What happened to Hemang Badani?

[Khota]

6 hours ago, kosingh said:

Maybe you are thinking of someone else.

 

Bedani's only 100 came against Australia on 28th March 2001. He played on 31st March, 3rd April and 6th April.

I was pretty sure he was not selected for the next game. I could be wrong too.

[PBN]

this what happened

 

[cricketfan28]

no consistency.

[youngindia]

He had everything going for him right from u14 times.

 

Got selected to city schools s first step along with his u14 captain, ravindran john who was more impressive at the time. My bet at that time would have been for ravindran to be more successful later. But badani was a very hard man to dismiss as well as i found in the nets.

 

They also got the selected for the tn u14 team and i used to follow the scores. they made some impact there as well with partnerships.

 

when i saw them again, they have transformed completely in their skillset. were charging more senior  fast men like nothing.

 

Generally my memories of him as a cricketer are positive and initiative oriented.

 

At the international stage, i didnt see the same person. The biggest stage showed a lot of conservatism. he was solid but he was not taking bull by the horns. Kaif took the edge because of his fielding and also that innings at natwest.

 

Mongia also got some chances as he impressed the batting big guns with an innings in domestics.maybe mongia was the worst thing for him.

took some chances that he could have used.

 

His exit was a bit harsh. In the few chances he got, he gave solid performances like a partnership at perth, when everyone failed. 

 

Maybe they wanted someone who can make a difference rather than merely solid performances. Kaif also found himself out in a few years.

but it can be said badani didnt get the second chances that kaif and mongia did.

 

 

[Vk1]

How good was that domestic run machine amol mazumdar? 

[mishra]

14 hours ago, Number said:

Yuvraj Kaif were better players as they were match winners.

Top order had Sachin Sehwag Ganguly already.

In that era, anything below Yuvi wasnt even close to being acceptable. Infact even Yuvi was just about there. If it wasnt his bowling and fielding, I have to say he wouldnt have made the cut. Remember Dravid had to keep to save his spot.

[vvvslaxman]

He produced one of  a great Ranji innings under pressure. I think he made like 170. He is a bit like Stephen Fleming upright. He didn't capitalize on his success to go from strength to strength. Sadagopan Ramesh's career was ruined by selectors by not giving him chance on Australian tour ahead of Akash chopra.

[sandeep]

17 hours ago, The Dark Horse said:

Ramesh was better (at least in tests) -didnt get fair treatment.

BS. Revisionist history and not fact-based. Ramesh got replaced by Sehwag at the top of the order - a massive upgrade by any yardstick.

[kosingh]

30 minutes ago, sandeep said:

BS. Revisionist history and not fact-based. Ramesh got replaced by Sehwag at the top of the order - a massive upgrade by any yardstick.

I think we even tried Deep Dasgupta and Sanjay Bangar for a game or two as openers around then. Thank god Sehwag came along to solve a years old opening batsman problem. 

[sandeep]

9 minutes ago, kosingh said:

I think we even tried Deep Dasgupta and Sanjay Bangar for a game or two as openers around then. Thank god Sehwag came along to solve a years old opening batsman problem. 

Ramesh gets extremely over-rated by a fans from a certain part of the world.   He lost his place in the team due to his own laziness and bad attitude towards practice and fitness, not to mention inconsistent performances.   The only slack you can cut him is that he did belatedly realize his mistakes and was working hard for a comeback, but Veeru's 195 in Melbourne shut that door for him.    And you can't blame the selectors or team management for not wanting another 'dasher' with limited technique at the top of the order, especially given our horrifically poor set of opening batsmen in the 1996-2003 timeframe.   We had a gun middle-order that was not able to produce runs optimally because the openers would invariably fail to last beyond 5 overs.   

[kosingh]

People remember Ramesh because he made a very nice start to his career. After his first 7 matches he averaged 55 and it seemed like India may have found the opening answer. But in his next 12 matches he averaged 26, and by most accounts, like mentioned above, he became lazy and didn't have a great attitude.

Edited June 28, 2017 by kosingh

[The Dark Horse]

56 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Ramesh gets extremely over-rated by a fans from a certain part of the world.   He lost his place in the team due to his own laziness and bad attitude towards practice and fitness, not to mention inconsistent performances.   The only slack you can cut him is that he did belatedly realize his mistakes and was working hard for a comeback, but Veeru's 195 in Melbourne shut that door for him.    And you can't blame the selectors or team management for not wanting another 'dasher' with limited technique at the top of the order, especially given our horrifically poor set of opening batsmen in the 1996-2003 timeframe.   We had a gun middle-order that was not able to produce runs optimally because the openers would invariably fail to last beyond 5 overs.   

You cannot even compare him to Sehwag. However, he has an avg of 38 (Which is not bad for the time period given the kind of openers we had at that point). All I'm saying is he could have been given chances ahead of say Akash Chopra/ Deep Dasgupta/ SS Das (Read played more games consistently). Even his last series was not so bad. His fault would be not having too many stand-out performances and hence could not force his way into the team.

[sandeep]

10 minutes ago, The Dark Horse said:

You cannot even compare him to Sehwag. However, he has an avg of 38 (Which is not bad for the time period given the kind of openers we had at that point). All I'm saying is he could have been given chances ahead of say Akash Chopra/ Deep Dasgupta/ SS Das (Read played more games consistently). Even his last series was not so bad. His fault would be not having too many stand-out performances and hence could not force his way into the team.

You have to look at the context of the time, and what the team needed.  Were you following Indian cricket back then?   Then you would know why he got his ass kicked out of the team when John Wright became coach.   

 

Sure in hindsight his numbers look better compared to Akash, Dasgupta or Das - Ramesh batted with Das for a bit IIRC.   But Indian team desperately needed Opening batsmen who could bat time.  Ramesh was never that type of bat - he was a poor man's Michael Slater and his lead-foot technique meant very low probability of success away from home.   No surprise, and no mistake, when the selectors opted for the likes of Chopra etc over him.  

[The Dark Horse]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

You have to look at the context of the time, and what the team needed.  Were you following Indian cricket back then?   Then you would know why he got his ass kicked out of the team when John Wright became coach.   

 

Sure in hindsight his numbers look better compared to Akash, Dasgupta or Das - Ramesh batted with Das for a bit IIRC.   But Indian team desperately needed Opening batsmen who could bat time.  Ramesh was never that type of bat - he was a poor man's Michael Slater and his lead-foot technique meant very low probability of success away from home.   No surprise, and no mistake, when the selectors opted for the likes of Chopra etc over him.  

I give the benefit of doubt to you, for I was too young that time to follow cricket so closely. Also the selectors were trying Keepers as openers like Sameer Dighe, Dasgupta etc. at that time. At least he should have been in the scheme of things, which I'm not sure. 

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, The Dark Horse said:

I give the benefit of doubt to you, for I was too young that time to follow cricket so closely. Also the selectors were trying Keepers as openers like Sameer Dighe, Dasgupta etc. at that time. At least he should have been in the scheme of things, which I'm not sure. 

Dasgupta was more of a batsman who could keep, and quite ordinary with both.  Dighe was a pure 'keeper who may have only opened in an emergency.  

 

Dighe helped us win that iconic 2001 series though - don't brush him off so easy.   That great Aussie team almost beat us at Chennai defending a low score.   I will always have a lot of respect for Jason Gillespie based on his efforts in that series alone.  Had a big heart that guy.  True fighter.

 

Like I said earlier - Ramesh was good enough to be in contention - but the problem for him was Sehwag's emergence as a viable opener.  There was no way Indian team could afford to have 2 openers who were in that attack-first mold - that's what sealed his fate.

Edited June 28, 2017 by sandeep

[NameGoesHere]

Instead of what could have for Hemang Badani, this thread is turning into a shithounds eleven.  

 

Sadagoppan Ramesh, Vijay Bharadwaj.  Jeez, gents, let's not change history.  Both guys were no good at the international level; Ramesh was maybe slightly better (IMO), but neither adjusted to pace bowling.  

 

And while we're at it, Badani was no lost genius either.  He was unlucky to not get more chances, but on the whole (one innings aside) did not set the field on fire.

 

This thread is a lower down down-market version of the Kambli -is -a -genius- better- than- Tendulkar-have- you- seen- his- Test- average -of -54.20 thread, which pops up once in every few years in forums round the world. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by NameGoesHere

[sandeep]

14 minutes ago, NameGoesHere said:

Instead of what could have for Hemang Badani, this thread is turning into a shithounds eleven.  

 

Sadagoppan Ramesh, Vijay Bharadwaj.  Jeez, gents, let's not change history.  Both guys were no good at the international level; Ramesh was maybe slightly better (IMO), but neither adjusted to pace bowling.  

 

And while we're at it, Badani was no lost genius either.  He was unlucky to not get more chances, but on the whole (one innings aside) did not set the field on fire.

 

This thread is a lower down down-market version of the Kambli -is -a -genius- better- than- Tendulkar-have- you- seen- his- Test- average -of -54.20 thread, which pops up once in every few years in forums round the world. 

Shithounds eleven.   

 

To be fair, Badani was nowhere near as bad as Dinesh Mongia.   I would imagine it would still rankle VVS that he was excluded from the 2003 ODI team for that flat track minnow basher who had one century against Zimbabwe to hang his hat on.

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

Shithounds eleven.   

 

To be fair, Badani was nowhere near as bad as Dinesh Mongia.   I would imagine it would still rankle VVS that he was excluded from the 2003 ODI team for that flat track minnow basher who had one century against Zimbabwe to hang his hat on.

Badani was certainly better than Mongia as a bat; Mongia was a slightly better part-time bowler.

[rtmohanlal]

Not good enough.... as simple as that

[Vijy]

5 hours ago, sandeep said:

Ramesh gets extremely over-rated by a fans from a certain part of the world.   He lost his place in the team due to his own laziness and bad attitude towards practice and fitness, not to mention inconsistent performances.   The only slack you can cut him is that he did belatedly realize his mistakes and was working hard for a comeback, but Veeru's 195 in Melbourne shut that door for him.    And you can't blame the selectors or team management for not wanting another 'dasher' with limited technique at the top of the order, especially given our horrifically poor set of opening batsmen in the 1996-2003 timeframe.   We had a gun middle-order that was not able to produce runs optimally because the openers would invariably fail to last beyond 5 overs.   

Mostly from Tamil Nadu and thereabouts, who make him out to be the lost batting talent of the 90s. He was, as you said, in the Slater mould and not very effective at that. Moreover, he had issues with attitude, fitness, etc. and deserved to be discarded.