Play Shaw, Pant, and Siraj; soft debuts do little good

[The Outsider]

I’ll confess some level of ignorance here regarding the three players I mentioned because I haven’t watched them in action beyond occasional clips.

 

My larger point is that somewhere along the line this concept of soft debuts crept into Indian cricket. The thinking that promising youngsters should be introduced to international cricket against weaker opponents, or in familiar conditions is counterproductive. Playing against the likes of the lower ranked teams in subcontinental conditions is no better than playing against good FC opposition. In fact, certain away ‘A’ level games are more challenging. Coming to the specific players:

 

1. Shaw has scored runs at all levels, while International openers are floundering. There can’t be a better time for him to be tested at the next level than in England. He might fail, but that’s not reason enough to not play him.

 

2. In the case of Pant, I’m more guarded, because I haven’t watched him keep over a FC innings even. But we know Karthik is a poor keeper, he kept poorly at Edgbaston as well. As for his batting an average of 25 or so, says it all. There is no reason Pant shouldn’t be played, if Saha is unavailable, unless his keeping is atrocious.

 

3. Siraj has picked blocks and chunks of wickets. He is not a finished product from what I’ve seen, but bowls excellent lengths and bowls consistently wicket taking deliveries. Moreover, he is in form and rhythm, which is very important in test cricket.

 

 

[Malcolm Merlyn]

I dont agree with you on various issues but i agree with you here. But many will say that Pant still isnt a very good WK. But then same was said about MSD.

 

Secondly this concept of "system" has creeped into Indian cricket. Recently Dravid was saying that Siraj didnot play age cricket so he is just getting into the "system". So this system culture needs to go. Thats the reason why the likes of Nair Thakur etc are in the team as they apparently entered the system early.

 

The system seemingly is Age cricket to FC to Team A and then Indian team. 1

 

@the outsider

 

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

[express bowling]

For senior team selection,  the process followed for selection has become more important than the outcome of that process.

 

The A-team selections have generally been great though.

[Laaloo]

Agreed with all points. I'd rather lose with these players than the current bunch of losers we keep playing.

[sandeep]

43 minutes ago, express bowling said:

For senior team selection,  the process followed for selection has become more important than the outcome of that process.

 

The A-team selections have generally been great though.

A lot of blame/responsibility for the selection conservatism has to be laid firmly on the shoulders of the captain.  After Kumble's ouster, its extremely clear who calls the shots in the Indian team management.  

 

And Virat has consistently shown a very strong preference to back "seniors" for years now.  Go back to the very first time he was Captain - a LOI series against Zimbabwe - pretty much a glorified practice tour.  Parvez Rasool was much hyped then and made the squad.  Didn't get a single game while VK played Jadeja every match. Questioned on it, he said that if a 'regular' player is fit and available, I'm always going to give him the game first.  He didn't care about giving new players opportunities.  

 

Loyalty - Its Virat's guiding principle in leading Team India.  He has backed the guys he believes in - for better or worse.  In some cases, this faith has paid dividends.  Even the most ardent of Dhoni fans has to admit that Umesh Yadav has blossomed into a more consistent bowler under VK than he ever was under MS.  But in the cases of Mr. Thigh Five and Natural Tailunt - Virat's loyalty has arguably hurt the team.  Quite a bit.  

 

For the forseeable future, the Indian team is not going to make any major change, unless it is forced upon them.  Even the induction of ChaaKu was forced upon them due to the incumbent finger spinners' severely sub-par performances in the CT.  Dhoni will have to probably lose a limb before he's jettisoned from the LOI setup.  

[express bowling]

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

A lot of blame/responsibility for the selection conservatism has to be laid firmly on the shoulders of the captain.  After Kumble's ouster, its extremely clear who calls the shots in the Indian team management.  

 

And Virat has consistently shown a very strong preference to back "seniors" for years now.  Go back to the very first time he was Captain - a LOI series against Zimbabwe - pretty much a glorified practice tour.  Parvez Rasool was much hyped then and made the squad.  Didn't get a single game while VK played Jadeja every match. Questioned on it, he said that if a 'regular' player is fit and available, I'm always going to give him the game first.  He didn't care about giving new players opportunities.  

 

Loyalty - Its Virat's guiding principle in leading Team India.  He has backed the guys he believes in - for better or worse.  In some cases, this faith has paid dividends.  Even the most ardent of Dhoni fans has to admit that Umesh Yadav has blossomed into a more consistent bowler under VK than he ever was under MS.  But in the cases of Mr. Thigh Five and Natural Tailunt - Virat's loyalty has arguably hurt the team.  Quite a bit.  

 

For the forseeable future, the Indian team is not going to make any major change, unless it is forced upon them.  Even the induction of ChaaKu was forced upon them due to the incumbent finger spinners' severely sub-par performances in the CT.  Dhoni will have to probably lose a limb before he's jettisoned from the LOI setup.  

 

Agree with most of it.

 

Kohli does not like inexperienced players. I think it is partially due to the " safe approach "  that he follows, which is evident in his LOI batting too, with low percentage of lofted shots. New players are unknown entities and therefore they give a sense of lack of control ... and Kohli likes to control anything and everything around him.

 

Interestingly, even Kumble liked experienced players and was responsible for Gambhir and Parthiv being called back in tests and Yuvi in ODIs. He said in an interview about his willingness to have Gambhir and  Yuvi back.

 

But my post was about the strict process being followed in senior squad selections.  Shardul entered the selection fray first ... so he is selected although everone thinks that Siraj would do better based on current form and ability.

 

 Hence I said ... the process of selection is getting precedence over the results of that process.

[Ankit_sharma03]

21 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Agree with most of it.

 

Kohli does not like inexperienced players. I think it is partially due to the " safe approach "  that he follows, which is evident in his LOI batting too, with low percentage of lofted shots. New players are unknown entities and therefore they give a sense of lack of control ... and Kohli likes to control anything and everything around him.

 

Interestingly, even Kumble liked experienced players and was responsible for Gambhir and Parthiv being called back in tests and Yuvi in ODIs. He said in an interview about his willingness to have Gambhir and  Yuvi back.

 

But my post was about the strict process being followed in senior squad selections.  Shardul entered the selection fray first ... so he is selected although everone thinks that Siraj would do better based on current form and ability.

 

 Hence I said ... the process of selection is getting precedence over the results of that process.

what makes me sad is the person who cud make him change his approach has decided to take his pay cheque- shastri ( he is the highest paid coach, man of jls of such guys who get paid for not doing much )

 

If u see shastri views as commentators for so many yrs he was very vocal n encouraging regd new talent , infact he suppourted chappel views of getting in new player n dropping player like ganguly thats why ganguly n him has this issue going on for yrs. Even during that phase post 2015Wc where he went back to commentary in IPL, he was so excited about young talent specially spoke highly about pant. HE also has talked about backing young talent to gr8 extent in commentary but its all been musical chairs under them . Looks Like kohli is highly dominating and kohli has decided to take back seat n do bhashan baaji for motivation when needed. 

 

At the end its a captain''s team but this is not good for our cricket in long term, sadly results are hiding our gaping holes which come us to bite in between but that gets overlooked. Unfortunately things wnt change much till the change in leadership is being made. 

[Brainfade]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

A lot of blame/responsibility for the selection conservatism has to be laid firmly on the shoulders of the captain.  After Kumble's ouster, its extremely clear who calls the shots in the Indian team management.  

 

And Virat has consistently shown a very strong preference to back "seniors" for years now.  Go back to the very first time he was Captain - a LOI series against Zimbabwe - pretty much a glorified practice tour.  Parvez Rasool was much hyped then and made the squad.  Didn't get a single game while VK played Jadeja every match. Questioned on it, he said that if a 'regular' player is fit and available, I'm always going to give him the game first.  He didn't care about giving new players opportunities.  

 

Loyalty - Its Virat's guiding principle in leading Team India.  He has backed the guys he believes in - for better or worse.  In some cases, this faith has paid dividends.  Even the most ardent of Dhoni fans has to admit that Umesh Yadav has blossomed into a more consistent bowler under VK than he ever was under MS.  But in the cases of Mr. Thigh Five and Natural Tailunt - Virat's loyalty has arguably hurt the team.  Quite a bit.  

 

For the forseeable future, the Indian team is not going to make any major change, unless it is forced upon them.  Even the induction of ChaaKu was forced upon them due to the incumbent finger spinners' severely sub-par performances in the CT.  Dhoni will have to probably lose a limb before he's jettisoned from the LOI setup.  

Plus, I think recent ODI/T20/IPL and home test performances consciously or subconsciously cloud the judgment of team management.  This is especially true in the case of batsmen like Dhawan and Rohit Sharma.  I am betting that, if RGS was available in the 14 and was in good form in LOIs, he would have made it in Rahane's spot.  

 

They seem to have a good horses-for-courses policy with bowlers, but not when it comes to batsmen.  Pujara is the one guy that is easily dispensable using bad county form as a reason (rightfully) because he has no recent ODI/T20 runs to demonstrate his form.  JMHO.

[Global.Baba]

To the OP. under present circumstances, soft debuts of young upcoming talent would be a good problem to have.

 

In Westindies last year in a series that made absolutely no sense, we had Yum Yess Dee keeping against a hapless WI side. Our back up keeper was Dinesh Karthik and our top order was Rahane,Kohli,Yuvraj,Jadhav and Dhawan. Pretty sure soft debuts would have been a welcome change then.

 

Similarly the bowling attack was the same old Yadav,Ashwin,BK etc.

 

In the Nidihaas trophy against the mighty Bangladesh and Srilanka which was in fact played after the dominant U-19 WC we selected Unadkut and Thakur. Sure Siraj, Pant and Shankar were given a shot but in a unforgiving T20 format and already people started writing them off as hacks based on those chances. In fact DK has earned a guaranteed shot based on those heroics which may hurt us more in the long run.

 

When Dhawan/ Rohit get injured in LOI's the replacement seems to be Rahane. if Dhoni decides to take a break,we go with Karthik. or if Saha gets injured it is Parthiv or Karthik. if a middle order slot is vacant in LOI's  it goes to Manish Richards or Allrounder Suresh Raina.

 

Unadkut is a phone call away from being anyone's replacement in any format. Rayudu is on the verge of a recall.So what are the soft debuts you are talking about?

 

Nair and Jayant Yadav 2 youngsters who had promising debuts but we were persisting with Rohit Sharma until recently.

 

Rahul inexplicably seems one bad game away from getting dropped for good and seems the most indispensable member of this side.

 

Even in Zimbabwe a couple if years back,we had Dhoni captaining the side which had Faiz Fazal,Binny and once again Jaydev Unadkut. wouldn't you be ok with a few soft debuts there?

 

You are talking about Biryani, Yehaan tho daal-roti ke vaande hai bhai.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Global.Baba

[Chandan]

9 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

 

Interestingly, even Kumble liked experienced players and was responsible for Gambhir and Parthiv being called back in tests and Yuvi in ODIs. He said in an interview about his willingness to have Gambhir and  Yuvi back.

 

 

At that time which young opener was in contention? Remember even Nair, a youngster was given chance during that home series, Kuldeep debuted when Kohli was not the captain. I don't remember any good young keeper claiming for the place then if vacancy arose either, in 2016.

Do you remember?

[raki05]

8 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

Unadkut is a phone call away

This cracks me up.

[Lannister]

One thing I want to add is selectors tendency to first try out youngsters in T20 internationals when they have done well in 4-day or 50 overs format. This is a basic stuff that they can't seem to understand that T20s are not an ideal format to showcase their true skills. You have a tournament like IPL, so select players for T20s based on the IPL performance and treat 50 overs and Test Cricket separately. Seriously, how dumb there selectors are? 

[tweaker]

8 hours ago, Global.Baba said:

To the OP. under present circumstances, soft debuts of young upcoming talent would be a good problem to have.

 

In Westindies last year in a series that made absolutely no sense, we had Yum Yess Dee keeping against a hapless WI side. Our back up keeper was Dinesh Karthik and our top order was Rahane,Kohli,Yuvraj,Jadhav and Dhawan. Pretty sure soft debuts would have been a welcome change then.

 

Similarly the bowling attack was the same old Yadav,Ashwin,BK etc.

 

In the Nidihaas trophy against the mighty Bangladesh and Srilanka which was in fact played after the dominant U-19 WC we selected Unadkut and Thakur. Sure Siraj, Pant and Shankar were given a shot but in a unforgiving T20 format and already people started writing them off as hacks based on those chances. In fact DK has earned a guaranteed shot based on those heroics which may hurt us more in the long run.

 

When Dhawan/ Rohit get injured in LOI's the replacement seems to be Rahane. if Dhoni decides to take a break,we go with Karthik. or if Saha gets injured it is Parthiv or Karthik. if a middle order slot is vacant in LOI's  it goes to Manish Richards or Allrounder Suresh Raina.

 

Unadkut is a phone call away from being anyone's replacement in any format. Rayudu is on the verge of a recall.So what are the soft debuts you are talking about?

 

Nair and Jayant Yadav 2 youngsters who had promising debuts but we were persisting with Rohit Sharma until recently.

 

Rahul inexplicably seems one bad game away from getting dropped for good and seems the most indispensable member of this side.

 

Even in Zimbabwe a couple if years back,we had Dhoni captaining the side which had Faiz Fazal,Binny and once again Jaydev Unadkut. wouldn't you be ok with a few soft debuts there?

 

You are talking about Biryani, Yehaan tho daal-roti ke vaande hai bhai.

 

 

 

 

 

Satyawachan dot wale Babaji

[Nikhil_cric]

It's as clear as daylight that these 3 need to be backed. We don't have to look far either. England have been a very poor test team for a couple of years but ed Smith is backing youngsters like Curran, porter ,Bess and pope and they are making some brave decisions. Already Curran and Bess have given a good account of themselves. 

[express bowling]

3 hours ago, Chandan said:

At that time which young opener was in contention?

 

Abhinav Mukund was the front-runner for the backup opener's slot at that time. But Gambhir got in. Gambhir had to be dropped after 2 tests when he looked like a fish out of water and Parthiv opened for a test. Then Rahul came back. Mukund got his chance later that season against Australia for a test and once against in SL in 2017. Made a 81 in his last test but was never picked again.

 

3 hours ago, Chandan said:

Remember even Nair, a youngster was given chance during that home series,

Nair had to be picked as both Rohit and Rahane were injured. No choice.

 

3 hours ago, Chandan said:

I don't remember any good young keeper claiming for the place then if vacancy arose either, in 2016.

Do you remember?

 

Pant was shortlisted when Saha was injured in 2016. Srikar Bharat ( keeper who took 10 or 11 catches in the last A-team game )  was in the reckoning too.  Thing is ... atleast half the state level keepers are better than Parthiv.

 

[putrevus]

17 hours ago, Laaloo said:

Agreed with all points. I'd rather lose with these players than the current bunch of losers we keep playing.

I don't agree with that, the current players when they were out of team or coming up  were touted as saviours .Rahul dropped for one test was such a hue and cry , people reacted as if he would have won India series if he had played first test.

 

Players outside the team will always look good when team loses.Reality is other than Karthik these are the best players in country as of now.

[Laaloo]

53 minutes ago, putrevus said:

I don't agree with that, the current players when they were out of team or coming up  were touted as saviours .Rahul dropped for one test was such a hue and cry , people reacted as if he would have won India series if he had played first test.

 

Players outside the team will always look good when team loses.Reality is other than Karthik these are the best players in country as of now.

Disagree. How is dhawan better? How is pujara better? How is Vijay better? How is rahane any better? Players outside the team look good not because the team loses but because either these players are not good or over the hill. Take your pick.

[putrevus]

1 minute ago, Laaloo said:

Disagree. How is dhawan better? How is pujara better? How is Vijay better? How is rahane any better? Players outside the team look good not because the team loses but because either these players are not good or over the hill. Take your pick.

Who is better than them??? Shaw and Gill give me a break.Nobody in this team is over 35, how are they over the hill.

 

Teams just don't start winning overseas, it is going to be long haul.Under Kohli they are doing right things. losing close test or series away from home is no shame.SA and here so far they have been right there.They will get over line.

 

 

[Laaloo]

3 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Who is better than them??? Shaw and Gill give me a break.Nobody in this team is over 35, how are they over the hill.

 

Teams just don't start winning overseas, it is going to be long haul.Under Kohli they are doing right things. losing close test or series away from home is no shame.SA and here so far they have been right there.They will get over line.

 

 

Vijay is over the hill. Dhawan sucks overseas. Rahane hardly does anything. Pujara sucks. Karthik has been given umpteen chances.how many more chances? Of course it is going to be a long haul. So why don't we start grooming young players for the long haul instead of same old recycled trash.

[Forever Indian]

8 hours ago, Lannister said:

One thing I want to add is selectors tendency to first try out youngsters in T20 internationals when they have done well in 4-day or 50 overs format. This is a basic stuff that they can't seem to understand that T20s are not an ideal format to showcase their true skills. You have a tournament like IPL, so select players for T20s based on the IPL performance and treat 50 overs and Test Cricket separately. Seriously, how dumb there selectors are? 

Selectors are just dummies, similar to Shastriji. This is our beloved kaptaan's crap logic as usual. Listen to it from the horse's mouth:

wB6JDyDj0Mw

 

So even if you are a longer format specialist you will have to play T20 first to get discarded for non performance.

 

Happened with Siraj where he got bucket load of wickets in Ranji and 50 over format but was played in T20s and discarded from team based on poor performance in that format.

Edited August 9, 2018 by Forever Indian