*Official* India Tour of England 2018

[R!TTER]

Is Karthik a good enough keeper for tests? Perhaps Pant should play. Don't think Karthik will have much on Pant in the batting stakes anyway,

It's their keeping which should help pick one or the other, but then there's always the form in the nets that counts (more) for this team management.

 

[Pratters]

The only surprising thing based on the quality of it was that it wasn't written by Moonda.

Considering Moonda usually covers SA tours it is not surprising at all actually that she didn't write it, bad as it maybe.

 

[Borges]

Is Karthik a good enough keeper for tests? Perhaps Pant should play. Don't think Karthik will have much on Pant in the batting stakes anyway,

Pant is probably a better batsman; but Karthik, long ago, had delivered in tough situations.
Neither is a test class keeper; between the two, I think Karthik is clearly better and is certain to play (at least initially).

 

[SteveWaugh]

Pant is probably a better batsman; but Karthik, long ago, had delivered in tough situations.
Neither is a test class keeper; between the two, I think Karthik is clearly better and is certain to play (at least initially).

What makes you think that Karthik is better?

 

[Pratters]

Pant is probably a better batsman; but Karthik, long ago, had delivered in tough situations.
Neither is a test class keeper; between the two, I think Karthik is clearly better and is certain to play (at least initially).

I agree. He has experience of conditions in England and that counts for a fair bit. Also, Karthik is a decent FC bat, let us not forget. I will be surprised if Karthik doesn't keep in the first test.

 

[SteveWaugh]

I agree. He has experience of conditions in England and that counts for a fair bit. Also, Karthik is a decent FC bat, let us not forget. I will be surprised if Karthik doesn't keep in the first test.

If Karthik is decent at FC level, Pant is spectacular at FC level. Nevertheless, any judgements should be made on the basis of comparative wicketkeeping skills, on the basis of which Pant is comfortably better anyway. I have seen Karthik drop too many clangers to be relied on as a solid first level choice for the next 2-3 years, and on present level there is no significant superiority which he offers.

Also, this experience was 10 years ago, making it void for future consideration.

 

[Pratters]

If Karthik is decent at FC level, Pant is spectacular at FC level. Nevertheless, any judgements should be made on the basis of comparative wicketkeeping skills, on the basis of which Pant is comfortably better anyway. I have seen Karthik drop too many clangers to be relied on as a solid first level choice for the next 2-3 years, and on present level there is no significant superiority which he offers.

Pant has a FC average of 50 and limited overs average of 30 and significantly lesser matches thank Karthik. We don't know how Pant will fare in England. So Karthik wins. It is really not that difficult to understand.

Also, this experience was 10 years ago, making it void for future consideration.

It is not like he has stopped playing cricket for 10 years..

 

[SteveWaugh]

Pant has a FC average of 50 and limited overs average of 30 and significantly lesser matches thank Karthik. We don't know how Pant will fare in England. So Karthik wins. It is really not that difficult to understand.



It is not like he has stopped playing cricket for 10 years..

''We don't know'' Well, we can make judgements based on evidence...
If your argument is that Pant, a 20 year old player, has played zero matches in England before, it is stupid and is a logical fallacy. When do you see it fit to give him his merited chance?

A logical, evidence-based analysis comes to the clear conclusion that Pant is a superior first class cricket player to Dinesh Karthik. Limited overs cricket is irrelevant in this scenario, so I don't see why bring it up.

It really is not that difficult to understand.

 

[Pratters]

Pant averaged 34 this season v England lions in limited overs cricket which isn't great or any thing. He has had some batting though which is good. Smart of the management to play him there.

 

[SteveWaugh]

Pant averaged 34 this season v England lions in limited overs cricket which isn't great or any thing. He has had some batting though which is good. Smart of the management to play him there.

Why do you keep referring to limited overs cricket? Utter idiocy.

We are talking about test cricket and first class cricket, the most relevant forms of the game in this scenario. If your arguments are based on innings against England Lions (FYI:I don't believe in 2 innings making a case, but I will go with your argument), Pant scored 2 fifties and clearly outperformed other batsmen as in total India posted sub-200 totals.

Pant has done very well on his current tour.

 

[Pratters]

I have referred to both FC cricket and limited overs cricket. What goes in favour of Karthik more than any thing are

- his experience in England. Three fiftes in three tests in England
- average of 40 + in FC cricket over a long career

Experience counts for a lot. Keeping in England is a whole different ball game to keeping in India. I would be more comfortable with him behind the stumps at this point. If he doesn't do well, sure, bring in Pant for the next test.

 

[SteveWaugh]

I have referred to both FC cricket and limited overs cricket. What goes in favour of Karthik more than any thing are

- his experience in England. Three fiftes in three tests in England
- average of 40 + in FC cricket over a long career

Experience counts for a lot. Keeping in England is a whole different ball game to keeping in India. I would be more comfortable with him behind the stumps at this point. If he doesn't do well, sure, bring in Pant for the next test.

I have observed both whilst wicket-keeping, and I can confidently tell you that Pant is so SIGNIFICANTLY superior in wicket-keeping skill that location of said match should not come in consideration when making a choice between him in Karthik.

Pant is a clear first choice for the first Test, based on purely his significantly superior wicketkeeping.

 

[Pratters]

Fair enough. I don't agree with it based on keeping in England being a whole different ball game. Let's see whom Kohli eventually selects.

 

[Shri]

Yes, in england, the keeper stands behind the bowler.

 

[Pratters]

Yes, in england, the keeper stands behind the bowler.

No that's not the reason.

 

[Shri]

There is no reason her. You are trying way too hard to counter a silly point. They both suck so it doesn't ****ing matter is the right answer.

 

[Pratters]

there is no reason her. You are trying way too hard to counter a silly point. They both suck so it doesn't ****ing matter is the right answer.

lol.

 

[SteveWaugh]

There is no reason her. You are trying way too hard to counter a silly point. They both suck so it doesn't ****ing matter is the right answer.

Pant doesn't suck. Pant is an amazing, highly-skilled wicketkeeper. He is top class and elite.

 

[harsh.ag]

Hope you turn out to be correct, Tugga

 

[Jack1]

There is no reason her. You are trying way too hard to counter a silly point. They both suck so it doesn't ****ing matter is the right answer.

Pant is a great player and is 20 years old. Jealousy will be the end of you if you aren't careful. You are very bitter. You should be ashamed of yourself to be honest.