Re: 'India better balanced than Pakistan'

Free feedback, a kind of constructive crticism. Authors Prakash and
Vinay are both knowledgable, however, limit your posts to less than 10
lines, if you want others to read them. See rsc newsgroup for example.
prakmel wrote:
> vdeolalikar@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Prakash,
> >
> > Just read your post. Thanks for the detailed post. I just want to make
> > one point.
> >
> > I strongly feel that opening with non specialists is not the right way
> > to go in the first test of a series against a potent fast bowling
> > attack on what is likely to be a greenish track. Opening is a
> > specialised task, and is best left to specialist openers. That is why I
> > would be unwilling to consider opening with anyone other than Viru +
> > Jaffer/Gambhir. For a long time India thought of opening as a makeshift
> > position, and I think it did us a lot of harm. If either Ganguly or
> > Yuvraj open, I dont think they have much chances to succeed against
> > Akhtar/Sami/Naved on a greenish track with a new ball.
> >
> > I was an opener all my days as a player, and it is just a different
> > mindset, let alone technique and so on. An opener must go out and make
> > sure the middle order is not exposed to the new ball. That was the
> > traditional way of thinking anyway. To me, an openers job is simply to
> > see off the shine. A ball behaves very differently once the shine is
> > off, and an opener's job is to negotiate the ball during that period
> > when it has the shine. Because of this an opener plays differently -
> > first of all an opener is measured as much by what he leaves as by what
> > he plays. This is not true for a MOB. Secondly an opener must play
> > close to his body, a MOB can get away with not doing so. All this has
> > been blurred in today's cricket, but I still remain something of a
> > traditionalist in this regard.
> >
> > I may be a little inflexible in this regard, and if so I apologize, but
> > I really dont think we ought to experiment there.
> >
> > About the 2 seamer 2 spinners thingy - no I think that is not quite
> > enough for a win, especially given the quality of our 4 bowlers. But to
> > expect that Ganguly would make a huge difference also might be wishful.
> > Ganguly's utility as a bowler is really only on certain types of
> > tracks IMHO. So on a track that is flattish, Ganguly's marginal utility
> > as a bowler is not much, I feel. OTOH on a greenish track, he can prove
> > to be quite useful, and on such a track I would be more inclined to
> > play him if we only play 2 seamers. Although the press is reporting
> > that there is a chance that on such a track Zaheer would be played in
> > place of Harbhy. If we are playing 3 full seamers, then marginal
> > utility of another part time seamer is perhaps not that much.
> >
> > About the 55-45 thingy - purely subjective. Just my "gut feel." As I
> > said, if Ganguly turned out for the team tomorrow, I would neither be
> > shocked nor would I have any negative feelings. I think there are
> > reasonable arguments for Ganguly's selection, just as there are
> > reasonable arguments for Yuvraj's selection. The captain and coach
> > should make the decision after taking a look at the pitch, after seeing
> > how well the players are shaping in the nets and so on.
> >
> >
> > Vinay
>
> Vinay,
>
> Many thanks. I have no problems with your thoughts.
>
> I also agree with your comments of needing a set of full-time openers.
> However, I feel that the current options available to partner Viru do
> not inspire real confidence in me. I will be frank that I have not seen
> Jaffer play so I may be wrong to prejudge. However IMHO, the loss by
> not having either Jaffer or Gambhir is appreciably smaller than
> droppping either Yuvraj or Ganguly. Do you agree, despite your stated
> preference?
>
> And I would not necessarily rule out Rahul because he has come in as a
> virtual opener unfortunately often enough in the past. And he also
> opened in T2 vs SL. So why cannot it be done. If he is the captain, he
> is supposed to look after how to make his XI stronger.
>
> About the Yuvraj and Sourav debate, I think that Yuvraj is a super
> player. However, I cannot see any rational reason why Sourav was
> dropped from the squad in T3. If he is selected in the squad after
> having been asked to prove himself in the domestics which he did in
> great style in both the batting and bowling departments, it seems
> logical that he is selected. And then to have a crusade to put pressure
> on him. It does seem that the top is trying to ensure he fails. That is
> why I think there is something very much wrong with their thinking -
> presuming they are actually doing anything except plotting how not to
> include Sourav.
>
> If everything was on the level, there would be no problem who they
> select. It is all a guess anyway and nobody can guarantee success. But
> to me I do not think it is being done on fairness. It is simply due to
> a person(s) who are determined to see Sourav fail.
> I think this is idiotic. Do you agree or not?
>
> As for the backup bowler, you may or may not be correct about Sourav's
> ability to take wickets. However, he has been taking wickets
> domestically so unless you feel that they were all throwing their
> wickets away, one would have to conclude that he is bowling reasonably.
>
> It does not matter whether we choose 3+1 or 2+2. That makes it 4
> frontline bowlers. And if the Pak batsmen strike form, this quartet
> better have long breaks. Just alone for this reason there needs to be a
> backup. And if Sourav takes wickets and uses his undoubted experience,
> there could be a matchwinner on your hands.
>
> Your preferring Yuvraj does not cause me problems. What I object to is
> unfairness - and that is what I see before me.
>
> If you disagree and think that things are being done on the level,
> kindly explain the XV for T3 and the subsequent insistence on including
> Kaif.
>
> The mind boggles how one justifies Kaif on a youth policy allegedly and
> then drops him after that Test. Has he suddenly become old?
>
> And if Sourav is not supposed to carry drinks in India, why is Pakistan
> ok? Are they lighter?
>
> What fascinates me is that the thinktank clearly must believe that the
> reasons for all their actions make sense. And that is what is truly
> worrying.
>
> And if anti-Ganguly posters gave some logical reasons for their
> decision, I would feel relieved. Remember that we are talking only of
> T1 now. Possibly the whole series at the utmost, not 2008 or later :-)
>
> Prakash

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: India better balanced than Pakistan
    ... > as a bowler is not much, ... > play him if we only play 2 seamers. ... About the Yuvraj and Sourav debate, I think that Yuvraj is a super ... I cannot see any rational reason why Sourav was ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Belief in Reincarnation is a Product of Evolution
    ... But when I'm bored I play whack-a- ... I see fear and clinging -- so when I see ... onto the idea without good reason because it comforts us. ... Nobody knows what they're doing. ...
    (talk.religion.buddhism)
  • Re: Steve Slaton and Patrick White: do they cancel for the Heisman?
    ... James Schrumpf wrote: ... And please let's do keep in mind that the only reason the Sugar ... That's only because they are askairt to play them in the regular ... make any more money than playing pretty much anywhere else. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: New Orleans, The part that pisses me off about it...
    ... >clear "proof" of the lies. ... the game, but you're not even on the court. ... You won't play at all. ... there is a particular reason that I framed my request the way I ...
    (rec.arts.marching.drumcorps)
  • Re: You Californians...
    ... Is the arthritis the reason for the interest in the bass guitar? ... The Strat is worth some bucks, so I generally don't play it - same ... Thus, switching over to bass. ... You'll also utilize less fingers most of the time, so it may not give you ...
    (rec.boats)