Your Indian Test XI

[ravishingravi]

post retirement of some of our great players. Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman which who would play for another 1-2 years max. This would be the players that I would like to take up the gauntlet Gambhir Sehwag Murali Vijay:-I am very impressed with his technique and temperament. Needs an extended run. Rohit Sharma/Pujara :- I still back Sharma. He is a great talent. Need to get his mind right. Raina Dhoni Irfan Pathan ( Yes I still have my hopes. He is only 25 ) Bhajji Ishant ( hope he finds his rhythm again ) Zaheer ( subject to his fitness ) Sreesanth ( subject to his mental condition ) ( But really the situation doesn't look too good )

[Roshanrocks]

i have this very filmy idea of Arjun takin over the mantle from Sachin :P personally i cant think of Sachin retiring... make my eyes moist :((

[Hindustani]

Too early to talk, I can easily see laxman/tendulkar playing for 3 more years, no one should be dropped just because they are getting old, the only criteria for selection should be performance

[zen]

A bit early to say as: 1. We don't know the retirement plans of those players. 2. If the guesstimate says 2 years, then too you never know which players could come up / develop in that time frame But based on what's available today, w/o the trio, the test 11 would be: - Gambhir - Rahane / Dhawan / Mukund / Vijay / Karthik / Uthappa / .... - Kohli - Sehwag - Pujara - Raina / rayydu / Badri / Rohit / Yuvi - Dhoni - Spinner - Zak - Ishant - Sree

[riwi999]

Test XI (in 2-3 years' time) Sehwag Gambhir Pujara Rohit Sharma/Vijay Raina Yuvi Dhoni Bhajji (for want of a better off-spinning option, unless Ashwin steps up to another level) (opening bowler...) Ishant Ojha

[VRV Singh]

This will be the biggest challenge Indian cricket faces for a long while. Not only because of the issues we'll have replacing the likes of Sachin, RD and VVS :((, but the combination of that with the eternal problem with the bowling unit will make things very difficult. Certainly now is the time for some prospects to be phased in - Raina's having the exposure now, but whoever the selectors feel is a Test prospect have to be introduced to the squad so we don't have a real mish-mash middle order in a couple of years.

[cowboysfan]

Murali Vijay has technique? What's next' date=' he's a wide array of strokes?[/quote'] exactly.i have seen nothing in his game to be impressed.he looks like a typical FTB to me.

[koksmayu]

gambhir sehwag dravid sachin laxman raina dhoni harbhajan zaheer ojha isahnt

[ravishingravi]

Murali Vijay has technique? What's next' date=' he's a wide array of strokes?[/quote'] Depends on what you understand by technique. Do Raina, Kohli, Sharma etc have good techniques ?

[sarcastic]

A bit early to say as: 1. We don't know the retirement plans of those players. 2. If the guesstimate says 2 years, then too you never know which players could come up / develop in that time frame But based on what's available today, w/o the trio, the test 11 would be: - Gambhir - Rahane / Dhawan / Mukund / Vijay / Karthik / Uthappa / .... - Kohli - Sehwag - Pujara - Raina / rayydu / Badri / Rohit / Yuvi - Dhoni - Spinner - Zak - Ishant - Sree

When you put Raina/Rayudu/Badri etc. in a single slot, how come a single slot for Kohli!!!!! He may be your favorite and you wish it to be that way. Or, do you really believe (objectively) that Kolhi is that good as compared to the likes of others....

[thevortex]

Depends on what you understand by technique. Do Raina' date=' Kohli, Sharma etc have good techniques ?[/quote'] I dont know what your idea of technique is. But to say that Murali Vijay has an impressive technique is definitely an overstatement. He actually is a stroke player and as is normally the case, has a fairly loose technique - classically speaking.

[achilles]

- Gambhir - Sehwag - Pujara - Rayudu - Kohli - Yuvraj - Dhoni - Harbhajan - Zak - Ishant - Sreesanth

[ravishingravi]

I dont know what your idea of technique is. But to say that Murali Vijay has an impressive technique is definitely an overstatement. He actually is a stroke player and as is normally the case, has a fairly loose technique - classically speaking.

Not really. He plays straight, his head does not fall over, does not shuffle too much, looks balanced when playing a stroke, seems to have enough time, can use his feet against the spinners. Occasionally being loose is not a technical flaw, more of a concentation lapse. You are confusing these two things.

[thevortex]

Not really. He plays straight, his head does not fall over, does not shuffle too much, looks balanced when playing a stroke, seems to have enough time, can use his feet against the spinners. Occasionally being loose is not a technical flaw, more of a concentation lapse. You are confusing these two things.

Are you really trying to tell me that concentration is not part of what in cricket is called batting technique?? Have you seen him play flicks on the leg side? He does fall over. I have seen him bat in real life. So I do know what he can do as well as what his issues are. And hey - when did shuffling at the crease become a batting technique issue? By that token, Lara is taken out of your book as far as technique goes, na? To summarize - Murali Vijay looks graceful when batting. This is not to be confused with technique. I have said this elsewhere a while earlier. Murali Vijay is just like Laxman - in stroke making as well as technique. Badrinath is closer to a Dravid. None of these two players are in league with the giants mentioned. It is just that they have shades of these great players mentioned.

[ravishingravi]

"Are you really trying to tell me that concentration is not part of what in cricket is called batting technique??" Yes. Concentration is not a cricketing "technical" attribute by any stretch of anyone's definition. Dravid had the same problem early in his career when he would play for an hour with perfect defense and then poke outside off stump. It is psychologal attribute which every individual has to work on differently. You may have come across the phrase " Bowler playing at batsman's patience" "Have you seen him play flicks on the leg side? He does fall over. I have seen him bat in real life. So I do know what he can do as well as what his issues are. " Yeah even I am not talking playstation and I say he does but he is more of a candidate for midwicket catch. But so is Dravid and so is Laxman. Compared to Kohli and Sharma, he doesn't fall over as much. Again all my understanding is comparitive. "And hey - when did shuffling at the crease become a batting technique issue? By that token, Lara is taken out of your book as far as technique goes, na?" How many Laras has the world produced ? How many batsman have the hand eye co-ordination of Lara. Mentioning Lara in this context overrides your essential understanding of technique. Exceptions cannot be rule. Children cannot be told to not move fet like Sehwag or plant the front foot down like Richards. I is also important to bear in mind while playing the stroke Lara was balanced which is essential idea of batting. "To summarize - Murali Vijay looks graceful when batting. This is not to be confused with technique. I have said this elsewhere a while earlier. Murali Vijay is just like Laxman - in stroke making as well as technique. Badrinath is closer to a Dravid. None of these two players are in league with the giants mentioned. It is just that they have shades of these great players mentioned." Well I would not necessarily disagree with you except that Badrinath comment. Yes Murali Vijay reminds of VVS Laxman, but he is ideal at No.3 considering options on table. I don't see many better candidates than him which does not say much for our resources.

[thevortex]

Yes. Concentration is not a cricketing "technical" attribute by any stretch of anyone's definition. Dravid had the same problem early in his career when he would play for an hour with perfect defense and then poke outside off stump. It is psychologal attribute which every individual has to work on differently. You may have come across the phrase " Bowler playing at batsman's patience"

Not sure what you are trying to do with the bold font. But hey whatever floats your boat! Concentration is definitely an "attribute" which forms the gamut of what one calls cricketing technique. Without concentration, no technique comes about. I wonder whether you understand what I am talking about. All technique is as good as the execution. And for execution you need concentration.

Yeah even I am not talking playstation and I say he does but he is more of a candidate for midwicket catch. But so is Dravid and so is Laxman. Compared to Kohli and Sharma, he doesn't fall over as much. Again all my understanding is comparitive.

Again you are wrong. I have told you earlier that I have seen him play at various levels locally here at Chennai and can tell you point blank that you have not seen him enough to claim what you do. He does fall over when playing the flick. By the way do you notice that you are saying now that he does fall over as opposed to what you were saying in your previous post? If you do say that he does fall over, then we agree. And forget about the comparison with Sharma and Kohli. Your claim was that he does not fall over. And I was simply rebutting that with whatever I know of Murali Vijay's game. By the way, Kohli does have a better technique than the other two being mentioned. In my opinion of course. However, he has a poorer temperament too.

How many Laras has the world produced ? How many batsman have the hand eye co-ordination of Lara. Mentioning Lara in this context overrides your essential understanding of technique. Exceptions cannot be rule. Children cannot be told to not move fet like Sehwag or plant the front foot down like Richards. I is also important to bear in mind while playing the stroke Lara was balanced which is essential idea of batting.

Are you talking about keeping the feet static or moving them about? I was simply pointing out the fallacy in your statement about good technique not involving a shuffle. Would you like talk about that to a Dravid whose trigger movement till today is a shuffle? Or for that matter a Jacques Kallis? And you thought Lara was an exception in this regard?! Lara was an exception as far as eye hand coordination is concerned. But that is out of context. You talked about Murali Vijay purportedly having better technique because he did not shuffle. I was only pointing out that not having shuffle does not automatically refer to the presence of good technique.

Well I would not necessarily disagree with you except that Badrinath comment. Yes Murali Vijay reminds of VVS Laxman, but he is ideal at No.3 considering options on table. I don't see many better candidates than him which does not say much for our resources.

Now you are talking.... :) And we can agree to disagree on Badrinath.

[ravishingravi]

Concentration is definitely an "attribute" which forms the gamut of what one calls cricketing technique. Without concentration, no technique comes about. I wonder whether you understand what I am talking about. All technique is as good as the execution. And for execution you need concentration. It is the technique not the concentration that is executed. A batsman with good technique can be let down by lack of concentration but a batsman with poor technique cannot be saved by great concentration. "Concentration" is not his battle with the bowler, but his battle with himself. Point remains that when anyone watches a batsman for the first time, you are looking at his footwork both back and front), you are trying to guage the amount of time he has to play the ball against the pacers. First impressions of batsman is his actual "shaping up" to face the ball. His "concentration" issue comes much later after his technique seems good enough. But where your argument inherently fails is that, if a batsman is suspect to swinging ball or does duck appropriately to short ball and keeps getting hit, his concentration is irrelevant, since he doesn't have the technique for execution. It maybe that his technique is unconventional, but the batsman he shouldn't be suspect against any "specific" delivery, not over a long duration in a career. Again you are wrong. I have told you earlier that I have seen him play at various levels locally here at Chennai and can tell you point blank that you have not seen him enough to claim what you do. He does fall over when playing the flick. By the way do you notice that you are saying now that he does fall over as opposed to what you were saying in your previous post? If you do say that he does fall over, then we agree. And forget about the comparison with Sharma and Kohli. Your claim was that he does not fall over. And I was simply rebutting that with whatever I know of Murali Vijay's game. By the way, Kohli does have a better technique than the other two being mentioned. In my opinion of course. However, he has a poorer temperament too. So, I should take your word for Vijay, is it? Maybe you see something live that gets missed on television. But I don't post know which you are reading and replying to. Quote me, where I said he "falls over". If you have played the game, you would know that occasionally every batsman falls over including Dravid, Tendulkar and Ponting esp. those with a strong "trigger" movement. Now for some it not a temporary abberation, like Alistar Cook, which when it becomes a technical flaw and not merely a concentration issue, which requires correction. To my understanding Vijay doesn't have an issue there any more than most quality batsmen have at some point in their career. Kohli plants his front foot down and is prime candidate for LBW. He also is loose outside off stump as was seen against the moderate SL attack recently. So, by your interpretation how would he have a better technique than Vijay Are you talking about keeping the feet static or moving them about? I was simply pointing out the fallacy in your statement about good technique not involving a shuffle. Would you like talk about that to a Dravid whose trigger movement till today is a shuffle? Or for that matter a Jacques Kallis? And you thought Lara was an exception in this regard?! Lara was an exception as far as eye hand coordination is concerned. But that is out of context. You talked about Murali Vijay purportedly having better technique because he did not shuffle. I was only pointing out that not having shuffle does not automatically refer to the presence of good technique. You are again confusing two different thing. Most batsmen have small trigger movements i.e prior to the ball being released, with some exceptions like Sehwag. There is also crab like movement of Chanderpaul, but the most important thing with batting is , are you balanced and decisive while playing a stroke. Hussain had that problem in early 2000 where he shuffled too much landed up on off stump and be a prime LBW candidate. The idea of trigger movements is to get your body and head in line, but if you shuffle too much then you are bound to fall over. Mention of Lara itself is out of context when we talk about batting technique and it definitely under mines the rest of your argument since you are equating Kallis and Dravid's movement with that of Lara, which begs the question have you seen Lara play. Have you seen Kallis and Dravid jumping while playing an attacking stroke? How many batsmen can read the length as quickly as Lara did ? Nobody in any coaching academy shows clips of Lara to guide the players in matter of technique. Tecnique is essentially evolved for the "less gifted" souls than Lara, so that they can counter the bowlers. On the mention of Lara, it is important to bear in mind that he was indeed suspect with the ball coming in ( watch some clips o Mcgrath and Lara ) and fell over quite often. Towards the end of his career, with the hand eye co-orination not being as strong he could no longer play the short ball on the jump and was found out. It is a different matter that when he was on song, he could play 10 shots to each ball and made up for the failed knocks. But what makes Sachin more consistent and reliable is the defensive technique even when he is not playing well. So, no, in terms of technique I would not consider likes of Lara, Richards or even Sehwag as great yardsticks to follow.

[thevortex]

ravisinghravi - your latest post simply outlines your confusion! The defining point that you made and that I disagreed with was about Murali Vijay having a good technique. Now where you are going with this, I dont understand. Remember you said these things - Murali Vijay does not fall over, does not shuffle etc. Once you remember this, and then you read through my post I think things will be clearer. My point was not that Lara, Kallis and Dravid shuffle in the same way! Like I said, take things in context and I certainly hope things will be clear. If not, let me know and I will try my best to help elucidate. To me, technique is personal. Sehwag does have a technique, just as Richards had his and Lara had his. What works for them is applicable to them. What we talk about when we talk about technique is what is applicable to most kids when they try and learn the game. Its a starting point, not a finishing school in and of itself. And yes, all technique is about promoting balance and helping a batsman complete the follow through where the contact point with the ball is made in such a fashion that the desired result is brought out. All these great people did things differently. I dont think we disagree on these things. It is just that there is no basis to saying that Murali Vijay has a great technique. And before I forget yes, there is a lot more to cricket and batting than watching it on TV!! I am surprised that you even ask that. :)

[thevortex]

Oh and about concentration - you again miss the point. Having concentration and no technique is obviously a recipe for disaster. However knowing how to play but yet having poor concentration will never help a player either. That was my point. Concentration is perhaps the most important attribute that forms the technique of a batsman - from a finishing point of view. To execute technique you need concentration. A poor temperament will let every batsman down - the ones with the best technique or the ones with none. No exceptions.

[zen]

When you put Raina/Rayudu/Badri etc. in a single slot, how come a single slot for Kohli!!!!! He may be your favorite and you wish it to be that way. Or, do you really believe (objectively) that Kolhi is that good as compared to the likes of others....

I feel that Kohli is more solid technically then some of the other youngsters, which is why he is one of my first choices in the test squad, along w/ Pujara, who I guess can be developed in to a decent test material too. If I am not wrong, Sehwag had said that he would like to bat in the middle order once Tendulkar retires so he takes #4. I think that move is not bad. And we can have Kohli and Pujara sloted above and below him respectively. IMO, the slots for 2nd opener and #6 position (if Ind is not playing an all-rounder) are still open. Badri looks like a good bet but age may not be on his side, while Raina has started well but I am not too sure about his ability to handle bouncers. Rayydu looks like a nice compromise. And who knows Rohit or Yuvi could sharpen up their games in future. which is why I have options for those slots