Pujara, what a performance!

[mishra]

http://zeenews.india.com/cricket/cheteshwar-pujara-may-be-rewarded-with-upgraded-central-contract-for-stellar-show-down-under-2167905.html

[Temujin Khaghan]

I saw on twitter that pujara's annual income is only 1/3 of what unadkat makes in 45 days.

 

Sad. :|

[Vijy]

38 minutes ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

I saw on twitter that pujara's annual income is only 1/3 of what unadkat makes in 45 days.

 

Sad. :|

the unadcutter. india's left-arm superfast bowler.

[zen]

1 hour ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

I saw on twitter that pujara's annual income is only 1/3 of what unadkat makes in 45 days.

 

Sad. :|

Life is not always fair and everyone has his own luck .... but as they say Bhagwan ke ghar mein dair hai, andhair nahin .... and we are seeing moves by BCCI to place him in the highest bracket 

[Chandan]

20 hours ago, zen said:

Life is not always fair and everyone has his own luck .... but as they say Bhagwan ke ghar mein dair hai, andhair nahin .... and we are seeing moves by BCCI to place him in the highest bracket 

But why Pujara has bear the brunt every time?

 

Anyone remembers this?

 

https://goo.gl/axuxf7

 

August 31, 2015

Why is Pujara given short shrift?

MUKUL KESAVAN

He averages better than Rohit Sharma but still has to fight for a place in the Test side, mostly because he doesn't play ODIs

 

When Cheteshwar Pujara finished unbeaten on 145, having carried his bat through India's first innings at the SSC, his career Test average topped 50. He is the only current Indian batsman to achieve this distinction, and a distinction it is. There's much about batsmanship that is unquantifiable, but pundits and players alike agree that a 50-plus average over a reasonable number of Tests bears witness to a first-rate batsman.

Pujara is a first-rate batsman. He is 27 years old, he has played 27 Test matches, and this should be his batting prime, but he is in this team on sufferance. Had either of the two first-choice opening batsmen, M Vijay and Shikhar Dhawan, been fit, Pujara would still be mooching around the margins of the squad, carrying drinks in for the men in the middle.

When he passed 50 in this innings, Sanjay Manjrekar asked Sunil Gavaskar on commentary if Pujara had done enough to regain his place in the team or whether he needed to clinch it with a hundred. Gavaskar's elaborately considered opinion was that in the current set-up, Pujara needed a 150 to be in serious contention. A century and a half? What team of titans was this? And what bastion of Bradmans was Pujara trying to breach?

When the Indian team came out to field, his lowly status in the team's pecking order was evidenced by his gear: he was wearing a helmet and shin guards under his trousers, a sure sign that he was the designated short-leg fielder. This scary position is generally reserved for the rookie in the team, because no one wants to be maimed by a meaty pull. In a culture where seniority counts for a lot, the helmet and guards told you how far Pujara had fallen. How had it come to this?

Career averages are a poor guide to current form. So while Pujara at 50 is ahead of Virat Kohli, Ajinkya Rahane and Dhawan (all clustered around the 45 mark) and well ahead of Vijay and Rohit Sharma, his form since the tour of New Zealand in February 2014 has been poor. A couple of fifties in 20 innings is poor return for a batsman of his quality, and in that time his middle-order comrades, like Rahane and Kohli hit a rich vein of form.

 

Also, because of Kohli's decision to play five bowlers, there was one less batting place to go around. This meant that with Dhawan, Vijay, Rahane and Kohli being automatic choices, Pujara was competing with KL Rahul, who had distinguished himself in Australia with a century, and that perennially promising talent, Rohit.

Rahul is a fine young batsman who managed two centuries in his first four Test outings, but his future in the Indian team clearly lies in one of the two opening slots. If Dhawan and Vijay stay fit and maintain their form, it's conceivable that Rahul might set a challenge for the No. 3 position. But it's hard to see him edging Pujara out in a head-to-head comparison, especially after Pujara's comeback hundred.

Pujara's real rival in the middle order is Rohit.

Rohit is older than Pujara by a year, but to hear his admirers in the cricket establishment talk, he is a volcano of virginal talent about to erupt. After two hundreds against West Indies on debut, he has done little or nothing. If you compare his record to Pujara's since they last scored a hundred each, Rohit averages a little over 25 and Pujara just over 26. Yet it was Pujara, with much the better career record (Rohit averages 37 in 14 Tests), and unarguably the better Test match temperament, who was left out of the last Test in Australia, the Test against Bangladesh, and the first two Tests of this Sri Lanka series. Pujara has had to smuggle himself into the team by the back door by playing in the unaccustomed position of an opening batsman.

Meanwhile Rohit has had a free run in the middle order. He was played at No. 3 (Pujara's preferred place, where he has played nearly all his Test cricket) till the first Test in Galle, and when he failed there, Rahane was kicked upstairs so that Rohit could find a more sheltered billet at No. 5. When Pujara was grinding through his massive innings at the SSC in Colombo, the commentary team, made up of Manjrekar, Gavaskar and Aakash Chopra, came to the curious conclusion that Rohit was tailor-made for the No. 5 spot because he could "express" himself and play with the tail. Suddenly it was as if Rohit had some natural lien on the lower berth, while Pujara would have to duke it out for a top-order place with the likes of Rahul and Rahane, or even one of the settled openers.

We've been here before. There was a time when VVS Laxman was overlooked in favour of Yuvraj Singh, who was inferior to him by every measure known to Test match batsmanship. Yuvraj didn't like fast bowling and showboated when he should have knuckled down. But he periodically edged Laxman out because his patrons would talk up his attacking gifts or, all else failing, his ability to bowl left-arm slows. And the reason why these arguments carried the day was because Yuvraj, like Rohit, had an advantage that Laxman (later in his career) and Pujara can't match: a place in the ODI squad.

Rohit is one of a long line of contemporary batsmen who play Test cricket because they look good playing ODI cricket. He won his Test place on the strength of his spectacular displays as a one-day opening batsman and he has held it in the expectation that his berserker ability to hit limited-overs double-hundreds might rub off on his Test match form.

 

It is a truth increasingly acknowledged that a young man possessed of an ODI berth stands a better chance of holding down a Test match place than a young man without one. Pujara doesn't play limited-overs cricket in any format for India and hasn't been able to find an IPL franchise that wants him. Rohit, in contrast, is a lion in Lilliput: the shorter the format, the better he gets. This counts against Pujara because while Rohit and others like him are constantly in the public eye because of the modern cricketing calendar, he is out of sight and mainly out of mind except when Test cricket looms on the horizon.

The camaraderie that comes from constantly playing ODIs and T20 cricket, the sense of always being in the mix, just never happens for Test match specialists like Pujara and Laxman (in his later years). Multi-format players are buoyed by their versatility; their team-mates in these formats, their captains, their sponsors, want them to succeed. The force, so speak, is with them. Someone like Pujara has to constantly make his own weather. The juggernaut of limited-overs cricket, which underwrites the game, has no interest in him.

To point this out is not to suggest that someone is to blame for this state of affairs. It is the way cricket has evolved, and players like Yuvraj and Rohit can scarcely be blamed for their good fortune. It is simply to ask for greater discrimination from the powers that be when it comes to administering Test cricket and picking Test teams.

It is not too much to ask that selectors be self-conscious about the dangers of allowing the stardust of limited-overs cricket to bedazzle them when they make their choices for the Test team. Nor is it conspiratorial to point out that Pujara's time in the wilderness had something to do with the fact that he belongs to an unfashionable cricketing province, Saurashtra, which has great cricketing pedigree but counts for nothing in the councils of the BCCI. Mumbai, of which Rohit is a native son, counts for a great deal.

It may well be that Test cricket is dying. Perhaps the empty stands in Colombo where Kumar Sangakkara played his last Test were a sign. If this is true - actually, especially if this is true - all the more reason to make sure that this great game is carried to its ghat by the right pall-bearers, by serious men.

 

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

1 hour ago, Chandan said:

But why Pujara has bear the brunt every time?

 

Anyone remembers this?

 

https://goo.gl/axuxf7

 

August 31, 2015

Why is Pujara given short shrift?

MUKUL KESAVAN

He averages better than Rohit Sharma but still has to fight for a place in the Test side, mostly because he doesn't play ODIs

 

When Cheteshwar Pujara finished unbeaten on 145, having carried his bat through India's first innings at the SSC, his career Test average topped 50. He is the only current Indian batsman to achieve this distinction, and a distinction it is. There's much about batsmanship that is unquantifiable, but pundits and players alike agree that a 50-plus average over a reasonable number of Tests bears witness to a first-rate batsman.

Pujara is a first-rate batsman. He is 27 years old, he has played 27 Test matches, and this should be his batting prime, but he is in this team on sufferance. Had either of the two first-choice opening batsmen, M Vijay and Shikhar Dhawan, been fit, Pujara would still be mooching around the margins of the squad, carrying drinks in for the men in the middle.

When he passed 50 in this innings, Sanjay Manjrekar asked Sunil Gavaskar on commentary if Pujara had done enough to regain his place in the team or whether he needed to clinch it with a hundred. Gavaskar's elaborately considered opinion was that in the current set-up, Pujara needed a 150 to be in serious contention. A century and a half? What team of titans was this? And what bastion of Bradmans was Pujara trying to breach?

When the Indian team came out to field, his lowly status in the team's pecking order was evidenced by his gear: he was wearing a helmet and shin guards under his trousers, a sure sign that he was the designated short-leg fielder. This scary position is generally reserved for the rookie in the team, because no one wants to be maimed by a meaty pull. In a culture where seniority counts for a lot, the helmet and guards told you how far Pujara had fallen. How had it come to this?

Career averages are a poor guide to current form. So while Pujara at 50 is ahead of Virat Kohli, Ajinkya Rahane and Dhawan (all clustered around the 45 mark) and well ahead of Vijay and Rohit Sharma, his form since the tour of New Zealand in February 2014 has been poor. A couple of fifties in 20 innings is poor return for a batsman of his quality, and in that time his middle-order comrades, like Rahane and Kohli hit a rich vein of form.

 

Also, because of Kohli's decision to play five bowlers, there was one less batting place to go around. This meant that with Dhawan, Vijay, Rahane and Kohli being automatic choices, Pujara was competing with KL Rahul, who had distinguished himself in Australia with a century, and that perennially promising talent, Rohit.

Rahul is a fine young batsman who managed two centuries in his first four Test outings, but his future in the Indian team clearly lies in one of the two opening slots. If Dhawan and Vijay stay fit and maintain their form, it's conceivable that Rahul might set a challenge for the No. 3 position. But it's hard to see him edging Pujara out in a head-to-head comparison, especially after Pujara's comeback hundred.

Pujara's real rival in the middle order is Rohit.

Rohit is older than Pujara by a year, but to hear his admirers in the cricket establishment talk, he is a volcano of virginal talent about to erupt. After two hundreds against West Indies on debut, he has done little or nothing. If you compare his record to Pujara's since they last scored a hundred each, Rohit averages a little over 25 and Pujara just over 26. Yet it was Pujara, with much the better career record (Rohit averages 37 in 14 Tests), and unarguably the better Test match temperament, who was left out of the last Test in Australia, the Test against Bangladesh, and the first two Tests of this Sri Lanka series. Pujara has had to smuggle himself into the team by the back door by playing in the unaccustomed position of an opening batsman.

Meanwhile Rohit has had a free run in the middle order. He was played at No. 3 (Pujara's preferred place, where he has played nearly all his Test cricket) till the first Test in Galle, and when he failed there, Rahane was kicked upstairs so that Rohit could find a more sheltered billet at No. 5. When Pujara was grinding through his massive innings at the SSC in Colombo, the commentary team, made up of Manjrekar, Gavaskar and Aakash Chopra, came to the curious conclusion that Rohit was tailor-made for the No. 5 spot because he could "express" himself and play with the tail. Suddenly it was as if Rohit had some natural lien on the lower berth, while Pujara would have to duke it out for a top-order place with the likes of Rahul and Rahane, or even one of the settled openers.

We've been here before. There was a time when VVS Laxman was overlooked in favour of Yuvraj Singh, who was inferior to him by every measure known to Test match batsmanship. Yuvraj didn't like fast bowling and showboated when he should have knuckled down. But he periodically edged Laxman out because his patrons would talk up his attacking gifts or, all else failing, his ability to bowl left-arm slows. And the reason why these arguments carried the day was because Yuvraj, like Rohit, had an advantage that Laxman (later in his career) and Pujara can't match: a place in the ODI squad.

Rohit is one of a long line of contemporary batsmen who play Test cricket because they look good playing ODI cricket. He won his Test place on the strength of his spectacular displays as a one-day opening batsman and he has held it in the expectation that his berserker ability to hit limited-overs double-hundreds might rub off on his Test match form.

 

It is a truth increasingly acknowledged that a young man possessed of an ODI berth stands a better chance of holding down a Test match place than a young man without one. Pujara doesn't play limited-overs cricket in any format for India and hasn't been able to find an IPL franchise that wants him. Rohit, in contrast, is a lion in Lilliput: the shorter the format, the better he gets. This counts against Pujara because while Rohit and others like him are constantly in the public eye because of the modern cricketing calendar, he is out of sight and mainly out of mind except when Test cricket looms on the horizon.

The camaraderie that comes from constantly playing ODIs and T20 cricket, the sense of always being in the mix, just never happens for Test match specialists like Pujara and Laxman (in his later years). Multi-format players are buoyed by their versatility; their team-mates in these formats, their captains, their sponsors, want them to succeed. The force, so speak, is with them. Someone like Pujara has to constantly make his own weather. The juggernaut of limited-overs cricket, which underwrites the game, has no interest in him.

To point this out is not to suggest that someone is to blame for this state of affairs. It is the way cricket has evolved, and players like Yuvraj and Rohit can scarcely be blamed for their good fortune. It is simply to ask for greater discrimination from the powers that be when it comes to administering Test cricket and picking Test teams.

It is not too much to ask that selectors be self-conscious about the dangers of allowing the stardust of limited-overs cricket to bedazzle them when they make their choices for the Test team. Nor is it conspiratorial to point out that Pujara's time in the wilderness had something to do with the fact that he belongs to an unfashionable cricketing province, Saurashtra, which has great cricketing pedigree but counts for nothing in the councils of the BCCI. Mumbai, of which Rohit is a native son, counts for a great deal.

It may well be that Test cricket is dying. Perhaps the empty stands in Colombo where Kumar Sangakkara played his last Test were a sign. If this is true - actually, especially if this is true - all the more reason to make sure that this great game is carried to its ghat by the right pall-bearers, by serious men.

 

 

 

I am surprised Mukul Kesavan hasn't chimed in on Pujara's performance in this series as yet. He is pretty much his biggest supporter in the media.

[Sachinism]

22 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

I saw on twitter that pujara's annual income is only 1/3 of what unadkat makes in 45 days.

 

Sad. :|

It is what it is. That scumbag Mark Zuckershitberg makes more money than most people, who probably contribute more to society by just doing F all

[rtmohanlal]

Pujara or who ever are the test specialists who perform brilliantly should be preserved in cotton wool and encouraged not to mess with their natural  grinding game  AMAP. They should be discouraged from  taking part in any  t20 leagues that can  adversely affect their game a lot  and also should be adequately compensated  for their 'loss of revenue from   not taking part in such masala leagues' by the BCCI.

[zen]

4 hours ago, Chandan said:

But why Pujara has bear the brunt every time?

 

Anyone remembers this?

 

https://goo.gl/axuxf7

 

August 31, 2015

Why is Pujara given short shrift?

 

If you ask me, I would not mind making Pujara the captain of the test side. Considering his dedication and focus on one format (voluntarily or involuntarily), I am confident that he will spend time in planning ahead of the series (something the Kohli-Shastri appear to be too busy to be doing atm), get the squad selection right, scout for youngsters (such as Gill), etc. 

 

Now we would be playing World Test Championship in the 2019-2021 period. I would like to see someone in team Ind start planning for it. Therefore, Pujara should be given more responsibility to further improve our performances in test cricket 

[Chandan]

Pujara and captain?

 

Just few matches back he was not even a a regular in XI. I'm sure selectors must have been a part of team managements decision of dropping Pujara so many times in last 4 years despite performing so well. 

 

So its obvious they have problems somewhere, maybe with his scoring rate or something. He doesn't seem to be anywhere near the leadership group either despite being a senior member. Kumble used to back him to hilt. But Shastri doesn't do so, and its obvious. Virat never did. 

[chewy]

2 hours ago, Chandan said:

Pujara and captain?

 

Just few matches back he was not even a a regular in XI. I'm sure selectors must have been a part of team managements decision of dropping Pujara so many times in last 4 years despite performing so well. 

 

So its obvious they have problems somewhere, maybe with his scoring rate or something. He doesn't seem to be anywhere near the leadership group either despite being a senior member. Kumble used to back him to hilt. But Shastri doesn't do so, and its obvious. Virat never did. 

When Virat became captain he wanted to be best by playing aggressive cricket, batsmen scoring at 70plus SR and a pack of 145 kph quicks, but slowly became apparent these attacking batsmen (mainly Dhawan, Rohit, Raina) were founding wanting on difficult tracks (Turners, bouncy, green).

I think Kumble as coach said he didn't care about batsmens' strike rate in Tests, in Tests it's bowlers SR that matters - this is same time when Kohli was harping on about showing intent 

 

Kumble got sacked, Shastri appointed and Raina, Rohit were back in Tests XI

It took the chewtiyas (Kohli, Shastri, Selectors) 8 Tests (SA and Eng tours) to get the starting XI right 

[zen]

MoS = Pujara 

 

Cheteshwar Pujara is the Player of the Series for his 521 runs at an average of 74. Three tons for him. He receives two trophies. Isa Guha says, "a special mention to Jasprit Bumrah."

 

"It's a great feeling for all of us," says Pujara. "We've been working hard to win a series overseas, and winning in Australia has never been easy. And really pleased with my contribution. For me, the first hundred was special. Scoring a ton at Adelaide and going 1-0 up is what we were aiming for. As a batsman, I was just getting used to the pace and bounce, and apart from that, playing in South Africa and England has helped me improve my technique. For me, it's all about preparation and I was very well prepared. This is the best Indian side I have been part of. And I would also like to congratulate all our bowlers. We've had four bowlers, and it's not easy taking 20 wickets, so credit goes to all our fast bowlers and spinners..remarkable. I'll be playing some first-class cricket back home, and I'll play some county cricket during the IPL. But the next Test series is some 6-7 months away, it'll give me some time to prepare. I would like to play white-ball cricket, but Test cricket is my priority, and it always be so."

[Number]

4 years ago he was dropped at the same Sydeny for Raina of all people. What an epic comeback.

[Chandan]

On 1/6/2019 at 8:39 PM, chewy said:

When Virat became captain he wanted to be best by playing aggressive cricket, batsmen scoring at 70plus SR and a pack of 145 kph quicks, but slowly became apparent these attacking batsmen (mainly Dhawan, Rohit, Raina) were founding wanting on difficult tracks (Turners, bouncy, green).

I think Kumble as coach said he didn't care about batsmens' strike rate in Tests, in Tests it's bowlers SR that matters - this is same time when Kohli was harping on about showing intent 

 

Kumble got sacked, Shastri appointed and Raina, Rohit were back in Tests XI

It took the chewtiyas (Kohli, Shastri, Selectors) 8 Tests (SA and Eng tours) to get the starting XI right 

What terrible slow learners!!!

SA as well as ENG was a big opportunity for India to win the test series where they could have played with attritional batting tactics which they had here and 4 bowlers. Also the dreadful injury management robbed india of their best bowler in Eng--Bhuvi.

Ind would have been unbeatable there had they been a little more intelligent and worked towards it working out their tactics before and looking after their players accordingly.

 

Oh! How I missed Kumble.

 

[mishra]

On 1/6/2019 at 3:09 PM, chewy said:

When Virat became captain he wanted to be best by playing aggressive cricket, batsmen scoring at 70plus SR and a pack of 145 kph quicks, but slowly became apparent these attacking batsmen (mainly Dhawan, Rohit, Raina) were founding wanting on difficult tracks (Turners, bouncy, green).

I think Kumble as coach said he didn't care about batsmens' strike rate in Tests, in Tests it's bowlers SR that matters - this is same time when Kohli was harping on about showing intent 

 

Kumble got sacked, Shastri appointed and Raina, Rohit were back in Tests XI

It took the chewtiyas (Kohli, Shastri, Selectors) 8 Tests (SA and Eng tours) to get the starting XI right 

Have they got it right?

[mishra]

18 minutes ago, Chandan said:

What terrible slow learners!!!

SA as well as ENG was a big opportunity for India to win the test series where they could have played with attritional batting tactics which they had here and 4 bowlers. Also the dreadful injury management robbed india of their best bowler in Eng--Bhuvi.

Ind would have been unbeatable there had they been a little more intelligent and worked towards it working out their tactics before and looking after their players accordingly.

 

Oh! How I missed Kumble.

 

No preparation is preparation to failure. Both Kohli and Shashtri love their time off work. Luckily we are producing player after player who can walk in and start performing from day 1. But stil team comes with no plans when oppositin top 5-6 have gone back to pavallion

[putrevus]

While Pujara was excellent this series, he did nothing in SA or till later stages on England tour. Somehow people are making him better than Kohli is ridiculous.

[putrevus]

While Pujara was excellent this series, he did nothing in SA or till later stages on England tour. Somehow people are making him better than Kohli is ridiculous.

[putrevus]

While Pujara was excellent this series, he did nothing in SA or till later stages on England tour. Somehow people are making him better than Kohli is ridiculous.

[Chandan]

6+1+4 has been the conservative formula, especially on bowlers friendly tracks. In that way the combination was right in 3 tests. At Perth having no spinner was a huge mistake because of which they had to pay for. Then going to attritional batting rather than fearless strokeplay etc was another tactical shift which succeeded in grinding the opposition bowlers down.

Still plenty of room for improvement, eg, getting good openers, a consistent #5 and #6 who can shepherd the tail too. We also need to look after our seamers and encourage them to improve their batting like English or Australians.