How long should we persist with players before discarding them

[ganeshran]

How long should Indian selectors persist with players even if their performances are mediocre? Laxman averaged only 27 in his first 5 years before his wonder year of 2001. He stands at 47 today. If selectors had chucked him out, we would never have got a player of his caliber. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/30750.html?class=1;spanmax1=02+Jan+2001;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

[saneindian]

You cannot really put a number to it. Plus with the bowlers and batsmen, you will need two different approaches. As long as a young batsman is doing well in domestic cricket, he should not be written off despite initial international failures. Then there is the subjectivity around the player's temprament as well. If someone the selectors and team management feel has the mental toughness needed for international cricket but has some technical deficiency in his game, those players should be kept near the national team (Raina with his issues against bouncers, Vijay's problems outside the off stump, Rohit's issues with the shot selection come to mind etc). Classic example would be Gambhir, he looked ready for international cricket even in 2004 but had the issues of his head falling over while playing across the line and getting out LBW. Once he sorted this issue, he cae back as a stronger player Laxman despite his struggles in international cricket, was scoring heavily in domestic cricket all those years and did well for India A against all sorts of opposition. Which is what kept him in contention. For the bowlers though we need to show more patience. Bowlers generally take more time to get used to international cricket and hence desrve a longer rope.

[rkt.india]

We cannot discard playrs who we think are talented at any time because talent took them where they are and will take forward, look at hayden how he wss discarded initially and came back at 29. he was one of the best opener when he retired

[Sachin=GOD]

It depends a lot on the captain and how much confidence he has in the players' ability. Sehwag had a long bad patch but his captain had faith in his talent. Also depends on the temperament of the player - like if the player has a temperament like Sreesanth then no captain would like to persist with him for too long while if there's someone like, say Raina, then the Captain would be usually willing to give them a few more chances. Most importantly, if the player is performing well in domestic cricket then he cannot be discarded.

[msb1991]

I agree with the common consensus with batsmen. If they are scoring well domestically, it is worth keeping them around. Someone like Rohit Sharma, for example, is not worth eliminating totally from the scene, despite repeated failures. His talent is clear, for all to see.

[achilles]

Depends on- 1. Talent. 2. Potential. 3. Dedication. If a players possess 2/3 attributes, he can get say a few years (if there is no decent backup). Also, there is no suitable substitute to experience. So a player (say Jadeja) should be the first choice over say Jakati, because if Jadeja has played 1-2 series and has stuck around with decent returns, he is a better bet than a completely new lad who would take some time to assimilate the environment. I am not a big fan of chop and change.

[ganeshran]

Azhar has to be given credit for the selectors persisting with Lakshman. I remember After his debut many used to criticize Azhar for bias towards VVS because he is from Hyderabad too. But after 2001, VVS has done amazingly well for the country. After 2001, VVS has average 52 :woot: Its a tricky question really...I doubt if there is one simple answer

[Sir_Afridi]

From averaging 27 odd to 50+ shows more than the decline in quality of fast bowling standards than the player ability. In 90s, most teams had atleast one fast bowler who average in early 20s , now there is only one in Steyn. Obviously, batsmen average will inflate when there are hardly any world class fast bowlers around.

[Cricket Tragic]

From averaging 27 odd to 50+ shows more than the decline in quality of fast bowling standards than the player ability. In 90s' date=' most teams had atleast one fast bowler who average in early 20s , now there is only one in Steyn. [b']Obviously, batsmen average will inflate when there are hardly any world class fast bowlers around.

Why hasn't Afridi's average gone up? :hmmm:

[vvvslaxman]

The habit of forcing middle order to open hurt his career upfront. It worked for Viru. But for every one success there are half a dozen failures.

[Sachin=GOD]

Why hasn't Afridi's average gone up? :hmmm:

:headshake: Afridi's average HAS gone up, its just that its the bowling average not batting average :--D

[rkt.india]

The habit of forcing middle order to open hurt his career upfront. It worked for Viru. But for every one success there are half a dozen failures.

i think he used to open in fc too initially...not sure though..do u know?

[ganeshran]

:headshake: Afridi's average HAS gone up, its just that its the bowling average not batting average :--D

:haha::haha::haha:

[vvvslaxman]

i think he used to open in fc too initially...not sure though..do u know?

No. He was a middle order batsman. MV sridhar, Nandkishore, Arvind kumar were doing the opening roles in that period for Hyderbad.

[saneindian]

Azhar has to be given credit for the selectors persisting with Lakshman. I remember After his debut many used to criticize Azhar for bias towards VVS because he is from Hyderabad too. But after 2001, VVS has done amazingly well for the country. After 2001, VVS has average 52 :woot: Its a tricky question really...I doubt if there is one simple answer

VVS was a heavy scorer in domestic cricket right from 1995-96 onwards. Look at his domestic record for that time 1995-96 - 11 matches 1170 runs@78 with 5 100s 1996-97 - Did not play due to SA tour and WI tour 1997-98- 12 matches, 986 runs@89 with 3 100s 1998-99- 10 matches, 1017 runs@54 with 3 100s 1990-00- 11 matches, 1432 runs@89 with 9 100s 2000-01- Did not play much of ranji trophy but played 4 matches of Duleep Trophy before the Aus series, hit two double hundreds Don't think he needed anyone's support to be in the team. In fact if handled properly in the late 90s, he would have by now been in the league of Dravid and would surely have scored 10K + runs in Tests.

[Sachin=GOD]

^those 9 centuries in 1999 season were in consecutive matches methinks :woot:

[saneindian]

^those 9 centuries in 1999 season were in consecutive matches methinks :woot:

Naah. He hit hundreds in each innings in 3-4 matches. In fact, in the QF, SF and Final of the Ranji Trophy that year, his stats read 128, 177*, 353, 46, 111! :hatsoff:

[vvvslaxman]

^those 9 centuries in 1999 season were in consecutive matches methinks :woot:

Ya. A testimony to the fact that our domestic system worked. India started picking test players from One dayers in the early 2000s. That is exactly when we stopped finding good test match players. Kaif's highest first class score was 136 and average was around 35 when he was picked for Tests. He was not even a success in ODIs. But somehow he played few tests which yielded average results. Players with decent first class record were not given enough chances. I am glad Dravid was picked for Tests inspite of poor start to his ODI career.

[saneindian]

No. He was a middle order batsman. MV sridhar' date=' Nandkishore, Arvind kumar were doing the opening roles in that period for Hyderbad.[/quote'] He was forced to open in some matches after he made his India debut. In some Irani Trophy matches and India A matches too he had to open as the selectors saw him as a test opener :(( Those initial 3-4 years at a position which he never liked cost VVS at least 2-3K runs besides the runs he could have scored had he been allowed to bat at number 5 at his peak in the early to mid 2000s.

[Cricket Tragic]

Look at Yuvraj and Raina's FC record. Not great.