Please drop Pandya to maintain Test cricket’s sanctity.

[sarcastic]

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). 

[Number]

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.

Spoiler

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28779.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;spanmin1=1+jan+2002;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+dec+2010;spanmin1=1+jan+2002;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;host=6;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+Dec+2010;spanmin1=01+Jan+2002;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

 

 

[Global.Baba]

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 August 7, 2018 by Global.Baba

[Vilander]

he is next Sobers and Kallis rolled into one. Talk after the series is over. 

[Global.Baba]

To the OP, where is the option for Kallis? didn't you hear the argument of his fans that he is a batsman who can bowl phaaasht.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Global.Baba

[The Outsider]

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. 

[Rightarmfast]

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.

[Rightarmfast]

44 minutes ago, Vilander said:

he is next Sobers and Kallis rolled into one. Talk after the series is over. 

Can I have a puff of that ' roll' plz  

[zen]

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 

 

 

[sandeep]

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.

[sandeep]

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. 

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, Number said:

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.

  Hide contents

 

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28779.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;spanmin1=1+jan+2002;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=1;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+dec+2010;spanmin1=1+jan+2002;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=1;filter=advanced;host=2;host=3;host=4;host=5;host=6;orderby=default;spanmax1=31+Dec+2010;spanmin1=01+Jan+2002;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

 

 

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. 

[R!TTER]

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 August 7, 2018 by R!TTER

[sandeep]

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.  

[Rightarmfast]

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!

[sandeep]

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.  

[sandeep]

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.  

 

 

 

[The Outsider]

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?

[sandeep]

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.  

[sandeep]

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.