Omitting Pujara for Motera a timid move

[Andy]

India have a dilemma about their No. 3 spot and Australia on how best to use their strike bowler

With important series looming, imaginative and thoughtful selection could very well be decisive for both India and Australia in the next few months. Consequently, preferring Rahul Dravid over the highly impressive Cheteshwar Pujara for the first Test against New Zealand was a surprisingly timid move by the Indian panel. Pujara deservedly received rave reviews for both his technique and temperament in his match-clinching innings against Australia last month. While this isn't the Australian attack of the Shane Warne-Glenn McGrath era, they still don't go down without a fight. Pujara matched the Australians for aggression and outwitted Ricky Ponting's bowlers in what was an enterprising and influential knock. His confidence was high after that innings, and if ever there was a right time to reward a young player, it was in the first Test against New Zealand. However, the Indian selectors opted for a safety-first move when the situation cried out for a bit of imagination. Especially considering MS Dhoni promoted Pujara to No. 3 against Australia with such stunning results. At this stage of his career, Dravid is not the ideal player to bat at No. 3 in South Africa. He's been hanging on by his fingernails for a while now and although he's never been a dominant player, he has been even more prone to periods of stagnation in his declining years. South Africa's strategy is based on tying batsmen down and reducing the flow of runs to a trickle. If Dravid struggles and scores slowly, he'll play right into their hands. It seems pointless to have Virender Sehwag rattle the opposition with mercurial strokeplay at the top of the order and then risk allowing the bowling side back into the contest while Dravid fights for survival. The impressive way Pujara played the horizontal bat shots was another reason to give him every opportunity to succeed before touring South Africa. If India are to win that tough tour, someone at the top of the order will need to defuse the South African pace attack. If Pujara had failed to grasp the opportunity against New Zealand then the selectors always had the option of returning Dravid to the middle order and using the more aggressive Laxman at No. 3 in South Africa. Dravid's hundred against the lamentable New Zealanders was predictable, but it proved nothing - apart from boosting his statistics. His selection was an opportunity wasted. Australia's plight is an entirely different case. Where India are winning and finding it difficult to change a successful combination, Australia are losing, and the selectors are desperate to unearth a couple of young players who can help arrest the slide. However, the selectors face a dilemma. A loss at home to England will be viewed by the public as a calamity on the order of the global financial crisis. The selectors are walking a high wire without a safety net as they totter between gambling on youth from the outset and hoping the experienced players rediscover the art of winning in the nick of time. A move to the former policy after the latter fails would be completing the act only after the safety net had been discovered. For the Ashes, Australia may decide to drop Marcus North and pick Steven Smith to give their attack some variety, and use Johnson in short sharp bursts © Getty Images Enlarge The other problem for the Australian selectors is that, while most of the controversy has surrounded the middle-order batting, the clue to solving the puzzle may well be the bowling attack. The lack of form from Mitchell Johnson is a big concern. He has been the strike bowler since Brett Lee's departure, but his ambushes have been far less frequent of late. Do the selectors gamble on the hope that the extra pace and bounce of Australian pitches will help Johnson rediscover his wicket-taking form or do they take the radical step of omitting their most successful bowler? They might compromise with a moderate gamble. Omit Marcus North, play Steven Smith and retain Johnson. This way you don't weaken the batting too much, with Brad Haddin in the No. 6 spot, and you give the bowling more variety. It would also allow Ponting to use Johnson purely as a strike bowler, in short sharp bursts. The really good selectors have a knack for seeing the current requirements while also visualising what's needed in the future. Another reason why it's more important to spend lavishly to get the right selectors rather than reward a coach with a big contract. Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator and columnist Feeds: Ian Chappell © ESPN EMEA Ltd.

SAUCE

[fineleg]

At this stage of his career, Dravid is not the ideal player to bat at No. 3 in South Africa. He's been hanging on by his fingernails for a while now and although he's never been a dominant player, he has been even more prone to periods of stagnation in his declining years. South Africa's strategy is based on tying batsmen down and reducing the flow of runs to a trickle. If Dravid struggles and scores slowly, he'll play right into their hands.

Is there a pattern in Dravid's dismissals over his last 10-12 Test matches? Hanging his bat out, or playing away from the body? Both resulting in either edging to keeper/slips or playing onto his stumps?

[Feed]

Omitting Pujara for Motera a timid move With important series looming, imaginative and thoughtful selection could be decisive for India and Australia in the next few months. More... Omitting Pujara for Motera a timid move Ian Chapell, Hindustan Times November 08, 2010 With important series looming, imaginative and thoughtful selection could be decisive for India and Australia in the next few months. Consequently, preferring Rahul Dravid over the impressive Cheteshwar Pujara for the first Test against New Zealand was a surprisingly timid move by the Indian panel. Pujara received rave reviews for both his technique and temperament in his match-clinching innings against Australia. While this isn't the Australian attack of the Shane Warne-Glenn McGrath era, they still don't go down without a fight. Pujara matched the Australians for aggression and outwitted Ricky Ponting's bowlers in what was an enterprising and influential knock. His confidence was high after that innings and if ever there was a right time to reward a young player, it was in the first Test against New Zealand. However, the Indian selectors opted for a safety-first move when the situation cried out for a bit of imagination. Especially, after MS Dhoni had promoted Pujara to No. 3 against Australia with such stunning results. Dravid is not the ideal player to bat at three. He's been hanging on by his finger nails for a while now and although he's never been a dominant player, he's even more prone to periods of stagnation in his declining years. It seems pointless to have Virender Sehwag rattle the opposition with mercurial strokeplay at the top of the order and then risk the bowling side back into the contest while Dravid fights for survival. The way Pujara played the horizontal bat shots was another reason to give him every opportunity to succeed before touring South Africa. Someone at the top of the order will need to defuse the Proteas' pace attack if India are to win on this tough tour. If Pujara had failed to grasp the opportunity against New Zealand, the selectors always had the option of returning Dravid to the middle order and using the more aggressive VVS Laxman at three in South Africa. Dravid's ton against the Kiwis was predictable. His selection was an opportunity wasted.

[RamP]

WTF with this idiot old man? Cant he keep himself away from thinking about India and what Indians are doing even fr a week? He once called fr sachin's retirement and got pwnd to epic proportions. 3 years on... he is now going after Dravid. What pleasure he finds with this, god only knows :dontknow: I hope RD resurrects himself and handover another pwnage

[RamP]

With important series looming, imaginative and thoughtful selection could be decisive for India and Australia in the next few months. More... Omitting Pujara for Motera a timid move Dravid is not the ideal player to bat at three. He's been hanging on by his finger nails for a while now and although he's never been a dominant player, he's even more prone to periods of stagnation in his declining years.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[vamos_rafa]

Last time when this old man came up with statements on Sachin,it brought good luck for Goddy. Hope this time it has the same effect for Dravid as he is needed badly in SA.

[vamos_rafa]

Somehow the old man is right about Dravid. There is an observable pattern in his dismissals. He is poking at deliveries outside off stump and nicking them quite consistently. There is no harm if he goes down the order to revive himself. No doubt he deserves a long run for his services but he then,he is too great a player to be dismissed the same way. I think he revived his career batting at #6 once,in 2001, and he should look to do the same again.

[King Tendulkar]

Chappell is an idiot. He would never have the courage to say drop Hussey or Ponting. But vey quick to call for head of Tendulkar in the past and now Dravid.

[coffee_rules]

Agree. Time to replace Raina with Che!

[Ram]

Couple of things; You have to give credit Chappell for sticking to his guns, no matter what. He obviously comes from an aggressive, go-getter sort of background and sees Rahul Dravd as an hindrance to Indian team’s progress, much like the way he saw Sachin in 2007. Sachin proved him horribly wrong, but that hasn’t stopped from saying what he thinks is right. So kudos to him for that. No.2 – Could Pujara potentially out-perform Dravid in South Africa? Maybe yes, maybe no. With the clear absence of a clinching opinion, it would be stupid to replace a time-tested legend with a rookie no.3, that too for a series as important as the South African series. Plus, Rahul Dravid deserves the luxury of choosing his own time of exit. Bottom line – You don’t drop legends, they drop themselves (unless of course they’re performing horrendously, which Dravid isn’t right now). The confusing part, Dravid is scoring runs, but his apparent snail-like pace is costing him a ton of brownie points. Why would he ever want to score at a SR of 30, even 25 sometimes? It is pretty weird because here’s a guy who actually was the leading batsmen for his IPL franchize in the first two editions of the cup, comfortably out performing guys like Kallis, Taylor and White. So its not like he cannot score briskly. He has 10,000 ODI runs for pete’s sake. Maybe he push the pedal a little harder the next time comes to bat.

[fineleg]

The confusing part, Dravid is scoring runs, but his apparent snail-like pace is costing him a ton of brownie points. Why would he ever want to score at a SR of 30, even 25 sometimes? It is pretty weird because here’s a guy who actually was the leading batsmen for his IPL franchize in the first two editions of the cup, comfortably out performing guys like Kallis, Taylor and White. So its not like he cannot score briskly. He has 10,000 ODI runs for pete’s sake. Maybe he push the pedal a little harder the next time comes to bat.

I agree. I think he is being Extremely Tentative. Poking and feeling and feet movement is not fluid. Dravid is still very capable of scoring good runs, and can be a real asset in South Africa. But, he needs to stop worrying abt form, place in the team etc, and just play like he used to play a few Tests ago - when he was bit more positive in looking for runs (though he did not make big scores, I think he got 30s, 40s). He should go back to that mindset and look for scoring opportunities. The big score will come (he did get a 100 now). Even in the 100 he got, the latter part of the runs he got at a brisk pace. He should go with that mindframe. I think in the 2nd Inn, once he got Viru runout, maybe he became even more nervous & tentative and thats a really bad thing to do when C. Martin is on a good rhythm.

[coffee_rules]

Couple of things; You have to give credit Chappell for sticking to his guns, no matter what. He obviously comes from an aggressive, go-getter sort of background and sees Rahul Dravd as an hindrance to Indian team’s progress, much like the way he saw Sachin in 2007. Sachin proved him horribly wrong, but that hasn’t stopped from saying what he thinks is right. So kudos to him for that.

How come he doesn't see the same hindrance to Aus team's progress by Ponting's or Pup's or Hussey's non-performance? How come he doesn't question Aus's #1 ODI team status since they have lost 2 ODI series in a row?

[Guest Gunner]

How come he doesn't see the same hindrance to Aus team's progress by Ponting's or Pup's or Hussey's non-performance? How come he doesn't question Aus's #1 ODI team status since they have lost 2 ODI series in a row?

He did, he has suggested that they say goodbye to hussey and North. In this article he makes a very credible point about SA's containment strategy. However our readers (you are excluded) would shoot the messenger rather than listen to his message. He may have been wrong about SRT but that doesn't make him wrong all the time.

[Ram]

How come he doesn't see the same hindrance to Aus team's progress by Ponting's or Pup's or Hussey's non-performance? How come he doesn't question Aus's #1 ODI team status since they have lost 2 ODI series in a row?

I have been following Chappell’s comments for a while now and whether you agree with or not, he doesn’t come across as someone who’s a partisan critic who changes tune based on the team he’s criticizing. I think he sincerely believed Sachin was a burden to the Indian team in 2007, much like the way he feels the same about Dravid now.

[King Tendulkar]

Sorry Chappell did I miss something here. Did Dravid not score a TON in last test match!

[Silva]

Chappel has a point. He was wrong about Tendulkar in 2007 but this is different. For one tendulkar was 33 or 34 then, Dravid is almost 38 now. In 2007 India had no suitable replacement for Tendulkar, now we Pujara who passed his first test with flying colors. Its a fair point that its not right to replace a great batsman with someone who is a newbie. But you can also make the point that is not right to keep playing a batsman who's passed his prime instead of playing a future great who will get better with every match he plays.