Jump to content

Please drop Pandya to maintain Test cricket’s sanctity.


Pandya is the next......  

59 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

Just now, Lannister said:

That's a ridiculous assessment as we are not gifted with top quality blowers to waste a Test spot on Pandya and his bowling. If he's the best batsman we have got then sure get him in the team in place of a specialist batsman. But is he really the best batsman? 

He's a "batting A/R" - they're not supposed to score 50 or 100 in these conditions, they're just there to provide relief for the tailenders before they come out to bowl. A 20 or 30 from them is worth more than a 100 from main batters, you see as long as they avg 35 they're good, but remember that avg will be sub 30 (career avg) before the end of the series or possibly even sub 20 just for the entire series.

Edited by R!TTER
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

He's a "batting A/R" - they're not supposed to score 50 or 100 in these conditions, they're just there to provide relief for the tailenders before they come out to bowl. A 20 or 30 from them is worth more than a 100 from main batters, you see as long as they avg 35 they're good, but remember that avg will be sub 30 (career avg) before the end of the series or possibly even sub 20 just for the entire series.

His precise test batting career average is 35.08 .

 

Host country-wise batting average is as follows. He started with a wonderful batting series with a healthy average of 59 against Lankans. Then in SA, his batting average declined to almost 1/3rd . Then against Afghans he took it back to a very healthy average of 71. Against England in England it is back to 1/3 rd.

 

 

image.png.8ff5e4dcfe2f29dd692c3f77e82cc23f.png

 

Edited by Straight Drive
Link to comment
Just now, Straight Drive said:

His precise test batting career average is 35.08 .

 

Host country-wise batting average is as follows. He started with a wonderful batting series with a healthy average of 59. Then in SA, his batting average declined to almost 1/3rd . Then against Afghans he took it back to a very healthy average of 71. Against England in England it is back to 1/3 rd.

 

Against SL In SL - 59

Against SA In SA - sub 20
Against Afghanistan In India - 71
Against England In England - 26

 

 

Well you proved my point, his batting is getting us nowhere, his bowling is just a facade, thus A/R for many on this forum.

Edited by R!TTER
Link to comment

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. 

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

Well you proved my point, his batting is getting us nowhere, his bowling is just a facade, thus A/R for many on this forum.

Personally i  observe that he is wonderful in Indian and SL conditions as a batsman (not just as an all rounder having that batting average). Those are healthy averages, even against weak bowling attacks of SL and Afghanistan. Out specialist FTB's are also similar. In comfort zone all our batsmen are 100+,150+, 200+ and even the 300 knockers. But then like in SA end up with averages less than 8 or 21. Whereas their career averages are between 40-42. Problem happens when our batsman are out of comfort zone bubble. It reduces to 1/2 or even 1/4 in some cases.

 

Still i would consider his overall batting average of 35 as he is not a specialist batsman and he is more prone to sharp decline in batting average in tough conditions in out of comfort zone wickets / conditions. Even our specialists struggle and he sin't a specialist batsman so not fair to judge him on same benchmarks. So i would not consider his selective average of 20 like one would in case of analyzing specialist bats.

 

Pace all rounders are rare to find in India. Not a hidden secret since ages. So we will need to invest more time in him. By that i mean if we decide a specialist batsman or bowler is worthy of long term place or not in 16 matches (which is more or less 4 series), i would take a call on AR in 5 series (say 20 tests). The onus is on the players though. Just because it is a rare commodity, it should not be a R&D on going concern. Somewhere it has to stop and like every professional setup, especially at international level and especially considering one of the member of top cricketing nation, it has to evaluated rather than throwing vague subjective terms like bowling daala, batting kiya, catch pakda. Efficiency is the key rather than kya kiya. Performance has to be delivered in terms of numbers after playing 20 tests atleast. How he gets end result is upto him. Cover the average against Afghans and SL to adjust the decline in SA and England, it's fine. End of the day the result is important. So batting is what i wont criticize with avg of 35 but bowling SR 88 is something he needs to cover against lesser opponents like he covers batting average. 

 

 

Edited by Straight Drive
Link to comment
4 hours ago, rkt.india said:

we dont need a specialist 5th bowler.  we need a batsman who can bowl a few.  Pandya does that. Can you tell me which batsman is reliable in this team accept Kohli to some extent? you want to drop your second best batsman?

Pandya's only the second best batsman if one is a blind fan!

 

If he's the second best batsman he'll be batting in the top 4. He was fortunate to face the older ball and survive slightly longer, He is not even in the top 6 batsmen in the team!

 

He cannot bowl and Kohli has no trust in him as a bowler as proved in the second innings. He will leak runs.

 

Had an efficient 5th bowler been available India could have suffocated England and perhaps won the game. A second spinner would have been handy. 3 pacers and 2 spinners are what India needs to beat England.

 

He will be dropped for the second Test.

Link to comment
http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/24306809/the-heat-play-two-spinners-lords
 
Pandya will be dropped.......swastikpandya2....ur calls will be heard

Ok that settles it...

Commiserations all Pandya backers here... you fought hard... Hope the Indian top order shows bit of this fight which you people displayed here...

Looking forward to Kuldeep coming in the team. Irrespective of the pitch, he will definitely create chances...
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

I saw his interview

He said please dnt compare him to kapil , kapil is a once in a centuary player..........n i agree with him

But my question what are u achieving with this comparison. All this is good for discussion.........on field a captain knws what his team needs 

You are a nice gu but you don't understand modern sports. On field captain is not the one who knows. This is another discussion.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, asterix said:


Ok that settles it...

Commiserations all Pandya backers here... you fought hard... Hope the Indian top order shows bit of this fight which you people displayed here...

Looking forward to Kuldeep coming in the team. Irrespective of the pitch, he will definitely create chances...

Will he give rest to other bowlers/ Will he sing a lullaby? If not these Pandya boys don't want him.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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!

Link to comment
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. 

 

Link to comment
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 

Link to comment
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.  

 

Link to comment

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
×
×
  • Create New...