Selection fack up

[living]

even though we have 5 bowlers, i still feel we need close to 500 to have a chance of winning this game the pitch is pretty good to bat on, so dont expect the aussies to get bowled out for nothing scores

Which is exactly why we need another wicket taking option - which in this case is bhajjii!!

[bunny]

I think hindsight is needed to argue against such marginal decisions. If India score 500 then the decision worked out fine or if India dismisses Australia for less than 450 (with HS taking at least one top order wicket) the decision is justified again. Also, people are making this sound as though if we had included DK our total would have jumped up by 200 runs or so. Nope it wouldn't have happened. Given that Karthik had a horrible series in Pakistan and a lot of trouble with the outswinger I don't think he would have contributed more than 30 (which is also pretty much his average). IP would anyway have had to bat a bit against the new ball (because we would anyway have been close to 300/5-6 in 90 overs). In any case you can't expect him to score significantly more than his average which is close to 30. So 60 (at max 70) runs in all. IP has already scored 10. So we are roughly 50 runs short and also HS is yet to bat. OTOH, if we bowl HS a lot and realize he is not working and then give SRT or VS a go and that works, then the move backfired a lot (because we could have introduced SRT or VS way earlier). Everything will come out in the open in the next couple of days.

[Shehezaada]

Non-sequitor, Sriram. Five bowlers were chosen because batsmen would be hard to dislodge on this road of a pitch. However, the corollary is that your batsmen should be good enough and consistent enough to make up for the one missing. That was never going to happen once Pathan was pushed up the order to face Australia's top guns. So, in effect, India have ended up two batsmen short. Pretty short sighted thinking, I'm afraid. The genesis of this kind of scrambled thinking lies in the Indian selector's boneheadedness in not selecting a genuine third opener to go with Jaffer and Sehwag. With Jaffer's failures, there was a genuine opportunity for another opener to seize the moment, but so low is the team management's faith in makeshift incumbent Kartick, that they couldn't bring themselves to select him. You can see where they are coming from, can't you? Kartick was massively outscored in the Pakistan series by Jaffer. The thinking is, if Jaffer is struggling to get into double figures against this quality of bowling, what chance would Kartick have?

The move was made to include bhajji in the side. On a turning wicket and in the 4th innings, he along with Kumble will make life difficult for the batsmen. And we won't be making any less then 400 today.

[observer1]

aus will get to about 600, and we will lose by an innings, the pessimist inside me says

[suraj]

Yuvi should have played - additional batsman and then AK, Yuvi and VS could have bowled spin

[Dhondy]

Ho-hum. To appreciate the follies of ad-hocism, consider this for a moment; had Australia won the toss, they would have batted, and Pathan, in all likelihood, given the docile track, would have had to bowl upwards of 25 overs. Would he then have been asked to come out and open the innings? It would have been madness to ask such superhuman feats of him! So what was it going to be? If India batted first, Pathan would open. If Australia batted, it would be Dravid's lot. Really! What sort of mental frame would you be in if you knew that you might have to open, but if only if the coin fell a certain way? Doesn't say much about the cerebral processes of our "think-tank", does it? Some may construe this as an aggressive move, but in my book, it was sheer tom-foolery.

[head coach]

Ho-hum. To appreciate the follies of ad-hocism, consider this for a moment; had Australia won the toss, they would have batted, and Pathan, in all likelihood, given the docile track, would have had to bowl upwards of 25 overs. Would he then have been asked to come out and open the innings? It would have been madness to ask such superhuman feats of him! So what was it going to be? If India batted first, Pathan would open. If Australia batted, it would be Dravid's lot. Really! What sort of mental frame would you be in if you knew that you might have to open, but if only if the coin fell a certain way? Doesn't say much about the cerebral processes of our "think-tank", does it? Some may construe this as an aggressive move, but in my book, it was sheer tom-foolery.

No plan in place as such. After Sehwag's arrival Dravid was pushed to his normal position. Pathan opening this Test is a stop-gap for accommodating Harbajan Singh. Dravid failed as opener and played well at one down in this series so obviously with his friend at helm of affairs, he got better verdict to come in at number three. I dont read more than that...

[Dhondy]

No plan in place as such. After Sehwag's arrival Dravid was pushed to his normal position. Pathan opening this Test is a stop-gap for accommodating Harbajan Singh. Dravid failed as opener and played well at one down in this series so obviously with his friend at helm of affairs' date=' he got better verdict to come in at number three. I dont read more than that...[/quote'] Head coach, I am not trying to be funny, but have you have ever played cricket? Try telling a fast bowler to open the innings after he's bowled 25 overs in 35+ heat, and you'll be lucky to get away with more than a dirty look.

[talksport]

IMO Harbhajan Singh and Out of Form Openers is a Red Herring. Its the Flintoff theory that is working ... Pathan is no Flintoff.....Yet India wanted him to be like that ....and mind you Flintoff is not born overnight. He graduated slowly in Test Cricket and reached his peak in 2005 Also , Australia after losing ashes openly said they needed a all rounder ala Flintoff and try to push for you know whom... Shane Watson

[talksport]

Head coach, I am not trying to be funny, but have you have ever played cricket? Try telling a fast bowler to open the innings after he's bowled 25 overs in 35+ heat, and you'll be lucky to get away with more than a dirty look.

Its not ideal , but Captains can avoid bowling the Opener towards the end of innings. In past Prabhakar used to the role. Also how is it different to wicket keepr opening... ala Alec Stewart. Its tough ...but tough Sportsmen do that.

[Dhondy]

IMO Harbhajan Singh and Out of Form Openers is a Red Herring. Its the Flintoff theory that is working ... Pathan is no Flintoff.....Yet India wanted him to be like that ....and mind you Flintoff is not born overnight. He graduated slowly in Test Cricket and reached his peak in 2005 Also , Australia after losing ashes openly said they needed a all rounder ala Flintoff and try to push for you know whom... Shane Watson

Sorry PK, I completely lost you there. How is this relevant to what we are discussing? Flintoff never opened the innings for England, did he?

[head coach]

Head coach, I am not trying to be funny, but have you have ever played cricket? Try telling a fast bowler to open the innings after he's bowled 25 overs in 35+ heat, and you'll be lucky to get away with more than a dirty look.

Head coach, I am not trying to be funny, but have you have ever played cricket? Yes Sir, played as a wicket keeper, batsman and Coach. And I'll be happy to come to UK and coach you or your son if you send me a round trip ticket for me and my family with a nice tip:-) Jokes aside, Dhondy this same Pathan bowled 22 overs took 3 wickets last being at 75th over. Walked out to open the innings and scored 93 runs. Just a medical question: Does grey hair affect your memory? Take a look: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/226362.html

[Dhondy]

Head coach' date= I am not trying to be funny, but have you have ever played cricket? Yes Sir, played as a wicket keeper, batsman and Coach. And I'll be happy to come to UK and coach you or your son if you send me a round trip ticket for me and my family with a nice tip:-) Jokes aside, Dhondy this same Pathan bowled 22 overs took 3 wickets last being at 75th over. Walked out to open the innings and scored 93 runs. Just a medical question: Does grey hair affect your memory? Take a look: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/226362.html

Nice offer. Who knows, one day I might take you up on it. Also, a valid example you provided there. No doubt the team management used that Test match as an example to get him to open. Against this quality of opposition bowling though, it was nothing but throwing him to the wolves. It would have made even less sense had India bowled first.

[talksport]

I made two posts, One was a general opinion which you quoted ..One pertaining to opening....

[Dravid]

Shocked that we are not playing 6 front line batters plus dhoni and pathan. Total mistake. We need the runs on board. How great if we still had pathan to come in after Dhoni. Also type of track were if Karthick or Jaffer opened they may have got runs. Awful error to play 5 bowlers. To win we needed 500+

already got 300 now we can bowl em out with our 5 bowlerss

[Shehezaada]

Ho-hum. To appreciate the follies of ad-hocism, consider this for a moment; had Australia won the toss, they would have batted, and Pathan, in all likelihood, given the docile track, would have had to bowl upwards of 25 overs. Would he then have been asked to come out and open the innings? It would have been madness to ask such superhuman feats of him! So what was it going to be? If India batted first, Pathan would open. If Australia batted, it would be Dravid's lot. Really! What sort of mental frame would you be in if you knew that you might have to open, but if only if the coin fell a certain way? Doesn't say much about the cerebral processes of our "think-tank", does it? Some may construe this as an aggressive move, but in my book, it was sheer tom-foolery.

He's a young guy and can shoulder the burden. Nayan Mongia used to keep for 90 overs at a time and then go out and open the innings. Alec Stewart the same some times. Consider bringing in Kartikh for Jaffer. Pathan is a must play and it would be an outright fight between Ishant and Bhajji, both of whom deserve to play. Both because they've bowled superbly on this tour and had Ponting in trouble especially. By axing an opener, we go in with 5 bowlers that gives us a bit of variety, everyone doing their own thing. Bhajji turning the ball into the right hander, Kumble taking it away. Ishant Sharma with pace, bounce, and in cutters, Pathan with his abiltiy to reverse it, and RP Singh with his inswingers. Going with 6 batsmen was the safe route and we can't afford to be safe here. We need to win this series and so we're going for the kill.

[talksport]

The one thing about India in this Test Series is, it cannot be accused of not trying or innovating against the Best Side... Selections are always debatable...and some times you have to take educated gambles.... As an analogym In a must win footie game, what will you chose 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 ...when you have only one lone striker in form ...Calls for endless debate till kick off , I guess. Lets see if we want to change the formation at half time :D

[Bumper]

Yeah 7 batsmen would have been great, but where are we gonna find that 7th batsman ? The thinking was simple. The team mgmt did not think any of the opening options were good enough. Whether its KKD, Jaffer or Pathan, they would struggle to get into double figures (tho, Pathan has a better chance of surviving). Instead of going in with 7 batsmen (one of whom is a free wicket), they've gone in with 5 bowlers. I expect Bhajji to make more runs in the tail than KKD or Jaffar would at the top. So that leaves us with only one question. Who among Dravid or Pathan will open ? My pick would have been Dravid. Dravid comes in early anyways & the risk of losing him as an opener is justified, as he fails often at no. 3. We need to get to a min of 400, which will be a struggle if we lose an early wicket. Anything beyond 375 is a bonus from here on.

[head coach]

Yeah 7 batsmen would have been great, but where are we gonna find that 7th batsman ? The thinking was simple. The team mgmt did not think any of the opening options were good enough. Whether its KKD, Jaffer or Pathan, they would struggle to get into double figures (tho, Pathan has a better chance of surviving). Instead of going in with 7 batsmen (one of whom is a free wicket), they've gone in with 5 bowlers. I expect Bhajji to make more runs in the tail than KKD or Jaffar would at the top. So that leaves us with only one question. Who among Dravid or Pathan will open ? My pick would have been Dravid. Dravid comes in early anyways & the risk of losing him as an opener is justified, as he fails often at no. 3. We need to get to a min of 400, which will be a struggle if we lose an early wicket. Anything beyond 375 is a bonus from here on.

What you mean he fails? Isn't the 90 odd he scored at Perth enough?

[Anakin]

Bhajji is batting like Jaffer could only dream of, bhajji can replace jaffer because of his batting alone. Although there is a long way to go in this match, this was an aggressive move and for once I agree with this 5 bowler theory in this must win match.