So we didn’t lose in any format on an overseas tour without the next “Kapil Dev”

[zen]

14 minutes ago, maniac said:

Agree Pujara was the star of the series however coming to Pandya

 

Ashwin took 6 wickets and scored valuable runs in the 1st test. Rohit played a decent knock a batsmen’s knock in the first innings too. We had 4 proper bowlers who got the job done.

 

2nd test we lost with 4 seamers. Debate was between Jadeja and Bhuvi. 4 proper seamers messed up the first session which cost us the test and in hindsight maybe should have played a spinner. So no spot for Pandya.

 

3rd test too 6th batsmen- Rohit Sharma played  an important knock and 5th bowler was not required.4 bowlers did their job.

 

4th test- Same thing, 4 bowlers almost got the job done. Didn’t need an ”allrounder”. Maybe Vihari is or is not the guy is a different debate but the spot was rightfully given to a consistent domestic performer who “earned his shot” not just gifted on a silver platter. 

 

Odis and T20s, still maintain he is an important cog but got the job done without him

You don’t select team like that .... We did not need Rahul, Rahane, Rohit, Vihari too. With anyone else playing for one or two of the shots, you could have won the game .... and Ind played an extra batsman in the last test in Eng, which was a big loss 

[Ankit_sharma03]

1 hour ago, Khota said:

Let me repeat for the umpteenth time. This is a age of specialist with players who excel is specific skillset. There is no such thing as allrounders as it is just not possible to develope those. India has done fine without Pandya. He has a bright future if he focusses on bowling.

he is the best power hitter in the country and u want him to let go of that skill 

[maniac]

1 hour ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

But won the deciding ODI of the series with someone who supposedly "cannot play anything more than 140K even when delivered gun barrel straight but with a little bounce and anything over 135K's when there is a little movement" batting at No. 5.

 

Discuss @maniac 

Smacked the great Peter Siddle after swishing and swooshing against everyone else  

 

anyways good knock yesterday :) still do not rate him  against quality bowling 

 

 

[Vilander]

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

 

We won the test series in Australia because we had  3.5  batsmen performing  (  Pujara primarily supported by Mayank and Kohli and Pant during the end  )   ... instead of the 2 batsmen in England  (  Kohli primarily supported by Pujara from T3 )

 

The 6th batsman was still an underperformer.

 

And our bowling was good in both series.

Better to say we won because pujara has balls of steel

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Vilander

[maniac]

1 hour ago, Pollack said:

Flawed logic. 

Nothing flawed here, we won probably one of  the most important test series in our history without “forcing” a “perceived” allrounder.

 

wasnt that supposed to be our missing link to success according to some?

 

simple good specialists get the job done. Once in a while you unearth a player like Kapil

Dev or other players who come under the category of greatest allrounders. You don’t manufacture them as some kind of a magic

success forumla.

 

Now hopefully that got the point across to you.

[TNAmarkFromIndia]

38 minutes ago, maniac said:

Smacked the great Peter Siddle after swishing and swooshing against everyone else  

anyways good knock yesterday :) still do not rate him  against quality bowling 

33.6

4

Stanlake to Jadhav, FOUR runs, short and wide and he picks the gap this time with the cut shot! It was wider and didn't bounce as much and he was able to place this between backward point and cover-point and it raced away.

 

[Ankit_sharma03]

47 minutes ago, maniac said:

simple good specialists get the job done.

pandya competes with 6th number batsman and vihari n rohit combined had 1-50 and 2-3 wkts .........pandya wud have also done that easily. He scored 50s in eng n sa atleast these were far better batting conditions

We won becoz others stood up then kohli in batting dept 

[maniac]

11 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

pandya competes with 6th number batsman and vihari n rohit combined had 1-50 and 2-3 wkts .........pandya wud have also done that easily. He scored 50s in eng n sa atleast these were far better batting conditions

We won becoz others stood up then kohli in batting dept 

Again as mentioned above, Umesh might have gotten more runs than Rahul and even

picked up a few wickets but doesn’t mean you replace him with Rahul. No.6 bat is no.6 bat.if the one in your team is not performing you get another one.

Edited January 19, 2019 by maniac

[Ankit_sharma03]

6 minutes ago, maniac said:

Again as mentioned above, Umesh might have gotten more runs than Rahul and even

picked up a few wickets but doesn’t mean you replace him with Rahul. No.6 bat is no.6 bat.if the one in your team is not performing you get another one.

what an absurd logic, against a new ball no chance umesh wud have survived a bit ....

at this point those 2 no.6 has done nothing better then pandya so pandya plays ahead of them as batsman only. Also with pant getting better soon he can occupy no.6

[Clarke]

One player generally doesn't make such a difference between victory & defeat, especially when we had such holes in our batting.

 

Pandya's role or contributions is a separate discussion but he isn't the England series ka mujrim, especially on his first tour. 

 

But I would say that an AR isn't mandatory or non-existent as is suggested by Pandya fans & critics. A good AR is very valuable & an avg AR doesn't add as much value.

[express bowling]

4 hours ago, maniac said:

That exactly proves my point that on a good pitch 4 specialist bowlers are enough which doesn’t require a 5th bowler. If you have a Kallis or Watson in your line up  as a 5th bowler sure, huge bonus.  Forget Kallis, even someone like Angelo Matthews.

 

Your point was that,  we won because the balance of our team did not get affected in Australia  (  due  to 6 batsmen  )

 

That would have been true only if the 6th batsman had scored significantly.  And it was not the case.

 

The 5th bowler is needed on flat tracks ... and we were lucky not to get one in the series except the last test.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

the 6th batsman underperformed means you find a better no.6.

 

solution for neither of those is a bits and pieces player 

 

 

This is a different point.  We were discussing the impact of the current No.6 batsman via a vis Pandya,  on the balance of the test team.

 

[putrevus]

Hardik is very important for ODI format.  In tests it does not matters whether he is there in playing 11 or not. 

No he is not , he is one of the reasons why they lost Odi series in England. He is just not good enough bowler to bowl his 10 overs. I don’t think he is good enough batsman to win you games on his own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[putrevus]

What exactly has Hardik done in SENA countries to help his team win. Kapil dev worked because he was the best bowler in the team.

I don’t want Hardik to be in playing 11 in any match for World Cup. The best he can do is add 20 runs when everything is already set up.

He might work in India because spinners will take lead role.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Samcric]

10 hours ago, maniac said:

We won because balance didn’t get affected in tests especially which screwed us in England.

No, we won because a batsman other than Kohli scored runs. And we finally found at least one reliable opener. Rahane and Vihari didn't score much. You could have changed either of them with Pandya and result would have been the same or better. So, the argument regarding balance being the reason is not true. We would have also won in SA and England if Pujara and Agarwal had played all matches and performed as they did in Australia.

 

On a personal level though, I would also prefer Vihari or Gill intstead of Pandya on bowling friendly pitches.

[Khota]

9 hours ago, Pollack said:

All-rounders do exist. Here's one for you :

 

Great.

[Khota]

8 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

he is the best power hitter in the country and u want him to let go of that skill 

There are lot of hitters in India. He has good pace and just needs to learn control. There are not too many pace bowlers and he is a very good athlete to go with it. He needs to pick one trade and stick with it. 

[express bowling]

3 minutes ago, Samcric said:

No, we won because a batsman other than Kohli scored runs. And we finally found at least one reliable opener. Rahane and Vihari didn't score much. You could have changed either of them with Pandya and result would have been the same or better. So, the argument regarding balance being the reason is not true. We would have also won in SA and England if Pujara and Agarwal had played all matches and performed as they did in Australia.

 

Exactly.

 

3 minutes ago, Samcric said:

On a personal level though, I would also prefer Vihari or Gill intstead of Pandya on bowling friendly pitches.

 

Yes.

 

Extra batsman for bowler friendly pitches unless we are playing the 4th or 5th test match, with tired pacers.

 

And an AR for tests on flat pitches where a relatively weaker batsman can bat too and the extra bowler is needed.

 

Personally ... I would lock Gill at 5 ,  Pant at 6  and choose between Vihari or Pandya at 7.

[Khota]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Exactly.

 

 

Yes.

 

Extra batsman for bowler friendly pitches unless we are playing the 4th or 5th test match, with tired pacers.

 

And an AR for tests on flat pitches where a relatively weaker batsman can bat too and the extra bowler is needed.

 

Personally ... I would lock Gill at 5 ,  Pant at 6  and choose between Vihari or Pandya at 7.

I like Gill too but this is too close to the world cup for the experiment.

[express bowling]

4 minutes ago, Khota said:

I like Gill too but this is too close to the world cup for the experiment.

 

We are discussing test teams here.

[maniac]

12 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Exactly.

 

 

Yes.

 

Extra batsman for bowler friendly pitches unless we are playing the 4th or 5th test match, with tired pacers.

 

And an AR for tests on flat pitches where a relatively weaker batsman can bat too and the extra bowler is needed.

 

Personally ... I would lock Gill at 5 ,  Pant at 6  and choose between Vihari or Pandya at 7.

The basic premise of the thread even though in a lighter vein addresses this simple fact.

 

We don’t actually need to manufacture an allrounder to win overseas and it is not a must in tests as was being told to us all these days.

 

As you yourself mentioned, 2-3 batsmen stood up and delivered and the bowling unit was fantastic backed up by good fielding.

 

Now I highlighted that part of your post  because it shouldn’t come down to Vihari vs Pandya but it should be Vihari vs whoever the next potential middle order bat  who earned his shot through consistent performances.

 

Pandya is neither a full time batsman nor a bowler. He has some great qualities that make him indispensable for the short format but doesn’t have the discipline to play test cricket. 

 

Test cap  is valuable and should not be handed over to anyone. 

 

Shaw,Pant were fast tracked based on their u-19 potential followed up by a great FC season. Vihari and Mayank got a shot for toiling and performing for years in domestics.

 

Pandya needs to go back to the drawing board and work on one skill in FC and since he has that in built ability in the other, he will make a great asset. Till then we don’t need to play him just for the heck of it.

 

Its glass half-full half-empty situation, while no.6 batsman didn’t have an impact , Pandya not being there didn’t impact either.

 

@Samcric that covers your post as well

 

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by maniac