***Official*** India in South Africa

[Prince EWS]

Even if Gagandeep's record is deceiving, I don't think you can be total crap and have that record. At the very least, he's earned a tryout. Give him a match or two, you can at least tell if he belongs at his level. Certainly deserves it more than this guy.

Again, test cricket is not award rewarding deserving first class cricketers - it is about winning as many matches as possible. The selectors obviously think Sharma has a better chance of contributing to a win than Gagandeep - regardless of whether he deserves it or not.

 

[silentstriker]

Again, test cricket is not award rewarding deserving first class cricketers - it is about winning as many matches as possible. The selectors obviously think Sharma has a better chance of contributing to a win than Gagandeep - regardless of whether he deserves it or not.

I am claiming that you cannot make that determination on the basis of five first class matches.

 

[Prince EWS]

The man has played five test matches. What exactly has he proven? How do you even know from five matches what he can bring to a winning formula.

Its not necessarily about rewarding FC stalwarts - but if you have a fantastic FC record, you should get a tryout when a spot opens up. FC record is still the single best predictor of success at the test level.

He has proven nothing. However, it is not always about what you have proven. Gagandeep has proven he is a good first class cricketer - the selectors are picking a test team.

As I said, it is often the case where first class performances are the best judge, but it is not always the case.

I think you should wait until you see the guy bowl before you start slagging the selectors.

 

[Turbinator]

Haha what did I say, lots of Sharmas in the Indian lineup in the near future (including me obviously the Sharma of all Sharmas).

 

[Turbinator]

Btw what about that Yomahesh guy? I am sure adharcric must know something about how he's doing.

 

[silentstriker]

54 matches, 224 wickets @ 20.32, econ of 2.49 and S/R of 48.88. Thats how you show potential.

I think you should wait until you see the guy bowl before you start slagging the selectors.

Have to disagree with that mate. Even if he turns out to be Curtly Ambrose, the selectors would still be wrong to pick players based on five matches. Because for every Sachin Tendulkar, there are ten players who have their careers ruined because they are called too early on the basis of a dubious notion of 'potential'.

 

[Prince EWS]

Its not necessarily about rewarding FC stalwarts - but if you have a fantastic FC record, you should get a tryout when a spot opens up.

Not if the selectors see that you will be pedestrian at test level though. They have obviously seen the ingredients needed to be a test bowler in Sharma, regardless of how many first class games he has played.

 

[silentstriker]

Not if the selectors see that you will be pedestrian at test level though. They have obviously seen the ingredients needed to be a test bowler in Sharma, regardless of how many first class games he has played.

I realize thats what they saw. But I am saying regardless of how much potential they see, it is wrong to risk him too early on the basis of five matches of FC, and U-19 performance. Without the experience to fall back on, the cricketer can easily lose confidence at the highest level when he gets found out and is unable to adjust to the situation.

 

[Prince EWS]

Even if he turns out to be Curtly Ambrose, the selectors would still be wrong to pick players based on five matches.

You've become so engrossed in your ideas about how you "should" select players for the test team that you've lost all sense of why you want a good test team in the first place.

 

[Prince EWS]

I realize thats what they saw. But I am saying regardless of how much potential they see, it is wrong to risk him too early on the basis of five matches of FC, and U-19 performance. Without the experience to fall back on, the cricketer can easily lose confidence at the highest level when he gets found out and is unable to adjust to the situation.

Then he is mentally weak and not suited for test cricket anyway.

 

[silentstriker]

You've become so engrossed in your ideas about how you "should" select players for the test team that you've lost all sense of why you want a good test team in the first place.

Hah, perhaps so. I've seen too many cricketers ruined because of this very reason though. Also, I am not saying it should necessarily be Gagandeep (though I'd like to see him in a test). But anyone you select should have at least a little bit in terms of a body of work, before you throw them to the wolves, so to speak.

Then he is mentally weak and not suited for test cricket anyway.

I don't know. He is 18...how many 18 year olds are mentally suited for test cricket anyway? I think your mental toughness comes from experience and age. Its not something that you necessarily have in your teenage years.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hah, perhaps so. I've seen too many cricketers ruined because of this very reason though. Also, I am not saying it should necessarily be Gagandeep (though I'd like to see him in a test). But anyone you select should have at least a little bit in terms of a body of work, before you throw them to the wolves, so to speak.



I don't know. He is 18...how many 18 year olds are mentally suited for test cricket anyway? I think your mental toughness comes from experience and age. Its not something that you necessarily have in your teenage years.

If he is good enough, he will overcome it. The selectors obviously believe he is.

I've never seen him bowl and he could absolute rubbish for all I know, but given the fact that the selectors have picked him with so little first class experience, I'm thinking he is more than likely something other than your pedestrian Yadav-type bowler.

Wait until you see him bowl before you have a go at his selection.

 

[silentstriker]

If he is good enough, he will overcome it. The selectors obviously believe he is.

I've never seen him bowl and he could absolute rubbish for all I know, but given the fact that the selectors have picked him with so little first class experience, I'm thinking he is more than likely something other than your pedestrian Yadav-type bowler.

Wait until you see him bowl before you have a go at his selection.

Youngest cricketers to debut for India:

S Tendulkar SUCCESS
P Chawla: TBD
L Sivaramakrishnan FAILURE
Maninder Singh FAILURE
Ravi Shastri: SUCCESS
Chetan Sharma: MIANDAD
Narendra Hirwani: FAILURE
P Patel: FAILURE



Thats not a great track record. What remains unknown is if any of these players would have been successful had they debuted after working out kinks at the domestic level. Regardless of whether he is a success or failure...the policy of picking inexperienced players is flawed.

 

[silentstriker]

Thats 5 failures, 1 TBD and 2 success. That is a horrible conversion rate, considering these are supposed to be the brightest and best prospects of your country.

 

[Turbinator]

You forgot...

Turbinator SUCCESS (well going to be).

 

[silentstriker]

Anyway, going to get some early sleep so I can wake up for the match.

 

[social]

Are we watching the same match? Bouncing and seaming? Hardly.

I watched all of the last session and the ball was moving around considerably

The problem was that Sreesanth, Khan and Singh rarely put 2 balls in a row on a length

IMO the SA seamers will enjoy bowling on this wicket if conditions remain the same

 

[adharcric]

SS, there are a few things you should understand about the selection process ...

1. The selectors have greater access to these players than any of us do. They actually watch them in action before making a judgment, while we merely go by records and speculate. As Prince EWS mentioned earlier, first-class success does not always translate into test success and some players are ready earlier than others. The selectors are responsible for making this call.

2. Since Chappell has taken over, there has been a distinct change in approach towards young talent. The management has tried to inculcate young prospects at the highest level by giving them exposure. We saw it with Chawla - he wasn't expected to remain in the team but rather just get a feel and show his stuff to the management. We saw it with Abid Nabi, TP Singh and Shahbaz Nadeem - they were given a chance to impress in the nets. We saw it with VRV Singh to an extent - he was persisted with because the management saw ability at the highest level in him. Now we're seeing it with Ishant Sharma - most likely he won't even get a match but simply a feel for how things are at the highest level.

I agree that these prospects should have a chance to develop in the domestic circuit, but there is nothing wrong with giving them exposure at the highest level.
Please cut out your "test cap is not a cheap gift" attitude - all that matters is the future of Indian cricket.

 

[adharcric]

I watched all of the last session and the ball was moving around considerably

The problem was that Sreesanth, Khan and Singh rarely put 2 balls in a row on a length

IMO the SA seamers will enjoy bowling on this wicket if conditions remain the same

The ball moved around considerably in the morning but not in the post-tea session. All we had in the last session was a bit of reverse IIRC.

 

[Turbinator]

Is play starting early tommorow?