Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Outsider

Please drop Pandya to maintain Test cricket’s sanctity.

Pandya is the next......  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. Pandya is the next.........



Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

We don't need a Kapil Dev. We need a Symonds type batsman who can bowl a bit which Pandya does.

 

Regarding defense, you must have missed his batting in second innings. It was assured as Kohli's.

Who said we don't need Kapil Dev and also Pandya is nowhere near Symonds as a batsman. Symonds without his problems was a real  asset.

Edited by putrevus

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/24306809/the-heat-play-two-spinners-lords

 

Now Harbhajan also has come out and said that we need two spinners. He wants to drop Pandya and bring in Kuldeep. Good move. One mistake Harbhajan is making is that how much rest will Kuldeep provide to the main bowlers. I think ICF fans can have that as a metrics.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rightarmfast said:

Most of the fans are getting orgasmic at the fact that he can bowl sharp at times. However, hard decisions have to be taken if we want to be known as a tough opponent. And he doesnt merit a place in countries like England or new zealand. Its got to be horses for courses. 

In test cricket, one needs specialists. We need a pure batsman. Do we have one in standby at the moment, who we can trust upon? I am not certain of that, however I am certain that Pandya is not the answer. 

 

I checked regarding the conditions point that you mentioned.  This is how Ashwin, Bhuvi, Hardik and Jadeja have fared as a batsman in SA and England. Bhuvi is the best, Ashwin second best, Hardik 3rd whereas Jadeja is last.


1. Bhuvi has batting average of 33.66 in SA and 27.44 in England.

2. Ashwin has batting average of 21.60 in SA and 25.80 in England.

3. Hardik has batting average of 19.83 in SA and 26.50 in England.

4. Jadeja has batting average of 4 in SA and 22.12 in England

 

 

Now for the bowling, country-wise :

In first series against SL in India he had a good SR of 48.

However in second series in SA it sky rocketed to 102.  

In third series having one test versus Afghans he failed to take a wicket.

In the first test of the fourth series, he failed to take a wicket.

 

His contribution on SA tour was batting average of 19.83 runs per innings and 3 wickets in 3 tests  at bowling average of 54 and bowling SR of 102.

 

In last 2 test innings he has bowled he is wicket-less. No wickets even against Afghanistan and even against England in the match where conditions helped bowlers so much that 40 wickets fell in just over more than 3 days.

 

If one observes, Virat has given him 9 overs and 10 overs against Afghanistan and England respectively. being a bowler who more often than not has a very bad bowling SR, he fails to pick one in those many overs. Probably it seems that 9 or 10 overs is what Virat is reviewing his wicket returns. if he picks he might get more overs , if he doesn't pick wicket in 9 or 10, then thats all the bowling he gets it (it seems so). It's not the case that Virat does not has much faith, but then he probably does not wants to allow someone bowl without getting some returns in wickets column.

 

image.png.f047c749d8667c9d1562f0ed69ad6c47.png

 

 

 

Edited by Straight Drive

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Number said:

I am sort of ready to wait and see whether Pandya will be able to justify his place in the XI. Howewer I dont agree with this part. Our team of 2002-2010 did quite well with 6 batsmen and 3/2 pacers 1/2 spinners.

ATG Australia of 95-05 did well without an all rounder too.

We don't desperately need an AR. 6 solid batsmen with 4 proper bowlers( all of them wicket takers) are good enough for a team to do well.

 

Go back and check how many overs the likes of Tendulkar, Sehwag and even Ganguly contributed during that stage.  How many of you have completely forgotten that we played a poor man's Vijay Shankar - Sanjay Bangar - as a batsman in the famous series win in England?  He got the nod in the starting test XI, not because he was a great "specialist" batsman, but because he could contribute meaningful number of overs bowling seam-up as well.  

 

This conventional logic of "4 bowlers are good enough" doesn't hold up when you consider the make-up of our team, and the conditions we are playing in.  Sure, in India, where 2 specialist spinners are going to bowl 55 to 65 percent of the overs, its totally fine. But in England, the pacers have to bowl majority of the overs.  The team has to plan for a 100 over innings - even in the relatively low scoring Edgbaston test, how many overs did it take for us to dismiss England?  Sure Ashwin bowled a good chunk of overs, but you can't guarantee that your 4th bowler (spinner) will bowl more than 20 overs - at least not by optimal choice. 

 

If you pick only 4 bowlers, you are creating a situation where 3 pacers will have to bowl around 65 to 75 overs per innings.  Potentially more.  You want our pacers to adjust to new conditions, bowl at top attacking pace, AND also bowl a LOT more overs than they are used to, in test cricket?  Do you think they will be able to deliver quality as well as quantity? Its an unrealistic expectation to start with - and then we're surprised when the bowling unit ends up letting teams off the hook, and they allow a bunch of runs to be scored in the 2nd half of the innings instead of finishing things off.   Now on top of this obvious math - throw in the probability that one of the 3 pacers may be 'off-rhythm' at least at times.  What then?  The result is that you end up working your best bowlers into the ground. And they lose the effectiveness.  And at crucial turning points during a game, instead of having a badly needed attacking bowling option, you are forced to bowl defensively. 

 

So bottomline, we do desperately need a 5th bowler in the staring XI, when we are playing in conditions where we can't pick 2 specialist spinners who will bowl more 55-60% of the overs.  Its acceptable if the 15+ overs are contributed by the top 5, a 5th bowler, or a bits-and-pieces #6/7. 

 

And please don't forget, ultimately test matches are won by bowlers - because you need to take 20 wickets to win the game - this is not a LOI, where you can out-bat the opposition - apart from the occasional game, where a huge total can create scoreboard pressure against weaker teams.  That has historically been the only way India managed to win away tests - by batting big - which is not a high probability scenario in away conditions - hence our atrocious record as tourists.  

 

 

 

Edited by sandeep

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, The Outsider said:

Poal added and OP updated:

 

Sobers: Batting average - 58; Bowling average - 34 (2.5 Wickets per test)

Kapil: Batting average - 31; Bowling average - 29 (3.5 Wickets per test)

Flintoff: Batting average - 32; Bowling average - 33 (2.75 Wickets per test)

Watson: Batting average - 35; Bowling average - 34 (1.25 Wickets per test)

Shastri: Batting average - 36; Bowling average - 41 (1.9 Wickets per test)

Prabhakar: Batting average - 33; Bowling average - 37 (2.4 Wickets per test)

Abdul Razzaq: Batting average - 29; Bowling average - 37 (2.2 Wickets per test)

Madan Lal: Batting average - 23; Bowling average - 40 (1.8 Wickets per test)

Abid Ali: Batting average - 20; Bowling average - 42 (1.6 Wickets per test)

Ronnie Irani: Batting average - 17; Bowling average - 37 (1 Wicket per test)

 

I think Pandya will surpass Ronnie Irani and Abid Ali, but fall a bit short of Madan Lal, with a bit of role reversal in that Pandya's batting will be the relatively stronger suite.

I expect Pandya to be in the Razzaq/Prabhakar bucket, statistically speaking on the bowling side of things, and around Shastri's numbers with the bat.  If he can end up close to Shane Watson type numbers, nothing like it.  

 

And at the end of the day, its not solely about Pandya's individual statistics - as has been repeatedly pointed out on this thread, playing someone at #6/7 who can contribute 10 to 15% of the overs, especially when none of the top 5 can do that, has a qualitative impact on the efficacy of the bowling unit as a whole.  Pandya isn't an elite test allrounder, but he's the best we have.  And he's good enough that playing him is a reasonable option.  

Edited by sandeep

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, sandeep said:

Go back and check how many overs the likes of Tendulkar, Sehwag and even Ganguly contributed during that stage.  How many of you have completely forgotten that we played a poor man's Vijay Shankar - Sanjay Bangar - as a batsman in the famous series win in England?  He got the nod in the starting test XI, not because he was a great "specialist" batsman, but because he could contribute meaningful number of overs bowling seam-up as well.  

 

This conventional logic of "4 bowlers are good enough" doesn't hold up when you consider the make-up of our team, and the conditions we are playing in.  Sure, in India, where 2 specialist spinners are going to bowl 55 to 65 percent of the overs, its totally fine. But in England, the pacers have to bowl majority of the overs.  The team has to plan for a 100 over innings - even in the relatively low scoring Edgbaston test, how many overs did it take for us to dismiss England?  Sure Ashwin bowled a good chunk of overs, but you can't guarantee that your 4th bowler (spinner) will bowl more than more overs - at least not by optimal choice. 

 

If you pick only 4 bowlers, you are creating a situation where 3 pacers will have to bowl around 65 to 75 overs per innings.  Potentially more.  You want our pacers to adjust to new conditions, bowl at top attacking pace, AND also bowl a LOT more overs than they are used to, in test cricket?  Do you think they will be able to deliver quality as well as quantity? Its an unrealistic expectation to start with - and then we're surprised when the bowling unit ends up letting teams off the hook, and they allow a bunch of runs to be scored in the 2nd half of the innings instead of finishing things off.   Now on top of this obvious math - throw in the probability that one of the 3 pacers may be 'off-rhythm' at least at times.  What then?  The result is that you end up working your best bowlers into the ground. And they lose the effectiveness.  And at crucial turning points during a game, instead of having a badly needed attacking bowling option, you are forced to bowl defensively. 

 

So bottomline, we do desperately need a 5th bowler in the staring XI, when we are playing in conditions where we can't pick 2 specialist spinners who will bowl more 55-60% of the overs.  Its acceptable if the 15+ overs are contributed by the top 5, a 5th bowler, or a bits-and-pieces #6/7. 

 

And please don't forget, ultimately test matches are won by bowlers - because you need to take 20 wickets to win the game - this is not a LOI, where you can out-bat the opposition - apart from the occasional game, where a huge total can create scoreboard pressure against weaker teams.  That has historically been the only way India managed to win away tests - by batting big - which is not a high probability scenario in away conditions - hence our atrocious record as tourists.  

 

 

 

Now go back and see how many of these players were played mainly to open the batting in NZ, Eng, Aus or SA. As opposed to someone who doesn't contribute much with the bat and is just a relief bowler i.e. not supposed to take any wickets! PP, DK, Pathan and many of the other A/R contestants were made to open the batting. They would however contribute in other disciplines, where they were specialists, Pandya is neither a top 6 bat nor top 5 bowler!

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Go back and check how many overs the likes of Tendulkar, Sehwag and even Ganguly contributed during that stage.  How many of you have completely forgotten that we played a poor man's Vijay Shankar - Sanjay Bangar - as a batsman in the famous series win in England?  He got the nod in the starting test XI, not because he was a great "specialist" batsman, but because he could contribute meaningful number of overs bowling seam-up as well.  

 

This conventional logic of "4 bowlers are good enough" doesn't hold up when you consider the make-up of our team, and the conditions we are playing in.  Sure, in India, where 2 specialist spinners are going to bowl 55 to 65 percent of the overs, its totally fine. But in England, the pacers have to bowl majority of the overs.  The team has to plan for a 100 over innings - even in the relatively low scoring Edgbaston test, how many overs did it take for us to dismiss England?  Sure Ashwin bowled a good chunk of overs, but you can't guarantee that your 4th bowler (spinner) will bowl more than more overs - at least not by optimal choice. 

 

If you pick only 4 bowlers, you are creating a situation where 3 pacers will have to bowl around 65 to 75 overs per innings.  Potentially more.  You want our pacers to adjust to new conditions, bowl at top attacking pace, AND also bowl a LOT more overs than they are used to, in test cricket?  Do you think they will be able to deliver quality as well as quantity? Its an unrealistic expectation to start with - and then we're surprised when the bowling unit ends up letting teams off the hook, and they allow a bunch of runs to be scored in the 2nd half of the innings instead of finishing things off.   Now on top of this obvious math - throw in the probability that one of the 3 pacers may be 'off-rhythm' at least at times.  What then?  The result is that you end up working your best bowlers into the ground. And they lose the effectiveness.  And at crucial turning points during a game, instead of having a badly needed attacking bowling option, you are forced to bowl defensively. 

 

So bottomline, we do desperately need a 5th bowler in the staring XI, when we are playing in conditions where we can't pick 2 specialist spinners who will bowl more 55-60% of the overs.  Its acceptable if the 15+ overs are contributed by the top 5, a 5th bowler, or a bits-and-pieces #6/7. 

 

And please don't forget, ultimately test matches are won by bowlers - because you need to take 20 wickets to win the game - this is not a LOI, where you can out-bat the opposition - apart from the occasional game, where a huge total can create scoreboard pressure against weaker teams.  That has historically been the only way India managed to win away tests - by batting big - which is not a high probability scenario in away conditions - hence our atrocious record as tourists.  

 

 

 

Such a long post but missing the key point. Sanjay Bangar opened the innings. It wasnt just because of his bowling. And he did a damn good job of it! Btw, in the match, we played only 2 genuine speedsters, Agarkar and Zaheer. Bangar was the 3rd dibbly dobbly bowler who did an outstanding job, something that Pandya cant even dream of. Please check your facts bro. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Bhuvi is much better batsman than Hardik in tougher conditions who balances the team more than Hardik Pandya, in England as well as in SA. Regarding bowling there is no comparison between Bhuvi and Hardik. Ashwin too is a much better batsman in tough batting conditions. It is our bad luck that Bhuvi is unavailable for this crucial overseas series. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, GautiMaan said:

Something about Pandya is irking the posters here and I'm not sure it's his cricketing pedigree or lack thereof

 

If Pandya is as bad as you think then Test Cricket will expose him just like Binny, Raina and others before.Right now we have bigger problems like how technically correct batsmen with forward defence can't score half the runs as Pandya

 

So true 

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

Now go back and see how many of these players were played mainly to open the batting in NZ, Eng, Aus or SA. As opposed to someone who doesn't contribute much with the bat and is just a relief bowler i.e. not supposed to take any wickets! PP, DK, Pathan and many of the other A/R contestants were made to open the batting. They would however contribute in other disciplines, where they were specialists, Pandya is neither a top 6 bat nor top 5 bowler!

Do we have any bowling contributions from our top 5 right now?  If we did, then there wouldn't be a need for a Pandya in the XI.  And let me reiterate - if Bhuvi was around, we would have Karthik, Ash and Bhuvi and 6,7 and 8, and I wouldn't want Pandya in the XI then.  

 

 

37 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

Such a long post but missing the key point. Sanjay Bangar opened the innings. It wasnt just because of his bowling. And he did a damn good job of it! Btw, in the match, we played only 2 genuine speedsters, Agarkar and Zaheer. Bangar was the 3rd dibbly dobbly bowler who did an outstanding job, something that Pandya cant even dream of. Please check your facts bro. 

 

Are you claiming that Pandya is a worse batsman than Sanjay Bangar?  Bangar was a makeshift opener, who contributed one good innings - a crucial one at that.  Let's call a spade a spade.  Again you are falling into the trap of head-to-head individual comparisons, when my point is about how Pandya's presence in the team makes the XI a stronger unit.  

 

Share this post


Link to post

I think the OP was referring to H Pandya overall as a test allrounder in longer term and not about this series. 

In this series, Pandya deserves his chances to prove himself as we have Bhuvi injured and no proper number 6 option too ( yes there is Nair but do you want him ahead of Pandya is a question of its own). 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Go back and check how many overs the likes of Tendulkar, Sehwag and even Ganguly contributed during that stage.  How many of you have completely forgotten that we played a poor man's Vijay Shankar - Sanjay Bangar - as a batsman in the famous series win in England?  He got the nod in the starting test XI, not because he was a great "specialist" batsman, but because he could contribute meaningful number of overs bowling seam-up as well.  

 

This conventional logic of "4 bowlers are good enough" doesn't hold up when you consider the make-up of our team, and the conditions we are playing in.  Sure, in India, where 2 specialist spinners are going to bowl 55 to 65 percent of the overs, its totally fine. But in England, the pacers have to bowl majority of the overs.  The team has to plan for a 100 over innings - even in the relatively low scoring Edgbaston test, how many overs did it take for us to dismiss England?  Sure Ashwin bowled a good chunk of overs, but you can't guarantee that your 4th bowler (spinner) will bowl more than 20 overs - at least not by optimal choice. 

 

If you pick only 4 bowlers, you are creating a situation where 3 pacers will have to bowl around 65 to 75 overs per innings.  Potentially more.  You want our pacers to adjust to new conditions, bowl at top attacking pace, AND also bowl a LOT more overs than they are used to, in test cricket?  Do you think they will be able to deliver quality as well as quantity? Its an unrealistic expectation to start with - and then we're surprised when the bowling unit ends up letting teams off the hook, and they allow a bunch of runs to be scored in the 2nd half of the innings instead of finishing things off.   Now on top of this obvious math - throw in the probability that one of the 3 pacers may be 'off-rhythm' at least at times.  What then?  The result is that you end up working your best bowlers into the ground. And they lose the effectiveness.  And at crucial turning points during a game, instead of having a badly needed attacking bowling option, you are forced to bowl defensively. 

 

So bottomline, we do desperately need a 5th bowler in the staring XI, when we are playing in conditions where we can't pick 2 specialist spinners who will bowl more 55-60% of the overs.  Its acceptable if the 15+ overs are contributed by the top 5, a 5th bowler, or a bits-and-pieces #6/7. 

 

And please don't forget, ultimately test matches are won by bowlers - because you need to take 20 wickets to win the game - this is not a LOI, where you can out-bat the opposition - apart from the occasional game, where a huge total can create scoreboard pressure against weaker teams.  That has historically been the only way India managed to win away tests - by batting big - which is not a high probability scenario in away conditions - hence our atrocious record as tourists.  

 

 

 

I actually checked number of overs bowled by Ganguly SRT and Viru in SENA+WI in 2002-2010.

It comes out Ganguly ~3.5 overs per match, SRT ~5 overs per match, Viru ~7 overs per match.

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, sandeep said:

Just saw this, and have to call out a false causation.  England could afford to drop Mo because they already had 2 bonafide stud allrounders in Stokes and Bairstow.  If England had Ben Foakes keeping wicket for them, and no Stokes, you'd bet your bottom Pound that they would fit Moeen Ali in their XI.  At Lords, they are likely to, in spite of Sam Curran and Chris Woakes offering plenty of batting depth in the XI.  

You haven't understood my post. In the last Ashes England kept playing Moeen Ali as their specialist spinner due to his "allround abilities" even though the pitches did have some help for the spinners and Lyon was absolutely brilliant.

 

Moeen was not good enough against shortpitch bowling,so him coming in after 4 or 5 down meant,Aus smelt blood to run through the lower order. His bowling was toothless. England could have benefited with a good batsman as it was their batting that let them down on most occasions. 

 

If Ali is the best pure spinner in England than firstly god help them but that also busts the myth about Pandya's utility because Pandya is neither the best bat in our country deserving of a slot nor he is the best seam/pace bowler.

 

Once again bits and pieces players don't fit in the scheme of test cricket. Just because Pandya bowls 5 clicks faster than Binny doesn't absolve him of the bits and pieces tag at the moment. As a bat Binny has better FC record as well. Now that doesn't mean we need to play Binny,it means both are crap.

Edited by Global.Baba

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sandeep said:

I expect Pandya to be in the Razzaq/Prabhakar bucket, statistically speaking on the bowling side of things, and around Shastri's numbers with the bat.  If he can end up close to Shane Watson type numbers, nothing like it.  

 

And at the end of the day, its not solely about Pandya's individual statistics - as has been repeatedly pointed out on this thread, playing someone at #6/7 who can contribute 10 to 15% of the overs, especially when none of the top 5 can do that, has a qualitative impact on the efficacy of the bowling unit as a whole.  Pandya isn't an elite test allrounder, but he's the best we have.  And he's good enough that playing him is a reasonable option.  

I don’t understand what you or others with similar views see in his bowling or his First Class record to indicate he can pick up 2+ wickets in a match at an average of less than 40. 

 

And neither her so I see anything to suggest he can score centuries away from home, like Shastri did, against extremely good attacks. Or even bat up the order, making solid contributions.

 

This entire thought of resting bowlers for innocuous bowling at the expense of weakening the batting line up doesn’t add up. India’s best period in test matches was arguably between the 2006 WI tour till the 2011 WI tour, inclusive. By that time, Tendulkar and Ganguly hardly used to bowl. And Tendulkar had practically given up bowling any seam up by then. Sehwag was the only regular part timer and he was used mainly in India. 

 

Regarding your point about Bangar, he was never included to be a fifth bowling option. India was desperately looking for openers, and he was one of the options tried out after Das, then followed by Chopra, Yuvraj, Gambhir, Jaffer, and Karthik till finally Gambhir made a comeback to become a regular feature. 

 

And Bangar did equally well or better than Pandya in fact, considering he was opening the innings. Probably the only series he really failed in was the one on the NZ wonderbras where no one except Tendulkar or Dravid was able to put bat to ball. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Do we have any bowling contributions from our top 5 right now?  If we did, then there wouldn't be a need for a Pandya in the XI.  And let me reiterate - if Bhuvi was around, we would have Karthik, Ash and Bhuvi and 6,7 and 8, and I wouldn't want Pandya in the XI then.  

 

 

Are you claiming that Pandya is a worse batsman than Sanjay Bangar?  Bangar was a makeshift opener, who contributed one good innings - a crucial one at that.  Let's call a spade a spade.  Again you are falling into the trap of head-to-head individual comparisons, when my point is about how Pandya's presence in the team makes the XI a stronger unit.  

 

Thats exactly what I am trying to say. Bangar was a fighter, he didn't act all macho off field. He showed it with his performance on field. Theres definitely no comparisons between Bangar and Pandya.

Share this post


Link to post

At the moment, this is an unnecessary discussion as I have pointed out before as well that Ind has more problems to worry about than Pandya, who, unlike some folks in the team, is not even a problem as he is contributing in some way and among the rare prospects for Ind cricket 

 

There is also a discussion on "Pandya is the next" when Pandya can just be Pandya. Other error is to evaluate a work-in-progress with a finished product. I won't be surprised if some of the guys opposing Pandya where the same ones who though Sehwag would not be successful in test for example, .... 

 

Indian 11 has usually benefitted from unusual players such as Kapil, Sehwag and Dhoni. I hope that Pandya can continue the tradition 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

Thats exactly what I am trying to say. Bangar was a fighter, he didn't act all macho off field. He showed it with his performance on field. Theres definitely no comparisons between Bangar and Pandya.

Its quite obvious what are your reasons for 'disliking' Pandya.  And they don't have much to do with cricket.

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

I don’t understand what you or others with similar views see in his bowling or his First Class record to indicate he can pick up 2+ wickets in a match at an average of less than 40. 

 

And neither her so I see anything to suggest he can score centuries away from home, like Shastri did, against extremely good attacks. Or even bat up the order, making solid contributions.

 

This entire thought of resting bowlers for innocuous bowling at the expense of weakening the batting line up doesn’t add up. India’s best period in test matches was arguably between the 2006 WI tour till the 2011 WI tour, inclusive. By that time, Tendulkar and Ganguly hardly used to bowl. And Tendulkar had practically given up bowling any seam up by then. Sehwag was the only regular part timer and he was used mainly in India. 

 

Regarding your point about Bangar, he was never included to be a fifth bowling option. India was desperately looking for openers, and he was one of the options tried out after Das, then followed by Chopra, Yuvraj, Gambhir, Jaffer, and Karthik till finally Gambhir made a comeback to become a regular feature. 

 

And Bangar did equally well or better than Pandya in fact, considering he was opening the innings. Probably the only series he really failed in was the one on the NZ wonderbras where no one except Tendulkar or Dravid was able to put bat to ball. 

Do you think Shane Watson was some brilliant test match bowler?  How do you think he ended up with his bowling stats?  Because bowlers individual stats can be misleading.  If a bowling unit is doing well, the 3rd, 4th and 5th bowlers will end up with much better statistics than they actually deserve, and vice versa.  Its a bit of an optimistic projection, and a hopeful one - but I believe that the Indian team at the moment, and in the upcoming few years, have enough quality and depth in their bowling unit, that Pandya's individual numbers will benefit from that.  Another example - think back to the previous Indian tour to England, when Moeen effing Ali ended up taking a bagful of wickets.  No disrespect to Mo, but do you really think he's a quality frontline test calibre spinner?  He ended up with a bunch of wickets because the Indian batsmen were put under pressure by the rest of the bowling unit, and they took risks against him. 

 

There's no reason why Pandya's bowling numbers can't benefit from such an effect either.  And he's a developing bowler, he's shown enough evidence of possessing the basic pre-requisites, as well as an improvement arc as a bowler.  The guy has enough pace to be effective, he has shown he can get the ball to move.  His bowling numbers may not be up there, but given a strong enough team set-up, a willingness to learn and work hard - which he has demonstrated, the potential is there.  And it is worth exploring and investing in.  

 

On the question of Veeru/Tendy/Gangu bowling - I disagree - I will be responding to someone else who's posted cumulative bowling stats for those guys. I'll keep my powder dry for that on this point.  

 

And on Sanjay Bangar - are you honestly arguing that Bangar was chosen only due to his batting? in good faith? Seriously?  He was a make-shift opener who was slotted in at the top as a sacrificial lamb to see off the new ball to the best of his capacity.  If he was considered a decent enough opener, why wasn't he given further chances?  Its because he was a 'horses for courses' pick with very limited value, and low ceiling.  I'm not claiming that Pandya has proven himself to be better than him already - but the promise is there.  It exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Number said:

So, even if we use your numbers - we end up with a total of 15.5 overs per match.  If we play with 4 bowlers and bench Pandya, where are those 15+ overs coming from?  Add Umesh's inconsistency (or Shami's) - and what are we left with? A handicapped bowling attack that will end up over-using the better bowlers and rendering them toothless by their 3rd and 4th spells.  

 

Also, the fact that we didn't have viable options for that 5th bowler role skews those numbers quite a bit. If we had a decent allrounder available for selection, we may well have picked him and used him quite a bit.  The fact that we resorted to using the friendly offerings of Sanjay Bangar, for 21 overs per test match, says something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, sandeep said:

So, even if we use your numbers - we end up with a total of 15.5 overs per match.  If we play with 4 bowlers and bench Pandya, where are those 15+ overs coming from?  Add Umesh's inconsistency (or Shami's) - and what are we left with? A handicapped bowling attack that will end up over-using the better bowlers and rendering them toothless by their 3rd and 4th spells.  

 

Also, the fact that we didn't have viable options for that 5th bowler role skews those numbers quite a bit. If we had a decent allrounder available for selection, we may well have picked him and used him quite a bit.  The fact that we resorted to using the friendly offerings of Sanjay Bangar, for 21 overs per test match, says something. 

Wow, so the 3rd best ranked test bowler is useless now? He's been in the top 5 for what 2 years, top 3 for about a year? If Ashwin can do well in England after his horrendous run of away tours last time, why can't Jadeja?

Edited by R!TTER

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Global.Baba said:

You haven't understood my post. In the last Ashes England kept playing Moeen Ali as their specialist spinner due to his "allround abilities" even though the pitches did have some help for the spinners and Lyon was absolutely brilliant.

 

Moeen was not good enough against shortpitch bowling,so him coming in after 4 or 5 down meant,Aus smelt blood to run through the lower order. His bowling was toothless. England could have benefited with a good batsman as it was their batting that let them down on most occasions. 

 

If Ali is the best pure spinner in England than firstly god help them but that also busts the myth about Pandya's utility because Pandya is neither the best bat in our country deserving of a slot nor he is the best seam/pace bowler.

 

Once again bits and pieces players don't fit in the scheme of test cricket. Just because Pandya bowls 5 clicks faster than Binny doesn't absolve him of the bits and pieces tag at the moment. As a bat Binny has better FC record as well. Now that doesn't mean we need to play Binny,it means both are crap.

And you have totally missed my point.  Nowhere am I claiming that Pandya is a top-class test cricketer.  My point is that in conditions where were deliberately designed to nullify Jadeja/Kuldeep, he offers the team a legitimate option.  

 

I'll repeat it again, my choice of the XI for T1 did not have Pandya in it - I would have gone for a bowler instead. But even if I disagree with the decision of picking Pandya, I can appreciate the logical merit of the pick.  That's my point.  

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Its quite obvious what are your reasons for 'disliking' Pandya.  And they don't have much to do with cricket.

Care to explain the reason for me disliking Pandya? You seem to know more about me, than I do. btw, do care to compare Bangar's and Pandya's first class records too, not just international cricket. Will give you some indication of the difference of quality between the 2. Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, R!TTER said:

Wow, so the 3rd best ranked test bowler is useless now? He';s been in the top 5 for what 2 years, top 3 for about a year? If Ashwin can do well in England after his horrendous run of away tours last time ,why can't Jadeja?

Please read my posts before misunderstanding and asking questions that have already been answered.  I would have picked Jadeja instead of Pandya for T1 - and posted as much before the match started, and after Pandya was picked.  And, I'm leaning towards swapping him out for Kuldeep for T2.  

 

IMHO, Pandya needed to score 70-odd with the bat, and chip in with a wicket or 2 to justify his selection. I might even have posted this exact sentence during the 1st session on Day 1.  But even though his results don't reflect those numbers - he showed enough on either side of the ball, to justify the logic behind the decision.  Even quality players go wicket-less some times, or fail to score runs - you can't just use scorecards to evaluate a player.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Rightarmfast said:

Care to explain the reason for me disliking Pandya? You seem to know more about me, than I do. btw, do care to compare Bangar's and Pandya's first class records too, not just international cricket. Will give you some indication of the difference of quality between the 2. Cheers!

 

See your words below:

 

Quote

Bangar was a fighter, he didn't act all macho off field. He showed it with his performance on field. Theres definitely no comparisons between Bangar and Pandya

 

No disrespect to Bangar, I have a lot of love, respect and admiration for his efforts and contributions to Indian cricket - as a player and a coach.  Bangar was a severely limited player with the bat, ball or in the field.  Pandya is demonstrably better than him in all 3 facets of cricket. 

 

I'm not a fan of show-boating and happen to think quite negatively of Pandya's off-field choices.  I don't even like Virat's antics on the field to be honest.  But if you are unable to look past that fluff, and evaluate Pandya dispassionately as a cricket prospect, and what he can do on the field, then its your issue.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Do you think Shane Watson was some brilliant test match bowler?  How do you think he ended up with his bowling stats?  Because bowlers individual stats can be misleading.  If a bowling unit is doing well, the 3rd, 4th and 5th bowlers will end up with much better statistics than they actually deserve, and vice versa.  Its a bit of an optimistic projection, and a hopeful one - but I believe that the Indian team at the moment, and in the upcoming few years, have enough quality and depth in their bowling unit, that Pandya's individual numbers will benefit from that.  Another example - think back to the previous Indian tour to England, when Moeen effing Ali ended up taking a bagful of wickets.  No disrespect to Mo, but do you really think he's a quality frontline test calibre spinner?  He ended up with a bunch of wickets because the Indian batsmen were put under pressure by the rest of the bowling unit, and they took risks against him. 

 

There's no reason why Pandya's bowling numbers can't benefit from such an effect either.  And he's a developing bowler, he's shown enough evidence of possessing the basic pre-requisites, as well as an improvement arc as a bowler.  The guy has enough pace to be effective, he has shown he can get the ball to move.  His bowling numbers may not be up there, but given a strong enough team set-up, a willingness to learn and work hard - which he has demonstrated, the potential is there.  And it is worth exploring and investing in.  

 

On the question of Veeru/Tendy/Gangu bowling - I disagree - I will be responding to someone else who's posted cumulative bowling stats for those guys. I'll keep my powder dry for that on this point.  

 

And on Sanjay Bangar - are you honestly arguing that Bangar was chosen only due to his batting? in good faith? Seriously?  He was a make-shift opener who was slotted in at the top as a sacrificial lamb to see off the new ball to the best of his capacity.  If he was considered a decent enough opener, why wasn't he given further chances?  Its because he was a 'horses for courses' pick with very limited value, and low ceiling.  I'm not claiming that Pandya has proven himself to be better than him already - but the promise is there.  It exists. 

Not brilliant, and his numbers indicate he wasn’t brilliant, but he was a good Test bowler. Pandya is a pathetic bowler. I don’t know which movement from Pandya you have been seeing. He bowls gun barrel straight angling in, with the occasional bouncer thrown in. Watson was a genuine outswing bowler. How can a guy who struggles to pick one wicket per First Class match improve to picking 2+ per Test Match at the age of 25? Is there any precedence to this happening that happening? 

 

Not just Bangar, but till first Sehwag, and then Gambhir established themselves, Deep Das Gupta also opened the batting. So did Pathan. He wasn’t a horses for courses pick, but a genuine attempt to find the best opener in the country. He played 3-4 series, besides the one in England, so how was he horses for courses? And the reason Bangar was dropped, was because the limited upside of his bowling couldn’t justify keeping a genuine batsman out. That’s why the search continued through Chopra, Yuvraj, Gambhir, and Jaffer. Would you play a Bangar over an in form Gambhir if he provided a fifth bowling option?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

How can a guy who struggles to pick one wicket per First Class match improve to picking 2+ per Test Match at the age of 25? Is there any precedence to this happening that happening? 

Why is everyone forgetting that Pandya was fast-tracked and doesn't have much of a FC record? Or that he didn't start bowling regularly until quite late?  

 

3 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

Pandya is a pathetic bowler. I don’t know which movement from Pandya you have been seeing. He bowls gun barrel straight angling in, with the occasional bouncer thrown in.

That's how he was when he first started.  He's added cutters, knuckle-balls, slower ball yorkers and bouncers - with the white-ball.  With the red-ball, he did get the ball to move at Edgbaston.  Not my problem if you didn't watch his bowling and are just going by the score-card.  

Share this post


Link to post

Btw, in spite of my strong disagreement with OP - his thread premise as well as his argument - I have to say, its been a while since I got sucked into a proper debate on ICF.  Enjoyed that.  Thanks to all those who participated - on either side of the Pandya fence.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, sandeep said:

So, even if we use your numbers - we end up with a total of 15.5 overs per match.  If we play with 4 bowlers and bench Pandya, where are those 15+ overs coming from?  Add Umesh's inconsistency (or Shami's) - and what are we left with? A handicapped bowling attack that will end up over-using the better bowlers and rendering them toothless by their 3rd and 4th spells.  

 

Also, the fact that we didn't have viable options for that 5th bowler role skews those numbers quite a bit. If we had a decent allrounder available for selection, we may well have picked him and used him quite a bit.  The fact that we resorted to using the friendly offerings of Sanjay Bangar, for 21 overs per test match, says something. 

That analysis doesn’t make sense, because not all played the same tests. In fact, Ganguly retired for a significant part of that time, and Sehwag was dropped for many tests. Tendulkar was injured for many tests as well.

 

Bangar bowled 762 balls in 12 tests. How does that translate to 21 overs per test? That’s like 10 overs per test. 

 

It’s an easily verifiable fact that during India’s peak test match performance, Tendulkar was bowling little (almost no seam up), Ganguly was retired for a significant time, and when he was playing he was hardly bowling. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

See your words below:

 

 

No disrespect to Bangar, I have a lot of love, respect and admiration for his efforts and contributions to Indian cricket - as a player and a coach.  Bangar was a severely limited player with the bat, ball or in the field.  Pandya is demonstrably better than him in all 3 facets of cricket. 

 

I'm not a fan of show-boating and happen to think quite negatively of Pandya's off-field choices.  I don't even like Virat's antics on the field to be honest.  But if you are unable to look past that fluff, and evaluate Pandya dispassionately as a cricket prospect, and what he can do on the field, then its your issue.  

 

 

 

In which world?

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Why is everyone forgetting that Pandya was fast-tracked and doesn't have much of a FC record? Or that he didn't start bowling regularly until quite late?  

 

That's how he was when he first started.  He's added cutters, knuckle-balls, slower ball yorkers and bouncers - with the white-ball.  With the red-ball, he did get the ball to move at Edgbaston.  Not my problem if you didn't watch his bowling and are just going by the score-card.  

On what basis was Pandya fast tracked? His FC record isn’t of a rookie 17 year old Waqar Younis picked on potential and pace. His FC record is of someone who struggled to make FC teams till he was in his 20s, did jackshit, and got fast tracked because of this obsession to have a pace bowling bits and pieces cricketer in the name of an all rounder.

 

I did watch a lot of the Edgbaston Test and South Africa series. Admittedly, more than I should have. I am not discussing knuckle balls, neither did I watch ODIs or T20s.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

In which world?

In the world outside Plate-division level Ranji opponents like Assam, Services, etc.  Bangar has all of one noteworthy test innings with the bat - a valuable contribution that ended up being a winning one, thanks to the rest of the team filled with India-ATGs who delivered.  Pandya has a comparable noteworthy test innings as well - his 70-odd in South Africa in tough testing conditions against a quality bowling attack.  Unfortunately for him, rest of the team didn't come through unlike in Bangar's case.  

 

You can conveniently exaggerate the importance of Bangar's FC numbers, ignoring opponent quality, as well as the fact that Pandya was fast-tracked to the Indian team and hasn't played that much FC cricket.  

 

As LOI players, the gap between them is grand canyon-esque - both with bat and ball.  Statistically speaking as well as quality wise.  All Bangar has to show for himself in ODIs, is one streaky innings in a chase on a absolute road in India against a weak team, where he scored more runs off edges rather than the middle of the bat.  I watched that game.  I remember it quite well.  Pandya has already done more in ODI cricket than Bangar could even fantasize of.  

 

You are more focused on how Pandya "acts macho" etc and maybe his fugly haircuts, and you can't see Pandya's cricket abilities, or his performances.  To each his own. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, The Outsider said:

On what basis was Pandya fast tracked? His FC record isn’t of a rookie 17 year old Waqar Younis picked on potential and pace. His FC record is of someone who struggled to make FC teams till he was in his 20s, did jackshit, and got fast tracked because of this obsession to have a pace bowling bits and pieces cricketer in the name of an all rounder.

 

I did watch a lot of the Edgbaston Test and South Africa series. Admittedly, more than I should have. I am not discussing knuckle balls, neither did I watch ODIs or T20s.

He was fast-tracked because the Indian team had a vacancy for the skill-set he offers.  Its not his fault that there aren't better candidates than him.  

 

Comparing him to Waqar shows the laughable silliness of your logic - he's a batsman who can bowl a bit, and you want to compare him to one of the best test bowlers ever.  Of course he's going to fall short.  But that's your entire argument anyway - you have shifted the goalposts from the question of Pandya's merits or the logic of his selection - to whether he's a Sobers or Kallis or a Waqar.  That's a bullshit premise to begin with.  

 

As @zen has pointed out and others have repeatedly said, he is what he is, judge him for his skills and performances, and whether he adds value to the team that is needed - not some pie in the sky conceptual value of what an allrounder should be.  

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

That analysis doesn’t make sense, because not all played the same tests. In fact, Ganguly retired for a significant part of that time, and Sehwag was dropped for many tests. Tendulkar was injured for many tests as well.

 

Bangar bowled 762 balls in 12 tests. How does that translate to 21 overs per test? That’s like 10 overs per test. 

 

It’s an easily verifiable fact that during India’s peak test match performance, Tendulkar was bowling little (almost no seam up), Ganguly was retired for a significant time, and when he was playing he was hardly bowling. 

Bangar bowled 43 overs in 2 tests in England.  We are currently discussing the merits of selecting a #6/7 bat who can give you double-digit overs per innings.  

 

Again, if you shift the debate to a more general statistical sample, across different conditions, then of course the need and the argument for the 5th bowler is weakened.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

He was fast-tracked because the Indian team had a vacancy for the skill-set he offers.  Its not his fault that there aren't better candidates than him.  

 

Comparing him to Waqar shows the laughable silliness of your logic - he's a batsman who can bowl a bit, and you want to compare him to one of the best test bowlers ever.  Of course he's going to fall short.  But that's your entire argument anyway - you have shifted the goalposts from the question of Pandya's merits or the logic of his selection - to whether he's a Sobers or Kallis or a Waqar.  That's a bullshit premise to begin with.  

 

As @zen has pointed out and others have repeatedly said, he is what he is, judge him for his skills and performances, and whether he adds value to the team that is needed - not some pie in the sky conceptual value of what an allrounder should be.  

A pace bowling bits and pieces cricketer is nothing that the Indian team needs.

 

I would have no issues fast tracking Pant or Shaw. Pant not ahead of Saha, though. But given Saha is injured in this series.

 

I compared him to Waqar because when someone is fast tracked he is done on the basis of a limited FC record (Pandya has a substantial sample) and extraordinary cricketing abilities. The ‘89 India-Pakistan series featured Tendulkar and Waqar, fast tracked and while their series stats were not amazing, anyone watching the series could see the skills they brought forth. 

 

And earlier in the thread, when I said forget Pandya’s stats (ignoring he is 25 and not 17, and unlikely to develop any significant new ones except knuckle balls), show me what he has to offer in cricketing skills. Does he have an immaculate defense while batting? Can he bowl at 150 kmph? Can he gain prodigious swing anywhere? Can he demolish attacks like Sehwag and Gilchrist over a sustained period? Nothing. 

 

Hammock for bowlers.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, sandeep said:

In the world outside Plate-division level Ranji opponents like Assam, Services, etc.  Bangar has all of one noteworthy test innings with the bat - a valuable contribution that ended up being a winning one, thanks to the rest of the team filled with India-ATGs who delivered.  Pandya has a comparable noteworthy test innings as well - his 70-odd in South Africa in tough testing conditions against a quality bowling attack.  Unfortunately for him, rest of the team didn't come through unlike in Bangar's case.  

 

You can conveniently exaggerate the importance of Bangar's FC numbers, ignoring opponent quality, as well as the fact that Pandya was fast-tracked to the Indian team and hasn't played that much FC cricket.  

 

As LOI players, the gap between them is grand canyon-esque - both with bat and ball.  Statistically speaking as well as quality wise.  All Bangar has to show for himself in ODIs, is one streaky innings in a chase on a absolute road in India against a weak team, where he scored more runs off edges rather than the middle of the bat.  I watched that game.  I remember it quite well.  Pandya has already done more in ODI cricket than Bangar could even fantasize of.  

 

You are more focused on how Pandya "acts macho" etc and maybe his fugly haircuts, and you can't see Pandya's cricket abilities, or his performances.  To each his own. 

 

 

Hahahaha! The sole criteria for him being better than Bangar is the fact that at times Pandya bowls 140+ ! Lolz! Even just as a bowler, Bangar was way better than Pandya. As a batsman, there's no comparison between the 2. Pandya is no more than a hack, whereas Bangar could open and used to handle things well. 

As a bowler, he used to take important wickets. WICKETS! Something Pandya knows nothing about! You can keep on writing about Pandya, but nothing will change the fact that he is no match to Bangar. Heck, he isnt even better than Irfan Pathan in any deptt. 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Bangar bowled 43 overs in 2 tests in England.  We are currently discussing the merits of selecting a #6/7 bat who can give you double-digit overs per innings.  

 

Again, if you shift the debate to a more general statistical sample, across different conditions, then of course the need and the argument for the 5th bowler is weakened.  

He bowled those many overs because he was picking up more wickets than front line pacers like Aag. Also, if my memory serves me correct (can’t access Cricinfo to confirm) most of these were on the Oval patta. 

 

During our win win at Headingley, he was used as a wicket taking option in the second innings because Aag was being Aag.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

Hahahaha! The sole criteria for him being better than Bangar is the fact that at times Pandya bowls 140+ ! Lolz! Even just as a bowler, Bangar was way better than Pandya. As a batsman, there's no comparison between the 2. Pandya is no more than a hack, whereas Bangar could open and used to handle things well. 

As a bowler, he used to take important wickets. WICKETS! Something Pandya knows nothing about! You can keep on writing about Pandya, but nothing will change the fact that he is no match to Bangar. Heck, he isnt even better than Irfan Pathan in any deptt. 

"hahaha"  Where in the post you quoted do you find any mention of pace or bowling speeds? "Lolz".  

 

Making up strawmen is quite a desperate thing to do.   Rest of your post is filled with vague general opinions, since you couldn't come up with anything substantive to counter the points I made. 

 

Please name a test innings of substance outside of the famous Headingley test win by Sanjay Bangar.  And an ODI innings except the edgy chase against West Indies.  Just one.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, The Outsider said:

He bowled those many overs because he was picking up more wickets than front line pacers like Aag. Also, if my memory serves me correct (can’t access Cricinfo to confirm) most of these were on the Oval patta. 

 

During our win win at Headingley, he was used as a wicket taking option in the second innings because Aag was being Aag.

Ah, so the 5th bowler was used more in a match where he was picked, because one of the primary pacers wasn't bowling well.  I guess that scenario is pretty much guaranteed never to happen with the likes of Umesh and Shami in the team eh?  

 

Anybody who has a basic understanding of test cricket knows that just because someone picked up wickets doesn't mean they bowled well.  Context matters.  Anyway, I have said all I had to on this subject.  Can only lead horses to water, and all that jazz.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

"hahaha"  Where in the post you quoted do you find any mention of pace or bowling speeds? "Lolz".  

 

Making up strawmen is quite a desperate thing to do.   Rest of your post is filled with vague general opinions, since you couldn't come up with anything substantive to counter the points I made. 

 

Please name a test innings of substance outside of the famous Headingley test win by Sanjay Bangar.  And an ODI innings except the edgy chase against West Indies.  Just one.  

 

 

Your whole argument, if thats what you call, in the entire thread is made or rhetorics and assumptions. I do not have to prove anything. Any sane person can check the records. How Bangar performed in England, and Pandya's performance. Heck, you can check his bowling against Afghanistan. That should be an indication.

I have already mentioned about their first class career too. How much more would anyone substantiate? The onus of substantiating and proving lies on you, since you claim Pandya to be better without any known performance!

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, The Outsider said:

He bowled those many overs because he was picking up more wickets than front line pacers like Aag. Also, if my memory serves me correct (can’t access Cricinfo to confirm) most of these were on the Oval patta. 

 

During our win win at Headingley, he was used as a wicket taking option in the second innings because Aag was being Aag.

ho gaya , fenk lia

He was no aag, u were crying about pandya 88 s/r ....wait bangar bowling s/r was even worse 108 

he picked 2 wkts in leeds n 2 in oval, ye konsi aag hai 

 

 

He picked more wkts then other pacers :hysterical:

Zak- 11

agarkar-8

nehra- 5

bangar- 4

 

These are bangar bowling stats in that series - avg of 49 , s/r 108... wkts- 4

 

Edited by Ankit_sharma03

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Rightarmfast said:

In which world?

in every world

Pandya is a better fielder

Bangar bowling avg - 108

pandya- 88

 

Pandya batting avg 35

Bangar 29 

 

Bangar was a trunlder, pandya clocks around 140

 

He played one good knock in headingly , pandya has played in SA

Pandya has a long career ahead of him

Edited by Ankit_sharma03

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Rightarmfast said:

Your whole argument, if thats what you call, in the entire thread is made or rhetorics and assumptions. I do not have to prove anything. Any sane person can check the records. How Bangar performed in England, and Pandya's performance. Heck, you can check his bowling against Afghanistan. That should be an indication.

I have already mentioned about their first class career too. How much more would anyone substantiate? The onus of substantiating and proving lies on you, since you claim Pandya to be better without any known performance!

On the batting front, Bangar has a famous 50 in England, Pandya has one equally good, if not better, in South Africa.  Please name ONE noteworthy test innings from him.  For eg  Pandya scored a test century away from home.  Bangar.......


ODIs - Sanjay Bangar averages a whopping 13.8 with the bat, with a strike-rate of 75.  Hardik's corresponding ODI numbers are - 29.5 at 114 SR.   I don't think anything further needs to be said.  On the bowling front, Bangar took half a wicket per match at an average of 54+ - while Hardik picks up about a wicket per match, at an average around 40. Fielding - no need to say anything.  

 

Like I said above,  Sanjay Bangar in his own wet dream wouldn't dream of matching Pandya's ODI performances.  But you are allowed your own version though.

 

 

In fact, I just checked their respective test numbers - and guess what?  Pandya has better average with both bat and ball than Bangar.   

 

"Lolz".  "Hahahaha".  etc etc.  I guess facts don't matter when you don't like a certain player because he "acts macho".  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

ho gaya , fenk lia

He was no aag, u were crying about pandya 88 s/r ....wait bangar bowling s/r was even worse 108 

he picked 2 wkts in leeds n 2 in oval, ye konsi aag hai 

 

 

He picked more wkts then other pacers :hysterical:

Zak- 11

agarkar-8

nehra- 5

bangar- 4

 

These are bangar bowling stats in that series - avg of 49 , s/r 108... wkts- 4

 

Why do these noobs come forth to katwaayo their bewakoof? Can someone please explain to him, whom I was referring to with the ‘Aag’ reference or should I?

 

’Koi bataye ki hum bataayein Aag kaun hai’

Share this post


Link to post

Now for ppl having keeda regd Jadeja 

 

Jadeja bowling overseas ( coz their is no question in reds to his place in subcontinet 

avg - 42

s/r 96

 

Now if take WI out

avg - 46

s/r - 102

 

Now his batting avg overseas

avg 20

 

Last time he played in england 

bowling avg - 47, S/r- 104

batting avg - 22

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×