Pravin Amre must rank as the most wronged player in Indian cricket

[youngindia]

We use the term " no talent " too loosely while talking about test players. .

Obviously he had enough talent to be a domestic stalwart.in the odd international match he could shine but he was not talented enough to be a success or average 40 in internationals. "Not highly talented enough" would be a better description. he was a nearly man. In this kind of borderline cases, its tempting to think "oh I could have been a success" close but no cigar

":Anybody who can average 42.5 after 11 tests has the basic minimum talent that is required to succeed in international cricket.

this is an obvious error. even a sample size of 40 can have discrepancies. only the other day I was arguing afridi's avg of 37 over 27 tests is misleading.even ashwin was around 40 around recently. in the test series vs England and sl , amre's avg was behind all batsmen and kapil. kambli almost 5 years junior to amre crashed his way into the side with two double hundreds. it was easy opposition and still amre could not make it fully count. in SA he had that one good innings and scored around 60 runs for the rest of the series. as I said I first noticed Vijay in a meaningless challenger ODI I can notice mediocre players like arjun yadav in a school match and immediately say they are crap. quality of batsman is visible in many situations and one does not have to wait for a test match. that is for more qualified candidates.

. Amre might not be as good a player as someone with high talent and temperament but there weren't many such batters around when Amre was dropped

but the likes of manjrekar and kambli were better.ganguly ,laxman and dravid filled the shoes later yes the fringe players sucked at that time and the following decade.that's been one of the points I have been trying to drive through here the fringe players today are significantly better than the likes of amre and chopra. it was foolish to under estimate the likes of Vijay. indian cricket has evolved.that's the problem with words like hack being distributed too freely around with no clue.

[express bowling]

Obviously he had enough talent to be a domestic stalwart.in the odd international match he could shine but he was not talented enough to be a success or average 40 in internationals. "Not highly talented enough" would be a better description. he was a nearly man. In this kind of borderline cases, its tempting to think "oh I could have been a success" close but no cigar this is an obvious error. even a sample size of 40 can have discrepancies. only the other day I was arguing afridi's avg of 37 over 27 tests is misleading.even ashwin was around 40 around recently. in the test series vs England and sl , amre's avg was behind all batsmen and kapil. kambli almost 5 years junior to amre crashed his way into the side with two double hundreds. it was easy opposition and still amre could not make it fully count. in SA he had that one good innings and scored around 60 runs for the rest of the series. as I said I first noticed Vijay in a meaningless challenger ODI I can notice mediocre players like arjun yadav in a school match and immediately say they are crap. quality of batsman is visible in many situations and one does not have to wait for a test match. that is for more qualified candidates. but the likes of manjrekar and kambli were better.ganguly ,laxman and dravid filled the shoes later yes the fringe players sucked at that time and the following decade.that's been one of the points I have been trying to drive through here the fringe players today are significantly better than the likes of amre and chopra. it was foolish to under estimate the likes of Vijay. indian cricket has evolved.that's the problem with words like hack being distributed too freely around with no clue.

In the home England series that followed Amre's debut South Africa series, Amre was sent in to bat very late on almost all occasions. When he came in, it was typically around 520/4 and he did not have the time to play long innings. He had to go for quick runs because declaration was imminent. He still scored a few 50+ run innings. Kambli came in to bat much earlier and had the scope to play big knocks in easy conditions. He struggled whenever he played overseas. Regarding the South Africa series, Amre played only 4 innings there. The main issue is ....once a player is selected to play for India and has performed reasonably well ( 42.5 average in 11 tests with a century in South Africa ) , he should be given an extended run.....unless he has some major weakness like inability to play the short ball ( which Amre did not have ). If the selectors thought that he was not international material in the long run then why wad he picked in the first place ? At the time when he was dropped ....high talent + high temperament guys like Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, Sehwag had not come. Kambli's temperament and ability to play bounce were always suspect. Tendulkar, Azhar and Manjrekar were the only sureshot batters in the middle order and there was no logic to keep Amre out of the test match team of 16. No point comparing it with now when batting talent available is plentiful. Selection is an issue of selecting the best available players at that point in time. 11 test matches maybe a smallish sample size but a guy who averages 42.5 ...does not disprove that he is capable of a 40+ average in the long run.

[Texan]

In the home England series that followed Amre's debut South Africa series, Amre was sent in to bat very late on almost all occasions. When he came in, it was typically around 520/4 and he did not have the time to play long innings. He had to go for quick runs because declaration was imminent. He still scored a few 50+ run innings. Kambli came in to bat much earlier and had the scope to play big knocks in easy conditions. He struggled whenever he played overseas. Regarding the South Africa series, Amre played only 4 innings there. The main issue is ....once a player is selected to play for India and has performed reasonably well ( 42.5 average in 11 tests with a century in South Africa ) , he should be given an extended run.....unless he has some major weakness like inability to play the short ball ( which Amre did not have ). If the selectors thought that he was not international material in the long run then why wad he picked in the first place ? At the time when he was dropped ....high talent + high temperament guys like Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, Sehwag had not come. Kambli's temperament and ability to play bounce were always suspect. Tendulkar, Azhar and Manjrekar were the only sureshot batters in the middle order and there was no logic to keep Amre out of the test match team of 16. No point comparing it with now when batting talent available is plentiful. Selection is an issue of selecting the best available players at that point in time. 11 test matches maybe a smallish sample size but a guy who averages 42.5 ...does not disprove that he is capable of a 40+ average in the long run.

You are forgetting that in those days there weren't separate teams for ODIs vs Tests. Only one or two players were different. Amre's poor ODI record cost him his Test place.

[express bowling]

You are forgetting that in those days there weren't separate teams for ODIs vs Tests. Only one or two players were different. Amre's poor ODI record cost him his Test place.

Robin Singh was an ODI specialist. Even Ajay Jadeja. Even now we don't have separate teams... only Pujara and Vijay are test specialists and Raina plays only ODIs.

[youngindia]

When he came in' date=' it was typically around 520/4 and he did not have the time to play long innings. He had to go for quick runs because declaration was imminent. [/quote'] only in mum vs England and against zim.he scored 2 fifties in those.that's not when he failed. he failed in the vast majority of his knocks ..people who are genuinely talented will find their way to make an impact these excuses are for losers. kambli played only one test in NZ. in any case kambli's international class is never in question. you can at best say how much he can score vs a stronger attack. but the same goes for many other players who are not gavaskar or sachin. Guys like azhar mostly had success vs the likes of england kambli for all his flaws was significantly superior to amre in class. 6 Quoting that 42.5 is schoolboyish stuff.its obvious its a highly flawed stat that even fourth graders can notice. do I keep quoting kambli's average of 54? its obvious he was not going to average 54 after 40 tests just as it is obvious Praveen is not a 25 average bowler.or ashwin was never going to average 40. these are all misleading stats of no practical use. he was struggling big time...He failed again and again to score even 20 runs. he failed in the majority of his knocks ODI or tests. that's a very long list. lot of no hopers like vinay and stuart have been picked.it shows we are still found wanting. our system lacks the maturity of established sporting powers and our ex players are only partially correct. it will take time to get there. kambli vs amre is a no contest. amre will lose every time. ganguly..now that's a guy who can displace kambli. don't expect others to be blind to all his numerous failures. I clearly remember he was a struggling guy as far as international cricket is cocnerned he was found wanting and the management did the best they could.but not for long Chances are a big zero. there is no way a guy of amre's class is averaging 40. better batsmen like jaffer and manjrekar didn't I do have a good idea of who are 40 average batsmen and I know their quality. it not an easy joke averaging 40 in internationals or even being a success in an indian middle order. you have to bring a lot of high quality to the table.

[Marut]

Robin Singh was an ODI specialist. Even Ajay Jadeja. Even now we don't have separate teams... only Pujara and Vijay are test specialists and Raina plays only ODIs.

These ODI specialists were generally lower middle order batsmen and were often all rounders. Most regular batsmen who played for India played in both test and ODI teams. A pure batsman like Amre who averaged 40 in tests and 20 in ODIs after being given a decent run had no chance surviving the selection policies of the 90s. No other player having similar stats ever became a regular in the Indian side. Robin Singh was an allrounder and an exceptional fielder. Ajay Jadeja was a very good ODI batsman and fielder. These were some rare exceptions. Amre hadn't done anything exceptional in tests or ODIs when he was dropped. Test average of 40 and ODI average of 35. Or test average of 40, ODI batting average of 20 and being able to bowl as a part time bowler. Without having either of these capabilities, Amre's omission does not come as a surprise.

[kosingh]

If you believe that Amre was wronged you probably also believe that Hirwani was wronged. Both had great debuts, but performed modestly thereafter. Personally, I don't think either was wronged.

[maniac]

If we just go by Averages and Statistics ,TBF Kambli will come across as more wronged atleast in the test format....but again Kambli's self destruction due to his vices are well documented. As far as Amre goes,he was definetely wronged and there is no justification as to why he didn't play more matches....I am sure now with the media and some level of accountability that he would have got lot more chances had he got a start like that to his career. Having said that from what little I have seen of Amre,he was not in the same league as Laxman,Dravid,Ganguly who followed him...would have been found out sooner or later.

[express bowling]

Chances are a big zero. there is no way a guy of amre's class is averaging 40. better batsmen like jaffer and manjrekar didn't I do have a good idea of who are 40 average batsmen and I know their quality. it not an easy joke averaging 40 in internationals or even being a success in an indian middle order. you have to bring a lot of high quality to the table.

Since Amre did not play more than 11 tests, we will never know for sure what he he could or could not have done if he had played 50+ tests. So , it is basically a matter of your opinion and mine. You obviously think that he was not good enough. I think he had potential in test matches. And that is that.

[Raghav_12]

If we just go by Averages and Statistics ' date='TBF Kambli will come across as more wronged atleast in the test format....but again [b']Kambli's self destruction due to his vices are well documented. As far as Amre goes,he was definetely wronged and there is no justification as to why he didn't play more matches....I am sure now with the media and some level of accountability that he would have got lot more chances had he got a start like that to his career. Having said that from what little I have seen of Amre,he was not in the same league as Laxman,Dravid,Ganguly who followed him...would have been found out sooner or later.

It wasn't vices only. He was found out talentwise as well. He could never cope with real pace.

[express bowling]

It wasn't vices only. Kambli was found out talentwise as well. He could never cope with real pace.

Exactly. Kambli had major problems with pace and bounce.

[Muloghonto]

That is harsh on Kambli. Kambli looked silly against Walsh and Ambrose. But lets not forget that these two bowlers have made most batsmen look like either complete idiots or turtles. Against them, Matty Hayden looked like a sitting duck ( IIRC Hayden played 4-5 tests against Ambrose & Walsh and failed to cross single digit scores even ONCE!) and Hayden is a 50+ averaging batsman. They made Kallis look like a bumbling idiot too and even Ponting, the guy with the most ferocious pull-shot I've seen since the heydays of Ritchie Richardson could barely scratch to 40-ish averages. The reality is, Kambli fared poorly against Walsh & Ambrose but not poorly enough to merit being dropped. These bowlers were pretty hard to deal with in tests because they were super-accurate, always bowled with enough pace to keep you honest even on the flattest pitches and managed to bowl rib-ticklers from good length & slightly full length. They also bowled excellent cutters, which is why you couldn't just 'camp on the backfoot' against them ( notice how many 'bowled while trying to defend' Ambrose has in robelinda's videos). You HAD to keep the neutral stance and let 90% of the balls through or flat-bat them because you CANNOT hit good length balls bouncing to your chest height from a neutral stance. This is the reason why players like Walsh & Ambrose were very very good and Cameron Cuffy or Merv Dillon were not : these guys too could bowl chest high balls from good length (a factor of their height being over 6'6) but did not come with cutters that would bounce less: against them, you could camp on the backfoot and deploy the pull or the square cut to balls bouncing chest high because you did not have to fear the good length ball that comes back in at stump height (off cutters) to castle you. So no, saying Kambli had a problem against pace is selling him short. He had a problem against Walsh & Ambrose type bowlers that 99.9% of batsmen had. They were also primarily inswing bowlers ( bowlers who have a sharper inswinger than out swingers), which made it all the more difficult for a left hander like Kambli. Not that there were many but I can't think of a SINGLE left hander who dealt with Walsh or Ambrose well..

[Marut]

That is harsh on Kambli. Kambli looked silly against Walsh and Ambrose. But lets not forget that these two bowlers have made most batsmen look like either complete idiots or turtles. Against them, Matty Hayden looked like a sitting duck ( IIRC Hayden played 4-5 tests against Ambrose & Walsh and failed to cross single digit scores even ONCE!) and Hayden is a 50+ averaging batsman. They made Kallis look like a bumbling idiot too and even Ponting, the guy with the most ferocious pull-shot I've seen since the heydays of Ritchie Richardson could barely scratch to 40-ish averages. The reality is, Kambli fared poorly against Walsh & Ambrose but not poorly enough to merit being dropped. These bowlers were pretty hard to deal with in tests because they were super-accurate, always bowled with enough pace to keep you honest even on the flattest pitches and managed to bowl rib-ticklers from good length & slightly full length. They also bowled excellent cutters, which is why you couldn't just 'camp on the backfoot' against them ( notice how many 'bowled while trying to defend' Ambrose has in robelinda's videos). You HAD to keep the neutral stance and let 90% of the balls through or flat-bat them because you CANNOT hit good length balls bouncing to your chest height from a neutral stance. This is the reason why players like Walsh & Ambrose were very very good and Cameron Cuffy or Merv Dillon were not : these guys too could bowl chest high balls from good length (a factor of their height being over 6'6) but did not come with cutters that would bounce less: against them, you could camp on the backfoot and deploy the pull or the square cut to balls bouncing chest high because you did not have to fear the good length ball that comes back in at stump height (off cutters) to castle you. So no, saying Kambli had a problem against pace is selling him short. He had a problem against Walsh & Ambrose type bowlers that 99.9% of batsmen had. They were also primarily inswing bowlers ( bowlers who have a sharper inswinger than out swingers), which made it all the more difficult for a left hander like Kambli. Not that there were many but I can't think of a SINGLE left hander who dealt with Walsh or Ambrose well..

But Kambli struggled against Ambrose and Walsh on Indian roads, while Hayden and others struggled on bouncy/seaming wickets. The comparison you have drawn isn't correct. Unlike Sehwag who was comfortable against pace in Indian conditions, Kambli had problems against pace even on slow and low wickets. Kambli was no where near the class of Sachin, Dravid, Laxman or even Sehwag like players against pace. On bouncy Aussie or SA wickets, or seaming English conditions, Kambli would have looked all at sea against good bowlers. Kambli was good against spin and medium pace and this is why he was successful against England and Sri Lanka whom he played early on and made a name for himself. Once he was exposed to quick bowlers, his wheels came off.

[BeautifulGame]

Also to add to above point even the likes of Hayden were dropped from team after exposed. Scored heavily in domestic cricket and returned after 6-7 years. Whereas Kambli just petered out and we found superior players