Dhoni pleased with allrounders stepping up

[sourab10forever]

He won't be the new ball bowler for sure. So doesn't have to be a great swinger of the ball.just good line and lengths while other bowlers take a breather.

[Gunner]

When Binny can play why not pandya?(And that saying only if he plays well in ODIs and T20s)

Maybe his fearless hitting skills can help India .Quick fire 30-40 in the modern game seems more helpful than tuk-tuk 5 or 6 runs. most test matches India play on foreign soil don't go into the 5th day.So no point in having tuk-tuk players at no 6 and 7 . Top order batsmen need to do that job. Also Jadeja as an allrounder in ENG or AUS doesn't seem to be working . Don't see any reason why 'aggressive' Kholi wouldn't wanna try Pandya if he clicks in ODI's And T20.  

 

Pandya is a very good prospect and that's what I said in my post. But you cannot comment on his Test potential by watching him in one IPL season and one T20. And the batting SR (tuk-tuk or whatever) doesn't matter in Tests but the runs scored do. And how can you say he can score a 'quick fire 40' in overseas Test conditions when many top order batsmen don't average 40 abroad.

[Gunner]

He won't be the new ball bowler for sure. So doesn't have to be a great swinger of the ball.just good line and lengths while other bowlers take a breather.

I didn't say 'swing', I said move the ball which could mean off the pitch also (seam). And he will mostly bowl with the older ball so he needs to know how to reverse it too.

[New guy]

The only reason Dhoni is pleased with Pandaya was because he blindly followed what Dhoni said, which was bowl every ball wide of off stump. He loves bowlers who don't use their own brain and blindly follow him. That is why he loves Ishant who can bowl every ball short when Dhoni wants

 

And this is also the reason why he hates bowlers who try anything on their own. We talk about yorkers etc but Dhoni only wants bowlers to bowl one side. Then when someone tries something different he sulks and ignores that bowler and that bowler becomes nervous and loses rhythm

 

This has been the story of every bowler

[Gunner]

What Pandya needs to get into the Test side is a full season of First Class cricket where he can further develop and hone his longer format bowling and batting skills. If he can back up his current potential with actual performance at the FC level I'm sure the selectors and Virat will get him into the Test side as he's hardly got competition for the seam-bowling all-rounder role.

It'd be great if he turns out to be our Ben Stokes or Mitchell Marsh.

[sourab10forever]

Pandya is a very good prospect and that's what I said in my post. But you cannot comment on his Test potential by watching him in one IPL season and one T20. And the batting SR (tuk-tuk or whatever) doesn't matter in Tests but the runs scored do. And how can you say he can score a 'quick fire 40' in overseas Test conditions when many top order batsmen don't average 40 abroad.

Many batsmen sometimes fail to make make even a few runs because they do not have a positive approach. On some pitches playing aggressive shots (but not foolish) can get you more runs . important runs. That's why I said maybe his approach can help the team during though chases like the one in SL. India should have chased that down easily . At least a batsmen or two should have tried hitting shots.

Guptill and Maccullum have showed us how aggressive batting can help. This might sound like there is no connection between your point and this but what I want to say is that pandya's style can change the way we play our 4th innings .

So maybe his approach will get us the 40 which top order batsmen couldn't.

Coming to your point, when did I mention that he has to be selected on the basis of one IPL season?

In fact I said twice that 'maybe' kholi can 'try' him IF he performs well in T20s.

Most current bowlers don't even try reverse swing now-a-days. See hazelwood and pattinson.

How can you expect a part timer to do it? All you want is a decent spell who can trouble batsmen now and then. Other main bowlers should do the rest.

Today's Test cricket needs innovation . take Smith for example . unorthodox but one of the greats in the making. Part timers don't have to bowl like your main stream bowler. They just need to have the nack of picking wickets. Which pandya seems to have.

I hope you get my point.

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

[sourab10forever]

Pandya is a very good prospect and that's what I said in my post. But you cannot comment on his Test potential by watching him in one IPL season and one T20. And the batting SR (tuk-tuk or whatever) doesn't matter in Tests but the runs scored do. And how can you say he can score a 'quick fire 40' in overseas Test conditions when many top order batsmen don't average 40 abroad.

Yes strike rate don't matter but batsmen can get out for single digits trying to defend.

I say leave that to the top order. At no 6-7 your job is to get those 30-40 runs which can make or break a game.

He won't get it every time I agree. But certainly worth a try .

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

[sourab10forever]

I didn't say 'swing', I said move the ball which could mean off the pitch also (seam). And he will mostly bowl with the older ball so he needs to know how to reverse it too.

okay whatever. Just understand what  I wanted to say. He doesn't have to be a Umesh or a Issanth. He just needs to be the second fiddle. Kholi will likely stick to 5 bowlers plans. So the other four main bowlers will have do the job of 'swining' 'seamimg' and 'wakar-akraming' the ball. Most Indian bowlers fail to do this effectively on a regular basis and you are asking pandya to do it.

Edited January 27, 2016 by sourab10forever

[Gunner]

 

Many batsmen sometimes fail to make make even a few runs because they do not have a positive approach. On some pitches playing aggressive shots (but not foolish) can get you more runs . important runs. That's why I said maybe his approach can help the team during though chases like the one in SL. India should have chased that down easily . At least a batsmen or two should have tried hitting shots.

Guptill and Maccullum have showed us how aggressive batting can help. This might sound like there is no connection between your point and this but what I want to say is that pandya's style can change the way we play our 4th innings .

So maybe his approach will get us the 40 which top order batsmen couldn't.

 

Coming to your point, when did I mention that he has to be selected on the basis of one IPL season?

In fact I said twice that 'maybe' kholi can 'try' him IF he performs well in T20s.

 

Most current bowlers don't even try reverse swing now-a-days. See hazelwood and pattinson.

How can you expect a part timer to do it? All you want is a decent spell who can trouble batsmen now and then. Other main bowlers should do the rest.

 

Today's Test cricket needs innovation . take Smith for example . unorthodox but one of the greats in the making. Part timers don't have to bowl like your main stream bowler. They just need to have the nack of picking wickets. Which pandya seems to have.

 

I hope you get my point.

 

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

 

 

You seem to have misunderstood my posts. I never said positive approach isn't a boon. All I said was that it's premature to say if Pandya can apply his T20 hitting ability to Tests. He currently averages 27 at an SR of 49 at the First Class Level (longer format in domestics). But his domestic LOI Averages and SRs are way better, which further proves my point - that he's a very good T20 and ODI seam-bowling hitter but needs to work on his longer format skills.

Don't think Kohli or the selectors will play him in Tests if he does well in T20s.

About Reverse Swing bowling ability, it's a huge advantage to have in Tests especially in dry and flattish conditions. And Pattinson does reverse the ball (see his 5-wicket haul in India) and has an excellent bowling record in India as a result.

And Pandya won't play as a part-timer but as a seam-bowling allrounder. Big difference. He will need to do more than trouble the batsmen now and then.

And what does Pandya have to do with Innovation or Unorthodoxy or even Smith?

To pick wickets at the Test level, one needs to have a special set of skills - more than just line and length.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Gunner

[Gunner]

okay whatever. Just understand what  I wanted to say. He doesn't have to be a Umesh or a Issanth. He just needs to be the second fiddle. Kholi will likely stick to 5 bowlers plans. So the other four main bowlers will have do the job of 'swining' 'seamimg' and 'wakar-akraming' the ball. Most Indian bowlers fail to do this effectively on a regular basis and you are asking pandya to do it.

I'm not asking Pandya to do anything. You need to comprehend that he'll need more than just line and length to pick wickets at the Test level. If you want only line and length there are a plethora of domestic bowlers who do just that and are nothing special. By saying whatever, you mean to say that you don't know the difference between Swing and Seam, and are trying to equate it with extravagant movement (Waqar-Akram). I'm talking about subtle movement - just enough to take the edge or beat the bat. Like the movement Ben Stokes or Mitch Marsh get.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Gunner

[Yamaha]

@sourab10forever

You seem to be one confused guy talking about a lot of unrelated stuff. First make up your mind about what role you want Pandya to fulfil. On the one hand you're talking about innovation in tests, unorthodoxy like Smith (lol  at the comparison) and positiveness like Guptill, and on the other hand you want him to be a part-timer and second fiddle, bowl line & length and only trouble the batsmen now and then.

I agree with Gunner that currently Pandya is good enough to play t20s and odis as a bowling allrounder.

[adi B]

It seems Pandya is more of a batsman who can bowl a bit, and a power-hitter to boot.  His hitting abilities, if translated to the international level,would take the pressure off of Dhoni to be the lone slugger down the order.  Contrast that with Rishi Dhawan who is more of a bowler who can bat a bit.  Pandya fits the team needs slightly better, thats probably why Dhoni said nicer words about him.  Dhawan's bowling wasn't good enough to be the 3rd seamer, and his batting is just OK.  

Regarding Dhoni's statements about players - I think the years of shouldering the captaincy burden and the constant irritations of dealing with desi press and their retarded questions and articles are starting to show - Dhoni circa 2010, would never slag his players publicly, ever - more likely to say some inane thing with a big smile to deal with BS leading questions - Today, he's more likely to lose patience, and let some of his personal feelings slip through, especially when he's personally feeling the heat. 

a guy bowling 135-140 k as an all rounder shouldn't be termed as 'bowls a bit',he is a much better wkt taker bowler than rishi dhawan (who is substandard tbh) add to that a superior hitter than him.

Our team desperately needs a hitter,we have enough anchors and consolidators from nohit to dhoni.as you said we need to take off the pressure from Dhoni ,a pandya,raina type hitter in the lower order is the need of the hour.no problem in trying a new guy,need to give him couple of full series in odis

[adi B]

The only reason Dhoni is pleased with Pandaya was because he blindly followed what Dhoni said, which was bowl every ball wide of off stump. He loves bowlers who don't use their own brain and blindly follow him. That is why he loves Ishant who can bowl every ball short when Dhoni wants

 

And this is also the reason why he hates bowlers who try anything on their own. We talk about yorkers etc but Dhoni only wants bowlers to bowl one side. Then when someone tries something different he sulks and ignores that bowler and that bowler becomes nervous and loses rhythm

 

This has been the story of every bowler

couldn't agree more

[sourab10forever]

@sourab10forever

You seem to be one confused guy talking about a lot of unrelated stuff. First make up your mind about what role you want Pandya to fulfil. On the one hand you're talking about innovation in tests, unorthodoxy like Smith (lol  at the comparison) and positiveness like Guptill, and on the other hand you want him to be a part-timer and second fiddle, bowl line & length and only trouble the batsmen now and then.

I agree with Gunner that currently Pandya is good enough to play t20s and odis as a bowling allrounder.

You sound like gunner lol...Dal mai kuch kaala hai.

And I am not confused. I just want a positive batsmen in the test team. Only spot up for grabs is that of an allrounder. Pandya fits in well.

Gunner says that he isn't a complete bowler and yes he doesn't have any tools like swing & seam. But he has this nack of picking wickets and that shall do for a part timer. That was my take about his bowling role. Isn't great but shall do.

And can be an unorthodox (by test standards) batsmen and play some shots down the order. Just said that kholi should give it a try. Maybe if he clicks (even for a match or two)we shall know the way forward for the role of an allrounder.

Only gave smiths' example to show him that unorthodoxy can also work in tests and not only T20s. Never said that he is anywhere near Smith in terms of batting.

I never said that he will be successful in tests but just said that it's high time we start having second thoughts about a limited overs style allrounder in tests and give it a try to which you guys seem to have pre-set your answers to a 'no'. You just aren't ready to accept a pandya style player in our test team.

Think about it.

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

[sourab10forever]

I'm not asking Pandya to do anything. You need to comprehend that he'll need more than just line and length to pick wickets at the Test level. If you want only line and length there are a plethora of domestic bowlers who do just that and are nothing special. By saying whatever, you mean to say that you don't know the difference between Swing and Seam, and are trying to equate it with extravagant movement (Waqar-Akram). I'm talking about subtle movement - just enough to take the edge or beat the bat. Like the movement Ben Stokes or Mitch Marsh get.

 

 

 

 

How am I equating swing and seam to 'extravagant movement'?? Read my post properly. I just said 'whatever' because you are arguing on trivial things like 'I said seam and not swing'.LoL if you think I don't know the difference between seam and swing. 'Waqur-akraming' is just another term used for reverse swing. 

Edited January 28, 2016 by sourab10forever

[Gunner]

How am I equating swing and seam to 'extravagant movement'?? Read my post properly. I just said 'whatever' because you are arguing on trivial things like 'I said seam and not swing'.LoL if you think I don't know the difference between seam and swing. 'Waqur-akraming' is just another term used for reverse swing. 

It's great that now you know the difference between swing and seam lol. Again comprehension fail on your part, I said movement could mean either swing or seam. I said that in reply when you said 'Pandya doesn't need to be a great swinger(?) of the ball'. They're not trivial at all, and Pandya will need subtle movement to take wickets in Tests. And there is nothing unorthodox about Pandya's style of play, he's a typical seam-bowling allrounder.

You sound like gunner lol...Dal mai kuch kaala hai.

 

 

What exactly do you mean by this?

Edited January 28, 2016 by Gunner

[sourab10forever]

It's great that now you know the difference between swing and seam lol. Again comprehension fail on your part, I said movement could mean either swing or seam. I said that in reply when you said 'Pandya doesn't need to be a great swinger(?) of the ball'. They're not trivial at all, and Pandya will need subtle movement to take wickets in Tests. And there is nothing unorthodox about Pandya's style of play, he's a typical seam-bowling allrounder.What exactly do you mean by this?

Can you please go through the post properly before posting?

I said his batting style is unorthodox(by test standards ) and not his bowling.

Just let it be...you shall never get it.

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

[sourab10forever]

It's great that now you know the difference between swing and seam lol. Again comprehension fail on your part, I said movement could mean either swing or seam. I said that in reply when you said 'Pandya doesn't need to be a great swinger(?) of the ball'. They're not trivial at all, and Pandya will need subtle movement to take wickets in Tests. And there is nothing unorthodox about Pandya's style of play, he's a typical seam-bowling allrounder.What exactly do you mean by this?

Why the (?) ?

Swing is swing...I think now you have forgotten what swinging of the ball is:cantstop:

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

[Gunner]

Why the (?) ?

Swing is swing...I think now you have forgotten what swinging of the ball is:cantstop:

 

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

 

 

Because there is no word called 'swinger'  Need to work on your English skills a bit there hmmm..

Edited January 28, 2016 by Gunner

[Gunner]

Can you please go through the post properly before posting?

I said his batting style is unorthodox(by test standards ) and not his bowling.

Just let it be...you shall never get it.

 

Sent from my XT1033 using Tapatalk

 

 

I went through your post, nothing much there. I think you need to look up the meaning of the word 'unorthodox' in the dictionary. Pandya may be a positive batsman in T20s but that doesn't mean he's unorthodox. They're completely different things.