Why are the current selectors and management obsessed with "eggsperience"?

[nevada]

13 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Because they tried talents like Shivam Dube

And 3D Shankar.

[nevada]

9 hours ago, AKane said:

Games are also part of entertainment....Even in a sedentary game like chess that fellow Ivanchuk was liked because of the way he used to play esp vs Kasparov.

 

The best entertainment I got in cricket was the Brisbane test where a bunch of no name inexperianced players like Gill, Sunder, Thakur, Siraj took the game to the Aussies .... and  of course Pant. 

The Brisbane match was the best game of cricket I ever watched. It's been all downhill ever since with the same old shitty selections and insipid cricket. 

[AKane]

10 hours ago, nevada said:

The Brisbane match was the best game of cricket I ever watched. It's been all downhill ever since with the same old shitty selections and insipid cricket. 

 

Now that you mention it - its almost as if the Indian establishment did not like what happened in that match. They almost vowed that it would never be allowed to happen again.....

 

Siraj and Thakur since then are changed players. Gill is nowhere to be seen and Sunder/Saini are for various reasons off the radar (and no Saini is not always injured - he is ground down in A tours and never gets a chance in the first XI)... Pant performs but gets dumped on for the odd bad shot.

 

All the "Usual Suspects" are back in the team plus now they have Papa Dravid there for them.

[putrevus]

Gill , Siraj and Thakur along with Pant played India's latest test in Oval where England embarrassed Indian bowlers like they were nobodies.Gill showed he is very far from being world class.Siraj is going downhill fast, I feel his best is already behind him.

 

What happened in Gabba does not happen every day. So to take that as some sort of standard to live upto is very hard to replicate.

 

If Sundar cannot stay on the field they cannot select him.The only thing we could find fault with selectors and captain in my view is not giving more chances to couple of young fast bowlers in white ball cricket during bilateral series. They are the only good thing to emerge from Indian system. 

 

[AKane]

14 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Gill , Siraj and Thakur along with Pant played India's latest test in Oval where England embarrassed Indian bowlers like they were nobodies.Gill showed he is very far from being world class.Siraj is going downhill fast, I feel his best is already behind him.

 

What happened in Gabba does not happen every day. So to take that as some sort of standard to live upto is very hard to replicate.

 

If Sundar cannot stay on the field they cannot select him.The only thing we could find fault with selectors and captain in my view is not giving more chances to couple of young fast bowlers in white ball cricket during bilateral series. They are the only good thing to emerge from Indian system. 

 

 

BTW Bumrah took 5 wickets in the match - Siraj took 4 and Shami took 2.......... So Siraj was better than Shami.

 

And Siraj did not get the new ball in either innings. In fact Siraj got 1 over in the first 22 overs bowled in first inning - Bumrah and Shami hogging the new ball. Thakur saw the ball in over 37.... Imagine the Windies with Roberts/Holding/Garner/Croft and Croft getting the ball in over 37??????

 

Siraj had one bad inning - well go look at the Championship test vs NZ and how Bumrah bowled ....Absolute dud in both innings.

 

Pant scored 146/57 in the match..... and Kohli? Kohli was not much better than Gill. 

[zen]

In the squad for the upcoming series v Aus -> Link only 5 players are U30:

 

• Pant (24)
• Hooda (27)
• Axar (28)
• Bumrah (28)
• Sir Don (28)

Edited September 19, 2022 by zen

[Strangering]

We won 2007 T20 WC because we went into an uncharted territory. We threw our best young talent at the challenge. 

 

Sometimes you have to break out of the losing strategy completely instead of trying to tweak it. Try something different. What do you have to lose? The complete break-down at Asia Cup should have forced significant changes because, you know, what is there to lose?

[putrevus]

3 minutes ago, AKane said:

 

BTW Bumrah took 5 wickets in the match - Siraj took 4 and Shami took 2.......... So Siraj was better than Shami.

 

And Siraj did not get the new ball in either innings. In fact Siraj got 1 over in the first 22 overs bowled in first inning - Bumrah and Shami hogging the new ball. Thakur saw the ball in over 37.... Imagine the Windies with Roberts/Holding/Garner/Croft and Croft getting the ball in over 37??????

 

Siraj had one bad inning - well go look at the Championship test vs NZ and how Bumrah bowled ....Absolute dud in both innings.

 

Pant scored 146/57 in the match..... and Kohli? Kohli was not much better than Gill. 

What are you talking about, did you see that match. Shami was the best bowler in first innings and second innings everyone stunk.Bumrah has been a bust in most crucial matches like his former test captain  but still gets his spot. Still Siraj is not better than either Shami or Bumrah so he should not get new ball .

 

Gill and Sundar had couple of good innings and some of you are hell bent on turning them into Bradman and Ponsford.Gill has been given chances in test and odis. 

 

Pant had great match and he has become most crucial member of the team in all formats.

 

Point being it is upto youngsters to grab their chances and keep getting better. They are being given chances to prove themselves.  Kohli has been getting chances for what he has done in his career and rightly so.When these young score as many runs as Kohli then they also should get those chances to get out of their funks.

 

 

[vvvslaxman]

38 minutes ago, Strangering said:

We won 2007 T20 WC because we went into an uncharted territory. We threw our best young talent at the challenge. 

 

Sometimes you have to break out of the losing strategy completely instead of trying to tweak it. Try something different. What do you have to lose? The complete break-down at Asia Cup should have forced significant changes because, you know, what is there to lose?

 

It is not a coincidence. In T20 surprise factors play a big role. Before you learn about a certain player match will be over infact tournament will be over. If India had gone with Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid we would have been a predictable side.

[putrevus]

2 minutes ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

It is not a coincidence. In T20 surprise factors play a big role. Before you learn about a certain player match will be over infact tournament will be over. If India had gone with Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid we would have been a predictable side.

That t20 was won  due to  lots of luck ,bowling and timely batting. Talent was not that great.It showed as India could not sniff semis again till 2014 as it lacked talent to be good t20 side. So 2007 or Gabba test just like 1983 world cup just happened due all things falling in place. 

 

Other on hand India has been replicating its success in getting to knockout in all major tournaments,To get over the line you sometimes need some luck too as India never had complete side which could dominate tournaments .

 

India has been doing many things right in last decade, if they keep doing it, they will cross the line. You need talent to win consistently  even in t20s.

[AKane]

48 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Still Siraj is not better than either Shami or Bumrah so he should not get new ball .

Siraj should not get 1 over in 22 either. 

 

I am not saying Siraj should get new ball - just that Bumrah and Shami should not hogg the new ball for 22 overs. They are not that good.

 

Take an example of Marshall, Holding. Garner.... Lloyd would not let Marshall and Holding hogg the ball for 22 overs while Joel got 1 over. Yeah Siraj is not Garner but neither is Shami as good as Holding and Bumrah is certainly no Marshall.

 

57 minutes ago, putrevus said:

What are you talking about, did you see that match. Shami was the best bowler in first innings

No he was not - he and Bumrah hogged the new ball when conditions were best and Shami still managed just 2 wickets.

 

[AKane]

1 minute ago, AKane said:

Siraj should not get 1 over in 22 either. 

 

I am not saying Siraj should get new ball - just that Bumrah and Shami should not hogg the new ball for 22 overs. They are not that good.

 

Take an example of Marshall, Holding. Garner.... Lloyd would not let Marshall and Holding hogg the ball for 22 overs while Joel got 1 over. Yeah Siraj is not Garner but neither is Shami as good as Holding and Bumrah is certainly no Marshall.

 

No he was not - he and Bumrah hogged the new ball when conditions were best and Shami still managed just 2 wickets.

BTW Siraj got the 23rd over and got the vital wicket of Root right away I think.

[putrevus]

2 hours ago, AKane said:

Siraj should not get 1 over in 22 either. 

 

I am not saying Siraj should get new ball - just that Bumrah and Shami should not hogg the new ball for 22 overs. They are not that good.

 

Take an example of Marshall, Holding. Garner.... Lloyd would not let Marshall and Holding hogg the ball for 22 overs while Joel got 1 over. Yeah Siraj is not Garner but neither is Shami as good as Holding and Bumrah is certainly no Marshall.

 

No he was not - he and Bumrah hogged the new ball when conditions were best and Shami still managed just 2 wickets.

 

They were hogging the because they  were so many breaks in the play on that day.I like Siraj a lot, he has a unique skillset which none of the other fast bowlers have, but I feel with his reduced speed was making him very ineffective.If he does not pick up pace it is tough for him.That bite from the pitch was missing from his bowling.

Edited September 19, 2022 by putrevus

[vvvslaxman]

4 hours ago, putrevus said:

That t20 was won  due to  lots of luck ,bowling and timely batting. Talent was not that great.It showed as India could not sniff semis again till 2014 as it lacked talent to be good t20 side. So 2007 or Gabba test just like 1983 world cup just happened due all things falling in place. 

 

Other on hand India has been replicating its success in getting to knockout in all major tournaments,To get over the line you sometimes need some luck too as India never had complete side which could dominate tournaments .

 

India has been doing many things right in last decade, if they keep doing it, they will cross the line. You need talent to win consistently  even in t20s.

 

If you have more clutch players you make your own luck.  Other teams lacked clutch players. India had it in Gambhir, Yuvraj, RP singh. Some stunning fielding effort. 

[Lord]

15 hours ago, putrevus said:

That t20 was won  due to  lots of luck ,bowling and timely batting. Talent was not that great.It showed as India could not sniff semis again till 2014 as it lacked talent to be good t20 side. So 2007 or Gabba test just like 1983 world cup just happened due all things falling in place. 

 

Other on hand India has been replicating its success in getting to knockout in all major tournaments,To get over the line you sometimes need some luck too as India never had complete side which could dominate tournaments .

 

India has been doing many things right in last decade, if they keep doing it, they will cross the line. You need talent to win consistently  even in t20s.

3 ICC tourneys in 6 years all because of luck and nothing after in 9 years all due to luck. Sounds right.

[putrevus]

11 hours ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

If you have more clutch players you make your own luck.  Other teams lacked clutch players. India had it in Gambhir, Yuvraj, RP singh. Some stunning fielding effort. 

So what were Gambhir, Yuvi  doing in 2009 ,2012 world t20s. Why were they not clutch enough to put them thru even semis. Almost same Pakistan team which lost in 2007 finals won it in 2009. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by putrevus

[putrevus]

45 minutes ago, Lord said:

3 ICC tourneys in 6 years all because of luck and nothing after in 9 years all due to luck. Sounds right.

If you think India getting the pitch that allowed Indian spinners to bowl 19th and 20th over defending 129 or Misbah's miscue in 2007 was due to talent be my guest. Those two wins were more due to luck than skill or talent.

 

2011 team had all the talent, don't mix it with 2007 or 2013 teams.

[Lord]

3 minutes ago, putrevus said:

If you think India getting the pitch that allowed Indian spinners to bowl 19th and 20th over defending 129 or Misbah's miscue in 2007 was due to talent be my guest. Those two wins were more due to luck than skill or talent.

 

2011 team had all the talent, don't mix it with 2007 or 2013 teams.

 

Misbah's scoop happened because we fought all the way with a par score and took it to last over.Gambhir played a clutch knock earlier and Pathan stood up in bowling

 

CT  again we fought with a low score.How did English spinners do on same pitch?

 

We have been blown away in nearly all subsequent knockouts. Not even competing. 

 

Knockouts are all about handling nerves and those teams just did better.

[vvvslaxman]

7 minutes ago, putrevus said:

So what were Gambhir, Yuvi  doing in 2009 ,2012 world t20s. Why were they not clutch enough to put them thru even semis. Almost same Pakistan team which lost in 2007 finals won it in 2009. 

 

India was just outgunned by opposition. Not like our team was on par with Windies or Australia. They simply bounced us out. I was talking about winning matches after getting to final, semi final instead of totally surrendering like we did against NZ.

[putrevus]

9 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Misbah's scoop happened because we fought all the way with a par score and took it to last over.Gambhir played a clutch knock earlier and Pathan stood up in bowling

 

CT  again we fought with a low score.How did English spinners do on same pitch?

 

We have been blown away in nearly all subsequent knockouts. Not even competing. 

 

Knockouts are all about handling nerves and those teams just did better.

But we had  more of less same player ands same captain why were not able to compete to even reach semis. They got beat by all teams in 2009 in second round with the same captain.