Cold hard numbers ... the response

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[gopsy]

I love how that word is used ... "groom" ... because in Australia , when they say "groom" youngsters it means to have seniors guide them along until they are performing consistently enough to guide the next group. It seems most of you guys dont know what you mean by "groom". I suspect you mean dump them in there and hope that everything works out and we dont end up like the West Indies. Nice plan guys !!!.

that's another point that am trying to make is that our seniors are hardly anywhere close to guiding someone, they themselves, have a hard time struggling against better bowling attacks , how can they be a guidance to someone else i don't know. And i hope you don't want to compare westindian domestic circuit with our's , and our talents with them. On any day we have better talent. Surely it wont be as bad as westindies. And who's talking about dropping all the seniors, only those who are not confident at the crease and unable to make an impact on games need to be dropped.

[bharat297]

Not in a position ... this year ... every series we have played (except for the bangladesh one in which dada and sachin were rested) one of our seniors has been the top scorer. So if they are not in a position then i dont know who is Are you sure we have a better group of young players than they do because last year our seniors (except dravid) werent playing and we got walloped by them. Our domestic system is quite hopeless and fuelled by political corruption. We probably do have better talent but there is far too much corruption at the domestic level going on, which is not very competitive anyway. And as for dropping those not confident at the crease against the freakin world champions ... well then i guess based on last match ... drop everyone besides Yuvraj and possibly Sachin & Dhoni .. so bye bye Gambhir, Uthappa, Dravid, Sharma, Pathan ... yea great argument ... next

[gopsy]

Again you are talking about two series this year about which i've given my explanation , now if sachin has truly played the SouthAfricans that well , what was his contribution to the side in those THREE ODI'S that were played in South Africa just 6 months back-- 35[79] , 2 [20], 1[4] , balls faced also indicates his struggle. Lat's face it ,that series by South Africa's own admission [prior to the series] seems to have been a mere formality to give ireland a chance to get the feel of international cricket. Nothing more than that. And this year we've also had world cup , what was the contribution seniors made. And England's win over the Australians on Duckworth lewis method hardly convinces me of their ability in ODI bowling. And did i hear you say Sachin was confident in the last match, i guess you probably didn't see the game , he was anything but confident. i would eat all my words if sachin produces atleast one match winning knock this series. Guys like me will never point a finger at him if he can do that. i stand by my words.

[gopsy]

and in that west indian series India tried out 3 players randomly, Uthappa , Suresh Raina , Kaif, out of that only suresh raina can be said to have been not lived up to potential, Kaif had 2 scores of over 50 and a 49 . venugopal rao got just one match. Uthappa got only one chance in that series and it was the last match . And this is really the crux of the matter all three seniors are directly responsible for this kind of treatment to newcomers, will uthappa say no if he had got a few more matches to play in that series, it was only because at that time there was a similar issue with Sehwag also , whether to drop him or not. And now it's with sachin, saurav,dravid. We are driven by reputation. Australia dropped steve waugh . They took a risk. We dont take that risk for fear of failure . But what happens is that even when we play it safe, by giving newcomers chances HERE AND THERE, we are not spared of failures, So tell me which approach is better. Now if you are too worried about the results , i would say it's better to lose matches and series without the seniors than losing with the full presence of great trio. Do you mean to say a victory was guaranteed with sachin, saurav around, no way.

[Donny]

most players that debut for Aus are tried and tested for yrs in their domestic setup .... Michael Clarke being a notable exception.

... and Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath and Steve Waugh ........... Exceptional exceptions, wouldn't you say, Bheemby ? :regular_smile:

[novpj]

shwetabh was refering to the OP which was about SRT ... whats your next excuse. You cant understand that my comment was about some one else's comment about comparing 21 and 29 and claiming they are the same. Just becoz 21 is SRT's avg its not a comment about SRT's performance - the only comment was people like Bharat stretch stats and think 21 is the same as 29 and yes I indeed called him maharathi worshipper becoz he has been defending big 3 - did I refer to you in that post? Do you think you are a maharathi worshipper? Please read my earlier posts and see my arguments about not playing seniors. As I have said before - I have clearly laid them out in 6 points so that people with poor reading comprehension skills can understand. You are so insecure in your hero worshipping that any sentence comparing SRT to anyone makes you jump and post without even understanding arguments. I dont have the time to waste to point out how biased and irrational your arguments have been historically since its clearly not going to change your behavior.

[bharat297]

and in that west indian series India tried out 3 players randomly, Uthappa , Suresh Raina , Kaif, out of that only suresh raina can be said to have been not lived up to potential, Kaif had 2 scores of over 50 and a 49 . venugopal rao got just one match. Uthappa got only one chance in that series and it was the last match . And this is really the crux of the matter all three seniors are directly responsible for this kind of treatment to newcomers, will uthappa say no if he had got a few more matches to play in that series, it was only because at that time there was a similar issue with Sehwag also , whether to drop him or not. And now it's with sachin, saurav,dravid. We are driven by reputation. Australia dropped steve waugh . They took a risk. We dont take that risk for fear of failure . But what happens is that even when we play it safe, by giving newcomers chances HERE AND THERE, we are not spared of failures, So tell me which approach is better. Now if you are too worried about the results , i would say it's better to lose matches and series without the seniors than losing with the full presence of great trio. Do you mean to say a victory was guaranteed with sachin, saurav around, no way.

Waugh's case was different. He had an exceptionally poor season, only crossing 50 once the entire season. Tendulkar has been one of our top run scorers this year. Waugh was replaced by Shane Watson, someone who had an excellent domestic record and who was a bowling all-rounder who was what they were looking for this year. Our top 4 run scorers THIS YEAR (this year ... not past performance,not reputation ... this freakin year ... read people read!!!!) have been : 1. Ganguly 2. Yuvraj 3. Tendulkar 4. Dravid I found it quite funny how you blamed the fact that Rao and Uthappa were given limited chances during the West Indies tour on the seniors. The seniors didnt play all series, so how exactly are they to blame? Sachin didnt play all series in windies . We lost 6-1. Sachin comes back and he is the top scorer in the DLF cup, not just for India, but for the entire tournament. So do you really think its unfair that he kept his spot? We lost the series in SAF later that year, but we did have Yuvraj, Dravid, and Ganguly missing, and SAF in SAF is a place that not many teams (Australia aswell) have won in ODIs. Uthappa and Gambhir have been given many chances this year. They have not performed consistently and your solution is to blood more youngsters. As it stands we have 3 seniors and the rest are youngsters. As it stands the pressure is on the seniors and the youngsters have no real pressure on them to perform because even if they perform badly we excuse them because they are young. Even with the lack of pressure they havent performed consistently. Now you are saying lets put even more pressure on these newcomers by making them take over the responsibility of the team. Nice!!! Look at Mike Hussey and the way he came in and capitalised on the limited opportunities given to them, which drove the experienced and reputed Damien Martyn out of the team. Over the past few years Sachin and Sourav have been out of the team quite a few times due to either injury or selection. Gambhir has been given chances may times since 2004 (and he deserves it due to his domestic record so dont get me wrong), Uthappa has been given chances too over the past year, Karthik has been given chances in ODIs over the past year, Sehwag has been given many chances too. My point is ... if these guys had been more consistent, then with the form of Yuvraj and Dhoni ... then Sachin and Sourav may not have had a place in the team a few years back. So whose fault is it that the newcomers are not capitalising on their chances in the way that Hussey did ? Oh wait that was a stupid question ... its Sachin's fault that Uthappa and Gambhir havent been more consistent this year. I have another question ... why are we constantly giving away 300+ in ODIs ... oh wait ... another stupid question ... thats Sachin's fault too.

[The Outsider]

Obfuscating issues again, the thread has meandered into complete rubble. What was being questioned was Tendulkar's ability to perform against the best team in the world anymore and the Tendulkar worshipers come up with all sorts of other irrelevant gibberish.

[bharat297]

I started the thread and the thread was questioning Ponting's ability to perform against India. Any follow up posts I made were is response to some other comment, so if it drifted off track ... i apologise. The reason why I used Ponting's stats was to show that taking stats of 10 games spread over 4 years doesnt mean much because of so many other factors. My point was that if you look at the no.1 player in the world at the moment in Ponting, you would expect his stats in every department to be far superior to Sachin at the moment. But what I am saying is that the respective differences in form over the past 4 years is not really shown in the 29 to 21 average difference. The reason being because taking 10 matches over 4 years is essentially meaningless, because even the no.1 player right now in Ponting can be made to look mediocre. People took that to mean I think 29 and 21 are the same, which is total BS. I am not a SRT worshipper. He is my favourite player though. I am just supporting him because he has had a very good year so far, and the criticism (particularly after a match in which he didnt do too bad) is unfair. If he does poorly for the remainder of this series and possibly in the following pakistan tour, then I will be openly admit that the selectors should perhaps look elsewhere. But RIGHT NOW, the criticism is unfair.

[The Outsider]

Is India the second best team in the world, or even close for that matter? Ponting's numbers against India are a red herring (I hate that phrase) at best. One would expect your most experienced and best batsman to rise to the occasion and perform against the best, Tendulkar has clearly failed over the last few years. Tendulkar will not do poorly against Pakistan. He will fail against Australia for the remainder of his career. Is it worth keeping a certain failure against the best team in your ranks? No.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Bheem, looks like you don't care about ODI wins and losses. Why do you care who plays or doesn't play then?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I really dont ...and I have said that Boss should worry about bigger batles as in the Test matches) but what I dont like is people taking pot shots at our players and that too the very best that there ever was .... just trying to understand how that mentality works.

What potshots? Why should someone who is averaging 20 against the best team in the world not be criticized? Has he by his previous deeds earned a life long berth in the Indian side irrespective of performance?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

since when did we start picking players based on their performances against a particular country ? Going by that logic Ponting should never play a Test against India especially IN INDIA .... BTW The point being made by bharat was about Ponting .... unless you want to hide behind the technicalities that since 29 is higher than 21 Ponting gets is but who are you guys trying to fool that 29 is a good average ?

I already have countered that. Firstly, 30 is much greater than 20 and secondly and more importantly, India are not the second best ODI team by any stretch of imagination. Senior and good campaigners should raise their games when confronted with the best, something which distinguished Tendulkar and Lara from the also rans through most of their careers. Now instead of Tendulkar raising his game against the best, sinks his game. Pollock and Australia have had his number over the last few years to the extent that it's inevitable that he will fail against them. Isn't it better to give the newcomers a shot at them rather than carrying liabilities like Tendulkar, Dravid, and Ganguly against Australia who seem destined for failure against them?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Holysmoke]

Pollock wasnt there theory is BS. He's being dropped from the SA squad...