Basil Thampi

[Lord]

12 minutes ago, express bowling said:

He has 16 wickets from 16 T20I matches and his wicket-taking rate is not as good as the IPL where he has 108 wickets from 88 matches.

 

I know that IPL is not a 50 over format but most people in this forum seem to make their ODI picks based on the IPL. 

 

Hence the statement.

16 wickets in 16 games at an ER under 7 is pretty good.ER is very important in T20,if not most.I think only Bumrah has done better in that regard

 

Ofcourse he wouldnt do as well in intl as in IPL being higher competition.But no means hes been average.He has been played less iin T20s and more in ODIs where batsmen play out his initial overs and attack at death

 

I feel selectors should use IPL for T20Is only.Shami is champion in ODIs but noway good in T20s whether IPL or T20Is

 

[express bowling]

19 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

Performances matter at every level else how do you get to the intl level to prove you belong?

That is incorrect.   Tell me this.... Vinay Kumar and Pankaj Singh, 2 of our best domestic performers at FC level, have played only 1 and 2 test matches respectively.   How was it known that they are not test match material despite such limited chances  ?  If performances at FC level mattered then these 2 would have played many many more tests.

 

They did not get sufficient chances because they were medium pacers.

 

Quote

A player can fight anything but not pre-conceived notions and bias. I mean it's mind boggling to see one bowler with figures of 31 runs off 4 overs and winning the match being mentioned as being "clobbered" whereas a bowler conceding 43 off 3.4 terms and unable to help his team defend a total of 196 being appreciated for bowling a yorker   Nobody can fight against such bias and double standard.

 

That is because captains, coaches, selectors as well as a high percentage of fans do not want to see medium pacers in our national team.

 

Tell me this.... why did Bhuvi play just 3 out of the last 19 T20Is in which he was in the squad, although Dhoni was the captain in 16 of those T20Is  ?   Bhuvi has  been a top IPL performer and should have been an automatic choice.

 

The answer is because all captains are uncomfortable playing medium pacers, even Dhoni.  

 

Now that Bhuvi has added pace, you would see him in more LOIs.    : )

 

Sandeep Sharma may get selected in the Indian team but he will get much less leeway than say an Ishant or an Umesh.  One bad patch, one injury and he may lose his place.

Edited May 10, 2017 by express bowling

[express bowling]

12 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

I feel selectors should use IPL for T20Is only.Shami is champion in ODIs but noway good in T20s whether IPL or T20Is

 

I absolutely agree with this part.

Edited May 10, 2017 by express bowling

[Ultimate_Game]

4 minutes ago, express bowling said:

That is incorrect.   Tell me this.... Vinay Kumar and Pankaj Singh, 2 of our best domestic performers at FC level, have played only 1 and 2 test matches respectively.   How was it known that they are not test match material despite such limited chances  ?  If performances at FC level mattered then these 2 would have played many many more tests.

 

They did not get sufficient chances because they were medium pacers.

 

 

That is because captains, coaches, selectors as well as a high percentage of fans do not want to see medium pacers in our national team.

 

Tell me this.... why did Bhuvi play just 3 out of the last 19 T20Is in which he was in the squad, although Dhoni was the captain in 16 of those T20Is  ?   Bhuvi has  been a top IPL performer and should have been an automatic choice.

 

The answer is because all captains are uncomfortable playing medium pacers, even Dhoni.  

 

Now that Bhuvi has added pace, you would see him in more LOIs.    : )

 

Sandeep Sharma may get selected in the Indian team but he will get much less leeway than say an Ishant or an Umesh.  One bad patch, one injury and he may lose his place.

Both Vinay Kumar and Pankaj Singh were found out in IPL whereas Sandeep has aced this test as well. In nutshell the progression level essentially is: u-19->domestic ->IPL->Intl

 

Likes of Vinay Kumar, Dinda, Pankaj Singh etc. couldn't cut it at IPL. Sandeep has been different. He has come out on top at every level, including IPL, and that is why he deserves to be backed and given chances at the next level which is with Team India. There are very few Indian pacers who have performed consistently over a period of time in IPL and Sandeep belongs to that select few.

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, Ultimate_Game said:

Both Vinay Kumar and Pankaj Singh were found out in IPL whereas Sandeep has aced this test as well. In nutshell the progression level essentially is: u-19->domestic ->IPL->Intl

 

Likes of Vinay Kumar, Dinda, Pankaj Singh etc. couldn't cut it at IPL. Sandeep has been different. He has come out on top at every level, including IPL, and that is why he deserves to be backed and given chances at the next level which is with Team India. There are very few Indian pacers who have performed consistently over a period of time in IPL and Sandeep belongs to that select few.

 

How are IPL performances relevant for test matches  ?

[Ultimate_Game]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

How are IPL performances relevant for test matches  ?

Where am I saying anything about Tests? I've stated all along Sandeep should be given a chance in shorter formats for Team India based on his consistent performances both in domestic cricket and IPL. And that's why I'm using IPL as a yardstick coz in shorter formats IPL is a step up from domestic cricket and the closest you can get to intl level.

[express bowling]

2 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

Where am I saying anything about Tests? I've stated all along Sandeep should be given a chance in shorter formats for Team India based on his consistent performances both in domestic cricket and IPL. And that's why I'm using IPL as a yardstick coz in shorter formats IPL is a step up from domestic cricket and the closest you can get to intl level.

I brought up the names of Vinay and  Pankaj  regarding test matches, to showcase that performances in FC mean very little..... because YOU said that performances matter at every level.

 

Forget Sandeep for a moment and tell me why Vinay and Pankaj got to play only 1 and 2 tests respectively despite being top FC performers for years  ?    How was it known that they are not good enough for tests with such limited chances  ?

[Ultimate_Game]

Just now, express bowling said:

I brought up the names of Vinay and  Pankaj  regarding test matches, to showcase that performances in FC mean very little..... because YOU said that performances matter at every level.

 

Forget Sandeep for a moment and tell me why Vinay and Pankaj got to play only 1 and 2 tests respectively despite being top FC performers for years  ?    How was it known that they are not good enough for tests with such limited chances  ?

And I said in case of Sandeep he has a much stronger case coz he also succeeded at IPL, which is one level up from domestic and the closest to intl. Thus all the more reason for someone like Sandeep to be tried as he has done one better than others, i.e. succeed at IPL as well along with u-19 and domestic.

[express bowling]

7 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

And I said in case of Sandeep he has a much stronger case coz he also succeeded at IPL, which is one level up from domestic and the closest to intl. Thus all the more reason for someone like Sandeep to be tried as he has done one better than others, i.e. succeed at IPL as well along with u-19 and domestic.

Just forget Sandeep for a wee moment and answer my question about Vinay and  Pankaj.

 

On what basis do you think it was  decided that they are not international material despite being top FC performers over years  ?

Edited May 10, 2017 by express bowling

[Ultimate_Game]

3 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Just forget Sandeep for a wee moment and answer my question about Vinay and  Pankaj.

 

On what basis do you think it was  decided that they are not international material despite being top FC performers over years  ?

Why forget Sandeep? We are talking short format and so far we've seen that the best short format pacer for us is Bumrah who made his name in IPL. Bhuvi has been pretty good and he has done well in IPL as well. Sandeep is the only other Indian pacer along these two who has consistently performed well in IPL over the last few years. Based on this record it stands to reason for Sandeep to be backed and I would expect him to do well at intl level too.

[express bowling]

5 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

Why forget Sandeep? We are talking short format and so far we've seen that the best short format pacer for us is Bumrah who made his name in IPL. Bhuvi has been pretty good and he has done well in IPL as well. Sandeep is the only other Indian pacer along these two who has consistently performed well in IPL over the last few years. Based on this record it stands to reason for Sandeep to be backed and I would expect him to do well at intl level too.

I will come to Sandeep's question is 2 minutes after you answer my question..... I promise.

 

Just answer my question first.

Edited May 10, 2017 by express bowling

[Ultimate_Game]

Just now, express bowling said:

I will come to Sandeep's question is 2 minutes... I promise.

 

Just answer my question first.

But I don't see any similarity between the Pankaj/Vinay and Sandeep situation at all. In Tests there's a huge gulf between Tests and domestic coz you don't have IPL for Tests. But in shorter formats IPL provides the next level up from domestic cricket and is the closest to intl standard. This argument is backed by the fact that in shorter formats our best pacers (Bumrah and Bhuvi) have done well in IPL.

 

Sandeep is the only other Indian pacer who has consistently performed in IPL over the last 3-4 years. Based on this correlation between consistent performances in IPL over a period of time for Indian pacers translating to intl level, I would expect Sandeep to be tried in shorter formats coz I can't think of any other Indian seamer barring Bumrah & Bhuvi who has done as well as Sandeep in IPL over the last few years.

[express bowling]

1 minute ago, Ultimate_Game said:

But I don't see any similarity between the Pankaj/Vinay and Sandeep situation at all. In Tests there's a huge gulf between Tests and domestic coz you don't have IPL for Tests. But in shorter formats IPL provides the next level up from domestic cricket and is the closest to intl standard. This argument is backed by the fact that in shorter formats our best pacers (Bumrah and Bhuvi) have done well in IPL.

 

Sandeep is the only other Indian pacer who has consistently performed in IPL over the last 3-4 years. Based on this correlation between consistent performances in IPL over a period of time for Indian pacers translating to intl level, I would expect Sandeep to be tried in shorter formats coz I can't think of any other Indian seamer barring Bumrah & Bhuvi who has done as well as Sandeep in IPL over the last few years.

Can't you answer a question diretectly  ?

 

On what basis do you think Pankaj and Vinay were thought to be not fit for test cricket.  Just answer this question and nothing else without beating around the bush.

 

Just tell me the basis for their rejection according to you.

[express bowling]

You did not answer but since I  promised.......

 

My  assessment about Sandeep is that he may get a chance in our T20I squad  if he manages to end the IPL on a high.

 

But Bumrah, Bhuvi and Nehra are being preferred now and so there is no guarantee that he will get a  place.

 

ODI teams should not be chosen based on the IPL.

[Ultimate_Game]

2 minutes ago, express bowling said:

Can't you answer a question diretectly  ?

 

On what basis do you think Pankaj and Vinay were thought to be not fit for test cricket.  Just answer this question and nothing else without beating around the bush.

 

Just tell me the basis for their rejection according to you.

But I did answer your question saying there are no similarities between Pankaj/Vinay and Sandeep situation. There would've been a similarity if I were asking Sandeep to be picked for Tests. And the reason these two situations are so different are coz there's no IPL sort of level which exists for Tests, i.e. between FC and Tests. Pankaj and Vinay didn't get to bowl to likes of ABDV, Gayle, Lynn etc. anywhere.

 

Shorter formats things are different thanks to existence of IPL. Bowlers can't hide behind their domestic stats coz they get found out in IPL going against better batsmen, especially the overseas ones. Likes of Vinay, Pankaj, Dinda etc. had pretty good List A stats but were found out in IPL. Sandeep OTOH had pretty good List A stats and performed well in IPL as well where he has gone against the likes of ABDV, Gayle, Kohli, Lynn etc. If Sandeep can perform against these batsmen in IPL, why can't he succeed at intl level against the very same or similar batsmen? That's why shorter format is different as there are more opportunities to see where a player stands whereas for Tests there's no similar platform to evaluate the players.

 

And so far we've seen the best Indian pacers (Bumrah, Bhuvi) doing well in IPL and replicate the success at intl level. Sandeep is the only other Indian pacer to consistently perform in IPL over the last few years, thus it stands to reason the chances of Sandeep succeeding at intl level are way higher than expecting someone like Pankaj/Vinay in Tests. I hope you see the difference between the two scenarios, i.e. FC->Tests the jump is huge and you have to take a leap of faith. Whereas in case of shorter formats IPL bridges the gap between ListA->Intl cricket coz you can see how players perform against world class players. I don't think I can explain it any simpler.

[maniac]

15 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

But I did answer your question saying there are no similarities between Pankaj/Vinay and Sandeep situation. There would've been a similarity if I were asking Sandeep to be picked for Tests. And the reason these two situations are so different are coz there's no IPL sort of level which exists for Tests, i.e. between FC and Tests. Pankaj and Vinay didn't get to bowl to likes of ABDV, Gayle, Lynn etc. anywhere.

 

Shorter formats things are different thanks to existence of IPL. Bowlers can't hide behind their domestic stats coz they get found out in IPL going against better batsmen, especially the overseas ones. Likes of Vinay, Pankaj, Dinda etc. had pretty good List A stats but were found out in IPL. Sandeep OTOH had pretty good List A stats and performed well in IPL as well where he has gone against the likes of ABDV, Gayle, Kohli, Lynn etc. If Sandeep can perform against these batsmen in IPL, why can't he succeed at intl level against the very same or similar batsmen? That's why shorter format is different as there are more opportunities to see where a player stands whereas for Tests there's no similar platform to evaluate the players.

 

And so far we've seen the best Indian pacers (Bumrah, Bhuvi) doing well in IPL and replicate the success at intl level. Sandeep is the only other Indian pacer to consistently perform in IPL over the last few years, thus it stands to reason the chances of Sandeep succeeding at intl level are way higher than expecting someone like Pankaj/Vinay in Tests. I hope you see the difference between the two scenarios, i.e. FC->Tests the jump is huge and you have to take a leap of faith. Whereas in case of shorter formats IPL bridges the gap between ListA->Intl cricket coz you can see how players perform against world class players. I don't think I can explain it any simpler.

What are you talking about...While Pankaj did nothing of note in IPL, Vinay was one of the leading wicket takers the first few editions....to top that he was rightfully a lejund in domestics but when he stepped in to the international arena warner put him in place.

 

on the other hand same tour umesh who was impressive in IPL but did nothing to show for in terms of stats stood out among the carnage of that tour.

[express bowling]

32 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

But I did answer your question saying there are no similarities between Pankaj/Vinay and Sandeep situation.

I did not ask you about the similarities of situation between Sandeep and the other 2.     I  did not ask you about Sandeep at all.    I made this very clear.

 

My question was,  " Accordiong to you,  why and on what basis were Vinay and Pankaj not given sufficient chances to prove themselves in test matches although they had been top FC performers for multiple years  ?  How was it decided  that they are not good enough for test matches  ?  "

 

If you cannot answer this without mentioning Sandeep then I  will form a very poor opinion about your comprehension skills.

Edited May 10, 2017 by express bowling

[Ultimate_Game]

8 minutes ago, express bowling said:

I did not ask you about the similarities of situation between Sandeep and the other 2.     I  did not ask you about Sandeep at all.    I made this very clear.

 

My question was,  " Accordiong to you,  why and on what basis were Vinay and Pankaj not given sufficient chances to prove themselves in test matches although they had been top FC performers for multiple years  ?  How was it decided  that they are not good enough for test matches  ?  "

 

If you cannot answer this without mentioning Sandeep then I  will form a very poor opinion about your comprehension skills.

But what exactly has that scenario got to do with Sandeep or shorter format selection?   I've already explained the rationale why I think Sandeep should be selected for shorter formats and my reasoning. I've also explained in detail why Pankaj & Vinay situation is no way comparable to Sandeep's since neither Vinay or Pankaj performed against better opponents (overseas players) whereas Sandeep has.

 

If I had been asking for Sandeep's inclusion solely on the basis of domestic/List A stats it would've been comparable to Vinay/Pankaj case but I'm not doing so.

[Ultimate_Game]

26 minutes ago, maniac said:

What are you talking about...While Pankaj did nothing of note in IPL, Vinay was one of the leading wicket takers the first few editions....to top that he was rightfully a lejund in domestics but when he stepped in to the international arena warner put him in place.

 

on the other hand same tour umesh who was impressive in IPL but did nothing to show for in terms of stats stood out among the carnage of that tour.

Vinay may be taking wkts but going at a high ER. Vinay's ER was one of the highest going around whereas Sandeep is one of the best at keeping a low ER in PP overs. Sandeep has comfortably outbowled likes of Vinay, Dinda etc. in IPL.

[maniac]

7 minutes ago, Ultimate_Game said:

But what exactly has that scenario got to do with Sandeep or shorter format selection?   I've already explained the rationale why I think Sandeep should be selected for shorter formats and my reasoning. I've also explained in detail why Pankaj & Vinay situation is no way comparable to Sandeep's since neither Vinay or Pankaj performed against better opponents (overseas players) whereas Sandeep has.

 

If I had been asking for Sandeep's inclusion solely on the basis of domestic/List A stats it would've been comparable to Vinay/Pankaj case but I'm not doing so.

Odi rules have changed now...it's almost like a pp+mini pp for 40 overs now with flat pitches and big bats so that rules out someone who can bowl at 125-130ks

 

even philander doesn't play odi cricket...likes of grandhomme or maybe in the future someone like tye etc will make it as allrounders.

 

so are you advocating Sandeep only for t20is? 

 

Clear at this and we will take it forward