Jump to content

Shubman Gill needs to be tried in test matches and ODIs


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Gill is a special player.  He is not some run of the mill player like Aggarwal.  It took Aggarwal years before he started performing even in domestic cricket.  Agarwal is 28 and only in last 2-3 years, he had consistent performances. 

No matter what you think of Aggarwal, the point is that players have to face rejection even when they score the most runs in first-class and List 'A' cricket in that season than anyone else in the world. Gill isn't any different. The way he deals with rejection is what will prove his resolve.
 

2 hours ago, express bowling said:

And Gill is that batter who can give us that mix of solidity, strokeplay and strike rotation at 4, provided he is groomed for that slot.

Iyer is an ideal No.5 for me. Pandey and Iyer at 5 and 4 ,  two players with very questionable techniques, will lend our batting line-up to frequent collapses. Iyer is the far more consistent batsman with a higher ceiling and I would prefer him at 5 and not Pandey.

Iyer is a proven player at No. 4. Gill is proven to be better at opening than in the middle order. Still you want to force him into the No. 4 position at the expense of Iyer.

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

Gaekwad has just started to get noticed. No one is considering him for Team India now. 

Gaikwad debuted in the same season as Shubman Gill and has been among the highest run-scorers in List 'A' cricket ever since. Not sure why you think Gill deserves to be drafted into the ODI team immediately while Gaikwad shouldn't even be considered, even though statistics show he's done better than Gill at a much better strike rate. Gaikwad is pretty young too with great potential.
 

Here's their Vijay Hazare trophy stats in the last two seasons:

 

2016/17:
 

RD Gaikwad 7 7 0 444 132 63.42 478 92.88 1 3 0 50 12
(Maharashtra)

 

Shubman Gill 6 6 0 220 121 36.66 280 78.57 1 0 0 22 1
(Punjab)

 

2017/18:

RD Gaikwad 8 8 0 365 114 45.62 405 90.12 1 2 0 43

6

Shubman Gill 7 7 0 418 115 59.71 498 83.93 1 3 0 44 6

 

1 hour ago, express bowling said:

These two are not really comparable to the Gill of today.  Gill has been considered as a special talent by the whole cricket fraternity for quite some time and making his way to Team India at age 19 / 20.

Anmolpreet Singh and Ruturaj Gaikwad are U19 prodigies too. They were the two highest run-scorers in the 2014/15 Cooch Behar U19 Trophy, with Ruturaj again being the second highest run-scorer in the 2015/16 Cooch Behar Trophy. Even if they weren't though, I don't see why they shouldn't be comparable especially if their performances right now back it up and they still have age on their side.

Edited by TNAmarkFromIndia
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

No matter what you think of Aggarwal, the point is that players have to face rejection even when they score the most runs in first-class and List 'A' cricket in that season than anyone else in the world. Gill isn't any different. The way he deals with rejection is what will prove his resolve.
 

Iyer is a proven player at No. 4. Gill is proven to be better at opening than in the middle order. Still you want to force him into the No. 4 position at the expense of Iyer.

Gaikwad debuted in the same season as Shubman Gill and has been among the highest run-scorers in List 'A' cricket ever since. Not sure why you think Gill deserves to be drafted into the ODI team immediately while Gaikwad shouldn't even be considered, even though statistics show he's done better than Gill at a much better strike rate. Gaikwad is pretty young too with great potential.
 

Here's their Vijay Hazare trophy stats in the last two seasons:

 

2016/17:
 

RD Gaikwad 7 7 0 444 132 63.42 478 92.88 1 3 0 50 12
(Maharashtra)

 

Shubman Gill 6 6 0 220 121 36.66 280 78.57 1 0 0 22 1
(Punjab)

 

2017/18:

RD Gaikwad 8 8 0 365 114 45.62 405 90.12 1 2 0 43

6

Shubman Gill 7 7 0 418 115 59.71 498 83.93 1 3 0 44 6

Gaikwad is technically not as competent as Gill.Recently against SA A he scored 12-13 runs in 3 matches and in two of those matches he edged to keeper/slips.Against WI A he edged to keeper in one innings.Therefore in last 6-7 list A innings he edged thrice to keeper/slips -which is a "poor" indicator.He is incompetent to play lateral movement,which is also indicated by his average in first class -which is around 38.Consider first class +list A +t20 records together -Gill is way better than Gaikwad,who has not played in IPL yet.That is why MSK Parasad said that Gill is player for all formats.

 

 

 

 

Edited by vaul
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, vaul said:

He is incompetent to play lateral movement,which is also indicated by his average in first class -which is around 38.Consider first class +list A +t20 records together -Gill is way better than Gaikwad,who has not played in IPL yet.

I don't think first-class record should matter while picking for limited overs. Yuvraj, Raina, Dhoni, Rohit Sharma, Dhawan etc. can be ODI beasts without being much of a factor in Tests. If Gaikwad has given a strong account of himself in 50-over cricket in both Vijay Hazare Trophy and for India 'A', I don't see why he wouldn't be in contention for the ODI spot.

 

express bowling said a strike rate of 88 is "very good actually" in List 'A' cricket. This guy has a strike rate of over 100 with an average of over 50. That must mean something.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

I don't think first-class record should matter while picking for limited overs. Yuvraj, Raina, Dhoni, Rohit Sharma, Dhawan etc. can be ODI beasts without being much of a factor in Tests. If Gaikwad has given a strong account of himself in 50-over cricket in both Vijay Hazare Trophy and for India 'A', I don't see why he wouldn't be in contention for the ODI spot.

 

express bowling said a strike rate of 88 is "very good actually" in List 'A' cricket. This guy has a strike rate of over 100 with an average of over 50. That must mean something.

It matters ! A sound red ball player can play better under difficult situations of swing/seam/spin in white ball. Look what happened with Rohit/Dhawan in wc semi final/ct final. That is why you need technically sound opening batsman who can survive tough times.Gaikwad is flat track player.There is difference between scoring against weak domestic teams versus quality attack.See his performance against SA A pacers-12-13 runs in 3 innings.More importantly number of times he edges ball indicate his poor technique.

Gill's s/r has improved in List A lately.Recently he scored at s/r of around 100 vs WI A,higher than Gaikwad.Also in same series Iyer scored at s/r of 75.Without any doubt,Gill can play at s/r of 100 against any attack.Gill has higher s/r and avg in t20 than Gaikwad,who is yet to play in IPL.Therefore first class+list A+t20 should be analysed together to assess the real potential of a player.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

No matter what you think of Aggarwal, the point is that players have to face rejection even when they score the most runs in first-class and List 'A' cricket in that season than anyone else in the world. Gill isn't any different. The way he deals with rejection is what will prove his resolve.
 

Iyer is a proven player at No. 4. Gill is proven to be better at opening than in the middle order. Still you want to force him into the No. 4 position at the expense of Iyer.

Gaikwad debuted in the same season as Shubman Gill and has been among the highest run-scorers in List 'A' cricket ever since. Not sure why you think Gill deserves to be drafted into the ODI team immediately while Gaikwad shouldn't even be considered, even though statistics show he's done better than Gill at a much better strike rate. Gaikwad is pretty young too with great potential.
 

Here's their Vijay Hazare trophy stats in the last two seasons:

 

2016/17:
 

RD Gaikwad 7 7 0 444 132 63.42 478 92.88 1 3 0 50 12
(Maharashtra)

 

Shubman Gill 6 6 0 220 121 36.66 280 78.57 1 0 0 22 1
(Punjab)

 

2017/18:

RD Gaikwad 8 8 0 365 114 45.62 405 90.12 1 2 0 43

6

Shubman Gill 7 7 0 418 115 59.71 498 83.93 1 3 0 44 6

 

Anmolpreet Singh and Ruturaj Gaikwad are U19 prodigies too. They were the two highest run-scorers in the 2014/15 Cooch Behar U19 Trophy, with Ruturaj again being the second highest run-scorer in the 2015/16 Cooch Behar Trophy. Even if they weren't though, I don't see why they shouldn't be comparable especially if their performances right now back it up and they still have age on their side.

 

 

First and foremost, player type is gauged.

 

If we are looking for a solid top order batsman ..

 

-- Whether a batsman has enough time to play quick bowlers

-- Whether a batsman is playing the ball under his eyes.

-- How his back foot game is and whether he has any weakness against the short ball.

-- How his front foot game is ... does he have a clear idea about where his off stump is ... cam he play swing

--  Is he a free stroking player

-- Can be rotate the strike

 

Etc.

 

Then we look for consistant performances from the correct " types " of players. 

 

Just runs or just wickets at pre-international level do not carry that much meaning.

 

The likes of Unadkat and Vinay do not make it to the national side due to this reason.

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, vaul said:

It matters ! A sound red ball player can play better under difficult situations of swing/seam/spin in white ball. Look what happened with Rohit/Dhawan in wc semi final/ct final. That is why you need technically sound opening batsman who can survive tough times.Gaikwad is flat track player.There is difference between scoring against weak domestic teams versus quality attack.See his performance against SA A pacers-12-13 runs in 3 innings.

But it was Rohit that got us to the semifinal by scoring 500+ runs in the tournament. Same with Dhawan in the Champions Trophy in England in 2013 and 2017. Do you think Pujara would've won us the World Cup if he played instead?

 

Gill averaged 29.66 in that series against South Africa 'A'. He didn't have a great series either. Is he a flat track player too?

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, express bowling said:

First and foremost, player type is gauged.

If we are looking for a solid top order batsman ..

-- Whether a batsman has enough time to play quick bowlers

-- Whether a batsman is playing the ball under his eyes.

-- How his back foot game is and whether he has any weakness against the short ball.

-- How his front foot game is ... does he have a clear idea about where his off stump is ... cam he play swing

--  Is he a free stroking player

-- Can be rotate the strike

Etc.

Then we look for consistant performances from the correct " types " of players. 

Just runs or just wickets at pre-international level do not carry that much meaning.

The likes of Unadkat and Vinay do not make it to the national side due to this reason.

If we looked that much at technique, players like Sehwag, Steve Smith, Rishabh Pant etc. wouldn't make it to the international level.
 

Performances matter much more than technique. A player can know his strengths and weaknesses and still find a way to stay at the crease and score runs.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

But it was Rohit that got us to the semifinal by scoring 500+ runs in the tournament. Same with Dhawan in the Champions Trophy in England in 2013 and 2017. Do you think Pujara would've won us the World Cup if he played instead?

 

Gill averaged 29.66 in that series against South Africa 'A'. He didn't have a great series either. Is he a flat track player too?

How many catches of Rohit were dropped especially at start of innings.Faf dropped in slips in first match.Against England Root dropped him-again in slips.He was also dropped by bangladeshi fielder.Even he failed in both practice matches . I am not surprised  what happened to them in semi final. Dhawan is also a flat track player therefore cannot be trusted in tough situations.

Pujara has scored most of his runs on Indian pitches.He is overly defensive therefore is not a limited overs player.

My point is Gaikwad is technically as weak as Rohit/Dhawan/Rahul whom you cannot trust against quality attack.This is reason they have failed in almost all knock out games.I strongly believe that Gill along with Bumrah will emerge as biggest match winners.

Recently against SA A,Gill got out due to poor shot selection.Rather he has tendency to throw away his wicket -innings building skill is where he needs to improve and is probably his only weakness.Shot selection can be improved but the way Gaikwad got out by edging to slip/keeper cannot be improved drastically.It is inherent property of a batsman.

Iyer according to you is proven number 4 player but his s/r in recently concluded matches against WI A was merely 75.He is another flat track player.Last year in quadrangular series(SA Aus A) he was struggling on challenging pitch.He bashed minnows in vijay hazare league matches before he got to bat on quick seaming wicket in final where he was clueless.I have never seen him bat well during challenging batting conditions.

 

 

 

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

If we looked that much at technique, players like Sehwag, Steve Smith, Rishabh Pant etc. wouldn't make it to the international level.
 

Performances matter much more than technique. A player can know his strengths and weaknesses and still find a way to stay at the crease and score runs.

 

I did not talk about classical technique if you go through my post. I talked about qualities that make a batter effective in international cricket.

 

Steve Smith for example

-- always plays the ball under his eyes ( the most important thing for an efficient batter ). Even Sehwag did this.

-- Has lots of time to play quick bowlers. ( Same with Sehwag. )

-- Has a good back foot game. (  Sehwag had a decent back foot game which included a force conventional and upper cut )

-- Has an excellent idea about where his off stump is ... plays swing well.

-- Is a free stroking batsman. ( So was Sehwag. Superlatively so )

-- Rotates strike well. 

 

So, Smith ticks all the 6 boxes that I talked about.

 

Sehwag ticked most of these boxes too.

 

I talked about a solid top order batter's requirement in my post. (  Go through it again   )  Pant is not a top order batter ...  the need from these batsmen are different.  But even then .... Pant  usually plays the ball under his eyes unless he is going for an ugly hoicks, has lots of time to play quick bowlers, has a good back foot game, is a very free stroking batsman and rotates strike well.  So ... Pant ticks 5 of the 6 boxes I talked about. 

 

 

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment
5 hours ago, express bowling said:

 

We need solidity at No.4 in ODIs. We have had too many collapses if the top 3 are dismissed cheaply or one of them is missing.  And Gill is that batter who can give us that mix of solidity, strokeplay and strike rotation at 4, provided he is groomed for that slot.

 

Iyer is an ideal No.5 for me. Pandey and Iyer at 5 and 4 ,  two players with very questionable techniques, will lend our batting line-up to frequent collapses. Iyer is the far more consistent batsman with a higher ceiling and I would prefer him at 5 and not Pandey.

The collpases are a very few even though they happened in important matches.Rest of the time it will be him needed to accelerate from ball one.I don't think he can do it at this moment.You just don't give that spot to new comer who has not shown anything yet.Next world cup is four years away so Gill will get plenty of chances.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, vaul said:

How many catches of Rohit were dropped especially at start of innings.Faf dropped in slips in first match.Against England Root dropped him-again in slips.He was also dropped by bangladeshi fielder.Even he failed in both practice matches . I am not surprised  what happened to them in semi final. Dhawan is also a flat track player therefore cannot be trusted in tough situations.

His catches were dropped but if his technique was as suspect as you say it is then it would only be a matter of time until he got out. He certainly wouldn't score more runs than all the other batsmen in the tournament who have much better skills than he does. Dhawan wouldn't have scored so many runs in the Champions Trophy in England either. Rohit scored centuries again South Africa and England in the World Cup and Dhawan did against Australia. Are those minnow bowling line-ups?

 

2 hours ago, vaul said:

Pujara has scored most of his runs on Indian pitches.He is overly defensive therefore is not a limited overs player.

Pujara scored a century in South Africa and was the highest run scorer in Australia. Also you keep adding new conditions with each comment to suit your argument.

"He should be a sound red ball player!"

"But no! He shouldn't be an overly defensive player!"

2 hours ago, vaul said:

My point is Gaikwad is technically as weak as Rohit/Dhawan/Rahul whom you cannot trust against quality attack.This is reason they have failed in almost all knock out games.

Which quality attack did Rohit/Dhawan fail against? They scored runs on the tours of South Africa, England, Australia and New Zealand. Even Rahul has a T20I century in England. I don't know how you can correlate their technique with their failure in knockouts. Even Kohli has failed in knockouts. Tendulkar failed in 2003 and 2011 World Cup final. Are their techniques at fault too? It's all mental and how they deal with the weight of expectations in the biggest matches. 

Link to comment

People are expecting too much from Gill , let us not make him into Bradman. Dhawan and Rohit have scored runs everywhere in odis, if they are fit and still doing their thing, they will be openers in 2023 too.This notion Gill is some entitled to get consistent chances in all formats is ridiculous.

 

Kohli made debut in odis in 2008 but played first test in 2011.Gill will get his chances in test first as the need for good opener in there in test team.If Rohit is unable to handle new ball in India , he will never handle anything anywhere so Gill might be even making debut against SA in tests.Then it is all upto him.

 

 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

His catches were dropped but if his technique was as suspect as you say it is then it would only be a matter of time until he got out. He certainly wouldn't score more runs than all the other batsmen in the tournament who have much better skills than he does. Dhawan wouldn't have scored so many runs in the Champions Trophy in England either. Rohit scored centuries again South Africa and England in the World Cup and Dhawan did against Australia. Are those minnow bowling line-ups?

 

Pujara scored a century in South Africa and was the highest run scorer in Australia. Also you keep adding new conditions with each comment to suit your argument.

"He should be a sound red ball player!"

"But no! He shouldn't be an overly defensive player!"

Which quality attack did Rohit/Dhawan fail against? They scored runs on the tours of South Africa, England, Australia and New Zealand. Even Rahul has a T20I century in England. I don't know how you can correlate their technique with their failure in knockouts. Even Kohli has failed in knockouts. Tendulkar failed in 2003 and 2011 World Cup final. Are their techniques at fault too? It's all mental and how they deal with the weight of expectations in the biggest matches. 

I agree that mental toughness is required for key knock out games.But that is not alternative to good solid technique.Rather strong technique gives confidence to survive in tough situation.A batsman who edges ball very often can never be relied upon.

Smith is best batsman in world because he is technically very sound,especially against swing/seam.It is very hard for a bowler to induce an edge against him.Therefore he has performed well in knock out games.

Lets stop this argument here.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, TNAmarkFromIndia said:

Which boxes do Anmolpreet, Ruturaj Gaikwad and Mayank Agarwal not tick?

 

Anmolpreet ----

-- Does not play the ball under his eyes a bit too often. Plays away from the body regularly.

-- Does not have enough time to play quick bowlers.

-- Weak against the short ball.

-- Not clear about where his off stump is.

 

But he is young and  these shortcomings may improve significantly in a couple of years if he puts in the effort.

 

 

Mayank ----

--  Weak off-stump game

--  Not that good against the short ball.

 

But is a fighter with hunger for runs.

 

 

Rituraj ---- 

I have not watched him enough to comment definitively.  May turn out to be a good prospect if he improves his off stump game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, putrevus said:

People are expecting too much from Gill , let us not make him into Bradman.

 

 

Personally, all I am expecting from Gill is to gather international experience at a time when there are no big ODI tournaments.

 

And I want him to get experience because he looks like a solid good long-term and mid-term prospect. 

 

That's it.

 

I don't expect any newcomer to be a Bradman.  Newcomers may not even do that well. Applies to everyone new.

 

All I want the selectors to do is to give the right people chances instead of the Rayudus and Karthicks. And this is the purpose of this thread.  They may either succeed or fail ... and that is how it will always work.

 

 

Edited by express bowling
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, express bowling said:

 

Personally, all I am expecting from Gill is to gather international experience at a time when there are no big ODI tournaments.

 

And I want him to get experience because he looks like a solid good long-term and mid-term prospect. 

 

That's it.

 

I don't expect any newcomer to be a Bradman.  Newcomers may not even do that well. Applies to everyone new.

 

All I want the selectors to do is to give the right people chances instead of the Rayudus and Karthicks. And this is the purpose of this thread.  They may either succeed or fail ... and that is how it will always work.

 

 

He is being given a chance in tests, there is no need to give him a chance in odis too.Let him show he belongs in international cricket first.Why are we in a rush to push him in all formats.

 

He did taste cup of coffee in odis did not look that convincing.He will get to play test cricket sooner than later, why are we trying to deny chances for others who have been waiting in line long before him.

 

Rayudus and karthicks got chances, which they should never have gotten.Damn IPL has become an easy route for selections.Iyer should have been persisted for longer.That was the biggest blunder.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, putrevus said:

He is being given a chance in tests, there is no need to give him a chance in odis too.Let him show he belongs in international cricket first.Why are we in a rush to push him in all formats.

 

He did taste cup of coffee in odis did not look that convincing.He will get to play test cricket sooner than later, why are we trying to deny chances for others who have been waiting in line long before him.

 

 

And who are those guys ?

 

We were in such a soup because the team management could not find a good No.4 in 2 years time.

 

 

Link to comment

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...