**Official** India in Bangladesh

[Salamuddin]

Christ, no wonder the non-performing Indian team is worshipped as a collective of demi-gods by fans all over the country. India have been having an awful number of "lousy days" since 1983 - they're a substandard team with an absolutely abysmal away record. The got to the finals of WC 2003 because of Tendulkar and lucky draws, and then got humiliated in the finals.

They're very lucky they didn't get through to the super 8s this time.

And yet, since 1 January 2001 the Only two sides to have scored more test wins (agianst top 8 opposition ) away than India are Australia (who are so far ahead of everyone, it's pointless to compare them) and England (who have won only a couple more).

South Africa, PAkistan, Sri Lanka and West Indies and New Zealand have all won less tests away than India......so are they substandard too ?

 

[Perm]

ODI form should have no relevance whatsoever to pickinga test side...



Laxman has averaged 48.33 over his last 60 tests as opposed to 35.47 for Ganguly ? I know who I'd rather have......

60 Tests? Is that supposed to indicate form or something? Seems a ridiculously large sample amount, for all we know Laxman may not have scored a run in his last 5 games (which is clearly not true) but could still be a possibility if you are using a 60 Test sample as a case for his inclusion.

 

[Salamuddin]

60 Tests? Is that supposed to indicate form or something? Seems a ridiculously large sample amount, for all we know Laxman may not have scored a run in his last 5 games (which is clearly not true) but could still be a possibility if you are using a 60 Test sample as a case for his inclusion.

60 because Laxman was unquestionably a better player from Kolkata 2001 onwards - it was the turning point of his career. I think it's a fair enough reference point from which to start comparisons.

You still haven't given me any real reasons as to why Ganguly should be picked.....the facts are there....laxman is a better test match batsman and by some distance I may add.

 

[Prince EWS]

Laxman is a better test batsman than Ganguly and has been for quite some time - as that 60 test (wtf - random number..) sample shows. They should both play really, IMO - playing less than your best XI deliberately in a test match is against the spirit of the game as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Salamuddin]

Laxman is a better test batsman than Ganguly and has been for quite some time - as that 60 test (wtf - random number..) sample shows. They should both play really, IMO - playing less than your best XI deliberately in a test match is against the spirit of the game as far as I'm concerned.

60 is far from random .....it is the number of tests he has played since (and including) Kolkata 2001.

As I said before, it was abig turningpoint in VVS' career.

 

[Perm]

Laxman is a better test batsman than Ganguly and has been for quite some time - as that 60 test (wtf - random number..) sample shows. They should both play really, IMO - playing less than your best XI deliberately in a test match is against the spirit of the game as far as I'm concerned.

I agree, as far as Test's are concerned you should field your best XI. But this is Bangladesh, and India are in desperate need of getting a decent team together. Laxman is a better Test batsman than Ganguly, but with Ganguly in better form I would pick him.

60 is far from random .....it is the number of tests he has played since (and including) Kolkata 2001.

As I said before, it was abig turningpoint in VVS' career.

I wasn't arguing with the randomness of the sample, just the size of it. 60 Test's is far too big to judge whether a player is currently better than another player.

 

[Prince EWS]

I agree, as far as Test's are concerned you should field your best XI. But this is Bangladesh, and India are in desperate need of getting a decent team together. Laxman is a better Test batsman than Ganguly, but with Ganguly in better form I would pick him.



I wasn't arguing with the randomness of the sample, just the size of it. 60 Test's is far too big to judge whether a player is currently better than another player.

It's hard to say that Ganguly is in better form, given you have nothing to base Laxman's form or lack thereof on. If you're going to bring ODIs into it, I actually think the fact that Laxman wasn't part of the WC debacle would benefit him.

Again though, I'd definitely play them both. Laxman v Ganguly is a decent cricketing debate worthy of cricketweb, but Laxman v Kaif quite obviously is not. Don't see why they need to play him just for the sake of change if he's not good enough.

 

[Salamuddin]

I agree, as far as Test's are concerned you should field your best XI. But this is Bangladesh, and India are in desperate need of getting a decent team together. Laxman is a better Test batsman than Ganguly, but with Ganguly in better form I would pick him.



I wasn't arguing with the randomness of the sample, just the size of it. 60 Test's is far too big to judge whether a player is currently better than another player.

But as I pointed out earlier the difference in their current form is marginal.
India are going to pick a young team for Bangladesh....but if they want an experienced pro to lend a hand, Laxman's a much better bet.
1) He's a considerably better batsman overall.
2) he's also younger ....2.5 years younger...he has definitely got more left in the tank than ganguly.

All logic points to Laxman getting selected.....

 

[Perm]

It's hard to say that Ganguly is in better form, given you have nothing to base Laxman's form or lack thereof on. If you're going to bring ODIs into it, I actually think the fact that Laxman wasn't part of the WC debacle would benefit him.

Ganguly was better in South Africa, by a small margin statistically but I thought he looked the better and more in control player. Scoring runs is scoring runs as far as I'm concerned, and Ganguly has been doing that recently for India in ODI's. I don't think Laxman has been playing much domestic cricket either, so chances are he won't have had a decent work out in the middle for a while.

Again though, I'd definitely play them both. Laxman v Ganguly is a decent cricketing debate worthy of cricketweb, but Laxman v Kaif quite obviously is not. Don't see why they need to play him just for the sake of change if he's not good enough.

I think the majority of people would rate Laxman above Ganguly as a Test player, and rightly so IMO. Laxman is far superior to Kaif, but he is also a fair bit older. With Kaif as a potential Test and ODI captain of the future, he needs chances to prove himself at Test level and I think these games against Bangladesh would help him significantly. It's not really for the sake of change, it's for the sake of development. Let's face it, I don't think Bangladesh will be able to knock over India in the Test's, even a slightly weakened India so taking the gamble of playing Kaif and hoping he scores runs is worth it IMO.

 

[Perm]

But as I pointed out earlier the difference in their current form is marginal.
India are going to pick a young team for Bangladesh....but if they want an experienced pro to lend a hand, Laxman's a much better bet.
1) He's a considerably better batsman overall.
2) he's also younger ....2.5 years younger...he has definitely got more left in the tank than ganguly.

All logic points to Laxman getting selected.....

If it came down to a pressure situation and experience was really needed, I know who I would pick.

 

[Salamuddin]

It's hard to say that Ganguly is in better form, given you have nothing to base Laxman's form or lack thereof on. If you're going to bring ODIs into it, I actually think the fact that Laxman wasn't part of the WC debacle would benefit him.

Again though, I'd definitely play them both. Laxman v Ganguly is a decent cricketing debate worthy of cricketweb, but Laxman v Kaif quite obviously is not. Don't see why they need to play him just for the sake of change if he's not good enough.

But you don't know whether Kaif is good enough or not, because he hasn't been given enough of a run to prove himself ?

Personally I don't see why Ganguly should be picked....he may have been decent in RSA, but at 35 he's not going to be around for much longer. And what's to say a Badrinath, a Kaif or a Tiwari won't be a better player than him ?

 

[Prince EWS]

I think the majority of people would rate Laxman above Ganguly as a Test player, and rightly so IMO. Laxman is far superior to Kaif, but he is also a fair bit older. With Kaif as a potential Test and ODI captain of the future, he needs chances to prove himself at Test level and I think these games against Bangladesh would help him significantly. It's not really for the sake of change, it's for the sake of development. Let's face it, I don't think Bangladesh will be able to knock over India in the Test's, even a slightly weakened India so taking the gamble of playing Kaif and hoping he scores runs is worth it IMO.

If Kaif scored runs against Bangladesh, would it actually prove anything though? The only thing it would do would be keeping him in the side artificially ahead of Laxman for the series against England, which Laxman would quite clearly be a better option for.

The fact that Kaif wouldn't make the side on merit, and it's a test match, poses serious problems for me. Even if you could tell me with 100% certainty that India would win 2-0 regardless of who they picked for the position, then I'd still have problems with the Kaif selection on the basis that you shouldn't give out cheap test caps in the interests of development - even against Bangladesh. If you pick a development player when there's an open spot in the team, that's a totally different matter - but Laxman has done nothing to say he no longer deserves his spot in the team, especially at the expense of someone like Kaif.

 

[Prince EWS]

But you don't know whether Kaif is good enough or not, because he hasn't been given enough of a run to prove himself ?

Neither have I. Give me a game then!

None of the incumbent middle order players deserve to be dropped on recent performances except for possibly Tendulkar. You don't drop test quality players who are performing for someone just to see if they might possibly be as good as them! Completely un-necessary risk.

 

[Perm]

But you don't know whether Kaif is good enough or not, because he hasn't been given enough of a run to prove himself ?

Personally I don't see why Ganguly should be picked....he may have been decent in RSA, but at 35 he's not going to be around for much longer. And what's to say a Badrinath, a Kaif or a Tiwari won't be a better player than him ?

That's quite right, I don't think Kaif has been given an extended run and therefore hasn't had a fair enough opportunity to prove himself. Ganguly should be picked for the experience factor, if India are looking to go in with a young side then they need some older hands to steet the ship. Would you really want to have Dravid and Kumble as the only senior players in your Test team to play Bangladesh? I certainly wouldn't.

If Kaif scored runs against Bangladesh, would it actually prove anything though? The only thing it would do would be keeping him in the side artificially ahead of Laxman for the series against England, which Laxman would quite clearly be a better option for.

The fact that Kaif wouldn't make the side on merit, and it's a test match, poses serious problems for me. Even if you could tell me with 100% certainty that India would win 2-0 regardless of who they picked for the position, then I'd still have problems with the Kaif selection on the basis that you shouldn't give out cheap test caps in the interests of development - even against Bangladesh. If you pick a development player when there's an open spot in the team, that's a totally different matter - but Laxman has done nothing to say he no longer deserves his spot in the team, especially at the expense of someone like Kaif.

I suppose I am just in favour of giving Kaif and Yuvraj some game time, because once India are at full strength then neither of them would make the starting XI unless one of the established middle order players was dropped. Therefore, they need to slowly be introduced into Test cricket and to be told so, making sure that they don't create any false illusions about them being a permanent member in the team, not just yet anyway.

 

[Perm]

Neither have I. Give me a game then!

None of the incumbent middle order players deserve to be dropped on recent performances except for possibly Tendulkar. You don't drop test quality players who are performing for someone just to see if they might possibly be as good as them! Completely un-necessary risk.

Yeah but Kaif has potential, you on the other hand . The game is against Bangladesh and some development of younger players is vital for India to continue if they wish to have any sucess at Test level in 3 or 4 years time. I'm not in favour of dropping guys like Ganguly or Laxman, but resting them in order to give other people a go. As you mentioned, Sachin is the only middle order player who doesn't have enough form to retain his position in the side, but we all know the selectors won't drop him.

 

[Prince EWS]

I suppose I am just in favour of giving Kaif and Yuvraj some game time

Really though, test cricket is not about giving players gametime. Picking Kaif when you very well know he doesn't deserve the spot ahead of the incumbent, and that you'll drop him when you play better opposition, not only compromises the integrity of the game, but is an insult to Bangladesh. If teams are going to treat test series against Bangladesh as an opportunity to give fringe players gametime, then it really isn't test cricket at all and hence shouldn't be classified as such.

 

[Perm]

Really though, test cricket is not about giving players gametime. Picking Kaif when you very well know he doesn't deserve the spot ahead of the incumbent, and that you'll drop him when you play better opposition, not only compromises the integrity of the game, but is an insult to Bangladesh. If teams are going to treat test series against Bangladesh as an opportunity to give fringe players gametime, then it really isn't test cricket at all and hence shouldn't be classified as such.

Ah, but games against weaker opposition will always be used as a "trial" if the stronger nation is in a predicament like India are in at the moment. Quite clearly India need to introduce some youth into their Test team and by giving some of the younger guys game time against Bangladesh, then they are "easing" them into Test cricket. I know it is an insult to Bangladesh, and Test cricket as an entire concept but it's always going to happen. Sometimes you just don't field your best XI for the sake of consistency, you need to develop players for the future.

 

[Salamuddin]

Neither have I. Give me a game then!

None of the incumbent middle order players deserve to be dropped on recent performances except for possibly Tendulkar. You don't drop test quality players who are performing for someone just to see if they might possibly be as good as them! Completely un-necessary risk.

Except these players haven't been performing.....
Ganguly has 1 reasonable series in RSA amidst a whole heap of rubbish performances......Tendulkar hasn't done anything for yonks.


If you're not going to pick a Kaif or a Badrinath against bangladesh when are you going to pick them ?
If they scored runs agianst bangaldesh it may not prove much, but equally picking Ganguly/Tendulkar won't prove much either....
And looking at Tendulkar and Ganguly's performances over a longer period of time, its unlikely that they will improve (in Sachin's case) or will actually play decently (against quality bowling) in ganguly's case.

At least you know that players like Badrinath, Tiwari and Kaif are in their flush of their youth....they may or may not be good enough (only 1 way to find out), but surely that's better than picking a couple of batsmen who have been delivering substandard performances for a while now and are on the decline.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ah, but games against weaker opposition will always be used as a "trial" if the stronger nation is in a predicament like India are in at the moment.

Which is, plain and simply, wrong IMO. Your best XI should be fielded at all times as far as I'm concerned, and when that ceases to happen, you cease to be playing a test match.

It's a different story if a spot opens up and a young, perhaps not as qualified player is selected on a permanent basis, but resting players from test matches and giving players deliberate one-off series against lower sides is not something that should exist in test cricket as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Salamuddin]

Really though, test cricket is not about giving players gametime. Picking Kaif when you very well know he doesn't deserve the spot ahead of the incumbent, and that you'll drop him when you play better opposition, not only compromises the integrity of the game, but is an insult to Bangladesh. If teams are going to treat test series against Bangladesh as an opportunity to give fringe players gametime, then it really isn't test cricket at all and hence shouldn't be classified as such.

Kaif averages 63 in his last 5 tests.....what's there to suggest that he doesn't deserve a test spot ahead of an incumbent ????