Why is Dhruv Jurel playing as a pure batsman in our test team?

[Lone Wolf]

45 minutes ago, lemsip said:

That is fair as long as the same yardstick is applied to all players. Sarfaraz was dumped suddenly and for good despite performing well, and certainly no worse than the others,  for the beginning stages of his career.

Sarfaraz was failing continuosly at India A level.   While Jurel was impressing everyone in Australia.

 

Sarfaraz fitness and off field issues played a part and then he had a very middling domestic season.

 

He is purely in squad based on Social Media pressure 

 

Shaik Rasheed should have been there instead 

[Nikhil_cric]

15 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

Rasheed should have been selected for this tour.  He is the incumbent anyways and a younger prospect to groom

 

Idk on what basis Sarfaraz was selected?  Hasn't done well at India A level and had a middling Ranji Trophy as well.

 

Same Social Media pressure got Aquib Nabi selected as well.

 

Because it's a Lanka tour and Sarfaraz is a good player of spin and has more experience. 

 

Think Rasheed will be backed on India A tours of SENA first 

[lemsip]

36 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Sarfaraz, from whatever I've heard, repeatedly refused to bat in the Top 4 for Mumbai and prefered to statpad while batting at #5. That's probably why he never got many chances even for the A team. 

 

That's why even Shaik Rasheed has pipped him in selection.  Bats at #3 for Andhra and is deemed to have a decent technique. 

 

 

You can't select a national team based on hearsay and anecdotes. Every batsman has a preferred batting position. Anyway Sarfaraz was batting in the lower order for India when he was dumped unceremoniously and it seems permanently. If there was any evidence that the batting was showing signs of improvement as a result of the chopping and changing then I could understand it but that is clearly not the case.

[lemsip]

21 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

He is purely in squad based on Social Media pressure 

 

I disagree. He was added to the team in England due to the same "pressure" , played a practice game, scored a hundred and was sent packing again. The social media pressure is just people asking the obvious question about why his career has been seemingly terminated even while others who are also not performing when given a chance keep getting given a much longer plank to walk.

[Nikhil_cric]

5 minutes ago, lemsip said:

You can't select a national team based on hearsay and anecdotes. Every batsman has a preferred batting position. Anyway Sarfaraz was batting in the lower order for India when he was dumped unceremoniously and it seems permanently. If there was any evidence that the batting was showing signs of improvement as a result of the chopping and changing then I could understand it but that is clearly not the case.

Indian selectors will rarely, if ever, select a pure batsman who bats lower than #4 in Ranji .

 

That's not hearsay. That's just fact. The hearsay part is Sarfaraz pointblank refusing to bat in the top order .  

Edited August 15 by Nikhil_cric

[lemsip]

9 minutes ago, Nikhil_cric said:

That's not hearsay. That's just fact. The hearsay part is Sarfaraz pointblank refusing to bat in the top order .  

This is what I was alluding to. If it is well known that every contender for an Indian batting slot has to bat in the top 4 and a person contending for it despite knowing this refuses to do that then yes it is on Sarfaraz. I would have expected the team to have clearly communicated this as the reason for his removal from the team rather than relying on whispers and hearsay.

[vvvslaxman]

Jurel has become part of the core . So only Sarfraz can come back is when one of the middle order get injured and him making his chance count.

[cowboysfan]

wrong thead

Edited August 15 by cowboysfan

[vvvslaxman]

done

Edited August 15 by vvvslaxman

[putrevus]

So another test this moron Gambhir keeps selecting this bits and pieces player Jurel as a batsman.

[lemsip]

28 minutes ago, putrevus said:

So another test this moron Gambhir keeps selecting this bits and pieces player Jurel as a batsman.

Not only this, he is a keeper who is playing as a specialist batsman but is batting below the full time keeper Pant who is occupying a slot meant for a specialist batsman in the batting order. Guaranteed to get the worst out of both players in the long run.

Edited August 15 by lemsip

[putrevus]

31 minutes ago, lemsip said:

Not only this, he is a keeper who is playing as a specialist batsman but is batting below the full time keeper Pant who is occupying a slot meant for a specialist batsman in the batting order. Guaranteed to get the worst out of both players in the long run.

If you have to play below designated wicket keeper then you don't deserve to be in the team as batsman.It is just that simple.

 

This moronic idiot Gambhir has ruined the team with his idiotic selections.

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, putrevus said:

If you have to play below designated wicket k

That's because Pant is a special batting talent and not a run-of-the-mill wk bat.

[putrevus]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

That's because Pant is a special batting talent and not a run-of-the-mill wk bat.

No Pant has avg of 43 not 63. Pant is ATG as WK batsman not as a pure batsman. To get the maximum out of Pant he has to bat one spot below and number 5 should be proper batsman.

 

Pant then provides that killing blow to other teams from number 6 just like Gilly did from number 7.

 

 

Edited August 15 by putrevus

[lemsip]

14 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

That's because Pant is a special batting talent and not a run-of-the-mill wk bat.

He is a wicketkeeper who is a very good batsman down the order. He doesn't have the temperament of a specialist top order batsman who has to be able to grind out innings after innings. Plus there have been wicketkeepers who have been very good batsmen for over a 100 years in many teams - eg. Gilchrist, De Villers, Sangakara, Alec Stewart etc. Without exception they always either batted around number 7 when keeping wickets or gave up the keeping gloves when batting up the order as a specialist. India's use of Pant runs counter to that and so far all it seems to have done is to neither benefit the player nor the team.

[BacktoCricaddict]

27 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Pant has avg of 43 

.. which puts him in the ballpark of some ATG pure batsmen (e.g. VK 46.85 and VVSL 45.97), plus the multiple clutch matchwinnng knocks. If he decides to stop keeping tomorrow I would still keep him as the #5. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

24 minutes ago, lemsip said:

He is a wicketkeeper who is a very good batsman down the order. He doesn't have the temperament of a specialist top order batsman who has to be able to grind out innings after innings. Plus there have been wicketkeepers who have been very good batsmen for over a 100 years in many teams - eg. Gilchrist, De Villers, Sangakara, Alec Stewart etc. Without exception they always either batted around number 7 when keeping wickets or gave up the keeping gloves when batting up the order as a specialist. India's use of Pant runs counter to that and so far all it seems to have done is to neither benefit the player nor the team.

There's a difference. In BGT 2020-21, they were forced to send him at 5 due to lack of depth, and he locked it up with multiple special performances since. Other than VVSL, he's the best #5 Indian of all time. And even VVSL's best performances came at #3. Pant at #5 makes sense for the team now. Maybe as he gets older he will have to give up keeping or bat lower.

[lemsip]

7 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

There's a difference. In BGT 2020-21, they were forced to send him at 5 due to lack of depth, and he locked it up with multiple special performances since. Other than VVSL, he's the best #5 Indian of all time. And even VVSL's best performances came at #3. Pant at #5 makes sense for the team now. Maybe as he gets older he will have to give up keeping or bat lower.

It doesn't really benefit the team.

As a one off move, as it was on the last day chase at the Gabba 5 years ago, it can make sense because you have a defined task that needs to be achieved in limited time.

Having him as a permanent number 5 where he is often going to be called upon to do a defensive job is not a good setup especially when you have Jadeja and Jurel coming in below him. India should be able to find and develop a specialist batsman to do that role rather than handing it to a keeper with a maverick approach.  Also when the opposition team has a long batting innings he can be on the field more less continuously for days at a stretch which has led to lapses of concentration in batting and dropped catches in keepening. That is an inevitable consequence.

[tweaker]

6 hours ago, Lone Wolf said:

Sarfaraz was failing continuosly at India A level. 

Sarfaraz was not given opportunity in Australia test series.

He scored a century in England against England A.But after that he was continuously ignored.

6 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Indian selectors will rarely, if ever, select a pure batsman who bats lower than #4 in Ranji .

Jurel is now playing as a specialist batsman as Pant is the wicket keeper batsman.

[putrevus]

Sarfraz scored 150 batting at number 4 when idiots like KL Rahul failed miserably batting at number 6 in same test.Rahul then resuraces as openers but Sarfraz is kicked out.

 

He has shown enough at test level to deserve more chances than bozos like Jurel, Sai.