Drop Jadeja for Ashwin?

[Laaloo]

10 hours ago, putrevus said:

Seeing the pitch, I cannot blame them for leaving Ashwin out.

When was the last time a 4th seamer did well for us? Have you seen our pathetic batting lineup? Only Gill and jadeja are reliable. Ashwin could have been useful with the bat.

[vvvslaxman]

There are some legit reasons for backing.  It happens at Oval. Ball is Duke. He has a better match up against Smith and Travis Head. He increases the batting depth. Australia has 4 left handers. Okay you don't trust him. Your next best option would be Jayadev. He is taller. He can swing. He can extract more bounce. He is left handed. He is likely to be hungrier than this 36 year old Umesh.  Now we have 4 similar height similar pace similar type bowlers except Thakur who swings. If it doesn't swing you are playing 4 identical bowlers. Batsmen will get used to it. Another option is Kuldeep Yadav who was binned after a very good Test match.  They do not think outside the box

[nitinbwj]

Ganguly blasted Jadeja about his poor shitshow. 

[putrevus]

6 hours ago, nitinbwj said:

Ganguly blasted Jadeja about his poor shitshow. 

He deserves all the blasting, Jadeja cannot be selected for his batting alone if he cannot bowl.His value is only there as long as he is atleast serviceable bowler.

 

He is keeping out a much better bowler .His batting does not compensate for this useless bowling.

[putrevus]

13 hours ago, Laaloo said:

When was the last time a 4th seamer did well for us? Have you seen our pathetic batting lineup? Only Gill and jadeja are reliable. Ashwin could have been useful with the bat.

4th bowler is the reason why this team has done well in picking up 20 wickets consistently, do you think India had a great fast bowler in last five years.

 

 

[sensible-indian]

10 minutes ago, putrevus said:

He deserves all the blasting, Jadeja cannot be selected for his batting alone if he cannot bowl.His value is only there as long as he is atleast serviceable bowler.

 

He is keeping out a much better bowler .His batting does not compensate for this useless bowling.

Jaddu is our best batsman.

[putrevus]

4 minutes ago, sensible-indian said:

Jaddu is our best batsman.

Since when?

[Norman]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

Since when?

 

Since Pant's car hit the divider. 

[Gollum]

4 LHBs in their top 7, scored 270 something combined out of total 469.

 

Starc at #8.

 

 

Ravi Ashwin is nightmare for left-handers - Most wickets against Left handers in Test history. pic.twitter.com/M9T2n7bXF1

— CricketMAN2 (@ImTanujSingh) February 11, 2023

[Lord]

6 hours ago, putrevus said:

He deserves all the blasting, Jadeja cannot be selected for his batting alone if he cannot bowl.His value is only there as long as he is atleast serviceable bowler.

 

He is keeping out a much better bowler .His batting does not compensate for this useless bowling.

His batting is what he's selected for since hes doing better than all selected. Bowling is bonus and spinner's main job on a greentop is economy. He did it

[vvvslaxman]

Rohit Sharma thought he can use Ashwin as Impact player  ~ Krishnamachaari Srikkant via Star Sports Tamil

[Lord]

7 hours ago, putrevus said:

Since when?

once again did well, better than trimurti.

 

What's Ganguly saying now?

[Lord]

Lyon proved why Ash should have played. 

 

But not for Jaddu, for Umesh or even one of the bats

[zen]

4 minutes ago, Lord said:

Lyon proved why Ash should have played. 

 

But not for Jaddu, for Umesh or even one of the bats

 

To be frank, it does not prove anything as the player has to do well not his equivalent in the other team. 

 

If Kohli wasn't available, and when Smith got a 100 in the first inning, it would not have proved that had Kohli played, he would have scored a 100 in the first inning too. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by zen

[Lord]

1 minute ago, zen said:

 

To be frank, it does not prove anything as the player has to do well not his equivalent in the other team. 

 

If Kohli wasn't available, and when Smith got a 100 in the first inning, it would not have proved that had Kohli played, he would have scored a 100 in the first inning too. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes but there is turn and Ashwin is currently no. 1 bowler,so would have used it. Also did well last WTC Final.

 

Kohli is not a patch on Smith. Both are right handers yes.

[sandeep]

Honestly, Is anybody surprised by what we have seen so far?  

 

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  

 

I want to support the team, even when results aren't good.  But this sort of muddled leadership and decision making, does not make it easy.

[zen]

4 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Yes but there is turn and Ashwin is currently no. 1 bowler,so would have used it. Also did well last WTC Final.

 

Kohli is not a patch on Smith. Both are right handers yes.

That is a speculation … In 2018, Moeen outbowled Aswhin in relatively spin friendly conditions. Ashwin failed in 2nd innings (when spinner take over) as well 

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/india-tour-of-england-2018-1119528/england-vs-india-4th-test-1119552/full-scorecard

If Ashwin had not played, people would have said that if Moeen did well, Ashwin would have dominated England (India spinners are usually untrustworthy in non tailored conditions).

Edited June 8, 2023 by zen

[vvvslaxman]

8 minutes ago, Lord said:

 

Yes but there is turn and Ashwin is currently no. 1 bowler,so would have used it. Also did well last WTC Final.

 

Kohli is not a patch on Smith. Both are right handers yes.

 

 

If we go by history Pujara shouldn't play a single test at Oval. He averages 18 there in 7 innings.

[zen]

An issue with cricket fans in subcon is that are more into cricket (due to a lack of alternatives) and also like to view their teams as great. 
 

However, the reality is that their teams are usually good in certain conditions. So to keep the dream alive, fans have developed a coping mechanism where India is great but is not winning because of some external factor like player X not playing. If player X played, many would think only if player Y had played even though Y could have played instead of X (many times, it could be toss if the other team wins it for e.g.)
 

If they accept that India is not that great, the motivation to follow cricket drops (so they have to look for other reasons to fool their own selves). 

 

PS if you follow the match threads, fans are usually crying there (have turned matches into crying events) when India is not doing well (In this test, when India was bowling, I was thinking that I hope these fans save their tears for when India bats. But many folks also look for a reason to cry so will have unlimited supply of tears. If not cricket, they will cry over some politician or something else). They act as if players are their enemies (therefore the one not playing automatically becomes a friend). When India is doing well, the players are the best friends. 

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by zen

[Lord]

14 minutes ago, zen said:

That is a speculation … In 2018, Moeen outbowled Aswhin in relatively spin friendly conditions. Ashwin failed in 2nd innings (when spinner take over) as well 

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/india-tour-of-england-2018-1119528/england-vs-india-4th-test-1119552/full-scorecard

If Ashwin had not played, people would have said that if Moeen did well, Ashwin would have dominated England (India spinners are usually untrustworthy in non tailored conditions).

 

Ashwin himself was decent in that series. 11 wickets in 4 games.

 

Moeen did better but that was due to our shoddy batting.