[Eddy]

I don't think Rahane and Pujara have a shot here, maybe only after Kohli, Rohit, Raina and Yuvraj. The last 2 will be tested again after the big 3 leave.

Raina maybe, but Yuvraj ? I doubt. The fact that they dropped him only after 2 tests here sends a clear signal. Plus he's got his fitness problems.

Pujara will play in the Ranji trophy in Dec after injury. If he scores heavily, he moves ahead in the pecking order me thinks. And Rahane has already impressed everyone.

[esteem_lover]

Selection committee will change after sometime, cannot be too sure what the next chairman will believe in.

[lloydofcochin]

I feel that the current crop of young Cricketers don't consider Test Matches as the pinnacle of Cricket.

IMHO the young brigade is not yet read to take over the mantle from the big 3 but the potential is surely there and for India to do well in Tests in the future years it needs to be harnessed the right way.

I see promise in players like Rohit Sharma (Awesome talent but lacks consistency & seems to be lazy), Virat Kohli (A trier & fighter), Pujara (Orthodox & has a good technique), Suresh Raina (Talented, Has a good cricketing brain but the technique needs to be worked upon)

I feel that the board needs to have a plan for a pool of 20-25 players under a passionate, astute & committed high performance coach who can mentor them and keep them ready for the international stage. We surely don't need another Kambli & we don't need another Munaf Patel either

The selection committee needs to have consistency and should ensure that ample chances & confidence is given to a new player to succeed.

And the stupid BCCI would be better off without scheduling some meaningless ODI's & 20-20's.

It was really sad that our players could not really soak in that magnificent WC victory but had to start padding up for the IPL tamasha. I for one felt that the Team should have been given an open top bus parade in all the major cities to celebrate our WC victory after 28 long years

[suhaas307]

Any views on DRS and it's pros and cons? Do you think the BCCI should step-down from their high-horse and implement DRS in our Cricket? I think it's a great idea. Yes, it's not fool-proof and is not 100% accurate. But that's like saying, "what's the point in wearing pads and gloves when Cricketers get hurt anyway?"

Now I've noticed, over a period of months, that BCCI is staunch and adamant regarding their decision to ban DRS for matches concerning India. The ban is so strong that they have shelved the entire hawk-eye setup and don't even show replays of hawk-eye predictions after LBW appeals.

A bit harsh, maybe?

I like hawk-eye. And it helps the lay-man understand the intricacies of LBW decisions and appeals.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

Perhaps if he improves his technique and concentration. Actually, I'd say his technique is pretty good. He drives the ball really well, and like most good Indian batsmen, he's good on his pads too. And he isn't particularly afraid of the short-ball.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

But Kohli, on the other hand, has awesome technique. If you watch him closely, he plays proper Cricketing shots. He doesn't slog as much as the slam-bang variety that Raina and Dhoni clearly belong to.

That said, even Yuvraj has great technique, and can time the ball brilliantly too. But he hasn't really succeeded at test-match level.

I am not sure you understand what technique means. There is far far more to technique than shots & timing. This is the first time in my life I have heard anyone say that Yuvraj has great technique - I don't think he has any technique - let alone great technique.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by carboy

I am not sure you understand what technique means. There is far far more to technique than shots & timing. This is the first time in my life I have heard anyone say that Yuvraj has great technique - I don't think he has any technique - let alone great technique.

It's easy for people to sit in front a computer screen and criticize sports-men on their technique.

You obviously know nothing about technique. I'm not a great Yuvraj fan or anything, but are you saying that the 10k runs (test +ODI) that he has amassed was achieved without any technique at all? He might be an ODI specialist. Does that mean he's the slam-bang variety and is not fit for Cricket?

To play a good Cricketing shot, you NEED technique. It's a fact. And as far as I remember, Yuvraj has played several Cricketing shots over the 8-10 years he's been around. Every batsman who finds his way into the International scene needs to have some technique.

He is fluent at shot-making and a good Cricketer with a great heart.

Yes, he's not perfect, by any stretch of imagination. He is patchy, in terms of form. And doesn't convert starts into big scores too often But to say that he has NO technique is being overly critical and excessively harsh.

If he lacked technique, he wouldn't have been able to score that gritty 60 on English soil a few months ago, despite suffering from his lung infection.

When it comes to batting, I believe that the only players who lack technique are those who come in at No. 9, 10 and 11. They are in the team, for a different reason.

Going by what you say, then, the only Indian Cricketers who have technique are Sachin, Dravid and Laxman.

Technique is not about text-book playing and text-book shots. Technique is the ability to apply yourself while batting, in various conditions, and the ability to pick the ball and choose the correct shot, and watch out for the deliveries that might potentially get you out.

Dhoni has technique. Perhaps not the same kind of technique that the great three have. But it's his own technique. The use of bottom-hand is his technique. His shots might look awkward, but he gets the result at the end of the day. It may not be orthodox and authentic Cricket, but with time, every game evolves, and players evolve too.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

It's easy for people to sit in front a computer screen and criticize sports-men on their technique.

Yes. What's your point?
I am pretty sure it's as easy to sit in front of the computer screen and praise sportsmen on their technique.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

You obviously know nothing about technique. I'm not a great Yuvraj fan or anything, but are you saying that the 10k runs (test +ODI) that he has amassed was achieved without any technique at all? He might be an ODI specialist. Does that mean he's the slam-bang variety and is not fit for Cricket?

To play a good Cricketing shot, you NEED technique. It's a fact. And as far as I remember, Yuvraj has played several Cricketing shots over the 8-10 years he's been around. Every batsman who finds his way into the International scene needs to have some technique.

The basics of technique is a solid defense. Sachin used to bat with a very strike rate when he was young, but he always had a very solid defense. The next thing in good technique is know what balls to play & what balls to leave.

I don't see these things in Yuvraj or Raina.
If you want to define good technique as just the ability to play good strokes along the ground with good timing, then sure Yuvraj has great technique.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

He is fluent at shot-making

Yes, he is.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

and a good Cricketer with a great heart.

And I am sure that's a very good thing for his friends and family.

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by carboy

I am not sure you understand what technique means. There is far far more to technique than shots & timing. This is the first time in my life I have heard anyone say that Yuvraj has great technique - I don't think he has any technique - let alone great technique.

Technique or no technique, one thing Yuvraj is blessed with is talent in abundance. As a batsman he is better than all the guys in your best 5 list (sangakkara, tinker bell, kallis etc). His problem is concentration (he has been distracted too much by all the fame and star status he has aquired. he is more into the other two "Cs" now i.e Cars and chicks than the third one i.e Cricket).

There is no shortage of such examples of sportstars who were tremendously gifted but wasted their careers. George Best was one, in football. He went after parties and miss worlds (if he had concentrated on his career, he would have been known as the best, and not just for his name!)

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by carboy

Yes. What's your point?
I am pretty sure it's as easy to sit in front of the computer screen and praise sportsmen on their technique.

I was just going by facts & figures, Sir.

But being overly critical of someone who has struggled and managed to achieve a lot in the game is something I'm not able to understand. Have you played 1st-Class Cricket, or scored centuries for your Country?

I'm not trying to be condescending here. I hope you understand, that the man has achieved a lot, and yet he receives so much flak from people who haven't played the game on an international level. Do they know how difficult it is?

And how can we come to a conclusion that Yuvraj, Kohli, Raina, etc are not 'interested' or 'don't-know-the-value' of a test-cap? We're not related to them. And it's every Cricketer's dream to be a good test-match player, even if he isn't cut out to be. So why snub them off like that? It's not like we have played 100 matches and 200 innings to be able to comment on someone's technique, or rather, the lack of it.

Originally Posted by carboy

The basics of technique is a solid defense. Sachin used to bat with a very strike rate when he was young, but he always had a very solid defense. The next thing in good technique is know what balls to play & what balls to leave.

I don't see these things in Yuvraj or Raina.
If you want to define good technique as just the ability to play good strokes along the ground with good timing, then sure Yuvraj has great technique.

See, at the end of the day, a Cricketer has to play according to his strengths. He might be strong off the back-foot, or he might be strong off the front-foot. Yuvraj is a naturally aggressive player. And for an aggressive player, I believe that he has good technique. And Sachin and Dravid both have excellent technique too, but they are not naturally aggressive. At least not Dravid, on most occasions.

Yuvraj's strength is his natural aggressiveness. There is nothing wrong with being naturally aggressive, even if it's test-Cricket. Virender Sehwag has seen quite a lot of success in test-match Cricket, despite having a very poor defense. The same goes for plenty of other aggressive players.

Thing is, if everyone plays with what you call 'technique', the game of Cricket would be very boring, and almost predictable. It's a good thing that there are different kind of batsmen who employ different kinds of techniques and styles to their batting. Like I said, playing to one's strength.

Please don't take this the wrong way. But give credit, where credit is due. Instead of lambasting players like Yuvraj and Kohli, who would have probably struggled to make it to where they are.

[PPS]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

I really want Kohli to do well. He is a great Cricketer. He is a good batsman, who needs to control his temper and play with a cool head. He tends to get carried away in the scheme of things, which is never a good sign.

Great ?? I'm sure that was a typo! Sure he does have the makings to be a great player but he still has a long way to go before that. You have correctly listed out the faults in him. He should not be satisfied with 50's & 60's, he should aim for bigger scores to cement his place in the test team.

Originally Posted by carboy

The basics of technique is a solid defense. Sachin used to bat with a very strike rate when he was young, but he always had a very solid defense. The next thing in good technique is know what balls to play & what balls to leave.

Technique is very important but one should not to be too obsessed with it and forget to score runs. Just look at Sehwag, i think it is safe to call him a great test cricketer, he does not have the greatest technique + average footwork, he basically relies on good hand eye co-ordination to score runs.
Apart from Dravid i do not think we have anyone in the team who can save a match!

[carboy]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

But being overly critical of someone who has struggled and managed to achieve a lot in the game is something I'm not able to understand. Have you played 1st-Class Cricket, or scored centuries for your Country?
I'm not trying to be condescending here. I hope you understand, that the man has achieved a lot, and yet he receives so much flak from people who haven't played the game on an international level. Do they know how difficult it is?

Ok, I agree that compared to be Yuvraj has far better technique, talent & anything else you want. I am not sure I ever disputed that.

Also, from now on, I will remember that if I want to criticize a movie, I would have to first make a movie myself. If I want to criticize a car, I will first have to make a car myself.

Originally Posted by suhaas307

And how can we come to a conclusion that Yuvraj, Kohli, Raina, etc are not 'interested' or 'don't-know-the-value' of a test-cap? We're not related to them.

I never came to that conclusion at all. I think they all want to be test players & know the value, but they aren't good enough for it (IMHO).

Originally Posted by suhaas307

And Sachin and Dravid both have excellent technique too, but they are not naturally aggressive. At least not Dravid, on most occasions.

I assume you started watching Sachin from the early 2000's (or at best the very late 90). Sachin was one of the most aggressive batsman for the first 10 odd years of his career. I have watched Sachin in the late 80's - when he hit those sixers off Qadir in the friendly match.) He was as aggressive as Yuvraj - the difference being Sachin had sound defensive technique then also. Same goes with Lara.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by PPS

Great ?? I'm sure that was a typo! Sure he does have the makings to be a great player but he still has a long way to go before that. You have correctly listed out the faults in him. He should not be satisfied with 50's & 60's, he should aim for bigger scores to cement his place in the test team.

When I said, "he's a great Cricketer" I obviously did not mean he's one of the greats. There is a long way to go, for him to achieve that status. He is indeed a great 'Cricketer'. Which means, he plays well, as a batsman and a as a fielder. He requires more experience and strong backing from the big-guns. He should be privileged to be playing alongside the greats of the game.

Originally Posted by PPS

Apart from Dravid i do not think we have anyone in the team who can save a match!

I think Gambhir can save a test-match for us. Yes, he hasn't been consistent off late, but I remember, when he'd hit a purple-patch a year or so ago, he saved a test-match against NZ, on NZ soil. A match that looked like we would lose. I think he scored a century that innings and dug himself in, and faced close to 400 balls?!

Gambhir can do it. And so can Sachin, and Laxman, of course!

Originally Posted by carboy

Ok, I agree that compared to be Yuvraj has far better technique, talent & anything else you want. I am not sure I ever disputed that.

Also, from now on, I will remember that if I want to criticize a movie, I would have to first make a movie myself. If I want to criticize a car, I will first have to make a car myself.

Constructive criticism is fine, and is always appreciated. But you just wrote him off. Just like that. I found nothing constructive about that.

Originally Posted by carboy

I never came to that conclusion at all. I think they all want to be test players & know the value, but they aren't good enough for it (IMHO).

I agree. They are not good test players. But, they can be.

Originally Posted by carboy

I assume you started watching Sachin from the early 2000's (or at best the very late 90). Sachin was one of the most aggressive batsman for the first 10 odd years of his career. I have watched Sachin in the late 80's - when he hit those sixers off Qadir in the friendly match.) He was as aggressive as Yuvraj - the difference being Sachin had sound defensive technique then also. Same goes with Lara.

I've been following the game ever since I was 3 years old (early '90s). I watched it with my late Grandpa very religiously. He was an ardent Sachin fan, and he turned me into one too. Sachin was a naturally aggressive player. But the last time I saw him play aggressively was when he scored 200* against SA. His aggression has tonned down considerably later in 2005 and 2006, especially after a spate of injuries.

EDIT: Oh, and Sachin & Yuvraj. No comparison there.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

I agree. They are not good test players. But, they can be.

Too late for Yuvraj, I think. He has spent 10+ years in international cricket. If he had to improve, he would have by now.
Raina & Kohli - sure, they can improve - but they would have to work very hard at it. Amla did it. When Amla first played test cricket, he looked like a sitting duck - now he is pretty good. For that Kohli & Raina would need the kind of work ethic Sachin & Dravid have.

There are a lot of foreign players also who I think won't cut it in test matches without a lot of improvement. For eg. Phil Hughes, Jean Paul Duminy etc - inspite of exellent shot making ability, hand eye co-ordination, timing etc.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by carboy

Too late for Yuvraj, I think. He has spent 10+ years in international cricket. If he had to improve, he would have by now.
Raina & Kohli - sure, they can improve - but they would have to work very hard at it. Amla did it. When Amla first played test cricket, he looked like a sitting duck - now he is pretty good. For that Kohli & Raina would need the kind of work ethic Sachin & Dravid have.

There are a lot of foreign players also who I think won't cut it in test matches without a lot of improvement. For eg. Phil Hughes, Jean Paul Duminy etc - inspite of exellent shot making ability, hand eye co-ordination, timing etc.

It's never too late, Sir.

Yuvraj is just 30. He still has another 5 years or so left in him. I hope he recovers from his lung-tumor as quickly as possible, and is back in action. The onus lies with him now, to prove that he is a worthy candidate for test-Cricket. And if his claim of wanting to cement his place in the test-side is to be believed, he will push for it. Some sportsmen make phenomenal come-backs. Sehwag and Amla are examples.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

Some sportsmen make phenomenal come-backs. Sehwag and Amla are examples.

I don't consider Sehwag as a comeback in Test Cricket. Sehwag was dropped from the test team because he had a lean patch in ODI cricket. If you check his records only in tests, he never did bad enough to be dropped from the test team, but he was. He was always an ordinary ODI player, so the lean patch in ODIs made him look really bad.