Somerset Sign Nixon McLean for 2003

[V Reddy]

Agarkar has been picked as Zaheer has been given rest. You say Tinu is better than Agarkar but Ganguly thinks otherwise. Remember his bowling in AUS he really troubled them picking about 12 wickets in 3 tests I doubt whether Tinu even could have picked 5 wickets

 

[V Reddy]

http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2002/oct/20test.htm

 

[Rik]

Why bring back Agarkar? Srinath has been scoring enough runs lately!

 

[warrioryohannan]

Originally posted by vishnureddy
Agarkar has been picked as Zaheer has been given rest. You say Tinu is better than Agarkar but Ganguly thinks otherwise.

Yeah, and u tell this to other guys on this forum who think Ajit has no talent.
I never compared Ajit with Tinu, so how u r saying that i regard Tinu better than Ajit is beyond me.

In the England tour, Ajit was clearly out of form, persisting with him was not only bad for the team but also for him.Ganguly said after Ajit came up with a ton that Ajit was being played as an allrounder rather than as a specialist pacer.In such a scenario it would have been better had Ajit been dropped and replaced by Yohannan.

[/quote]

Remember his bowling in AUS he really troubled them picking about 12 wickets in 3 tests I doubt whether Tinu even could have picked 5 wickets [/quote]


I also remember his performance against England, and i think Yohannan would have definately fared better than the out of form Ajit!

IN the WI tour, Ganguly had faith in Nehra, Ajit was nowhere then after a poor show in SA, . Now he's sticking with Ajit, he isn't inflexible and can change decisions according to the need of the team

 

[Rik]

Yes a lot more runs for England and quite amazingly an increase in average for poor Yohannan...how much worse can you get than 53? Ask any Bangladeshi...

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think that recalling Agarkar for the Third Test is short sighted - someone like Balaji or Pathan should be given a go. (Correct if those names are wrong, I've picked them off other threads re: younger Indian Quicks).

 

[warrioryohannan]

Originally posted by Rik
Yes a lot more runs for England and quite amazingly an increase in average for poor Yohannan...how much worse can you get than 53? Ask any Bangladeshi...

This from ppl who judge a bowler by just 2 test matches, but then comming this from a bri is hardly surprising!:rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

Originally posted by Neil Pickup
I think that recalling Agarkar for the Third Test is short sighted - someone like Balaji or Pathan should be given a go. (Correct if those names are wrong, I've picked them off other threads re: younger Indian Quicks).

Well, Agarkar is hardly over the hill, I think selecting him is indication to him that he is still in with a chance of a regular spot, but the onus is on him to perform!

 

[V Reddy]

They pick him on the basis that he was once a very good bowler. He performance went downhill after the world cup . Before he performed well even in AUS ( everyone knkows how he performed with the bat ).

 

[V Reddy]

They pick him on the basis that he was once a very good bowler. He performance went downhill after the world cup . Before he performed well even in AUS ( everyone knkows how he performed with the bat ). But he played very well in sidegames there in AUS getting 2 fifties.

 

[Rik]

WarriorYohannan...it doesn't matter if the guy has played 2 tests or 50 tests, averaging 53 with the ball is still regarded as rubbish.

 

[Rik]

One thing I forgot to add at the beginning of the thread...Nixon Alexei McNamara Mclean. Impressive names...named after 3 American Presidents I am lead to belive...hats off you you Nixon for keeping those names!

 

[warrioryohannan]

Originally posted by Rik
WarriorYohannan...it doesn't matter if the guy has played 2 tests or 50 tests, averaging 53 with the ball is still regarded as rubbish.

quote]Originally posted by Neil Pickup

That's still not enough. 20+ ODIs are needed and 10+ Tests at minimum to get a true picture of Success. [/quote]


It does matter buddy, u canot judge a bowler by just two test matches.The only think thats rubbish is ur premature judgement!

 

[warrioryohannan]

Originally posted by vishnureddy
They pick him on the basis that he was once a very good bowler. He performance went downhill after the world cup . Before he performed well even in AUS ( everyone knkows how he performed with the bat ).

Thats far from fact, Ajit performance touched rock bottom during the WC.After that, he had been in good form in the onedayers (b/f the English tour).He seems to have lost his form in the test series against England.

 

[V Reddy]

Warrior I was talking about tests. He has not bowled well in tests from WC

 

[Rik]

Please please please don't call me Buddy (ok ok I may be a yank but only by place of birth...and nationallity...ok forget about it). Also ok he may only have played 2 test matches but if you look at his FC record I think you get an all round picture of his ability. Why criticise poor Nixon when he's done way better in FC cricket, and ok he's played longer...but I don't think Mr McLean ever averaged near 40 in FC cricket over his career...Yohannan may be one of the young Indian pacers who will scare the life out of opposing teams in the future...but if he's one of India's best...your gonna need more than just devine intervention to be anywhere near sucsessful...

[Edited on 23/10/2002 by Rik]

 

[warrioryohannan]

We have already discussed about the domestic records, its pointless to go over it again and again!

 

[Rik]

I think we just need to accept that Yohannan is rubbish and talk about other things

 

[warrioryohannan]

The conclusion we have arrived at is that ur judgement is rubbish and premature, and resembles that of someone suffering from CJD.

 

[Rik]

I can't see who "we" is...all I can see is you...