Michael Holding - Pandya is not next Kapil Dev

[R!TTER]

18 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Bumrah has done well in ranji 

 

Pathan wasnt even fit to play ranji, wnhy wud anyone select a player who shows up fit only during IPL . History has no meaning 

 

oh thnk u for reminding me that nz tour....his bowling was garbage

n he didnt deserve to play with that bowling

 

Ok lets say this is guy talking crap

What about his probelm with baroda association

Even goenka is pune team owner question his attitude that he lives in past.

His other IPL teams have thrown him

Ganguly has questioned his skill

 

jst becoz he was good once doesnt mean he wud be good all life. 

Anyone will tell u irfan batting, bowling fielding went down the drain after a point .........if he was so good he wud have been an asset in IPL for yrs 

He last played in FC about a year before the SA tour, so someone like Pandya and Bumrah get a free pass from you - roger that.

 

There's no doubt that some of this is his fault, probably the majority of it. But couldn't someone with his talent be salvaged at some point? Was there no place for him in the team at that time, a nobody like Unadkat deserve first test in SA when Pathan wasn't even picked for other tours as well?

 

That point wasn't reached till after 2012, check that CB series stats as well.

 

Look it's clear that you think his career was unsalvageable - let's leave it at that. Also according to you someone like Pandya and Bumrah are great prospects based on a handful of tests, yet former proven performers (including Jadeja?) need to show their mettle in Ranji every time.

Edited August 5, 2018 by R!TTER

[Global.Baba]

1 hour ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

he had a lot of edges that went for boundaries, catches were dropped due to which extra runs were scored so the bowling isnt the issue its the batting so stop looking for extra wkts coz we already are taking it

Its the runs we lack

Never at any moment in the game did Pandya looked like buying a wicket. All those edges you talk about that went through the slip cordon were not even half chances. you can pick any great innings played by any player in these conditions and most times 50% of the runs are made in this fashion. He gave away almost 5 R.P.O.  The role of a bowling allrounder is to pick wickets which he never looked like or if he is the supporting 5th bowler to keep things tight. He failed in that aspect as well.

 

Now let us call him a batting allrounder. In the 2 innings he played,he never looked comfortable out there. Every ball looked like it can be his last. Even when we got to a striking distance of about 30 runs, no one had enough confidence in Pandya and it felt like it was a matter of time before he will be out.

 

Yes we do not have a batsman who can bowl even a few overs. We do have a couple of bowlers like Jadeja and Bhuvaneshwar who can bat. It makes more sense to play them rather than plugging the gap by playing bits and pieces players.

[Ankit_sharma03]

47 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

He last played in FC about a year before the SA tour, so someone like Pandya and Bumrah get a free pass from you - roger that.

 

There's no doubt that some of this is his fault, probably the majority of it. But couldn't someone with his talent be salvaged at some point? Was there no place for him in the team at that time, a nobody like Unadkat deserve first test in SA when Pathan wasn't even picked for other tours as well?

Yes he was over, he became so bad

his bowling , batting, fielding all went to drains

N as i said if he was so good wud have been extremely valueable in IPL

47 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

 

That point wasn't reached till after 2012, check that CB series stats as well.

After that he went to SL n did well

but got injured for a long time n then a lot of injuries happen

47 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

 

Look it's clear that you think his career was unsalvageable - let's leave it at that. Also according to you someone like Pandya and Bumrah are great prospects based on a handful of tests, yet former proven performers (including Jadeja?) need to show their mettle in Ranji every time.

I never said jadeja needs to prove himself in domestic

We all knw jadeja ability n limtation by now 

[Ankit_sharma03]

14 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Never at any moment in the game did Pandya looked like buying a wicket. All those edges you talk about that went through the slip cordon were not even half chances. you can pick any great innings played by any player in these conditions and most times 50% of the runs are made in this fashion. He gave away almost 5 R.P.O.  The role of a bowling allrounder is to pick wickets which he never looked like or if he is the supporting 5th bowler to keep things tight. He failed in that aspect as well.

His job is give bowlers a rest

how many times do i repeat

if he is inducing edge  he is creating chances

14 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

 

Now let us call him a batting allrounder. In the 2 innings he played,he never looked comfortable out there. Every ball looked like it can be his last. Even when we got to a striking distance of about 30 runs, no one had enough confidence in Pandya and it felt like it was a matter of time before he will be out.

Then u were watching a diff game, he looked far more assured then any batsman apart from kohli 

14 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Yes we do not have a batsman who can bowl even a few overs. We do have a couple of bowlers like Jadeja and Bhuvaneshwar who can bat. It makes more sense to play them rather than plugging the gap by playing bits and pieces players.

Jadeja batting is no better then any tail ender in these condition, in subcontinet he is handy with bat 

[sandeep]

14 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

Never at any moment in the game did Pandya looked like buying a wicket. All those edges you talk about that went through the slip cordon were not even half chances. you can pick any great innings played by any player in these conditions and most times 50% of the runs are made in this fashion. He gave away almost 5 R.P.O.  The role of a bowling allrounder is to pick wickets which he never looked like or if he is the supporting 5th bowler to keep things tight. He failed in that aspect as well.

 

Now let us call him a batting allrounder. In the 2 innings he played,he never looked comfortable out there. Every ball looked like it can be his last. Even when we got to a striking distance of about 30 runs, no one had enough confidence in Pandya and it felt like it was a matter of time before he will be out.

 

Yes we do not have a batsman who can bowl even a few overs. We do have a couple of bowlers like Jadeja and Bhuvaneshwar who can bat. It makes more sense to play them rather than plugging the gap by playing bits and pieces players.

1. Don't read his "RPO" off the scorecard.  Break it down by spells, watch the actual game, and then comment on how he bowled.
2. Bhuvi is not available.
3. Yes, Jadeja is a bowling upgrade from Pandya, but its not a slam-dunk given the conditions, and any way you slice it, Pandya is a bit of a batting upgrade on him.  

I was actually advocating for Jadeja over Pandya in T1 before the match started - because silly me, I thought our top 6 with Karthik in there, and Ashwin at #7 would deliver enough runs and I wanted the bowling unit to be stronger, given Umesh and Shami's inconsistencies. 

 

But T1 has given a very good demonstration of how important it is to have run-scoring ability at the 6/7/8 positions - In these conditions, there is a marked difference between batting in the 1st 35 overs and after. Its not that Sam Curran is the next great allrounder for England - its that he had enough ability to capitalize on the easier batting against the older ball.  

 

I still think if Lords is a bit drier, I'd seriously consider Jadeja ahead of Pandya.  as @R!TTER pointed out, and as I have stated multiple times on here, Jadeja acts as a dependable force multiplier for our bowlers.  But given Ashwin's effectiveness, and the sheitshow by our batsmen, the case for Pandya after T1 and his performance is quite strong.  

 

The consistent refrain amongst the anti-Pandya crowd is driven by flawed expectations.  They expect him to deliver primarily as a bowler.  He's an apprentice #6 batsman who can give you 10+ quality overs.  Which becomes very important if the opposition is going to bat past 90 overs in a single innings.  Especially in a 5 test series, and even more so, when you have ZERO part-timers, and only one spinner in the attack.  Also keep in mind, said spinner is not the most athletic around, and has suffered from injuries due to heavy bowling workload already.  

 

 

[Global.Baba]

3 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

His job is give bowlers a rest

how many times do i repeat

if he is inducing edge  he is creating chances

Then u were watching a diff game, he looked far more assured then any batsman apart from kohli 

Jadeja batting is no better then any tail ender in these condition, in subcontinet he is handy with bat 

You are talking as if he made a 100 in one and a 50 in the other innings. He made 22 runs in the first innings. Here are some highlights of his 1st innings. If you define that as assured then good for you.  I think it is you who are going by the scoreboard.

 

 

Quote

 

Stokes to Hardik Pandya, 1 run, now Cook drops it at first slip. What is happening out here? Unbelievable Test match cricket. And England have put down two in two. Loose from Hardik Pandya, driving at a ball well wide of off, such an easy chance and Cook drops it. They are shell-shocked. The ball is just behind him and the batsmen spot the chance to steal one

 

 

 

Stokes to Hardik Pandya, no run, Hardik Pandya is given out lbw. He reviews after a chat with Kohli. Missing and the batsman survives. Aleem Dar is having a nightmare out there today. What a good review as Pandya seemed reluctant to take it. Went for it and found out that the ball was doing too much. Big hooping inswinger, thudded into the pad of Pandya before he could react. Too much swing. Dar may have felt that he should give this out as he didn't to the last one which was plumb

 

Sam Curran to Hardik Pandya, FOUR, in the air and safe. Curran almost had his man. Nothing shot from Pandya. Checks his drive without moving his feet, the bat face is closed and the ball flies towards mid-on, where Broad dives to his right and lets it escape under him. The ball bounced just in front of him

 

 

Stokes to Hardik Pandya, FOUR, fenced away through gully. Bit streaky, but that will do for Hardik Pandya. Was outside off, he pushed the bat out and it ran off the thick edge. Welcome runs

 

 

2nd innings too he just hung in there without intent. The pitch clearly eased out there as even Ishant and Umesh were beginning to look comfortable and even then he just looked one false shot away from the game wrapping up.

 

Just because he was the 2nd high run scorer doesn't make it a special performance.

 

 

 

[R!TTER]

19 hours ago, sandeep said:

1. Don't read his "RPO" off the scorecard.  Break it down by spells, watch the actual game, and then comment on how he bowled.
2. Bhuvi is not available.
3. Yes, Jadeja is a bowling upgrade from Pandya, but its not a slam-dunk given the conditions, and any way you slice it, Pandya is a bit of a batting upgrade on him.  

I was actually advocating for Jadeja over Pandya in T1 before the match started - because silly me, I thought our top 6 with Karthik in there, and Ashwin at #7 would deliver enough runs and I wanted the bowling unit to be stronger, given Umesh and Shami's inconsistencies. 

 

But T1 has given a very good demonstration of how important it is to have run-scoring ability at the 6/7/8 positions - In these conditions, there is a marked difference between batting in the 1st 35 overs and after. Its not that Sam Curran is the next great allrounder for England - its that he had enough ability to capitalize on the easier batting against the older ball.  

 

I still think if Lords is a bit drier, I'd seriously consider Jadeja ahead of Pandya.  as @R!TTER pointed out, and as I have stated multiple times on here, Jadeja acts as a dependable force multiplier for our bowlers.  But given Ashwin's effectiveness, and the sheitshow by our batsmen, the case for Pandya after T1 and his performance is quite strong.  

 

The consistent refrain amongst the anti-Pandya crowd is driven by flawed expectations.  They expect him to deliver primarily as a bowler.  He's an apprentice #6 batsman who can give you 10+ quality overs.  Which becomes very important if the opposition is going to bat past 90 overs in a single innings.  Especially in a 5 test series, and even more so, when you have ZERO part-timers, and only one spinner in the attack.  Also keep in mind, said spinner is not the most athletic around, and has suffered from injuries due to heavy bowling workload already.  

 

 

No we have virtually zero expectations from him, though I do like Pandya in LO. But if we can slot in Jadeja or Kuldeep, I'd do that with no hesitation because they are genuine match winners on their own. Pandya isn't, that is why he needs to pick regular wickets or contribute heavily with the bat. If he ain't doing either then the argument "what about" this batter or that bowler sounds as hollow as DJ Trump's promises.

[Global.Baba]

4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

1. Don't read his "RPO" off the scorecard.  Break it down by spells, watch the actual game, and then comment on how he bowled.
2. Bhuvi is not available.
3. Yes, Jadeja is a bowling upgrade from Pandya, but its not a slam-dunk given the conditions, and any way you slice it, Pandya is a bit of a batting upgrade on him.  

I was actually advocating for Jadeja over Pandya in T1 before the match started - because silly me, I thought our top 6 with Karthik in there, and Ashwin at #7 would deliver enough runs and I wanted the bowling unit to be stronger, given Umesh and Shami's inconsistencies. 

 

But T1 has given a very good demonstration of how important it is to have run-scoring ability at the 6/7/8 positions - In these conditions, there is a marked difference between batting in the 1st 35 overs and after. Its not that Sam Curran is the next great allrounder for England - its that he had enough ability to capitalize on the easier batting against the older ball.  

 

I still think if Lords is a bit drier, I'd seriously consider Jadeja ahead of Pandya.  as @R!TTER pointed out, and as I have stated multiple times on here, Jadeja acts as a dependable force multiplier for our bowlers.  But given Ashwin's effectiveness, and the sheitshow by our batsmen, the case for Pandya after T1 and his performance is quite strong.  

 

The consistent refrain amongst the anti-Pandya crowd is driven by flawed expectations.  They expect him to deliver primarily as a bowler.  He's an apprentice #6 batsman who can give you 10+ quality overs.  Which becomes very important if the opposition is going to bat past 90 overs in a single innings.  Especially in a 5 test series, and even more so, when you have ZERO part-timers, and only one spinner in the attack.  Also keep in mind, said spinner is not the most athletic around, and has suffered from injuries due to heavy bowling workload already.  

 

 

I agree with the Jadeja over Pandya part. Sorry but the whole premise of an apprentice No.6 in international test cricket sounds dumb.

 

If our requirement is a bowling-allrounder Jadeja and Bhuvaneshwar are clearly an upgrade in the bowling department. The marginal difference in batting abilities between them and Pandya is not worth it.

 

If we want a No.6 batsman who can bowl, well it is hard luck we do not have a good batsman in domestics who can roll his arm over but calling Pandya as the best available batting option is an insult to all those batsmen who are toiling in domestics to make it to the international side. The answer is not to plug the gap with a guy that is neither.

 

Pandya is a good LOI player. worth his weight in gold but test cricket is a different animal.

[Ankit_sharma03]

1 minute ago, Global.Baba said:

You are talking as if he made a 100 in one and a 50 in the other innings. He made 22 runs in the first innings. Here are some highlights of his 1st innings. If you define that as assured then good for you.  I think it is you who are going by the scoreboard.

Who made 100 apart from kohli , not even engalnd best batsman root

so keep ur expectation in check 

 

some times u have to look beyond number.....the other many so called specialist cudnt even do that from both sides

 

Also about that scorecard, most batsman are figedty at start

even kohli was dropped few times , once he was set he didnt play a bad shot he got out to a peach. These are tough condition and amostly everyone is struggling so a 22 is no less then 50 in these condition. What also important he played out balls that helped kohli on other end in both innigs

2 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

 

2nd innings too he just hung in there without intent. The pitch clearly eased out there as even Ishant and Umesh were beginning to look comfortable and even then he just looked one false shot away from the game wrapping up.

 

Just because he was the 2nd high run scorer doesn't make it a special performance.

 

 

 

Without intent..... what the hell is intent playing t20 cricket .

He was scoring runs....didnt shut the shop like pujara does . Had he played a shot n gotten out the same u wud have said oh he shud have stuck around 

 

when other are able to do this much na then crib about him being a problem. 

[sandeep]

4 minutes ago, Global.Baba said:

I agree with the Jadeja over Pandya part. Sorry but the whole premise of an apprentice No.6 in international test cricket sounds dumb.

 

If our requirement is a bowling-allrounder Jadeja and Bhuvaneshwar are clearly an upgrade in the bowling department. The marginal difference in batting abilities between them and Pandya is not worth it.

 

If we want a No.6 batsman who can bowl, well it is hard luck we do not have a good batsman in domestics who can roll his arm over but calling Pandya as the best available batting option is an insult to all those batsmen who are toiling in domestics to make it to the international side. The answer is not to plug the gap with a guy that is neither.

 

Pandya is a good LOI player. worth his weight in gold but test cricket is a different animal.

I think you're thinking in very binary fashion about the #6 role.  And being quite dismissive of Pandya's batting as well.  I'd grade him a steady B for his batting in T1 and a C+ on the bowling front. Keeping in mind that his bowling, as of now, is a big part of Plan B for the team, not Plan A.  

 

I think we're largely on the same page regarding Pandya - Ideally I wouldn't want him in the team - especially if both Bhuvi and Ashwin were in the XI - there's no need for Pandya at that point - we can easily go for the extra specialist. But Bhuvi isn't there. That opens up consideration for Pandya.  

[Global.Baba]

5 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Who made 100 apart from kohli , not even engalnd best batsman root

so keep ur expectation in check 

 

some times u have to look beyond number.....the other many so called specialist cudnt even do that from both sides

 

Also about that scorecard, most batsman are figedty at start

even kohli was dropped few times , once he was set he didnt play a bad shot he got out to a peach. These are tough condition and amostly everyone is struggling so a 22 is no less then 50 in these condition. What also important he played out balls that helped kohli on other end in both innigs

Without intent..... what the hell is intent playing t20 cricket .

He was scoring runs....didnt shut the shop like pujara does . Had he played a shot n gotten out the same u wud have said oh he shud have stuck around 

 

when other are able to do this much na then crib about him being a problem. 

Do you think intent only means slogging the leather out of the ball? taking blows on your body to block,defend and survive is also intent. Showing good presence of mind and calculating your next move is also intent.

 

Taking single of the 1st ball and exposing the tail and just running through the motions is also lack of intent. Anyway I won't be harsh on Pandya there,I am sure he wanted to win the game for his country. As the ball he got out to Stokes which was nothing but a poke tells us there is serious lack of ability.

[Ankit_sharma03]

1 minute ago, Global.Baba said:

Do you think intent only means slogging the leather out of the ball? taking blows on your body to block,defend and survive is also intent. Showing good presence of mind and calculating your next move is also intent.

didnt he do that

1 minute ago, Global.Baba said:

 

Taking single of the 1st ball and exposing the tail and just running through the motions is also lack of intent. Anyway I won't be harsh on Pandya there,I am sure he wanted to win the game for his country. As the ball he got out to Stokes which was nothing but a poke tells us there is serious lack of ability.

a mistake he ll learn from, m ok with a youngster making a mistake ill have a problem if he repeats it

Batting with tail comes with experience 

[rkt.india]

14 hours ago, Khota said:

Is that same as bits and pieces?

no, if he is scoring as many or more than your main batsman.

[rkt.india]

14 hours ago, Lannister said:

We need a proper 5th bowler, like Stokes, more than a batsman. We should go by the team's requirement rather than having just any allrounder just because other teams consist them. Even though Hardik has a lot potential, I don't see him producing results like Stokes with the ball, no matter how many matches he plays. He can be a very good option in LOIs but India will do well without him in Test cricket. 

Stokes is their 4th bowler, not fifth.  We already have a good 4th bowler in Ashwin.  Rashid is their fifth bowler who only came in to bowl to tailenders.  We need more of a batsman who can bowl some as we already have decent 4 bowlers.  We need more of a batting alrounder as opposed to England who depend on bowling of Stokes more because their spinner is not that effective.  We dont depend on Pandya's bowling as he is 5th bowler not 4th unlike Stokes who is their 4th bowler, but his batting is crucial for us.  

[rkt.india]

14 hours ago, R!TTER said:

He was MoM in Perth 2008 IIRC, was also the MVP in the CB series. He also came back into the side in 2012 CB series, so for someone who opens the batting in Aus, opened the bowling he was definitely good enough to be given a longer rope. I wonder though why didn't he ever play in SA, Eng or NZ in tests? It certainly wasn't his pace, because we had slower trundlers like Praveen and Vinay Kumars donning the white jersey. His control was also immaculate, he was the best in terms if controlling the new ball as could be seen in Karachi 2006.

Pathan was never fit. So, how could he given a longer rope? The reason for his decline was not Chappel but his injuries.  his decline had started in 2005 itself when changed his action after a back injury. That Pak tour 2006, he did get a hattrick on a green top at his military medium 120-123K pace, but he had already declined on that tour along with Zaheer.  Both were rubbish on whole tour apart from that hattrick by Pathan.  Zak got dropped, was overweight and went to play County.  

[rkt.india]

14 hours ago, R!TTER said:

How about you read basic facts and history?

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21132209/irfan-pathan-asked-help-get-it

 

Really, care to check cricinfo commentary or better yet, tell me the games where Pathan avg lower speeds than them over a game or series?

 

He didn't lose pace, he cut down his pace to regain swing, which he did post 2006/07 season.

 

What about SA, Eng or NZ? You think he couldn't swing the ball over there?

 

Yes and Binny had that kind of control? Even Zaheer couldn't control swing as masterfully as Pathan did at times.

 

So did everyone else.

 

That was the reign under Dhoni, so why are dodging that question?

Pathan never lost swing. he lost swing is just a perception like people say BK lost swing.  These idiots dont understand the simple thing that swing depends on conditions and the ball. No bowler can swing everywhere as swing is condition dependent.  He lost pace due to change in his action and change in his grip.  He also lost accuracy due to poor grip.

[rkt.india]

14 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

Kapil could qualify purely as a batsman or a bowler for India. On top of that he was one of the greatest fielder ever to play for India. e could field anywhere on the ground including slips and be safe. He could effect more direct hits than any other Indian fielder. Pandya can neither qualify purely as a batsman nor purely as a bowler. Bits and pieces player at best. We just hope we have a bit with batting piece with bowling. Right now not happening.

Kapil averages 31 as a batsman in tests,23 in ODIs. how could he qualify as a batsman alone?

[rkt.india]

14 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

His bowling is more important than batting. If he is role is just giving breather to bowlers i would have Jadeja. But i agree his batting is better than some of the specialist batsmen. But they play against new ball. Will he cope against relatively newer ball. If so drop Rahane and bring Jadeja in.

NO, for us, his batting is more important because he is a 5th bowler. Stokes is 4th bowler for England.

[rkt.india]

13 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

He hasn't reached the Irfan pathan level yet let alone Kapil dev. Irfan helped us win Pak series, he also mopped floor with minnows. ALso he helped us win Perth test.

Pathan was a bowler first like Bhuvi who developed his batting.

[rkt.india]

12 hours ago, Lannister said:

The reason Kohli didn't bowl him much was because he was going at a rate of 4.5 runs per an over, which was the highest by any bowler in the match. A lack of fifth bowler made a difference for us and it's highly unlikely that he's going to pick up on how to swing and seam a ball at just a short amount of time. He needs to go back to Ranji and improve on his bowling skills. 

the reason he did not get much ball is because our top 4 bowlers did well.