Please drop Pandya to maintain Test cricket’s sanctity.

[sandeep]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Pandya's front door defennce is not bad.

 

He usually uses a small back and across trigger movement while facing faster pacers ... goes to the line of the ball ... leans forward and plays the ball under his eyes.

 

His only issue is ... he does not use soft hands while defending. A significant percentage of 2010 specialist batters have this issue too, including many Indians.  Bad habit of playing too many T20s.

 

Another thing I liked about his approach was that ... he was standing outside the crease in the 2nd innings to negate the swing. Shows that he is thinking about the condition and willing to adapt.  Our top 5 batters, barring Kohli, did not do this.

There are a few who are unable to stay objective or think past their fixation on what they have decided the minimum statistical criteria of an all rounder in test cricket should be. What they fail to grasp is that a team is more than a statistical sum of its parts. 

 

And the less said about pompous blowhards taking about batting technique, the better. Left to such self proclaimed geniuses, Veeru would never have  opened in test cricket. 

[UrmiSinhaRay]

URMI G 
Isme PR angle nhin nikala 

Because there is no PR Angle to it.
Though I feel Hardik plays because he is Virushka's pet dog.

Sent from my CPH1609 using Tapatalk

[Ankit_sharma03]

Just now, UrmiSinhaRay said:

Because there is no PR Angle to it.
Though I feel Hardik plays because he is Virushka's pet dog.

Sent from my CPH1609 using Tapatalk
 

 

[UrmiSinhaRay]

 

You wanted PR angle so de diya.

Sent from my CPH1609 using Tapatalk

[sandeep]

I would much rather see Pandya play in a test in England at #6 ahead of a Karun Nair.   That's the comparison some of these guys should be making. Not a bowler. 

[coffee_rules]

We need a proper batsman who can bat with the WK+tail, after Rahane. Since, it is proven the allrounder Pandya is useless with the ball, his batting is not to the level of a specialist batsman who will bat above Kartik/Pant and score a big one. Pandya coming in after DK and scoring 20s and 30s is as useless as his bowling.

[FischerTal]

Test cricket's sanctity....... LMAO. OP has a habit of making grandiose and downright outlandish statements when it comes to protecting an outdated format that only he and the rest of the geezers in the nursing home happen to watch so vividly. Pandya is a product of his times and there will be more people watching this snoozefest called Test cricket only if more "LOI lappebaaz" like him continue to keep this dead bird alive. Also, if the OP is so aghast at Pandya's mere presence in the squad, he should care to mention any replacements that can take his place. Otherwise, take your sanctimonious advice and flush it down into the Thames where Test cricket has been residing since the advent of cricket formats that people actually come to watch and have fun while watching. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by FischerTal

[express bowling]

5 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I would much rather see Pandya play in a test in England at #6 ahead of a Karun Nair.   That's the comparison some of these guys should be making. Not a bowler. 

 

Initially, I was in favour of Ashwin + 4 specialist bowlers. You had something similar in mind too.

 

But that equation had Bhuvi as one of those 4 bowlers ... who is a bowling all-rounder, especially in England.  

 

Now that Bhuvi is not there ... and our other 5 batters want to bat like novices ... having decent batting till 8 has become imperative.   Hardik's 22 and 31 were very crucial in this low scoring match.  He saved us after a massive middle-order batting collapse against Afghanistan too.

 

Some people are too tied up in aesthetics and nomenclatures. 

 

Cricket is a team game and players have to be chosen based on the requirements and balance of the team as a whole. That flexibility has to be there.

 

Pandya has shown time and again that he is a gritty batsman ... and we need grit rather than lazy elegance on tough away tours.

 

If he is not showing grit as a batsman, drop him by all means ... but not because of his bowling.

[The Outsider]

Home team has set benchmarks of playing Ronnie Irani in test matches. Must feel so proud to emulate them.

 

Front foot defense while balancing on the heal isn’t considered bad these days. Awesome stuff.

[express bowling]

I guess some people would have left out Steve Smith from test matches because of his technique.

 

Even now, there are some puritans who can't fathom how he sverages 63 after 60 odd tests.

Edited August 6, 2018 by express bowling

[WC2011INDIA]

I have always pictures Pandya as a bits andpieces T20/ODI cricketer, so I agree. 

 

 

[Global.Baba]

46 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I would much rather see Pandya play in a test in England at #6 ahead of a Karun Nair.   That's the comparison some of these guys should be making. Not a bowler. 

Karun Nair has a test 300. He has toiled hard in domestics and topped the charts and has cashed in pretty much every chance to get here.

 

How is it fair that Pandya gets a test slot handed to him ahead of someone who has worked hard to get here and in fact has more of a pedigree in tests apples to apples at this stage which is a test triple.

 

I am not a Nair fan or an advocate for him but it seems unfair to me.

 

Now this is also keeping in mind that we have already ruled out Pandya's bowling ability in test matches.

[The Outsider]

Karun Nair might not be an international level batsman. I haven't watched enough of him to make a call, but to argue that Pandya is a better test batsman than Karun Nair is just insane. I don't hold the Indian FC structure in very high esteem, but it is still capable of discriminating a lappebaaz who averages 30 from a top order batsman who averages 50. 

 

And anyhow, if this is a discussion about batsmen, then the choice is between Pujara and Pandya. Now I am waiting to hear Pandya is a better batsman than Pujara.

[express bowling]

People who want Pandya out of tests will have to find us a Sourav Ganguly type top 6 batter who can bowl seam up when needed.

 

This is a very practical suggestion.

 

Vijay Shankar is the only available option I am aware of.  But his abilty to bat against genuine pace or consistent swing is not known to us.

[Gollum]

Pandya is the least of our worries now. He isn't the next Kapil but if backed properly can become something similar to Shane Watson (workable, not ATG), he provides great flexibility to our team and is a reliable catcher...plus moments of magic every now and then on the field can disrupt opponent's momentum. This is the problem with most Indian fans (I too am guilty sometimes), they have exaggerated imaginations about what a new player should be like (almost always some old timer ATG as standard like Che-Dravid, Rahane-Laxman, Pathan-Akram, Pant-Gilchrist, Ashwin-Kumble, Shaw-Sehwag....) after a couple of matches and when things don't materialize they want new toys. Kapil is a once in a generation AR, can't wait for long hoping we get a readymade Kapil one day, we need to work with our resources and mould them into the best versions of themselves to suit the team's need. Ofc sometimes these predictions do materialize but success ratio is bakwaas. 

[sandeep]

45 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Initially, I was in favour of Ashwin + 4 specialist bowlers. You had something similar in mind too.

 

But that equation had Bhuvi as one of those 4 bowlers ... who is a bowling all-rounder, especially in England.  

 

Now that Bhuvi is not there ... and our other 5 batters want to bat like novices ... having decent batting till 8 has become imperative.   Hardik's 22 and 31 were very crucial in this low scoring match.  He saved us after a massive middle-order batting collapse against Afghanistan too.

 

Some people are too tied up in aesthetics and nomenclatures. 

 

Cricket is a team game and players have to be chosen based on the requirements and balance of the team as a whole. That flexibility has to be there.

 

Pandya has shown time and again that he is a gritty batsman ... and we need grit rather than lazy elegance on tough away tours.

 

If he is not showing grit as a batsman, drop him by all means ... but not because of his bowling.

Exactly.  If we have Karthik, Ashwin and Bhuvi at 6, 7, 8, then Pandya is 12th man.  Heck even after knowing that Bhuvi is injured, I picked Jadeja ahead of him for T1.  And would strongly consider the same thing for T2.  Because ultimately its the bowlers who will need to take the 20 wickets to win test matches.  

 

However, you can't overlook the fact that after Pandya was picked, he has performed at par to his role.  With a bit of luck, he could well have made a match-winning contribution with the bat in either innings.  He got a proper snorter of a yorker to get out in the first dig, and was last man out in the chase.  

 

Ahead of the 2nd test, if the Pommies make another grass covered track, which will almost eliminate the amount of grip that Jadeja will get on the surface, then we effectively have to choose between Karun Nair who only bats, Kuldeep the wild card, and 2 "Ronnie Iranis".  Given that, there is a strong case for Pandya ahead of Jadeja - provided  the team is reasonably confident that the track and conditions are going to render both of their bowling more of less equal.  I'm someone who actually still has a bit of faith in Jadeja's batting in tests. So its not a slam-dunk, by any means.   

 

In a perfect world, given that Karthik is supposed to be an upgrade on the batting front over Saha, I'd much rather see Kuldeep in the XI - we need to ensure that we can attack with the bowling and take 20 wickets for not many.  And I still think that sticking to that Plan A is the best probable selection choice.  But having said all of that, to pile on Pandya, and make his selection the focal point of criticism, is simply inaccurate, and a case of succumbing to personal confirmation bias. 

 

 

[swastikpanda2]

India is obessed with Hardik Pandya. It's justified to play him in LOI because he strikes the ball hard and comes handy in LOI.

But on what basis he was consistently invested in Tests when he has FC bowling average of 38?

 

When we look into the Tests 11 line up the second player who is sure to play apart from Kohli is Pandya, doesn't matter even if it is subcontinent. Every other test players Ashwin, Rahane, Pujara, Vijay, Bhuvi, Jadeja are droppable. 

Why do we drop Jadeja, No. 3 ranked bowler? Because of conditions. 

Why don't we play Bhuvi everywhere? Because of Conditions.  

Why are we playing Pandya even in Subcontinent, when Jayant Yadav seems a better AR in Subcontinent? Because we are investing in Pandya.

 

The question is why India should invest on Pandya for Tests? Even if they would what is the logic of providing a consistent run of 15 Test matches to him?

We have Rahul Dravid coaching the India A. What is his job, if players are supposed to get 15-20 Test matches to develop themselves by wasting a slot for No.1 team in the world? 

Ben Stokes and Hardik Pandya are not even comparable as AR, as the former made a ton in his second test match against a rampaging Johnson and took a 6- fer in his 4th test match in the high profile Ashes, showing his All-round skills. 

What has Pandya shown in his bowling? He even averages 38 in FC, where trundlers average below 30.

Hardik Pandya is lucky to be playing Tests because India fancies a pace bowling all rounder in team like Kapil.

 

In my opinion, let him play for 4 day matches for India A consistently under Dravid. Even then he can gain the international experience as he is consistently playing LOI. Also he can be selected as a reserve in Tests.

It's always better to play 5 bowlers with a few of them who can bat. I think we were absolutely ruthless like that, till that England home series.

 

P.s. Presently he should be playing because we don't have Bhuvi who is our second best batsman. Can play as his replacement. 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by swastikpanda2

[sandeep]

27 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Karun Nair has a test 300. He has toiled hard in domestics and topped the charts and has cashed in pretty much every chance to get here.

 

How is it fair that Pandya gets a test slot handed to him ahead of someone who has worked hard to get here and in fact has more of a pedigree in tests apples to apples at this stage which is a test triple.

 

I am not a Nair fan or an advocate for him but it seems unfair to me.

 

Now this is also keeping in mind that we have already ruled out Pandya's bowling ability in test matches.

Nobody's "handed" anything.  Pandya is in the squad because his skillset offers the potential of fulfilling a role that the team desperately needs.  Its not his fault that he's not quite elite-class as far as pace bowling allrounders are concerned - fact is, he's the best option available out of 1.3 billion Indians.  

 

Its not a question of 'fair' or 'unfair'.  And btw, when you are advocating for Nair, please do keep in mind that he did get more than one chance to solidify his claim as the next test batsman in line - and blew it repeatedly.  

 

And no - we have not "ruled out" Pandya's bowling ability in test matches.  For the millionth time - Pandya actually bowled OK in the Edgbaston test, particularly in his first spell.  And you can't just put a value on his contributions to the bowling unit, solely on his bowling numbers.  The fact that he bowled 10 overs, meant that our primary attack got to rest more, and could bowl when that much fresher.  And that contribution will  go up even more in value, if and when England get away to a big innings, and we end up having to bowl 100+ overs - as is often the case when in away test matches.  Think back to the previous tour to England - Bhuvi was practically bowled into the ground, and eventually pulled up injured after that tour.  Forget about protecting bowlers and their workloads, its about extracting maximum effectiveness from them during the test.  That is a non-trivial contribution that doesn't show up in pure stats.  

 

And I'm not claiming Pandya is the only option in terms of managing bowler workloads - Jadeja can do that job quite well too, in fact better -because he bowls a ton of overs quickly.  But the key determinant for Jadeja vs Pandya should be whether the Poms have nullified the chances of Jadeja getting the ball to grip.  If the ball doesn't grip, then Jadeja will not get much deviation, and the England bats can simply face him as if he were an accurate medium-pacer.  At that point, especially if the swing/seam is as pronounced as Edgbaston, there is a logical case to punt on Pandya.   

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, The Outsider said:

Home team has set benchmarks of playing Ronnie Irani in test matches. Must feel so proud to emulate them.

 

Front foot defense while balancing on the heal isn’t considered bad these days. Awesome stuff.

If you've got anything substantial to contribute to the debate apart from snide remarks, I'm all ears, figuratively speaking.  Yet to see any logical counterpoints to the ones I have made on this thread.  

 

But I'm well aware that not all have the capacity to carry a debate forward with an open mind.  Far easier to resort to the slippery slope of tangential condescension after all, when the going gets tough.  

[sandeep]

4 minutes ago, swastikpanda2 said:

Why are we playing Pandya even in Subcontinent, when Jayant Yadav seems a better AR in Subcontinent?

Absolutely false.  JY's limitations have been exposed after his century against England - on both sides of the ball.  And given that Ashwin is in the side, playing a second off-spinner, and a limited 'support' one at that, makes zero sense.  

 

Nobody's arguing against the fact that Pandya is not quite the finished product as far as test allrounder is concerned. He's way short.  But he's the best of that type available for Team India selection.  And given the test squad in question, his selection has reasonable merit - merit that should be acknowledged even if you disagree with his selection.