*Official* India Tour of England 2018

[ankitj]

Hardik Pandya not a Test allrounder yet - Holding - ESPNcricinfo

If it wasn't already obvious...

 

[OverratedSanity]

He's probably still one of our better batsmen on form as sad as it is. I'd keep him for the series.

 

[Pratters]

Pant and Bumrah to play it seems.

 

[Prince EWS]

Holding's views on allrounders have always been ridiculous. He basically makes the argument that there's no such thing as mediocre or poor allrounders, and that the term should be exclusively reserved for near-mythical players who'd still make the team even if they couldn't bowl, and also still make the team if they had to bat eleven. Rubbish.

Not saying that Pandya is particularly good or shouldn't have his place questioned etc, but there's not even any point reading that article. It's going to be the same nonsense he sprouts about everyone picked for team balance reasons.

 

[ankitj]

He's probably still one of our better batsmen on form as sad as it is. I'd keep him for the series.

That's the wrong way to look at it though. We have to look at who we persist with and expect better results. I will take ducks from a specialist batsman over 20s from Pandya.

 

[ankitj]

Holding's views on allrounders have always been ridiculous. He basically makes the argument that there's no such thing as mediocre or poor allrounders, and that the term should be exclusively reserved for near-mythical players who'd still make the team even if they couldn't bowl, and also still make the team if they had to bat eleven. Rubbish.

Not saying that Pandya is particularly good or shouldn't have his place questioned etc, but there's not even any point reading that article. It's going to be the same nonsense he sprouts about everyone picked for team balance reasons.

Team balance in test teams is overrated IMO; limited overs are a different story. Play top 6 batsmen, top 4 bowlers and a keeper. If any of them can do a bit in secondary discipline it's a bonus. Don't force the "balance".

 

[Prince EWS]

Team balance in test teams is overrated IMO; limited overs are a different story. Play top 6 batsmen, top 4 bowlers and a keeper. If any of them can do a bit in secondary discipline it's a bonus. Don't force the "balance".

I don't really agree with this, but if this is the point he made it'd be fine -- I'd just disagree. The point he makes though is that there have only been about twenty allrounders in the history of Test cricket. It's ridiculous. "Batsman" doesn't mean you're one of the best twenty run-scorers in the history of Test cricket -- it just means you've been selected solely for your batting. Crap allrounders are allowed to exist; they don't just forfeit the name of their role in the side because they're crap.

The implication of his argument -- and there is really no way of getting around this -- is that Ben Stokes is not an allrounder because he wouldn't be selected for his bowling alone. This is basically an absurdity.

 

[CricAddict]

Read the likely line-up on Hindustan Times:

1. Vijay
2. KL Rahul
3. Pujara
4. Kohli*
5. Rahane
6. Pant+
7. Ashwin
8. Ishant
9. Shami
10. Umesh
11. Bumrah

Interesting call - backing the batsmen and in fact, increasing pressure by lengthening the tail. DK has been horrendous - with the bat and the gloves - so rightfully deserves to be dropped. Kuldeep (one of the worst performances in recent memeory) is also shunted out, with Umesh rightfully back. Bumrah in the mix will make it quite interesting - India will have 4 genuine quicks, who combined could give the England batting a decent test. Not a bad line-up.

That's a terrible batting line-up. Hardik should be in there somewhere.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That's the wrong way to look at it though. We have to look at who we persist with and expect better results.

I think he's got loads of potential though. Needs work with the ball for sure, and I think the best thing for his batting is to go full Botham/Shakib and just dgaf and be more attacking. He's been trying to play like a top 5 batsman, which is certainly admirable but I'm not sure it will work. Playing like he did in SA where he produced one superb counterattacking knock among a string of low scores is the ceiling of his ability in overseas conditions.

 

[the big bambino]

Team balance in test teams is overrated IMO; limited overs are a different story. Play top 6 batsmen, top 4 bowlers and a keeper. If any of them can do a bit in secondary discipline it's a bonus. Don't force the "balance".

Basically yeah. With 90 overs a day you can usually get by with that and 1 or 2 of the top order as bowling extender. On some occasions I'd have 5 bowlers like Eng did from about 2003/04 to 05/06. Flintoff at 6 then the keeper with 8 to 11 being specialist bowlers. Ideally then they played Giles, Hoggard, Jones and Harmison in those spots. Not many runs there though some could stick. So when your batting can carry it, the conditions encourage it and the strength of the opposition warrants it I'd like that line up as a variation to the standard 6 - 4. Though once again there is an emphasis on specialists rather than finding ARs for balance.

 

[Howe_zat]

That's not very different from what England have now, balance wise. Stokes isn't quite as good a bowler as Flintoff but the 7-9 actually perform with the bat, plus Broad.

 

[Shri]

Lol, kids. Its over. 5-0 incoming. Why are we talking about this lost cause?

 

[Pratters]

I don't really agree with this, but if this is the point he made it'd be fine -- I'd just disagree. The point he makes though is that there have only been about twenty allrounders in the history of Test cricket. It's ridiculous. "Batsman" doesn't mean you're one of the best twenty run-scorers in the history of Test cricket -- it just means you've been selected solely for your batting. Crap allrounders are allowed to exist; they don't just forfeit the name of their role in the side because they're crap.

The implication of his argument -- and there is really no way of getting around this -- is that Ben Stokes is not an allrounder because he wouldn't be selected for his bowling alone. This is basically an absurdity.

How is he implying Ben Stokes is not an all rounder???

 

[Pratters]

In tests, you need players to be able to make runs or take wickets. In ODIs some one who can restrict runs or score a useful thirty works. However, tests is a more specialist field with more skill to make runs or take wickets required. It is a fine line. The all rounder has to do at least one role well and the other role to some extent. If you do both in an average manner you are a bits and pieces cricketer.

 

[Howe_zat]

I don't really agree with this, but if this is the point he made it'd be fine -- I'd just disagree. The point he makes though is that there have only been about twenty allrounders in the history of Test cricket. It's ridiculous. "Batsman" doesn't mean you're one of the best twenty run-scorers in the history of Test cricket -- it just means you've been selected solely for your batting. Crap allrounders are allowed to exist; they don't just forfeit the name of their role in the side because they're crap.

The implication of his argument -- and there is really no way of getting around this -- is that Ben Stokes is not an allrounder because he wouldn't be selected for his bowling alone. This is basically an absurdity.

The other funny implication is that whether a player is an allrounder depends on their competition, rather than their own role. So Dan Vettori was an allrounder when he played for New Zealand, but when he rocked up for the World XI he wasn't anymore, and a few weeks later went back to being an allrounder again.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Lol, kids. Its over. 5-0 incoming. Why are we talking about this lost cause?

I'm actually pretty fascinated by how much of a shitshow this can turn into. If Kohli aggravates his injury it could be hilarious.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The other funny implication is that whether a player is an allrounder depends on their competition, rather than their own role. So Dan Vettori was an allrounder when he played for New Zealand, but when he rocked up for the World XI he wasn't anymore, and a few weeks later went back to being an allrounder again.

I have more time for this argument tbh. Atleast it categorizes a player according to his actual role in the team.

 

[garylyon]

Gambhiring is always plain annoying, even if it is justified.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have more time for this argument tbh. Atleast it categorizes a player according to his actual role in the team.

Yeah, if Broad played a game for his local pub side, batted #3 and slapped a ton, he wouldn't be a "bowler" in that side. He'd be an allrounder. I think it's a description of your role in any given side, rather than some sort of statement about your quality. That makes it as much as like "batsman" or "bowler" as possible.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

The other funny implication is that whether a player is an allrounder depends on their competition, rather than their own role. So Dan Vettori was an allrounder when he played for New Zealand, but when he rocked up for the World XI he wasn't anymore, and a few weeks later went back to being an allrounder again.

Well he went from batting number 8 for NZ to batting number 9 for the World XI. Kallis went from being a 3 to being a 5, but he was still an allrounder

For the World XI he was behind Flintoff at 7 and Boucher at 8. By the end of his career he was a better batsman than both of them, but at that stage he was perhaps marginally worse.