Case for Pandya to be the no.4

[sandeep]

On 10/23/2017 at 1:01 AM, maniac said:

**Froggy word vomit soup snipped for brevity and sanity**  TLDR - Pandya should bat at #4 

On 9/19/2017 at 7:07 PM, maniac said:

Stokes is good enough to bat in the top4....Pandya is not....Pandya is still not a shoo in on his bowling alone even though he is almost there where as England can get by without Stokes bowling...so tough comparison.

 

 

So you went from Pandya is a limited utility player like Rayudu to now he should be batting at #4.  About a month ago, you were still insisting that Pandya isn't good enough for #4.  Now all of a sudden, you puke out a 1000 words "making the case" for him?   

 

Good.  Signs that Frogacumen can accept new things once they become patently obvious.   

 

Until you come clean with a "mea culpa", I will continue to highlight your hypocrisy and silliness.  

Edited October 25, 2017 by sandeep

[sandeep]

14 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Pandya is not the 3rd seamer, his is our 5th bowler

In india, our spinners become our attacking option....pandya role is 5th bowler here and so it is overseas . Him being 3rd seamer in india doesnt hurt us much. The stupidity was paying him as 3rd seamer in eng n benching our best bowler shami 

 

I would argue that Shami was benched to accomodate playing both Ash and Jaddu, not Pandya.  So that was the stupidity.  Pandya is a 4th/5th bowler for us in LOI cricket.  He is not competing for the first 3 or 4 'pure bowler' slots in the team.   

 

The other thing I would like to point out regarding Pandya's batting, is that although I agree with you that we need to try other options, and also that his batting needs to improve a bit - but we do want him to get Pandya maximum batting opportunities in the 16 odd months left before the ODI WC.   So sending him up the order frequently and even at #4 at times, is a good idea.  

[maniac]

2 hours ago, sandeep said:

 

So you went from Pandya is a limited utility player like Rayudu to now he should be batting at #4.  About a month ago, you were still insisting that Pandya isn't good enough for #4.  Now all of a sudden, you puke out a 1000 words "making the case" for him?   

 

Good.  Signs that Frogacumen can accept new things once they become patently obvious.   

 

Until you come clean with a "mea culpa", I will continue to highlight your hypocrisy and silliness.  

Oh bhai did you even read what I said.....Pandya's bowling alone  is not good enough to earn him a slot in the side yet because there are other better proven seamers than him right now available ...however his strokeplay and ability against spinners has been impressive and might be good enough to put him in the no.4 slot where people have been failing anyways.

 

As far as the stupid theory of Pandya being a better white ball bowler than Stokes or something like that was as dumb as saying Stuart Binny is a better bowler than Ricky Ponting.That doesn't translate to Pandya being a better cricketer than Stokes....so excuse me for skipping over a flawed theory.

 

Right now we need Pandya to become as good of a batsmen as Stokes even if his bowling regresses to "Stokes" level that would still be a huge upgrade.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by maniac

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, maniac said:

As far as the stupid theory of Pandya being a better white ball bowler than Stokes or something like that was as dumb as saying Stuart Binny is a better bowler than Ricky Ponting

Really?  Don't Pandya and Stokes play the exact same role for their ODI and T20 teams?  Provide a bowling option worth about 5 overs per ODI, and some batting firepower in the middle?  Why wouldn't they be compared as ODI bowlers?  And as time goes by, the hypothesis that Pandya is the more effective ODI bowler of the 2 gains more and more statistical evidence.  Your froggy attempt at constructing a lame strawman Binny vs Ponting is only as dumb as your shameless attempt at portraying yourself as someone who backs Pandya.   

 

Btw, Are you issuing a unambiguous withdrawal of your statement that Ben Duckett is a future ATG like Virat, while Hardik Pandya is a utility player at best?   

[maniac]

18 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Really?  Don't Pandya and Stokes play the exact same role for their ODI and T20 teams?  Provide a bowling option worth about 5 overs per ODI, and some batting firepower in the middle?  Why wouldn't they be compared as ODI bowlers?  And as time goes by, the hypothesis that Pandya is the more effective ODI bowler of the 2 gains more and more statistical evidence.  Your froggy attempt at constructing a lame strawman Binny vs Ponting is only as dumb as your shameless attempt at portraying yourself as someone who backs Pandya.   

 

Btw, Are you issuing a unambiguous withdrawal of your statement that Ben Duckett is a future ATG like Virat, while Hardik Pandya is a utility player at best?   

Ok let us keep our smarmy jibes on the back burner for a while and try to be as subjective as possible and let me address your points.

 

Hardik Pandya being a utility player,Genuine bowler and comparison with Stokes- Right now yes Pandya is being used as a utility player and is that something you deny?. Expectation from him is to get a few overs in...case in point today's game where he just bowled 4 overs or when in rhythm to get a few more overs in..that doesn't make him a specialist bowler now does it?. On that regards Yes Pandya and Stokes play a similar role with the ball but the comparison stops there.

 

Now Stokes bats at No.5 and sometimes no.4 for his side and is "expected" to score big runs just like the expectation should be from any top 5 batsman .On the other side Pandya's expectation is to force the pace towards the end or try to be the finisher at 6 or 7...isn't it obvious that these are 2 different things. I know the whole boring essay is not for people with short attention spans or ADHD but what you expect from an all-rounder is being a specialist+1 and not a bit of this and bit of that. If you think Pandya is a genuine bowler than the point addressed was,is he better than Shami or even Umesh Yadav or some young bowler waiting in the wings? If he is a bowling all-rounder than comparison with Stokes doesn't make sense at all,it should be with likes of Woakes etc.

 

My inital doubts over Pandya and claims of backing him : Your problem stems from me calling Pandya a utility player which I have addressed above but I have never said  Pandya lacks potential or has no upside to him. Have I said that,then please remind me? I always said that Pandya looks raw in both departments and for him to be an important cog in the wheel and the, he needs to find his niche in one of the departments,is this something you disagree on?

 

After having enough look at his career,I think his niche is batting which will serve us better in the long run than his bowling which is a very important added bonus.

 

Finally......

 

Ben Duckett:  Ok, you see a young 20 year old who has promise,mind you the promise is identified by selectors,coach,captain of a very professionally run cricket board ECB. I have seen highlights of a couple of domestic games after being curious as to why a young kid has broken through the ranks of a team which has so many resources and a large pool of players. Now he makes an impressive international debut translating his domestic form.....so why is it wrong to be impressed with someone?

 

Ok fair enough he failed and didn't look ready for international cricket....is he the first youngster in the history of cricket to fail early on after showing great potential down the ranks? I don't get it,why have you made Duckkett your personal punching bag  ...I might be resposnible of you having a huge personal vendetta against Duckett for no fault of his.

 

Trust me of all the youngsters that get hyped on here and rightfully so is because they show exciting potential and unless you are Nostradamus you cannot predict which one will make it and which one won't....isn't it that obvious?

 

[sandeep]

You get "smarmy jibes" from me not because of we disagree on certain topics or players.  I have a high regard for quite a few posters here on ICF, who I strongly disagree with on many things - Cricketics, Mulo, and a few others.  You get the treatment, because of your unwillingness to man up to your own words.   An almost intentional reading comprehension, and  seemingly intentional intellectual dishonesty is going to test my patience, and my preference to keep discussions civil. 

 

 Your words on the Pandya-Stokes white ball bowling comparison thread are an apt demonstration of this.  And then you started this thread advocating for Pandya at #4, while just a month ago, you dismissed Pandya in the Pandya-Stokes thread by stating unambiguously that Pandya is not good enough to bat at #4.  What's expected from you, at a minimum, is an acknowledgement, that you have changed your position.  Not a Trumpian disregard for the truth.  You can do that, but then you can expect the same level of 'regard' as I have for the Orange blob.   

 

And its not about being Nostradamus - all of us get a whole lot of things wrong.  Often.   But most are man enough not to shamelessly beat both sides of the drum, while simultaneously tooting the horn of their self-professed "acumen".    

[maniac]

18 minutes ago, sandeep said:

You get "smarmy jibes" from me not because of we disagree on certain topics or players.  I have a high regard for quite a few posters here on ICF, who I strongly disagree with on many things - Cricketics, Mulo, and a few others.  You get the treatment, because of your unwillingness to man up to your own words.   An almost intentional reading comprehension, and  seemingly intentional intellectual dishonesty is going to test my patience, and my preference to keep discussions civil. 

 

 Your words on the Pandya-Stokes white ball bowling comparison thread are an apt demonstration of this.  And then you started this thread advocating for Pandya at #4, while just a month ago, you dismissed Pandya in the Pandya-Stokes thread by stating unambiguously that Pandya is not good enough to bat at #4.  What's expected from you, at a minimum, is an acknowledgement, that you have changed your position.  Not a Trumpian disregard for the truth.  You can do that, but then you can expect the same level of 'regard' as I have for the Orange blob.   

 

And its not about being Nostradamus - all of us get a whole lot of things wrong.  Often.   But most are man enough not to shamelessly beat both sides of the drum, while simultaneously tooting the horn of their self-professed "acumen".    

Most empty delusional and  Pointless post ever lol...who is clamoring for your approval

 

 

looks like there is nothing to discuss or debate here.

 

I am no doctor but I suggest adderall 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by maniac

[Vijy]

6 hours ago, sandeep said:

I would argue that Shami was benched to accomodate playing both Ash and Jaddu, not Pandya.  So that was the stupidity.  Pandya is a 4th/5th bowler for us in LOI cricket.  He is not competing for the first 3 or 4 'pure bowler' slots in the team.   

 

The other thing I would like to point out regarding Pandya's batting, is that although I agree with you that we need to try other options, and also that his batting needs to improve a bit - but we do want him to get Pandya maximum batting opportunities in the 16 odd months left before the ODI WC.   So sending him up the order frequently and even at #4 at times, is a good idea.  

Although it makes sense to give Pandya more exposure, I think it will reduce opportunities for middle-order batsmen to get enough innings at 4-6. It looks like Dhoni will be retained until the 2019 WC, and I wonder whether all this musical chairs for Nos. 4 and 5 between Jadhav, Karthik, Pandey and Rahul will lead to none of them being settled at any of these positions. It would make more sense to me for Pandya to bat at 4 in dead rubbers and get practice, while batsmen are given sufficiently long runs at 4 and 5.

[Ankit_sharma03]

9 hours ago, sandeep said:

I would argue that Shami was benched to accomodate playing both Ash and Jaddu, not Pandya.  So that was the stupidity.  Pandya is a 4th/5th bowler for us in LOI cricket.  He is not competing for the first 3 or 4 'pure bowler' slots in the team.   

I knw , i meant same shami was benched so pandya automatically became 3rd seamer

9 hours ago, sandeep said:

 

The other thing I would like to point out regarding Pandya's batting, is that although I agree with you that we need to try other options, and also that his batting needs to improve a bit - but we do want him to get Pandya maximum batting opportunities in the 16 odd months left before the ODI WC.   So sending him up the order frequently and even at #4 at times, is a good idea.  

yes i do agree on same so that y even i hve kept mentioning that he needs promotion time to time like it was done with in his early days . But choosing right situation is also important for that

[SK_IH]

taking the pandya as no.4 forward, we should include another seamer in the side and use bumrah as one change option

rohit

dhawan

virat

pandya

dhoni

another batsman

krunal

bhuvi

chahal/kuldeep

bumrah

siraj/shami

 

40 overs of proper bowling ,other 10 by pandyas and because there is no off spin option jadhav may still be in the reckoning

[SK_IH]

its so sad to see players like dk getting chances,such shortsightedness by virat and co

[fineleg]

I don't think Hardik Pandya is slated for #4 in all matches. As and when situation requires it for Hardik Pandya.

We still need to find a regular #4 to replace Yuvi.

Edited October 26, 2017 by fineleg