Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TNAmarkFromIndia

Sanjay Jagdale: ‘Ambati Rayudu, Dinesh Karthik had enough chances. I don't feel sorry for them. Selectors backed wrong players.’

Recommended Posts

Sanjay Jagdale was part of the selection committees that picked the Indian squads for the 2003 and 2007 World Cups, and also the 2007 inaugural World T20. In an interview with The Indian Express, Jagdale, also an ex-BCCI secretary, spoke about how the Indian team suffered from some flawed selections this term. Excerpts:

India went to the World Cup without a settled middle-order. The middle-order wasn’t equipped to handle pressure. Do you agree?

Yes, this has been my view for the last three-four months. I would like to have Ajinkya Rahane at No. 4. You can’t have players (in a World Cup) squad who couldn’t secure their spots in the Indian team despite playing since 2003. They are not your future also. Rahane’s first tour in England was terrific and he has been performing well outside the sub-continent. Very few batsmen did it besides Virat Kohli and Cheteshwar Pujara (in the longer format). So why can’t you have somebody like Rahane just to ensure that you play out 50 overs when situations get tight? Knockout matches have different pressure.

I also just couldn’t understand why Rishabh Pant wasn’t made a permanent part (of the ODI squad) right from the beginning. He got a Test hundred in England and then a Test hundred in Australia. And then for the ODI series (in Australia), you sent him back! He should have had the maximum number of matches before the World Cup.

Was it a case of too many experiments …

They (selection committee) kept on experimenting with Vijay Shankar, Ambati Rayudu, Dinesh Karthik… Karthik has been playing since 2003, when I was a selector. Rayudu also. You can’t pick teams on the basis of the IPL performance. You need players who have performed well outside the sub-continent.

You had been part of selection committees that picked the teams for the 2003 and 2007 World Cups. Before a World Cup, ideally when the squad should be nailed?

You should be very clear about who you are going to pick at least six months before the tournament. You should be very clear about who are going to be your future. Before the 2003 World Cup, we had an India A team’s tour of South Africa. I still remember I suggested that both Yuvraj (Singh) and (Mohammad) Kaif should be part of that, because they were going to be part of the World Cup. They were our future then.

In 2003, you had a strong character as India captain, Sourav Ganguly. Did the selection committee ever feel intimidated?

No, never. Chandu Borde was the chairman of selectors. We always had very healthy discussions. Most of the time we agreed with Sourav and John Wright. But there were times when we didn’t agree. But there was never any hard feelings. Same with Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell (in 2007). Dilip Vengsarkar was the chairman of selectors then. When the selection committee felt they were taking a right decision, they stuck to it. Borde and Dilip were excellent chairmen. But we worked as a team. We thrived on mutual respect.

Do you get the feeling that the present selection committee can’t stand up to the Indian team management?

I can’t say. But I was really shocked when Pant wasn’t picked. I also feel sorry for somebody like Manish Pandey. Shreyas Iyer, too, was unfortunate. I don’t feel sorry for Rayudu. Rayudu, Karthik; they had enough chances. Manish Pandey got a hundred in Australia. After that he didn’t get many chances. I think the preparation part could have been much better. They were backing the wrong players.

Do you agree that there had been too many changes in the No. 4, 5 and 6 batting slots at the expense of stability?

You need to give the players confidence. There was something wrong in the selection mindset or thinking, because ultimately Pant came into the fold. But why didn’t you groom him properly, with regards to international cricket (before the World Cup)? He played a bad shot yesterday. But OK, he was batting well and the talent was there. No doubt about it. Every young player needs time to grow unless he is a Sunil Gavaskar or a Sachin Tendulkar. Give Pant two years at least.

 

Do you think that the selectors and the team management handled Dhoni well, with regards to his batting positions?

He should have had been at No. 4 or 5. India didn’t have an alternative to Dhoni.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

Sanjay Jagdale was part of the selection committees that picked the Indian squads for the 2003 and 2007 World Cups, and also the 2007 inaugural World T20. In an interview with The Indian Express, Jagdale, also an ex-BCCI secretary, spoke about how the Indian team suffered from some flawed selections this term. Excerpts:

India went to the World Cup without a settled middle-order. The middle-order wasn’t equipped to handle pressure. Do you agree?

Yes, this has been my view for the last three-four months. I would like to have Ajinkya Rahane at No. 4. You can’t have players (in a World Cup) squad who couldn’t secure their spots in the Indian team despite playing since 2003. They are not your future also. Rahane’s first tour in England was terrific and he has been performing well outside the sub-continent. Very few batsmen did it besides Virat Kohli and Cheteshwar Pujara (in the longer format). So why can’t you have somebody like Rahane just to ensure that you play out 50 overs when situations get tight? Knockout matches have different pressure.

I also just couldn’t understand why Rishabh Pant wasn’t made a permanent part (of the ODI squad) right from the beginning. He got a Test hundred in England and then a Test hundred in Australia. And then for the ODI series (in Australia), you sent him back! He should have had the maximum number of matches before the World Cup.

Was it a case of too many experiments …

They (selection committee) kept on experimenting with Vijay Shankar, Ambati Rayudu, Dinesh Karthik… Karthik has been playing since 2003, when I was a selector. Rayudu also. You can’t pick teams on the basis of the IPL performance. You need players who have performed well outside the sub-continent.

You had been part of selection committees that picked the teams for the 2003 and 2007 World Cups. Before a World Cup, ideally when the squad should be nailed?

You should be very clear about who you are going to pick at least six months before the tournament. You should be very clear about who are going to be your future. Before the 2003 World Cup, we had an India A team’s tour of South Africa. I still remember I suggested that both Yuvraj (Singh) and (Mohammad) Kaif should be part of that, because they were going to be part of the World Cup. They were our future then.

In 2003, you had a strong character as India captain, Sourav Ganguly. Did the selection committee ever feel intimidated?

No, never. Chandu Borde was the chairman of selectors. We always had very healthy discussions. Most of the time we agreed with Sourav and John Wright. But there were times when we didn’t agree. But there was never any hard feelings. Same with Rahul Dravid and Greg Chappell (in 2007). Dilip Vengsarkar was the chairman of selectors then. When the selection committee felt they were taking a right decision, they stuck to it. Borde and Dilip were excellent chairmen. But we worked as a team. We thrived on mutual respect.

Do you get the feeling that the present selection committee can’t stand up to the Indian team management?

I can’t say. But I was really shocked when Pant wasn’t picked. I also feel sorry for somebody like Manish Pandey. Shreyas Iyer, too, was unfortunate. I don’t feel sorry for Rayudu. Rayudu, Karthik; they had enough chances. Manish Pandey got a hundred in Australia. After that he didn’t get many chances. I think the preparation part could have been much better. They were backing the wrong players.

Do you agree that there had been too many changes in the No. 4, 5 and 6 batting slots at the expense of stability?

You need to give the players confidence. There was something wrong in the selection mindset or thinking, because ultimately Pant came into the fold. But why didn’t you groom him properly, with regards to international cricket (before the World Cup)? He played a bad shot yesterday. But OK, he was batting well and the talent was there. No doubt about it. Every young player needs time to grow unless he is a Sunil Gavaskar or a Sachin Tendulkar. Give Pant two years at least.

 

Do you think that the selectors and the team management handled Dhoni well, with regards to his batting positions?

He should have had been at No. 4 or 5. India didn’t have an alternative to Dhoni.

     Makes a lot of sense . He is a genuine guy too.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

Yes, this has been my view for the last three-four months. I would like to have Ajinkya Rahane at No. 4. You can’t have players (in a World Cup) squad who couldn’t secure their spots in the Indian team despite playing since 2003. They are not your future also. Rahane’s first tour in England was terrific and he has been performing well outside the sub-continent. Very few batsmen did it besides Virat Kohli and Cheteshwar Pujara (in the longer format). So why can’t you have somebody like Rahane just to ensure that you play out 50 overs when situations get tight? Knockout matches have different pressure.

M assuming he is from Mumbai cricket 

8 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

I also just couldn’t understand why Rishabh Pant wasn’t made a permanent part (of the ODI squad) right from the beginning. He got a Test hundred in England and then a Test hundred in Australia. And then for the ODI series (in Australia), you sent him back! He should have had the maximum number of matches before the World Cup.

 

True 

8 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

Was it a case of too many experiments …

They (selection committee) kept on experimenting with Vijay Shankar, Ambati Rayudu, Dinesh Karthik… Karthik has been playing since 2003, when I was a selector. Rayudu also. You can’t pick teams on the basis of the IPL performance. You need players who have performed well outside the sub-continent.

True 

8 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

You had been part of selection committees that picked the teams for the 2003 and 2007 World Cups. Before a World Cup, ideally when the squad should be nailed?

You should be very clear about who you are going to pick at least six months before the tournament. You should be very clear about who are going to be your future. Before the 2003 World Cup, we had an India A team’s tour of South Africa. I still remember I suggested that both Yuvraj (Singh) and (Mohammad) Kaif should be part of that, because they were going to be part of the World Cup. They were our future then.

Spot on 

8 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

Do you get the feeling that the present selection committee can’t stand up to the Indian team management?

I can’t say. But I was really shocked when Pant wasn’t picked. I also feel sorry for somebody like Manish Pandey. Shreyas Iyer, too, was unfortunate. I don’t feel sorry for Rayudu. Rayudu, Karthik; they had enough chances. Manish Pandey got a hundred in Australia. After that he didn’t get many chances. I think the preparation part could have been much better. They were backing the wrong players.

Absolutely 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Partly agree. Pant should have been in there, this wasn't the time to experiment with Shankar and Karthik has missed the train.

 

Where I strongly disagree is selecting Rahane. He has had enough chances, I think he is another one who has missed the train.

 

Forwards and onwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Texy said:

DK needs to retire from ODIs FFS  why do these desi players always have to be forced to retire? Why cant they give up?

It's in player's interest to prolong his career, an economic decision. The selectors' job is to remove non-performing/non-promising players. 

Share this post


Link to post

Rahane is in no form himself.No one has any guts to call Dhoni out.

John Wright had said that selectors were a headache to deal with.They always had an agenda of pushing their own regional players into the squad.

Pant was not given more games to keep Lord THALA's position safe. Manish Pandey was given lots of chances but he didn't utilise them.Both Manish & Iyer were not taken into the squad since they don't bowl either.

Agree about Rayudud & Karthik getting way too many chances than they deserved.

Share this post


Link to post

this. 

It must be investigated how and why certain players were backed. This is deep routed problem in indian team selection. It could open a pandora's box .  give selection to private parties like Mumbai indians :)

Edited by Nash

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Nash said:

this. 

It must be investigated how and why certain players were backed. This is deep routed problem in indian team selection. It could open a pandora's box .  give selection to private parties like Mumbai indians :)

+1

Share this post


Link to post

Rayudu was backed because he could also bowl off spin like Raina. But was banned suddenly in one of the series due to his illegal bowling action. That created some disadvantage for him. His loss of form in Aus Home series before WC made team management to completely lose confidence in him. Last thing TM wants is a number 4 making duck after duck in WC.

 

Manish Pandey do not bowl and hence below Rayudu in pecking order. He made poor scores in some home ODI series where India lost matches due to this and hence was dropped.

 

The TM in pursuit of 6 th bowler option compromised a bit on batting and decided to go with Vijay Shankar. They expected Vijay Shankar will make 30-40 runs each match and bowl 5 overs. Instead they got a player who could make only half of those runs , that is 20 which caused problems. Hence they moved on to Pant ( left handed variation due to Shikar Dhawan absence) rather than Rayudu. They did not go back to Rayudu because they thought DK could providd those 30-40 runs at backend if necessary as finisher which did not happen either.

Share this post


Link to post

Shreyas Iyer, Mayank Agarwal, Pant deserved lot more chances. This is where Pak cricket does something good. They are good at identifying talent and throw them in the midst of international cricket as soon as possible whereas in India, they are just asked to play domestic cricket, year after year, get frustrated, lose confidence, lose fitness etc.

 

There is no accountability for selectors. They should have all been fired by now over this fiasco.

Edited by kubrickian

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, kubrickian said:

Shreyas Iyer, Mayank Agarwal, Pant deserved lot more chances. This is where Pak cricket does something good. They are good at identifying talent and throw them in the midst of international cricket as soon as possible whereas in India, they are just asked to play domestic cricket, year after year, get frustrated, lose confidence, lose fitness etc.

 

There is no accountability for selectors. They should have all been fired by now over this fiasco.

While they did this with some players (e.g. Shaheen, Shadab and Hasnain), they have also gone back over and over to some oldies who should have been discarded long ago: Wahab "Jacket" Riaz, Shoaib Malik, Mohd. Hafeez, to name a few.

 

Our selection policies are bad, but so are most of other SC teams. In ODIs, to me the best selectors I have seen are the Eng ones.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, vijay50 said:

. His loss of form in Aus Home series before WC made team management to completely lose confidence in him. Last thing TM wants is a number 4 making duck after duck in WC.

 

 

Dood,UV was out of form before the WC 2011..You need to back players, who you are testing for so many months or years ,but dropped because of one bad series here are r there.

 

It's sick to see selection committee has stared thinking like ICF at times.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Stuge said:

Dood,UV was out of form before the WC 2011..You need to back players, who you are testing for so many months or years ,but dropped because of one bad series here are r there.

 

It's sick to see selection committee has stared thinking like ICF at times.

Rayudu was just not good enough to handle good fast bowling.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

Rayudu was just not good enough to handle good fast bowling.

Raydu would have better option over VS anyday in the first place itself.

 

 

TS was crappy to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kubrickian said:

There's always pace and bounce in NZ even if they help spinners a bit.

VS was given chance instead of Raydu...WC was being used as some bilateral series.

Edited by Stuge

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Stuge said:

VS was given chance instead of Raydu...WC was being used as some bilateral series.

to rat and bewda's tiny brains, the two (WC vs bilaterals) are synonymous.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Stuge said:

Raydu would have better option over VS anyday in the first place itself.

 

 

TS was crappy to begin with.

We didn't lose because of VS. we lost because we were 24/4. If likes of Kohli, Rohit could not do, don't think Rayudu would have done any different.

Edited by rkt.india

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Stuge said:

Raydu would have better option over VS anyday in the first place itself.

Everyone on bench looks better. Lets not forget When it jaggs around rayudu is one of the worse

 

Rayudu was troubled by Zimbabwe trundlers when it jagged around....imagine what henry, boult, fergueson wud have done

Rayudu was made to dance twice in Australia, by Australia in India and seamer in Ipl when pitches had a bit to offer 

Also When we lost to Eng .... VS didnt even play 

When bhuvi got injured it was VS that took 2 wkts ......Rayudu wud have been of no use

Now coming to rayudu fielding.....their is thread in which we hve counted he has lost 50 runs while fielding. So imagine the runs he wud have made us suffer in fielding

 

Laughable how ppl start to think person who isnt avl is better when that same person lost his place after giving poor perfomances 

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

We didn't lose because of VS. we lost because we were 24/4. If likes of Kohli, Rohit could not do, don't think Rayudu would have done any different.

we lost because of shitty MO ... Champion teams rise from such situations that why Australia was dominant for so many years.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Stuge said:

we lost because of shitty MO ... Champion teams rise from such situations that why Australia was dominant for so many years.

When did Aus do that? 24/4 ke bad middle order bacha kahan

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 

Laughable how ppl start to think person who isnt avl is better when that same person lost his place after giving poor perfomances 

 

Areey bhai,read again... I'm only pointing out what a **** selection committee is in general.Too much time was wasted on backing certain players ,but same players who they trusted so much were not given chance.That was my point.

 

 

To he honest ,I was surprised to see in India semis  .

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, rkt.india said:

When did Aus do that? 24/4 ke bad middle order bacha kahan

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8039/scorecard/65279/australia-vs-new-zealand-5th-super-icc-world-cup-2002-03

 

 

Yes ,they batted first but they were 47/4 at one stage( current Indian team would have bundled out for 150 or so) still they managed to make a match out it shows character of Australia during that time .

 

 

Yeh wala bhi lelo match where Australia was in do or die situation against Africa 

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8039/scorecard/65231/australia-vs-south-africa-9th-super-icc-world-cup-1999

 

 

 

My point is you need belief and players who can rise to the occasion .....I felt we lacked that .

 

Edited by Stuge

Share this post


Link to post

Too much power vested with Virat in player/coach/support staff selection... Split captaincy between test & limited overs format is the only way to curtail  Virats powers. Short term Pujara should take up test captaincy

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...