Apparently Sundar not among top 6 batsman in current form for Indian team

[Vijy]

On 11/29/2021 at 12:05 PM, Lord said:

 

Sundar has been groomed to be a batsman too from early days. Its Dravid who made him bowl off spin

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/ipl/top-stories/how-washington-sundar-was-subconsciously-turned-into-a-frontline-off-spinner/articleshow/58721050.cms

one more of dravid's "experiments" that can backfire. he should have been allowed to develop as a proper top/middle order batsman.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Vijy

[Vilander]

Siraj Thakur Sundar Pant. All gems need proper backing. It would be detrimental to world cricket if any of them fall by the way side just due to lack of opportunity. 

[Vilander]

On 11/29/2021 at 12:00 PM, putrevus said:

Even Thakur scored runs against same bowlers , would  I want him to become my top 6 batsmen.Sachin and Ponting were groomed to be batsmen from their school days and had history of scoring big runs in age cricket. Sachin scored debut 100s  in every major domestic competiton.So your comparsion is ridiculous.

 

You don't suddenly become test batsman without any background of being a batsman at any stage.Steve Smith debuted as bowler but went back to domestic cricket to turn himself into a batsman. 

 

 

What's wrong with Thakur but did you see Sundar bat lol. The guy is a proper middle order bat. 

[Majestic]

Problem is that 90% of our batters do well at home and their stats flatter overseas. Barring Kohli, none of them average 40+ overseas. Compared to it in past, the Fab four of 2000s, all averaged 40+ overseas, even Ganguly maintained average of 41 overseas in SWENA. 

 

Hence, although Washington is capable of averaging 39-40 with bat overall and about 35-36 in SENA, I don't think we have the batting riches overseas to make this change of putting Washington at 5 and Jadeja/Ashwin at 7.

 

It has to be 5 proper batsman, one keeper and only one of Washington, Jadeja or Ashwin. For overseas test, I will pick Washington Sundar.

 

For home tests, we can have Washington in top 5 itself.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Majestic

[Vijy]

7 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Problem is that 90% of our batters do well at home and their stats flatter overseas. Barring Kohli, none of them average 40+ overseas. Compared to it in past, the Fab four of 2000s, all averaged 40+ overseas, even Ganguly maintained average of 41 overseas in SWENA. 

 

Hence, although Washington is capable of averaging 39-40 with bat overall and about 35-36 in SENA, I don't think we have the batting riches overseas to make this change of putting Washington at 5 and Jadeja/Ashwin at 7.

 

It has to be 5 proper batsman, one keeper and only one of Washington, Jadeja or Ashwin. For overseas test, I will pick Washington Sundar.

 

For home tests, we can have Washington in top 5 itself.

 

 

Rahane has an average of 40+ overseas (around 42). that doesn't make him a good batter by any means. Sundar can and probably will do well in Oz, WI, and SC at the minimum. Eng and especially NZ/SA is harder, but if he is given a longer run, he can do okay. I expect him to average 40+ overseas - he is a proper batsman.

 

the real comparison should be with shastri, who came into the team as a bowler (played at 10 or 11). but, he had excellent temperament and decent technique (both like sundar) and eventually opened for india. finished with a damn good opening batting avg of 44 or so. sundar, IMO, is a more talented batter than ravi "leg glance" shastri. bottom line is that he's potentially good enough to play in top 5 or top 6. only a fair and extended run will prove/disprove this claim

Edited December 4, 2021 by Vijy

[Jay]

2 hours ago, Vilander said:

Siraj Thakur Sundar Pant. All gems need proper backing. It would be detrimental to world cricket if any of them fall by the way side just due to lack of opportunity. 

Can't wait to see my sher sundar back. He is a champion player. What a special talent. 

[Jay]

26 minutes ago, Vijy said:

Rahane has an average of 40+ overseas (around 42). that doesn't make him a good batter by any means. Sundar can and probably will do well in Oz, WI, and SC at the minimum. Eng and especially NZ/SA is harder, but if he is given a longer run, he can do okay. I expect him to average 40+ overseas - he is a proper batsman.

 

the real comparison should be with shastri, who came into the team as a bowler (played at 10 or 11). but, he had excellent temperament and decent technique (both like sundar) and eventually opened for india. finished with a damn good opening batting avg of 44 or so. sundar, IMO, is a more talented batter than ravi "leg glance" shastri. bottom line is that he's potentially good enough to play in top 5 or top 6. only a fair and extended run will prove/disprove this claim

I would play sundar at 5 no problem. I have full faith in him. The shots I have seen him play is unreal for someone his age. He is a phenomenal talent. 

[Vijy]

Just now, Jay said:

I would play sundar at 5 no problem. I have full faith in him. The shots I have seen him play is unreal for someone his age. He is a phenomenal talent. 

either top 5 or top 6 is fine. on some pitches, pant can play at 5 and sundar at 6 and vice versa on others. I don't think we are contradicting each other here.

[Majestic]

2 hours ago, Vijy said:

Rahane has an average of 40+ overseas (around 42). that doesn't make him a good batter by any means. Sundar can and probably will do well in Oz, WI, and SC at the minimum. Eng and especially NZ/SA is harder, but if he is given a longer run, he can do okay. I expect him to average 40+ overseas - he is a proper batsman.

 

the real comparison should be with shastri, who came into the team as a bowler (played at 10 or 11). but, he had excellent temperament and decent technique (both like sundar) and eventually opened for india. finished with a damn good opening batting avg of 44 or so. sundar, IMO, is a more talented batter than ravi "leg glance" shastri. bottom line is that he's potentially good enough to play in top 5 or top 6. only a fair and extended run will prove/disprove this claim

I can't comment about Shastri here except his career average of 35 which is nothing special and neither was his bowling average of 40.

 

I rate Sundar highly too and as you give the Rahane example here, I surely not want Rahane in my team at no. 5 with 39 average overall. There is a good reason why he gets criticized so much. Given our fragile batting lineup, I would rather have Sundar at 7 to strengthen my batting a bit more.

 

If Sundar bats at 5 and averages 39, he too will get criticism because the expectations are higher from my no.5 and as sixth bowler, he will barely bowl. I expect my no. 5 to average close to 45 and anything below 42 is simply not acceptable. 

 

Also, if your no.5 is averaging 39-40 overall and then it means your no.7 is someone who is worse than Sundar, so he would probably be averaging 32-33, that is simply not worth for overseas tests for me because his overseas stats would probably be even worse like it is a case for most Indian batters today.

 

If we want to be a team to be mentioned in the same breath as Australia of 2000s and Windies of 80s, we need our middle order to be :-

 

No. 3( averages 45 overall with SENA average close to 40)

No 4( averages 50 overall with SENA average close to 45 )

No 5( averages 45 overall with SENA average close to 40 )

Wicket keeper bat ( averages 40-42 overall and SENA average of 35 or more)

 

If by any chance, we can't produce four batsman of such quality, then we must play a Shakib type batting A/R at 7 which is what Sundar exactly is.

 

He took six wickets in that test in Brisbane. I think he will do a good role as all rounder for overseas test at no 7 or based on form, you can play him at 6 also. A batting average of 37-38 and is able to take 2-2.5 wickets on average per match overseas.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Majestic

[Majestic]

@Vijy, another point is great teams don't play 38-40 averaging batsman at no.5. Ravi Shastri played in a mediocre team which is why it allowed him to play at the top or anywhere in the top 5.

 

Even Stokes plays at 5 in a very weak England team where he is second best bat with an average of 37.

 

Only Rahane has been lucky enough to play at no.5 in this team where the standards are much higher for everyone else.

 

For Windies, Clive Lloyd played at no 5, was a legendary captain and averaged 45 in tests.

 

For Australia, there were Martyn and later Clarke.

 

For even South Africa of 2008-14, you have AB de Villiers coming at 5. 

 

Even Pakistan at their best had middle order of Younis, Inzy and Moyo. Heck, Henry Nicholls averages 40+ and NZ aren't even one of the great test teams.

 

So, great teams don't pick 38-39 averaging batsman for no.5 position. They would actually pick them at 7 or max at 6.

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

I can't comment about Shastri here except his career average of 35 which is nothing special and neither was his bowling average of 40.

 

I rate Sundar highly too and as you give the Rahane example here, I surely not want Rahane in my team at no. 5 with 39 average overall. There is a good reason why he gets criticized so much. Given our fragile batting lineup, I would rather have Sundar at 7 to strengthen my batting a bit more.

 

If Sundar bats at 5 and averages 39, he too will get criticism because the expectations are higher from my no.5 and as sixth bowler, he will barely bowl. I expect my no. 5 to average close to 45 and anything below 42 is simply not acceptable. 

 

Also, if your no.5 is averaging 39-40 overall and then it means your no.7 is someone who is worse than Sundar, so he would probably be averaging 32-33, that is simply not worth for overseas tests for me because his overseas stats would probably be even worse like it is a case for most Indian batters today.

 

If we want to be a team to be mentioned in the same breath as Australia of 2000s and Windies of 80s, we need our middle order to be :-

 

No. 3( averages 45 overall with SENA average close to 40)

No 4( averages 50 overall with SENA average close to 45 )

No 5( averages 45 overall with SENA average close to 40 )

Wicket keeper bat ( averages 40-42 overall and SENA average of 35 or more)

 

If by any chance, we can't produce four batsman of such quality, then we must play a Shakib type batting A/R at 7 which is what Sundar exactly is.

 

He took six wickets in that test in Brisbane. I think he will do a good role as all rounder for overseas test at no 7 or based on form, you can play him at 6 also. A batting average of 37-38 and is able to take 2-2.5 wickets on average per match overseas.

 

 

I was speaking about Shastri the opener, not shastri over his entire career, especially given that he started as a bowler who could bat a bit. The point I was trying to make is that the right players must play in the right positions, and for some, they actually do better when they play higher up the order. another example is the explosive budhi kunderan, and the great all-rounder mankad. both of them did much better opening than in middle order. In a similar way, it is possible (though not guaranteed) Sundar would do better at 5 than he would at 6 or 7.

 

Even if we go by your schema, there is no reason to believe that Sundar cannot have an average of 45. Btw, a minor correction: Sundar did not take 6 wkts in the Brisbane test: he took 4 (which is 50% lower). and if 45 seems high, one should also remember steve waugh, steven smith, mark richardson (NZ) - all of whom played for much of their junior or FC careers as all-rounders and then became more-or-less pure batsmen who could bowl a bit (richardson couldn't even do that). with the exception of Smith, Sundar has shown as much talent as any of these names at the same age.

 

Moving on the schema, WI regularly had larry gomes (avg of < 40) and dujon (avg of 32) in the top 7 and still did well enough. there are not many teams where every one of the top 6 had an avg of 40+. Oz in the 2000s did, and so did India for a while (when Gambhir/Sehwag opened).

 

TL;DR - Sundar should be given a run higher up the order (at 5 or 6). If he cannot handle it, then he can be moved to 7.

 

[Majestic]

42 minutes ago, Vijy said:

I was speaking about Shastri the opener, not shastri over his entire career, especially given that he started as a bowler who could bat a bit. The point I was trying to make is that the right players must play in the right positions, and for some, they actually do better when they play higher up the order. another example is the explosive budhi kunderan, and the great all-rounder mankad. both of them did much better opening than in middle order. In a similar way, it is possible (though not guaranteed) Sundar would do better at 5 than he would at 6 or 7.

 

Even if we go by your schema, there is no reason to believe that Sundar cannot have an average of 45. Btw, a minor correction: Sundar did not take 6 wkts in the Brisbane test: he took 4 (which is 50% lower). and if 45 seems high, one should also remember steve waugh, steven smith, mark richardson (NZ) - all of whom played for much of their junior or FC careers as all-rounders and then became more-or-less pure batsmen who could bowl a bit (richardson couldn't even do that). with the exception of Smith, Sundar has shown as much talent as any of these names at the same age.

 

Moving on the schema, WI regularly had larry gomes (avg of < 40) and dujon (avg of 32) in the top 7 and still did well enough. there are not many teams where every one of the top 6 had an avg of 40+. Oz in the 2000s did, and so did India for a while (when Gambhir/Sehwag opened).

 

TL;DR - Sundar should be given a run higher up the order (at 5 or 6). If he cannot handle it, then he can be moved to 7.

 

I have not followed Shastri's career enough as I was not born till then but I am assuming he might have scored his runs at his peak as opener at average of 43. Ultimately, his career average of 35 with bat alongside the bowling average of 40 is pretty mediocre result at the end.

 

My point is not that Sundar is not a good enough bat, he can bat well at no.6 but given the under-performance of our specialist batsman, it becomes even more important to strengthen the batting lineup. If you play Washington at 5, then who comes at 7? Jadeja? He himself has a poor overseas record and his bowling has been very mediocre of late. He averaged like 22 with bat and 45 with bowl in England.

 

As for Sundar averaging around 44-45 is concerned, I don't think he can reach that level as far as his entire career is concerned. He will have peaks of a few years where he may average that high but I don't see him more than a Shakib or Stokes with the bat.

 

Expecting him to reach the levels of Waugh or Smith may sound exciting considering what he did in Brisbane but then the same was thought of Rahane too that he will match Dravid overseas after he completed his first tour and five years later, we saw what happened actually. I guess it is better to let the players do what they are expected to rather than already thinking of such high standards. We have seen KL Rahul's case and how he has been a disappointment till now at age of 30 after so much of hype was there.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Majestic

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, Majestic said:

I have not followed Shastri's career enough as I was not born till then but I am assuming he might have scored his runs at his peak as opener at average of 43. Ultimately, his career average of 35 with bat alongside the bowling average of 40 is pretty mediocre result at the end.

 

My point is not that Sundar is not a good enough bat, he can bat well at no.6 but given the under-performance of our specialist batsman, it becomes even more important to strengthen the batting lineup. If you play Washington at 5, then who comes at 7? Jadeja? He himself has a poor overseas record and his bowling has been very mediocre of late. He averaged like 22 with bat and 45 with bowl in England.

 

As for Sundar averaging around 44-45 is concerned, I don't think he can reach that level as far as his entire career is concerned. He will have peaks of a few years where he may average that high but I don't see him more than a Shakib or Stokes with the bat.

 

Expecting him to reach the levels of Waugh or Smith may sound exciting considering what he did in Brisbane but then the same was thought of Rahane too that he will match Dravid overseas after he completed his first tour and five years later, we saw what happened actually. I guess it is better to let the players do what they are expected to rather than already thinking of such high standards. We have seen KL Rahul's case and how he has been a disappointment till now at age of 30 after so much of hype was there.

If stokes maintains his form for a few more years, he will average in the low 40s when he retires. although batting ARs who have avg of 40+ are very rare, it does happen on occasion. If one considers ~1 wkt per match to be a borderline AR, even jayasuria would qualify. shakib until a few tests ago had a batting AR over 40. and I have already written about stokes.

 

I agree that one should not over hype Sundar. I didn't say that Sundar would necessarily outdo Waugh or Smith. I just said that some of his feats are incredible for his age (and that they outdid others), because he was 21 when he played in his 4 tests. it could be that he will fizzle out as rahane did. only time will tell, provided that he's given enough chances.

 

Thakur can play at 7. he has done well enough in both Eng and Oz (batting avg of 38, which is more than enough for 7). and someone like ashwin can play at 8 until he retires, after which axar can play there. I would be more concerned about 9. need to develop someone who can avg in the 15-18 category.

[rkt.india]

On 11/29/2021 at 10:30 PM, putrevus said:

Even Thakur scored runs against same bowlers , would  I want him to become my top 6 batsmen.Sachin and Ponting were groomed to be batsmen from their school days and had history of scoring big runs in age cricket. Sachin scored debut 100s  in every major domestic competiton.So your comparsion is ridiculous.

 

You don't suddenly become test batsman without any background of being a batsman at any stage.Steve Smith debuted as bowler but went back to domestic cricket to turn himself into a batsman. 

 

Sundar has been a batsman at every level. Only IPL labelled him a bowler because his batting doesn't suit T20s, more test cricket or FC cricket.

[vvvslaxman]

We have to see how good he is after injury. Sometimes these breaks harm us more than help

[Vijy]

8 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

We have to see how good he is after injury. Sometimes these breaks harm us more than help

true. long breaks can be detrimental, but this is more of an issue for bowlers than batters in general.

[cricketpitch]

Good to see Sundar is back playing cricket. Took 1/27 and scored 31* against Karnataka in the Vijay Hazare trophy. Also took 3/60 and scored 34 against Mumbai in the first game. Hope India don't just push him to the back of the pile, he has already proven international performer. India has the tendency to push people back when they are injured to never come back into the XI again eventually losing their form and chances.

Edited December 10, 2021 by cricketpitch

[Vijy]

5 minutes ago, cricketpitch said:

Good to see Sundar is back playing cricket. Took 1/27 and scored 31* against Karnataka in the Vijay Hazare trophy. Also took 3/60 and scored 34 against Mumbai in the first game. Hope India don't just push him to the back of the pile, he has already proven international performer. India has the tendency to push people back when they are injured to never come back into the XI again eventually losing their form and chances.

yes, we have seen this happen time and again, where people are neglected after injuries.