Which two players went to the board about Ganguly?

[naikdipe]

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/01/23/india_fail_to_get_right_blend.html Does anybody have an idea of who the two players were that went to the board? My gut feeling is Dhoni and Pathan.

[eternalhope]

Not Pathan, It is his chela Yuvraj. Captain and Vice-Captain. I think they had a plan of having young legs for better fielding and running between the wickets and the results clearly suggest that they were correct. Even if they did not get these results the idea makes sense and I am glad it worked out in the end

[naikdipe]

that makes plenty of sense. more so then mine!!

Not Pathan, It is his chela Yuvraj. Captain and Vice-Captain. I think they had a plan of having young legs for better fielding and running between the wickets and the results clearly suggest that they were correct. Even if they did not get these results the idea makes sense and I am glad it worked out in the end

[suraj]

stupid article by Dileep Premachandran Ganguly gone- good thing for India

[bharat297]

I don't think that dropping Ganguly was such a good thing for India. The fact that we pick Munaf means that we are essentially still 1 fielder short on the field. I also believe that Ganguly is a better fielder than Munaf. But since we have dropped Ganguly, we have tried 3 different opening pairs, and in 8 matches, we have only had 1 50+ run opening stand. In the matches Ganguly played after WC 2007, he and Sachin put together 7 50+ stands, including 5 100+ stands, of which 4 of them occurred when we were chasing big totals. Their run rate for these stands was just under 5 RPO. It has been a "reasonably" successful series, however I believe that we would have been more successful had Ganguly and Sachin opened.

[bharat297]

I don't think that dropping Ganguly was such a good thing for India. The fact that we pick Munaf means that we are essentially still 1 fielder short on the field. I also believe that Ganguly is a better fielder than Munaf. But since we have dropped Ganguly, we have tried 3 different opening pairs, and in 8 matches, we have only had 1 50+ run opening stand. In the matches Ganguly played after WC 2007, he and Sachin put together 7 50+ stands, including 5 100+ stands, of which 4 of them occurred when we were chasing big totals. Their run rate for these stands was just under 5 RPO. It has been a "reasonably" successful series, however I believe that we would have been more successful had Ganguly and Sachin opened.

[bharat297]

LOL ... sorry about the double post.

[suraj]

I don't think that dropping Ganguly was such a good thing for India. The fact that we pick Munaf means that we are essentially still 1 fielder short on the field. I also believe that Ganguly is a better fielder than Munaf. But since we have dropped Ganguly, we have tried 3 different opening pairs, and in 8 matches, we have only had 1 50+ run opening stand. In the matches Ganguly played after WC 2007, he and Sachin put together 7 50+ stands, including 5 100+ stands, of which 4 of them occurred when we were chasing big totals. Their run rate for these stands was just under 5 RPO. It has been a "reasonably" successful series, however I believe that we would have been more successful had Ganguly and Sachin opened.

good analysis bharat- bravo!! I actually don't mind SG being dropped but your analysis does show that his sitaution is the same as SRT- lack of replacements Shows that SG is a much better partner than others at this stage but the thought process seems to be lets disccover the next guy before its too too late- succession planning thats what I will call it; the only problem being that none of the successors are proving worthy

[bharat297]

I know ... its about looking towards the future. So for that reason, i guess its ok, but I don't see what the big deal is in having 2 guys over 30 in a team of 11 players, when the rest are in their early 20s. Especially if the 2 guys over 30 are such a successful opening pair.