India's squad for Test against Bangladesh announced. Mukund returns

[sandeep]

9 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

I am talking about creating responsive systems, and you are still stuck with individuals.

how is it better to give less control to your captain and coach?  You need to elaborate.  Because from your one liners it seems you prefer to give random selectors more power, and reduce power from the captain and coach.  Its not about individuals.  Forget the names.  Shouldn't the Captain and Coach who are at the ground, and in the game, be expected to determine the team requirements and balance?  Selector's brief is to provide a squad that gives all types of player options - backup batsman, offspinner, allrounder, etc.  

[cowboysfan]

I really hope Shami is fit for the Aussie tests,he is our best fast bowler ATM.

[kruiser]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

how is it better to give less control to your captain and coach?  You need to elaborate.  Because from your one liners it seems you prefer to give random selectors more power, and reduce power from the captain and coach.  Its not about individuals.  Forget the names.  Shouldn't the Captain and Coach who are at the ground, and in the game, be expected to determine the team requirements and balance?  Selector's brief is to provide a squad that gives all types of player options - backup batsman, offspinner, allrounder, etc.  

Whether the selectors are capable or not is a separate question. Yes, we need to have a better selection body in place. However, it is the role of the selection committee to make decisions like Mukund vs Rahul or Pujara vs Nair.  This is what they are paid to do. The selectors cannot pass the ball and say "hey, we are not able to decide which one is better, so you choose. and BTW, if your chosen player fails, then it is your fault not ours". 

Going by the same logic, then the selectors can just put 22 members or 25 member team squad and let the coach / captain decide because at the end they are more knowledgeable? 

Sorry, I disagree. For overseas tours, yes there should be adequate backups. But for one off test in India, the direction needs to be set by the selectors in terms of if they want to try new players or rest some old warriors.

To your point or choosing players based on ground and pitch conditions, to an extent it can apply to spinners.. but even that is not needed for one off test. 

[sandeep]

Just now, kruiser said:

Whether the selectors are capable or not is a separate question. Yes, we need to have a better selection body in place. However, it is the role of the selection committee to make decisions like Mukund vs Rahul or Pujara vs Nair.  This is what they are paid to do. The selectors cannot pass the ball and say "hey, we are not able to decide which one is better, so you choose. and BTW, if your chosen player fails, then it is your fault not ours". 

Going by the same logic, then the selectors can just put 22 members or 25 member team squad and let the coach / captain decide because at the end they are more knowledgeable? 

Sorry, I disagree. For overseas tours, yes there should be adequate backups. But for one off test in India, the direction needs to be set by the selectors in terms of if they want to try new players or rest some old warriors.

To your point or choosing players based on ground and pitch conditions, to an extent it can apply to spinners.. but even that is not needed for one off test. 

Well I guess we can agree to disagree on the balance of power between Captain/Coach vs the Selectors.  I like the current system just fine, and prefer it to the Australian method, where the selectors overrule the captain's preferences.  

[express bowling]

12 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

 

Your choice of words, 'random selectors' for example, suggests you are not prepared to take a comprehensive view on the matter. A selector is no less or more random than the coach and the captain. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is basically a result of excessive focus on what's visible, which would be the skipper and coach, at the expense of everything else.

 

I am suggesting a system where selectors are equally responsible for the team performance, so that it is not just the captain who is held answerable. It would also safeguard the skipper from unwarranted criticism. Currently, as things stand, our selectors draw a hefty salary but feel no pressure similar to the skipper about justifying their place. Once we have a system that is responsive, where selectors know their job is tied to team's fortune, we should see whimsical and ignorant selectorial calls come down.

 

Where have I  used the word " random selectors "  ?

 

I  think you are not prepared to take a comprehensive view on the matter.

 

I just talked about a merit based selection process of selectors, whereby the best candidates, who are up for selection,  are chosen.  This is not necessarily happening now.  There were zonal quotas in place.

 

If and when that happens, the question of making them more responsible for their selection may not be a bad idea. 

Edited January 31, 2017 by express bowling

[StriKe]

India A squad for warm-up against Australians Hardik Pandya (capt), Akhil Herwadkar, Priyank Panchal, Shreyas Iyer, Ankit Bawne, Rishabh Pant, Ishan Kishan (wk), Shahbaz Nadeem, Krishnappa Gowtham, Kuldeep Yadav, Navdeep Saini, Ashok Dinda, Mohammed Siraj, Rahul Singh, B Indrajith

[express bowling]

2 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

My reply was to sandeep but I quoted you as well because of your post on the subject. @express bowling

Ok

 

As I said, I am open to the idea of selectors having to make more decisions and be made more responsible for selections, provided they are selected by a better process.  It will force them to make better choices.   It might also cut down on the captain-friend nexus that has plagued our system over ages.

 

But.... I would also want to think about the issue whereby the captain and coach may feel genuinely dissatisfied because of not getting the players they want.

 

 

[Mosher]

6 minutes ago, StriKe said:

India A squad for warm-up against Australians Hardik Pandya (capt), Akhil Herwadkar, Priyank Panchal, Shreyas Iyer, Ankit Bawne, Rishabh Pant, Ishan Kishan (wk), Shahbaz Nadeem, Krishnappa Gowtham, Kuldeep Yadav, Navdeep Saini, Ashok Dinda, Mohammed Siraj, Rahul Singh, B Indrajith

Dinda sneaks in again. Should have selected some young pacer.

[maniac]

12 minutes ago, StriKe said:

India A squad for warm-up against Australians Hardik Pandya (capt), Akhil Herwadkar, Priyank Panchal, Shreyas Iyer, Ankit Bawne, Rishabh Pant, Ishan Kishan (wk), Shahbaz Nadeem, Krishnappa Gowtham, Kuldeep Yadav, Navdeep Saini, Ashok Dinda, Mohammed Siraj, Rahul Singh, B Indrajith

Hardik Pandya captain  first Behardien and now Pandya

 

Krishnappa Gowtham in A Aquad.....Fear the K factor

 

 

 

[express bowling]

24 minutes ago, StriKe said:

India A squad for warm-up against Australians Hardik Pandya (capt), Akhil Herwadkar, Priyank Panchal, Shreyas Iyer, Ankit Bawne, Rishabh Pant, Ishan Kishan (wk), Shahbaz Nadeem, Krishnappa Gowtham, Kuldeep Yadav, Navdeep Saini, Ashok Dinda, Mohammed Siraj, Rahul Singh, B Indrajith

 

Not even a single fast bowler being promoted....although the captain and coach want to play genuine fast bowlers in test matches and even in LOIs to some extent.  We see Shami, Umesh, Ishant, Bumrah, Pandya.....pacers with genuine pace being selected in our international sides....but the picks in A teams are mostly medium-fast pacers and not a single fast bowler.   What is this achieving  ?

 

Some among  Nathu Singh, Basil Thampi, Varun Aaron, Ankit Rajpoot and Sandeep Warrier  need to have been tried.

 

Looks like a lack of communication on the issue of pacers between the selectors and team management.

Edited January 31, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, sarchasm said:

Yes, of course there ought to an equally sound system when it comes to choosing selectors themselves. Although I am less amenable to this idea that successful internationals are the only ones who can be trusted for such job. As for captain and coach feeling dissatisfied, that could happen even now when the squad is announced. The skipper and the coach can have a joint vote when it comes to choosing the final XI. But this is a matter of details and can be worked around.

I am not suggesting that only successful internationals should become selectors.  The interviewers should keep an open mind and choose those who have a good idea of talented players in the domestic circuit, clear idea about which kinds of players do well in international cricket and come across as thinking people and can take tough decisions for the sake of the building a good team.

[OpeningBatsman]

You need to have atleast 2 backup players in the squad (1 bat and 1 ball).  So I don't agree with people who are saying there should have been only 12 players for the one off match.  What will happen if one of them gets injured an hour before play?  

Remember what happened to rohit, we had to play saha as a specialist bat because there was no backup.

Having said that 16 is an overkill, 14 would have been perfect. 

[fineleg]

2 hours ago, kruiser said:

yes, I know that is how it has been in India and I dont like it. It used to be 14 people squad earlier, then the selectors started with 15 and now 16! why not give the entire 200 player pool and let the captain and coach choose who they want? 

I call this spineless selection - or in corporate terminology a pathetic CYA. 

Sorry if this is not the common opinion, but thats what I think. 

@kruiser Our selectors are very inept. Given that, I'd rather they select 20 , not 16. And then let the Captain and Coach pick final 11.

Honestly, I prefer 20 to be announced. I have more trust in Kohli's pick than selectors' pick.

[fineleg]

2 hours ago, vishalvirsingh said:

Vijay has a very selfish way to BAT in tests..

 

 

@vishalvirsingh pls watch T20, dont watch Tests

[express bowling]

9 minutes ago, OpeningBatsman said:

You need to have atleast 2 backup players in the squad (1 bat and 1 ball).  So I don't agree with people who are saying there should have been only 12 players for the one off match.  What will happen if one of them gets injured an hour before play?  

Remember what happened to rohit, we had to play saha as a specialist bat because there was no backup.

Having said that 16 is an overkill, 14 would have been perfect. 

Yes...1 batsman, 1 pacer and 1 spinner as back-ups are needed to cover for sudden injuries.

 

In this case we have 1 additional back-up opener and Hardik Pandya being kept with the squad, perhaps as a special case to prepare him for the seamer-all-rounder's role for overseas tests. 

 

 

[Cricketics]

Can't really complain about the main squad against Bangladesh. It is a one off test and they  want to make sure they want to make sure that they do not make too many changes in this game and give Bangladesh a sniff. 

 

Glad Kuldeep is retained for India A against Australia. Gives him a good chance to impress the selectors.

 

Good to see selectors backing Siraj for the A squad but similarly they can get in a bowler from the Rajasthan Ranji squad too who always usually go unnoticed. They have good set of bowlers. Especially since Dinda is picked, they could have given another guy a go.

 

 

[King Tendulkar]

No real suprises and much to discuss 

 

pretty settled squad 

[sandeep]

53 minutes ago, sarchasm said:

 

Your choice of words, 'random selectors' for example, suggests you are not prepared to take a comprehensive view on the matter. A selector is no less or more random than the coach and the captain. The fatal flaw in your reasoning is basically a result of excessive focus on what's visible, which would be the skipper and coach, at the expense of everything else.

 

I am suggesting a system where selectors are equally responsible for the team performance, so that it is not just the captain who is held answerable. It would also safeguard the skipper from unwarranted criticism. Currently, as things stand, our selectors draw a hefty salary but feel no pressure similar to the skipper about justifying their place. Once we have a system that is responsive, where selectors know their job is tied to team's fortune, we should see whimsical and ignorant selectorial calls come down.

Look at the captains we've had in the last 20 years and compare them to the selectors we've had in the same timeframe.  I think its fair to state that the captains have been far more competent and worthy of trust and being empowered than the selectors.  As ExpressB has pointed out, if you improve the quality of selectors, then maybe you can empower them further.  But its a muddy process.  You can't just shift power away from the captain and expect that to work - you would need to to select better selectors first :)

 

 And IMHO, that is no guarantee of improvement either.  I'm happy with the Captain/Coach having greater sway in selecting the final XI - but as I said earlier - agree to disagree.

[TheWall]

2 hours ago, kruiser said:

16 players -- WTF! Selectors just passing the baton to Captain and coach. There should not be more than 12 for a match being played in India. Make it 13 if you want to account for spinning vs fast pitches, but thats it!

It should be the selectors and not team management deciding whom to play.  

What next?? Selectors themselves to play????

[maniac]

India's bench strength looks very impressive......Shami,Dhawan,Rohit-3 players who were in the starting line up a few months back are missing but still looks like a full strength squad and apart from those 3 we still have fringe  players like Pandey,Thakur,Patel who were in the squad recently. Then add potential players under consideration like Pant,Iyer,Kuldeep etc our test squad looks real good