.93 with two 100s and three 50s.

The fact is, Sachin's only bad period in ODIs was the year 2005, when surprise surprise he had surgery on his elbow. He still had a successful 2004 and is so far having a very successful 2006 with the bat.

That obviously points to something... Sachin is struggling in tests and not ODIs. How he is then 'gone' is beyond me. There's obviously a mental problem, because you can't just be good (hell brilliant) at both forms of the game, and then suddenly suck at one and still be brilliant in the other due to age.

 

[Sanz]

Apparently Swervy has been arguing since 1989 that Sachin has lost his form.

 

[Jono]

How we all missed that, yet he was the only one to pick up on that is beyond me.

 

[JustTool]

Are you trying to be a complete dope?

Of course Steve Waugh has won a lot of stuff, he played in the best team in the world for most of his career, what do you expect?

My fault - I thought you could read. the small print above the "quote" clearly says that DEAN JONES said that - not me. I do agree with him though.

 

[silentstriker]

I do agree with him though.

Yes because if Waugh was on the Indian team in the 90's, we would have won three world cups, while Sachin, playing with Warne, McGrath, Hayden, etc would just have sucked and lost the ashes 5 out of 5 times.

 

[SJS]

Lara's worst run - Nov 97 to Mar 99: 15 Tests, 921 runs @ 35.42, 7x50, HS 93
Hayden's recent run - Oct 04 to Aug 05: 16 Tests, 842 runs @ 30.07, 5x50, HS 70

Sachin's current run - April 04 to present: 17 Tests, 691 runs @ 28.79, 1x100, 4x50, HS 109

This is a) longer and b) worse

Hi Neil,

I am one of those who believes that if dropping Tendulkar is good for the Indian team the selectors should have the guts to do it and if it is not then the trial by media and selection by 1 billion and some is a bit jarring. AND if they chose to persist with Sachin we shouldnt be berating Sachin for that. Someone suggested that the selectors would be sacked if they even suggested dropping Sachin. That's pure codswallop.

Having said that to say 17 test bad run is "longer" than Hayden's 16 and his 28.79 average is "worse" than Hayden's 30.07, though factually correct is stretching the point a bit dont you think ?

Unless you feel a run and a half extra in each of his last 20 odd innings would suffice to make Tendulkar's case, for staying in the team, stronger.

 

[Top_Cat]

Unless you feel a run and a half extra in each of his last 20 odd innings would suffice to make Tendulkar's case, for staying in the team, stronger.

Nope. Hayden should have been dropped. His bad run was worse than Mark Taylor's and that's saying something.

 

[SJS]

70 odd for 3 with limited overs "allrounder" and "poor man's Akram/reluctant all rounder" to follow !!

I suspect it is this type of scenario at lunch on day one that Rahul was looking to avoid when he decided to field first It could actually have been worse than this with a livelier first day wicket.

I can see his logic but what I cant see is why then did he not drop one of the bowlers (I would have suggested Harbhajan in the highly unlikely event of Rahul having seeked my advise) in favour of one of the batsmen.

You cant have it both ways. Take five bowlers because you think you will win the match because of that and then also think you might lose if you did the right thing viz : bat first

 

[silentstriker]

Right, you can't have it both ways. You either play bold cricket and play to win, or you play for a draw.

If you play boldly, sometimes you are going to lose. Thats why its called 'bold'. I love it when people laud Dravid for playing to win, and if it doesn't work out, they pile it on. That's what happens when you take a chance. Sometimes it doesn't work, and whining in hindsight isn't really the best way to improve as a side. You make a decision, and hope it works more times than not.

Now if you position is that India should play conservative cricket, go in with six batsman, and do as Gavaskar did...well then thats fine. But Gavaskar did what he did because his team wasn't as good as this one, and his main critera was not losing. Dravid's main criteria is winning, as it should be, as this is a better team. People need to make their decisions up front on whether they want India to play for a win or a draw.


Person 1 (before game): I love it, they picked six bowlers...it really shows their attacking intent. Good for him, he is trying to win.
Person 1 (when it doesn't work out): I can't believe he takes needless risks, we already had the series...why risk letting England come back?

 

[pug]

@ sanz... eh, how do I email you? Your profile doesn't show any email add.

 

[Pratters]

I didn't like Dravid not going for it a bit earlier. I thought I might have been a bit mislplaced in my judgement but when I read Tim de Lisle I was convinced regarding it. At least he went for it so I do not have great deal of issue with it.

Chosing to bowl first was a blunder but it can happen to the best of us. If he did chose to bowl first to play it 'safe' rather than because he saw some thing in the pitch to take advantage of, the reasoning behind the decision is wrong as well.

Regardless, the English have played good cricket till now in this test and I find that and what will ensue in the test match a better topic even though it is less glamorous than cribbing about Dravid's error in judgement.

What's done is done.

 

[pug]

Regardless, the English have played good cricket till now in this test and I find that and what will ensue in the test match a better topic even though it is less glamorous than cribbing about Dravid's error in judgement.

An error in judgment doesn't sound quite as nice as a gamble which didn't pay off.

 

[SJS]

Right, you can't have it both ways. You either play bold cricket and play to win, or you play for a draw.

If you play boldly, sometimes you are going to lose. Thats why its called 'bold'. I love it when people laud Dravid for playing to win, and if it doesn't work out, they pile it on. That's what happens when you take a chance. Sometimes it doesn't work, and whining in hindsight isn't really the best way to improve as a side. You make a decision, and hope it works more times than not.

If you think that I am suggesting that Rahul is a defensive captain OR that he necessarily made a wrong decision deciding to bowl first, you are wrong on both counts.

I think Rahul is an attacking captain and I am on record on this forum as saying that according to me, on the field, he is a MORE attacking captain than Ganguly was.

I am not suggesting his decision was right or wrong. I am stating what I thionk MIGHT, just MIGHT, be his idea behind bowling first. The lack of form of Tendulkar and Sehwag (inspite of the 2nd innings at Mohali) and the relative lack of success of Dhoni in this series so far must be weighing on him. Thats natural. He wouldnt be a good captain if he was NOT thinking of these things. BECAUSE he is a good captain he is aware of this.

SO. While I understand the logic behind this decision (if this was the reason which he hinted it was after the toss when he said batting would be much easier on the second and third day) I feel that he could have done things differently. My opinion naturally not engraved in stone

BTW, It is cricketing logic to play more bowlers on relatively unresponsive wickets and more batsmen on relativey difficult ones. That too would suggest playing an extra batsman here IF he read the wicket to be of such nature (again we dont know)

Also, keeping your lead in tact in a series is NOT necessarily a defensive move. Good strategy is not aggressive strategy or defensive strategy...it is just that...godd strategy.

England played an extra spinner because they are one match down and HAVE to win it. India would love to win it but would love to win the series even more. That is a laudable sentiment and batting first is NOT a defensive move.

Also batting last when the opposition is playing an extra spinner and/or not taking advantage of bowling last when you too are playing an extra bowler is at least a bit odd. Its not blasphemy to suggest that. Right ?

As for hindsight, I first suggested this on this forum at 2 pm IST ON DAY ONE and to my friends with whom I was watching the game about half an hour into the game.

It was an aggressive move by Dravid to play five bowlers but I am not sure if bowling first was also a sign of aggressive intent. It might have been prompted by the need to protect the shorter batting line up from the freshest wicket of the match.

I dont recall why but I suppose I did not mention it on the forum befor that because from the time I logged in we were involved in an interesting debate on whether Srinath is an idioti or a commentator

 

[scriptkidd]

I hope hoggard gets injured soon

 

[Jono]

Why? This test is almost over and there's no chance he'll play the ODIs since he's no good in that format

 

[SJS]

I hope hoggard gets injured soon

and Flintoff...

and Strauss.....

and Owais Shah

Dont these guys have problems with their girl friends, wives, mothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, the city's law....whatever

 

[SJS]

Why? This test is almost over and there's no chance he'll play the ODIs since he's no good in that format

He meant getting injured while having breakfast or while walking into the field or while measuring his run up or at least breaking an ankle as he was running in to bowl the first ball

 

[scriptkidd]

Why? This test is almost over and there's no chance he'll play the ODIs since he's no good in that format

This test is only in the 3rd day and India have 7 wickets in hand and hoggard seems deadly.
why he is not gonna play the ODI ??