Jump to content

How useful would Shankar + Jadhav be in the WC19?


Recommended Posts

Posted

The IPL teams are not showing much confidence in them. Both of them are good enough to play in top 4-5 of their respective teams, but appear to keep getting demoted. Hardly seen them bowl a few overs as well. Taking about confidence in them, DC actually exchanged 2-3 players which included Shankar for 1 Dhawan with SRH. While Jadhav struggles to play a meaningful knock more often than not, Shankar appears to implode under pressure esp. when his team is chasing. 

 

Looking at how they have gone so far,  I am not too surprised to see IPL captains not showing that much faith in them. However, the Indian selectors have persisted with them. Will they turn the page in the WC or be a liability relatively speaking? 

 

If these two start in the first 2-3 games and do not perform, Ind could be forced to go in with 5 bowlers in the remaining games for an 11 such as:

 

  • Rohit (0.5)
  • Dhawan (0.75)
  • Kohli (1.25) 
  • KL (0.75)
  • Pandya (1) 
  • Dhoni (0.75) 
  • Bhuvi / Jadeja (0.75) 
  • Kuldeep (1)
  • Shami (1)
  • Chahal (1) 
  • Bumrah (1) 

 

Player (1 is equivalent of 1 player for the assigned role wrt the best) 

 

Discuss. 

 

Posted

shankar was pretty good in chances he got in international cricket so why does IPL matter now which is a diff format ???

hadnt it been for those 2 unfortunate runouts who knws he might have had 2-100s coz till then he never looked like getting out 

 

about jadhav, no need to go on ipl we knw where he stand as he his sample size of international cricket speaks for himself 

Posted
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
3 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

shankar was pretty good in chances he got in international cricket so why does IPL matter now which is a diff format ???

hadnt it been for those 2 unfortunate runouts who knws he might have had 2-100s coz till then he never looked like getting out 

 

about jadhav, no need to go on ipl we knw where he stand as he his sample size of international cricket speaks for himself 

A guide to understanding how to evaluate performances in various formats:

 

 

 

Posted (edited)

For the trillionth time

T20-> 20 overs

ODIs-> 50 overs

 

Great T20 player not necessarily great ODI player and vice versa. 

 

We'll see who does better in the WC: Smith/Kane/Stokes/Kuldeep or Karthik/Russell/KLR...

 

Edited by Gollum
Posted (edited)

Even before IPL I said Shankar won't do well cos he isn't a natural T20 player, not all are. Some are more comfy operating in 85-110 SR range rather than 120+ or hitting from 1st ball. Besides VJS is a #4 option where he will need to rotate strike, manipulate the field or in worst case scenario stabilize the innings after a bad start. If we are 240/2 after 36 I will send Pandya instead of him :dontknow:. Forget T20 cricket, based on what he has shown in ODIs he seems like a good option. And bowlers like him will enjoy English conditions (no matter how flat) more than mid summer Indian ones.

 

Kedar too seems to have a bad IPL record, but his ODI/List A numbers are phenomenal...why are we judging him based on an entirely different format? Steve Smith is garbage in T20s, didn't see that influence CA selectors in any way when it came to ODI selection. Where other IPL/T20 superstars failed, Smith delivered the GOAT WC KO performance 4 years back. 

Edited by Gollum
Posted
9 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Since you are such a fan of IPL why not drop Kuldeep and Bumrah as well? Drop those 2 and take Gopal, Chahar to England. 

Irrelevant point. Read the OP to understand what is being implied. On Kuldeep and Bumrah, Bumrah has done decently, while Kuldeep helped KKR tie the game with DC. I expect bowlers to go for runs on good batting surfaces 

 

These are batsmen, who should be playing in top 4-5, and taking responsibilities for their respective side 

 

Quote

 

For the trillionth time

T20-> 20 overs

ODIs-> 50 overs

 

Great T20 player not necessarily great ODI player and vice versa. 

 

We'll see who does better in the WC: Smith/Kane/Stokes/Kuldeep or Karthik/Russell/KLR...

 

Have posted the link to "a guide to understanding how to evaluate performance in various formats" above 

 

IPL is T20, but the crux of the discussion is not T20, 50 overs, etc., it is about current form, taking responsibilities, performing under pressure, and so on  :winky:

 

The topic is: Will they turn the page in the WC or be a liability relatively speaking? And what the backup plan should be, if both of them start in the first 2-3 games and fail. 

Posted
20 minutes ago, zen said:

A guide to understanding how to evaluate performances in various formats:

 

pratyaksh ko praman ki zarurat nhin

 

 

Dhoni n dhawan have not been good in t20s but have been gr8 in ODis

Last yr dhoni, karthik, pant, rahul all looked million bucks in ipl ...........didnt happen in international cricket 

Dhoni this yr in IPL has looked better then most of our batsman ....that wnt be the case in international cricket 

by ur logic kuldeep shudnt be even on plane to WC

We all knw how chahar, kaul, unadkat enjoyed bashing in international cricket after good IPLs 

Posted
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20
1 minute ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

pratyaksh ko praman ki zarurat nhin

 

Dhoni n dhawan have not been good in t20s but have been gr8 in ODis

Last yr dhoni, karthik, pant, rahul all looked million bucks in ipl ...........didnt happen in international cricket 

Dhoni this yr in IPL has looked better then most of our batsman ....that wnt be the case in international cricket 

by ur logic kuldeep shudnt be even on plane to WC

We all knw how chahar, kaul, unadkat enjoyed bashing in international cricket after good IPLs 

Understand the topic. Dhawan or whoever may be good in ODIs and relatively bad in T20s but IPL teams show confidence in them to do "some kind of an important job" for their team

 

Here, these two are getting demoted. Unless you believe that these two should not be batting in the top 4-5 for their teams and not good enough to bowl a few overs in a domestic league just because it is T20! 

 

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, zen said:

Understand the topic. Dhawan or whoever may be good in ODIs and relatively bad in T20s but IPL teams show confidence in them to do "some kind of an important job" for their team

 

Here, these two are getting demoted. Unless you believe that these two should not be batting in the top 4-5 for their teams and not good enough to bowl a few overs in a domestic league just because it is T20! 

 

 

Jadhav hasnt bowled in IPL ever.......not even a single ball so does that take away from his success in international cricket with his bowling......No 

 

They dont bowl for their IPL teams coz their teams may not need them. CSK has plenty options before jadhav....

Koi zabardasti nhin hai ki unhe bowling dalwani hi hai , in international cricket also they wnt be bowled unless needed 

Posted
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10
5 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

Jadhav hasnt bowled in IPL ever.......not even a single ball so does that take away from his success in international cricket with his bowling......No 

 

They dont bowl for their IPL teams coz their teams may not need them. CSK has plenty options before jadhav....

Koi zabardasti nhin hai ki unhe bowling dalwani hi hai , in international cricket also they wnt be bowled unless needed 

I guess, their USP was that they can bowl a few overs. With their batting in relative doldrums, there is no case for Ind to even start with them :dontknow:

Posted
1 minute ago, zen said:

I guess, their USP was that they can bowl a few overs. With their batting in relative doldrums, there is no case for Ind to even start with them :dontknow:

yes it is but u wnt bowl them na if ur bowlers the job ......dindt vijay won us a game with bowl in last over against aus

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

yes it is but u wnt bowl them na if ur bowlers the job ......dindt vijay won us a game with bowl in last over against aus

what you are saying is that they are primarily played for their batting as they would only bowl "if required" and not that they should look to bowl 4-5 overs on a consistent basis, so there would not be much point in playing both of them  .... You just showed their irrelevance :dontknow:

 

Edited by zen
Posted
Just now, zen said:

what you are saying is that they are primarily played for their batting as they would not bowl "if required", so there would not be much point in playing both of them and if there are batsmen .... You just showed their irrelevance :dontknow:

well they both have holded their position with batting only .......bowling was a bonus 

shankar did look better with bat then most batsman in limited chances he got. 

 

Posted
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6
Just now, Ankit_sharma03 said:

well they both have holded their position with batting only .......bowling was a bonus 

shankar did look better with bat then most batsman in limited chances he got. 

Good so now you can go back to the OP and discuss! 

Posted
3 minutes ago, zen said:

Good so now you can go back to the OP and discuss! 

OP doesnt make much sense to me

Diff formats , tournament, team dynamics 

 

will be worried if they fail in Wc not in IPL......Neways i hve never rated jadhav highly

Posted
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
Just now, Ankit_sharma03 said:

OP doesnt make much sense to me

Diff formats , tournament, team dynamics 

will be worried if they fail in Wc not in IPL......Neways i hve never rated jadhav highly

 

For batting, the difference in formats, by and large, relate to SRs. In both formats, you still need to take responsibility with the bat, hit bowlers, close games for the team, absorb pressure, and so on. And playing relatively weak teams on good batting surfaces in domestics should improve your chances of doing well in general 

 

This thread is more for those who can connect the "dots" between the two limited overs formats. For those who cannot connect the dots, the topic is more "If they are played and fail, what should be the backup plan" 

 

 

Posted

Zen stop dismissing legitimate points as irrelevant What they say is relevant. Based on your assumption Pant cannot even be a backup as he is far too unreliable. Shankar not being used by SRH as a bowler is not Shankars fault. Don’t forget he won a ODI with his last over. He also fielded better than most. He even outshone Kohli in a partnership with Kohli. 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...