Should drop Yusuf Pathan

[The Outsider]

I thought he bowled brilliantly in the first two overs. After the 3rd over, the captain panicked instead of calming Sree down and asking him to try to swing it back into the left-handers from outside the off-stump .... There was no way BD was going to chase 370 so a couple of more overs w/ the new ball when he was making it talk (when others couldn't that much) could have helped

Please read my post above - the biggest problem with him is that when he looses it, he looses it. At that point there is nothing a captain can do except pull him out of the attack, which is not always possible in ODIs given the over restrictions on bowlers.

And you have all the reasons to justify Chawla's bowling when he was bowling too short but somehow feel the need to criticize Sree for one bad over :P

I am justifying Chawla because till the final over he bowled well and had good figures given the context of the game. He was thrust into a role he is not accustomed to and failed. You can't say the same about Sreesanth's role as an opening and death bowler.

[Andy]

Appealing for what? Caught behind? There's no snicko to help in UDRS. Umpires like Bowden would'nt have given out on snicks..Heck he doesn't even gives out straight forward LBWs. He had to give Trott out as Trott made a complete mess and ended up plumb.. As long as that Bowden guy is officiating Indian matches, India has to struggle a lot to win matches..

+1

[zen]

Please read my post above - the biggest problem with him is that when he looses it' date=' he looses it. At that point there is nothing a captain can do except pull him out of the attack, which is not always possible in ODIs given the over restrictions on bowlers. [/quote'] If he loses it then you have the option to bowl other bowlers and part-timer to finish off his overs. Which is why I said that if he loses it, he needs to be talked too rather then acting as if he did a big crime. If you play Sree, you know either it is going to work or it won't work. To bowl line and length stuff, we have many other options. The option that Ind lacks is someone to create chances early on and get the top order down :winky:

I am justifying Chawla because till the final over he bowled well and had good figures given the context of the game. He was thrust into a role he is not accustomed to and failed. You can't say the same about Sreesanth's role as an opening and death bowler.

I don't think Chawla bowled the middle overs well (something he should be accustomed to doing). Though I have nothing against his inclusion as it gives the team an option but would play him as the 5th bowler As I said, if you play a swing bowler, it could go either way. You are judging him based on one over and overlooking his performance in his first two overs, his SR of 18 in last few games that he played in India, his avg against Eng (if what I posted is correct) And Zak and Munna should be used for death overs, not someone like Sree. I would use Sree for the first 5-6 overs, and then make him come back for a couple of overs, if the spinners are getting milked in the middle overs and/or finish off his spell before the 40th over (unless there is a chance of reverse swing)

[The Outsider]

If he loses it then you have the option to bowl other bowlers and part-timer to finish off his overs. Which is why I said that if he loses it, he needs to be talked too rather then acting as if he did a big crime. If you play Sree, you know either it is going to work or it won't work. To bowl line and length stuff, we have many other options. The option that Ind lacks is someone to create chances early on and get the top order down :winky:

You are sidestepping the crux of the problem here - in ODIs with the overs and PP restrictions certain bowlers have to bowl in certain periods. There is no option of taking one bowler off because he cannot assimilate basics like bowling line and length if things are not going his way. That will hurt the team at other times.

I don't think Chawla bowled the middle overs well (something he should be accustomed to doing). Though I have nothing against his inclusion as it gives the team an option but would play him as the 5th bowler As I said, if you play a swing bowler, it could go either way. You are judging him based on one over and overlooking his performance in his first two overs, his SR of 18 in last few games that he played in India, his avg against Eng (if what I posted is correct) And Zak and Munna should be used for death overs, not someone like Sree. I would use Sree for the first 5-6 overs, and then make him come back for a couple of overs, if the spinners are getting milked in the middle overs and/or finish off his spell before the 40th over (unless there is a chance of reverse swing)

Let's agree to disagree in that case, because for me Chawla was the only spinner in the match who troubled batsmen in flight. And again it makes no sense to discuss things in complete make believe scenarios that India is going to play 5 bowlers - it's not going to happen. If it were to happen I would play Sreesanth as a strike bowler, but given the composition and balance of the team it's an improbable scenario that we play 5 bowlers.

[zen]

I am posting from my cellphone, so it will be short. Let's say Ind plays 4 bowlers. Now assuming that Zak, Munaf and Bhajji will bowl 30 overs, that leaves the other 20 overs to be bowled amonsgt 3rd seamer, Yuvi and Pathan. So unlike what you think that all 4 bowlers don't really have to finsih their 1O overs. Depending upon who is bowling well, the overs can be bowled. Which is why Ind can afford to play wkt taking options like Sree despite the risk of them going for runs. And I don't think it's that a big risk because Sree is not a bad bowler. And on top of that he has the ability to change the game by picking up wkts. What the bowling options are, how the quota gets bowled depends upon what plan one has. The very idea of having options is to have flexibility and adjust according to match situation and performance in the game. PS the premise of trying to pick team based on perceived threats will allow teams to tie games or beat Ind

[zen]

would he admit that Englands attack is poor too ?

Lets not make mountains out of molehills. From what I recall folks in the commentary were saying how Eng conceeded 290 odd against Ned. I guess, many expected Ind to pound Eng bowlers so were busy praising the batting

[someone]

We all know what Yusuf qualities. No argument that he is a great player. However, his qualities really does not fit India. India has quality finishers already and YP powerhitting strength is only limited to 3-4 overs with our batting line up. He is an extra option in Indian team. While Raina has more in his game, he brings more reliability and flexibility in our game.

[putrevus]

IF Pathan is kept out of the team it should be only for a bowler not for any Rainas

[The Outsider]

I am posting from my cellphone, so it will be short. Let's say Ind plays 4 bowlers. Now assuming that Zak, Munaf and Bhajji will bowl 30 overs, that leaves the other 20 overs to be bowled amonsgt 3rd seamer, Yuvi and Pathan. So unlike what you think that all 4 bowlers don't really have to finsih their 1O overs. Depending upon who is bowling well, the overs can be bowled. Which is why Ind can afford to play wkt taking options like Sree despite the risk of them going for runs. And I don't think it's that a big risk because Sree is not a bad bowler. And on top of that he has the ability to change the game by picking up wkts.

What? You are going to pick Sreesanth and rely on Yuvraj and Pathan to fill in for his poor performance every other game? This when Yuvraj and Pathan are a threadbare fifth bowling combination to being with?

[zen]

What? You are going to pick Sreesanth and rely on Yuvraj and Pathan to fill in for his poor performance every other game? This when Yuvraj and Pathan are a threadbare fifth bowling combination to being with?

Yes, either Sree or Nehra, who ever is in better form. I don't know why you are asking this because from what I remember, you had said Ind needs to play Yuvi over Raina to get some 15 overs out of the part-timers, so I would assume that you expect someone like Pathan to chip in a few overs as well as Yuvi cannot bowl 15 overs by himself. Also you had said that you would have bowled Pathan in the 49th over so if he is poor, I don't know why would you expect him to do that. If they are picked to do a job, then they have to do that or atleast try, no? I don't have much faith them, which is why I am advocating 5 bowlers in the first place, so I could accoomdate not only the 3rs seamer but also a good 5th bowling option .... My above comment was made assuming we go in w/ 4 bowlers and in that case I am suppose to have Yuvi and Pathan bowling anyways. I don't think that a monotonous attack of 2 spinners and yes, 2 part time spinners with only 2 seamers, who are suppose to do bulk of bowling in PP w/ the hard ball and at the death, is a good idea I am discussing my concept with yours, not merely points in isolotation. So before you ask me that I would be utlizing the fifth bowling combination, you have to compare it with your own concept and PoV to get a clearer answer :winky:

[The Outsider]

I don't know why you are asking this because from what I remember, you had said Ind needs to play Yuvi over Raina to get some 15 overs out of the part-timers, so I would assume that you expect someone like Pathan to chip in a few overs as well as Yuvi cannot bowl 15 overs by himself.

Yeah, I said 12-15 overs. With 15 overs being a worst case scenario when one of the main bowlers has a really off day. With Sreesanth in the team, this worst case scenario would happen every other match.

Also you had said that you would have bowled Pathan in the 49th over so if he is poor, I don't know why would you expect him to do that. If they are picked to do a job, then they have to do that or atleast try, no? I don't have much faith them, which is why I am advocating 5 bowlers in the first place, so I could accoomdate not only the 3rs seamer but also a good 5th bowling option ....

I wanted Yuvraj to bowl the 49th over because he is a much better darter than Chawla, which was needed at that stage of the game. That does not mean I consider Yuvraj to be a superior spinner than Chawla. It's like if 18 runs are required off the last over, I would prefer having Pathan in the middle than Kohli. That does not make Pathan a better batsman than Kohli.

My above comment was made assuming we go in w/ 4 bowlers and in that case I am suppose to have Yuvi and Pathan bowling anyways. I don't think that a monotonous attack of 2 spinners and yes, 2 part time spinners with only 2 seamers, who are suppose to do bulk of bowling in PP w/ the hard ball and at the death, is a good idea

Well, it is not going to happen. India will play 7 batsmen throughout the tournament.

I am discussing my concept with yours, not merely points in isolotation. So before you ask me that I would be utlizing the fifth bowling combination, you have to compare it with your own concept and PoV to get a clearer answer :winky:

I hope the clear answer is clear to you now.

[zen]

Yeah, I said 12-15 overs. With 15 overs being a worst case scenario when one of the main bowlers has a really off day. With Sreesanth in the team, this worst case scenario would happen every other match. I wanted Yuvraj to bowl the 49th over because he is a much better darter than Chawla, which was needed at that stage of the game. That does not mean I consider Yuvraj to be a superior spinner than Chawla. It's like if 18 runs are required off the last over, I would prefer having Pathan in the middle than Kohli. That does not make Pathan a better batsman than Kohli. Well, it is not going to happen. India will play 7 batsmen throughout the tournament. I hope the clear answer is clear to you now.

That's your speculation on how often the worst case scenario would happen. I don't know about you but I don't slelect teams based on worst case scenarios. If I am picking someone like Sree, it is for picking up wkts, which implies that I am ready to give a few runs in the process. And if the risk doesn't come off, I have options. Per you, if someone like Sree is doing badly in every other game, then he is doing well in every other game too. Which is why picking him up, w/ the back up options that we have is not a bad idea :winky: The point on Yuvi/Pathan bowling the 49th over was that you are willing to ulilize them in cruch situations. And not utilizing them equals that they are better than the 2nd spinner automatically. They are in the team so that the captain can utilize them, other wise we would pick a regular bowler, no? Personally, I wouldn't put myself into a position where I have to bowl a spinner in the 49th over in the first place :P I am ok, if Ind plays 7+3+1. It just that I think that 6+3+2 would suit is better, therefore my examples are based on that. I am not writing a preview for the match and the likely 11. For me, 7+2+2 is definately a no-no unless the pitch has turn :--D

[Fontaine]

What's the point of playing Sreesanth on a completely flat track with no swing or seam? Zaheer still uses his angles and variations including reverse swing. Munaf bowles a good wicket to wicket line and minimizes boundary balls. Chawla should be picked ahead of Sree. The problem really just comes down to when we have to play three seamers and I don't think there's too many pitches in this tournament where 3 fast bowlers are absolutely necessary.

[coffee_rules]

Agree on Chawla being good. He is a good option for the WC. Looking at other teams Afridi, Imran and even Aus went with Smith. Leg spinner brings an element of surprise with Googlies. He troubled both Ghanta and Strauss initially. Dhoni should have kept more attacking field to stop the singles and let them take more risks with Chawla. Dhoni panicked after 10 overs and got both spinners in PP2. He should have stayed with Munaf and 1 spinner only.

[Chandan]

Shwetabh, Are you really saying that you are happy with Chawla's bowling, barring his final over? You have no problem with his inconsistency, one poor ball every over, sometimes even more, and bowling generally too short? Out of the 60 deliveries only 6 to 9 could be called good deliveries. To be honest, I was really really disappointed by Chawla yesterday. Some were saying that he was too nervous . But whatever..he was terrible and I can't find myself defending him at all!

[Sachin=GOD]

That's your speculation on how often the worst case scenario would happen. I don't know about you but I don't slelect teams based on worst case scenarios. If I am picking someone like Sree' date= it is for picking up wkts, which implies that I am ready to give a few runs in the process. And if the risk doesn't come off, I have options. Per you, if someone like Sree is doing badly in every other game, then he is doing well in every other game too. Which is why picking him up, w/ the back up options that we have is not a bad idea :winky:

the thing with Sree is that we have seen that more often than not the risk of taking him in the side does not pay off and he goes for lots of runs. Good performances from him are few and far between so I don't think its a risk worth taking. Tbh I'd much rather have Nehra in the side than Sree.

[zen]

What's the point of playing Sreesanth on a completely flat track with no swing or seam? Zaheer still uses his angles and variations including reverse swing. Munaf bowles a good wicket to wicket line and minimizes boundary balls. Chawla should be picked ahead of Sree. The problem really just comes down to when we have to play three seamers and I don't think there's too many pitches in this tournament where 3 fast bowlers are absolutely necessary.

Then you play Nehra. It just that I think Sree is swinging the ball nicely atm. You have to look from QF onwards, i.e. A'bad, Mohali and Mumbai. I don't know abt Mumbai but A'bad and Mohali are likely to be flat, which means 3 seamers is a better option, unlike what some folks think.

[Zap_Brannigan]

Never go in with 5 bowlers ..puts too much pressure on top 3 batsmen. Ashwin can bowl in powerplays.Bring him in instead of chawla.

[zen]

Agree on Chawla being good. He is a good option for the WC. Looking at other teams Afridi, Imran and even Aus went with Smith. Leg spinner brings an element of surprise with Googlies. He troubled both Ghanta and Strauss initially. Dhoni should have kept more attacking field to stop the singles and let them take more risks with Chawla. Dhoni panicked after 10 overs and got both spinners in PP2. He should have stayed with Munaf and 1 spinner only.

Yes, Chawla can be useful but if you play him (or a 2nd spinner) then he should come in as the 5th bowler and not by replacing the 3rd seamer, imo. On a flat pitch, 2 seamers + Bhajji + 2nd spinner + part timers < 3 seamers + Bhajji + part-timers or 3 seamers + 2 spinners + part timers

[Fontaine]

Then you play Nehra. It just that I think Sree is swinging the ball nicely atm. You have to look from QF onwards, i.e. A'bad, Mohali and Mumbai. I don't know abt Mumbai but A'bad and Mohali are likely to be flat, which means 3 seamers is a better option, unlike what some folks think.

Two of the best swing bowlers in the world in Anderson and Zaheer couldn't get the ball to swing and you think Sree is going to swing the ball nicely? :hysterical: Seriously through, Sreesanth sucks like Anderson in ODI cricket when there is no lateral movement. At least Nehra has the left arm angle that troubles batsmen, but his form is crap at the moment because of injury issues.