***Official*** Sri Lanka in India

[honestbharani]

WEll done India. Well done Kumble. And well done, selectors. Sambit Bal has got it absolutely right. While it is sad to see Ganguly go this way (he maybe back, BTW), India had to look at the future....

 

[Anil]

WEll done India. Well done Kumble. And well done, selectors. Sambit Bal has got it absolutely right. While it is sad to see Ganguly go this way (he maybe back, BTW), India had to look at the future....

it would just take someone in the middle order to lose form for gangs to be considered again...so i think there is still a good chance he could be back....although the selectors could avoid the batting allrounder bull crap next time around....

 

[adharcric]

I don't think the issue is so much about Yuvraj being preferred over Ganguly. It has more to do with the fact that Gambhir was retained while Ganguly was axed despite scores of 39 and 40. Yes, they wouldn't want to shatter the young Gambhir's confidence by dropping him after two failures. Still, if they are selecting a squad for only the third test, the only reason to need a backup opener would be a) if someone is unfit/injured (not the case) b) to get an evaluation of gambhir and jaffer in the nets and training. Only one of Gambhir and Jaffer will play, so it can be argued only one should have been selected and Ganguly should've been retained for the 3rd Test.

I think the selectors made a smart move, but I'm just justifying why it is a controversial one as well.

 

[parttimer]

I will be interested to hear Chappell's take on Sourav being sacked. Having worked his way back into the team Sourav has rewarded the selectors faith in him with a ton, 39 and 40 in his last few innngs.

IMO Gambhir should have been dropped. Younger players having problems should make way for experienced players who're in form and have been an important cog of the team over the last years. Pple might say feel sorry for Gambhir but you have to feel sorry for Sourav too after all he's given to Indian cricket

 

[SJS]

I don't think the issue is so much about Yuvraj being preferred over Ganguly. It has more to do with the fact that Gambhir was retained while Ganguly was axed despite scores of 39 and 40. Yes, they wouldn't want to shatter the young Gambhir's confidence by dropping him after two failures. Still, if they are selecting a squad for only the third test, the only reason to need a backup opener would be a) if someone is unfit/injured (not the case) b) to get an evaluation of gambhir and jaffer in the nets and training. Only one of Gambhir and Jaffer will play, so it can be argued only one should have been selected and Ganguly should've been retained for the 3rd Test.

I think the selectors made a smart move, but I'm just justifying why it is a controversial one as well.

You are right to an extent but
1. The way the media has been trying to encash the Ganguly-Chappell fiasco there would have been a controversy whatever the selectors did
2. There are eleven players for the eventual side and four on the bench. These include one spinner (Murali Karthik), one new ball bowler (RP), one middle order bat (Kaif) and, now, one opener. This seems right. They had it wrong when they tried to show, before the first test, that this wasnt the case and put Ganguly in there as an all rounder.
3. I dont know whether Gambhir will play or Jaffer but even if Gambhir is playing, having Jaffer IN the squad puts ectra pressure on him and this management seemd bent on trying people out under pressure. Not a bad situation.

Having said that, I think they still handled this very badly.

1) Getting Ganguly in by the backdoor (this all rounder bit) was silly. They should have taken him as a batsman or not at all. I know this was done by an earlier selection committee but then it should have been clarified after the committee was changed that he was playing purely as batsman. Calling him all rounder, justifying his inclusion over Zaheer with that and then not bowling him even once in this test is bound to have a reaction.
3. Having selected Ganguly, they should have decided what they want to do with him.
- If they had made up his mind that this was his swan song, he should have been told so at the beginning of the series and then played in all three games and given the respect and the fitting farewell that he deserved at the end of such a glorious career.
- If they wanted to treat him like any other player then they should have let him be in the squad for the third test and let Dravid decide on the day of the match whether he wants him in the final eleven or not.
4. The amount of muck the media has been raising for more than a month now isnt funny. The board should have gone ahead got their stance on this clarified through a proper communication be it a press conference or a specific statement. Letting speculations and allegations fly thick and fast and pretending that nothing is happening only made things more difficult for the selectors and very awkward for the captain and coach.

This should have been avoided at all cost.

My personal take is EITHER Ganguly should have been told his career is over at the beginning OR he should have been told this is his last series OR he should have been told he will be played for all three games and his future decided on his performance, those of others and all other ramifications of his being in the team (call it his conduct if you please) at the end of the series.

This is a mess and the authorities have to take some blame for at least the poor handling of a delicate situation.

Now its done and we should go ahead and play some cricket. Going on and on about it can do nothing but harm.

PS: One thing that I forgot. While I am a strong advocate of an opener being a specialist, going into the second test WITHOUT one seemed to be odd. Why didnt they remember to get a specialist opener then? This opens them to the allegation that this was to get Yuvraj in and now that he has got his runs they dont need that excuse. Someone is bound to say that if Yuvraj had scored fewer runs, they may have still opened with Pathan or someone else.

 

[Jono]

Well played India. Kumble and Pathan were brilliant, and there were some solid enough performances with the bat from Sachin, Laxman, Yuvraj, Dravid and Dhoni. Ganguly too was in some good partnerships when required, but I don't believe he's in the best XI for India.

Very happy with the win, hopefully we can win the 3rd and take the series 2-0. I think after Murali shattered India in the 1st innings, him only getting 1 wicket in the 2nd will give the batsman more confidence, as they know they can play him if they're watchful.

 

[JASON]

Anil Kumble is at the moment at his lethal best and IMO a far better spinner, wicket taker and Match Winner than Warne, Murali or any other spinner in current World Cricket, IMO .

 

[Arjun]

Anil Kumble is at the moment at his lethal best and IMO a far better spinner, wicket taker and Match Winner than Warne, Murali or any other spinner in current World Cricket, IMO .

Words of an upset Lankan fan?

 

[Arjun]

Gambhir should hold on to his place for the final Test. He may be a little out of sorts at present, but on his day, he can not only provide good support to Sehwag, but can also add a knockout punch at the top of the order. He's an attacking opener, so consistency is not something you would expect. That occasional big score of 100 is reason enough to keep him. More so the partnerships of over 50 at a healthy run rate, often missing before the series against NZ in India. Jaffer's decent, but Gambhir has definitely looked good enough to make an Indian top-six, so to drop him so quickly would be dumb– you're dropping a promising young opener for someone found wanting in the past.

 

[Jono]

Words of an upset Lankan fan?

Without doubt.

Kumble is brilliant, no doubt about that, but Murali and Warne are a long way ahead. Its much harder for Murali to bowl to the Indian batsman than Kumble bowling to the SL batsman. The difference in the batting line-ups in regards to talent (particularly with some of the questionable SL selections) was quite big.

 

[Arjun]

(particularly with some of the questionable SL selections)

• Dilhan Gunawardene
• Jehan Mubarak

Did I miss any? Can't imagine even one of these getting ahead of Michael Vandort, who has a very high FC/List-A average for someone batting in SL.

 

[Pratters]

I am delighted at Jaffer being selected in the team! I have been a huge fan of his for a very long time despite his lack of success internationally. Dravid it looks like - has decided not to open. Its his choice not to give it a shot for the moment which is his choice really and we should respect that.

On Ganguly being dropped - if Dravid decided not to open - if one player between Yuvraj and Ganguly had to be selected it had to be Yuvraj. This has been my preference and Ganguly was bound to be dropped from the XI.

A case would be there for Ganguly to be included in the squad ahead of Kaif.

I strongly believed he should have retired from tests after the success in Pakistan a year and half ago rather than suffer this humiliation. Really why leave it till a time where others can decide your destiny rather than you yourself after reaching big heights in international cricket.

 

[Pratters]

I don't think the issue is so much about Yuvraj being preferred over Ganguly. It has more to do with the fact that Gambhir was retained while Ganguly was axed despite scores of 39 and 40. Yes, they wouldn't want to shatter the young Gambhir's confidence by dropping him after two failures. Still, if they are selecting a squad for only the third test, the only reason to need a backup opener would be a) if someone is unfit/injured (not the case) b) to get an evaluation of gambhir and jaffer in the nets and training. Only one of Gambhir and Jaffer will play, so it can be argued only one should have been selected and Ganguly should've been retained for the 3rd Test.

I think the selectors made a smart move, but I'm just justifying why it is a controversial one as well.

If Dravid decided not to give opening a shot for the long term to try as a specialist opener:

1) A specialist opener or a person who could look like becoming a specialist opener for the future for tests could be considerered. Ganguly does not fit that criteria.
2) Regarding choosing an extra opener - opening spot is the one for which Indians are having much more problems than the middle order - so it is the spot for which a back up is much more reasonable. So a case could be made for chosing a Jaffer ahead of both Kaif and Ganguly even if just one backup player was to be chosen.

 

[Jono]

Yeah exactly, why have 2 extra middle order players in the squad outside the XI (Kaif and Ganguly) when it is much more likely that if a spot in the team will be open, it'll be that of an opener (Gambhir being dropped or Sehwag still unfit).

Bringing Jaffer in was the right move IMO. I don't think he should play the 3rd test, but it puts pressure on Gambhir and even though he most likely would know already, it shows his spot isn't safe because there's competition for every spot in the team.

 

[Dasa]

Without doubt.

Kumble is brilliant, no doubt about that, but Murali and Warne are a long way ahead. Its much harder for Murali to bowl to the Indian batsman than Kumble bowling to the SL batsman. The difference in the batting line-ups in regards to talent (particularly with some of the questionable SL selections) was quite big.

I think Kumble at home is comparable to either...Warne and Murali have both been incredible of late, but Murali last ripped through a sub-standard Lara-less WI, and Warne has played England recently who are woeful against any standard of spin. No doubting Warne and Murali are better overall, but Kumble at home is definitely worthy to be in the same leagure.

 

[Arjun]

Frankly, opening batsmen for India have been treated very harshly in the recent past, and unfortunately it's happening again. Except for Ramesh, none of the openers who have played in Tests are treated as a part of the Indian top six, but instead, they're just a shield for the 'holy' middle-order, which, strangely, doesn't need a change. This can be seen when these Test openers don't even get picked for one-dayers, even if they are as good as those who are. They get reduced to mere part-timers and consequently, their performance drops, as was noticed with every Test opener picked after Ramesh, with Gambhir being an exception.

If they can pick a reserve opener (not much wrong with that) to put pressure on the frontliners, why can't they pick a reserve middle-order batsman for the same?

 

[Jono]

I think Kumble at home is comparable to either...Warne and Murali have both been incredible of late, but Murali last ripped through a sub-standard Lara-less WI, and Warne has played England recently who are woeful against any standard of spin. No doubting Warne and Murali are better overall, but Kumble at home is definitely worthy to be in the same leagure.

Yes true, but it must be remembered that Kumble never has the bowl to the Indian batting line-up. I often state that whilst the Australian batting line-up is awesome, they never had to bat against McGrath, Warne, Gillespie etc. all together, and hence as good as they were they never faced up to the best.

In terms of spin bowling (particularly on the sub-continent), India's batting line-up is the best and whilst Kumble has been absolutely wonderful, I think he'd struggle bowling to Sachin, Laxman, Dravid and Sehwag despite how well he bowls on Indian pitches. Whereas I think if Murali turned around and had to bowl to the SL batting line-up, he'd skittle them fairly easily.

Yeah Kumble gets closer to Murali and Warne when he bowls at home, much closer, but I still think he's not quite there.

 

[Dasa]

Yes true, but it must be remembered that Kumble never has the bowl to the Indian batting line-up. I often state that whilst the Australian batting line-up is awesome, they never had to bat against McGrath, Warne, Gillespie etc. all together, and hence as good as they were they never faced up to the best..

Actually, that's something I didn't think of...I'm sure Kumble would struggle against India, perhaps moreso than Warne. It'd be interesting to see how Kumble has done when bowling to the current Indian batsmen in domestic matches...

 

[R_D]

If they can pick a reserve opener (not much wrong with that) to put pressure on the frontliners, why can't they pick a reserve middle-order batsman for the same?

Isn't Kaif their to do the exact same thing ?

 

[marc71178]

Actually, that's something I didn't think of...I'm sure Kumble would struggle against India, perhaps moreso than Warne. It'd be interesting to see how Kumble has done when bowling to the current Indian batsmen in domestic matches...

That in itself would be slightly different though because of not facing them as a full unit.