ODI is the best format for introducing new players and grooming them for international cricket .... it should remain and there should be more balance between batting and bowling to make it more interesting

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Sometimes we don't know who will do better where. Sundar did not play first class game for 4 years.  He was exclusively playing T20s. Suddenly as a forced move played at the Gabba and the rest is history. Same with Shardul who was barely good enough in our T20 set up let alone Test set up. He has already done more than enough in Tests. I don't think we can typecast players.

 

 

That's true.

 

Shardul would not have become a regular in outside Asia tests if not for his innings at the Gabba. His bowling has become more like a part timer nowdays despite his knack for picking big wickets  ( was much better till 2018 when he was fitter and quicker )

 

But he has been able to position himself as the bowling all-rounder aftef that lucky break in Australia.

 

And Sundar's red ball batting would not have got anyone's attention in a hurry if not for that knock at the Gabba.

 

 

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Who knows Kishan might be a box office hit in Tests. 

 

Kishan has done well in the last Unofficial Test series for our A team. 

 

He has quite a few weaknesses as a batter and is not a complete batsman like Pant ... but who knows, his attacking instinct and temperament may make him a decent success in tests. 

 

 

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Pant when he started nobody knew would have better test career than ODI/T20 career.

 

That's true.

 

Pant was always thought to be a really good red ball batsman due to his superb FC performances ... but many people thought that he would be better in white ball cricket.

[Ankit_sharma03]

9 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

Technique is huge stretch for Sundar. He barely played any quality long version of cricket to display his technique. It was a fluke discovery. Same with Thakur

 

sorry absolute disagree they both have very good technique for their spot. 

Lack of big runs is due to their role, when u play like batsman for a team and bat at that higher ull score big runs. 

 

Fluky discovery but tools were there and they got right conditions . Flukes dont last long 

 

9 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

. Didn't exactly light up first class games like some of the other guys.  Same with Pant. Pant was never projected a technician at any point of his career especially at the start.

 

Pant was pretty good in Fc , not in List A . He had a great season in Fc 

Thats what selector job to see quality not numbers

 

9 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

He is always a belligerent player who relies on confidence.  Over a period we discovered that he looks better when he takes time and gets the feel of it. Not when he goes bang bang. That is why a below aveage career in T20, above average career in Tests. During the early part of his career he was typecast as ODI material.   We  have to be open about all the possibilities as players improve dramatically players regress dramatically. Typecasting and shunning them will reduce the pool size. 

below avg t20 career is again something that has happened with many middle order batsman even abdv, stokes, butler 

he was type casted in ODI ?? why ?? whereas he did better in red ball domestic . 

 

u keep opening wrong possibilities without looking at skillset and plainly looking at numbers it will never end up well 

[Ankit_sharma03]

11 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

Pant when he started nobody knew would have better test career than ODI/T20 career.

who were these ppl ?? He had a very impactful Fc season

Likes of gilly and sehwag were far successful in test

 

It was plain old fashioned thinking not logical . Selecting players in right format and right is logical not old school thinking 

[Vk1]

6 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

who were these ppl ?? He had a very impactful Fc season

Likes of gilly and sehwag were far successful in test

 

It was plain old fashioned thinking not logical . Selecting players in right format and right is logical not old school thinking 

off topic... u analyze so much how did you come to a conclusion that SKY is not good for ODIs?

[Ankit_sharma03]

9 hours ago, Vk1 said:

off topic... u analyze so much how did you come to a conclusion that SKY is not good for ODIs?

 

Sach bolu gut feel hai , he just doesnt give me the feeling of playing a long on regular basis in different condition in different situation. I see that with KL, pant even iyer but not SKY . also he has no addition value which hooda, jadhav had 

IF you are looking at for someone in 50 over we shud look at ppl who can play long innings , impactful, perform in different conditions. 

 

I only see him at 6-7 in ODI which has to be taken by 2 all rounders . If he offered bowling then easy not a bad choice coz then u can do kedhar jadhav job or maxwell job 

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Ankit_sharma03

[vvvslaxman]

21 minutes ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

who were these ppl ?? He had a very impactful Fc season

Likes of gilly and sehwag were far successful in test

 

It was plain old fashioned thinking not logical . Selecting players in right format and right is logical not old school thinking 

 

So did many guys over the years.  Pant made T20 entry before Test entry.  Pant's entry into Indian side was due to the fact he was a keeper not because of his first class game stats. Many had similar stats at first class level.  If he were not to be a keeper i am not even sure he would have been a regular batsman for Indian side. Probably for T20.  He is another accidental discovery in Tests.

[vvvslaxman]

It is entirely in the hands of player themselves. Not us analysts.  Some batsmen put in hard yards to completely turn it around. Some just take it for granted and lose their focus and their way.  We have to be mindful of that. I understand this logic for bowlers given that skill set required is different completely.  You really don't need to land so many slow balls, yorkers as much in Tests compared to LOIs.  Same way length balls can be your enemy in the ODIs. But not in Tests.  A Test bowler needs a lot more stamina. Having said that there is no reason why a bowler can't succeed in all the formats.  Ashwin more than one year before his Test debut, made ODI debut.  he hardly had any flattering numbers in Ranji.

 

2009/10 Ashwin

 

 7 matches 17 wicekts 41 avge

 

2010/11 Ashwin

 

5 matches 24 wickets  24 avge  Even Yusuf pathan had same figures 5 matches 24 wickets 17 avge. 

 

There is no way , Ashwin would have been backed in Tests but for his exploits in the IPL being Dhoni the captain.  Now his best format turns out to be Tests both in batting/bowling.

[Vk1]

1 hour ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 

Sach bolu gut feel hai , he just doesnt give me the feeling of playing a long on regular basis in different condition in different situation. I see that with KL, pant even iyer but not SKY . also he has no addition value which hooda, jadhav had 

IF you are looking at for someone in 50 over we shud look at ppl who can play long innings , impactful, perform in different conditions. 

 

I only see him at 6-7 in ODI which has to be taken by 2 all rounders . If he offered bowling then easy not a bad choice coz then u can do kedhar jadhav job or maxwell job 

 

 

you don't need SKY kind of players to regularly score big runs in our team where top 3 look to bat majority of overs in ODIs.. I feel that he will be more than useful if he can be a Ajay Jadeja kind of player.. except for playing long innings which he might too after establishing himself .. he can be both impactful and can perform in different conditions

Edited July 26, 2022 by Vk1

[Chakdephatte]

20 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

I think a player shud be backed in his best format at start, means a format where he ll be most comfortable at start which cannot be same for everyone 

 

For eg 

Prasidh - i feel will be better in test and then ODI, t20 a big no as of now 

Umran- cannot play longer format coz he cant control new ball , unless u wanna try him in home test with SG 

Kishen -t20is coz he lacks any kind of adaptability 

 

Rest a lot also depends where slots are open like in test cricket we may have a lot of slots avl in batting soon. We did the same mistake with siraj at start of his career by using him in LOI 

 

 

 

Did you read the OP? 

ODI is the easiest format for many. Batsman are more comfortable playing at 85-100 strike rather than throwing bat a everything or blocking everything. Isn't it obvious? Exceptions are there but the point he is making is about the hate this format is receiving. If you don't like it, don't play, no need to write it's obituary.

 

Your point is valid but totally unnecessary and extravagant.

[Chakdephatte]

9 hours ago, Vk1 said:

 

you don't need SKY kind of players to regularly score big runs in our team where top 3 look to bat majority of overs in ODIs.. I feel that he will be more than useful if he can be a Ajay Jadeja kind of player.. except for playing long innings which he might too after establishing himself ..

 

Our top 3 is not making big scores anymore. Impactful, he can be, but there is higher upside to playing Hooda and Samson there. Hooda, for his bowling and is a better batsman too, Samson, for his power game is better than anyone in the country apart from Rahul and Pandya.