Sri Lanka in India, 2017

[prasen9]

Pant has a great FC record. But he has been very poor in List-As. He should learn to bat in List-As before being brought into the ODI team unless we want to drop Dhoni. Even then, Saha has a much better List-A batting record but I suppose he will never be considered. Wrt T20s, he has been okay and did fine in the few T20Is he got. So somewhat paradoxically, like Sehwag and Warner, Pant seems to be doing just fine in FC matches and not so well in the limited overs ones. He is 20. We should nurture him and someone should work with him to help him wrt constructing an innings in List As and maybe even in T20s. As well as tightening his technique. I would support his being sent as the A-team keeper for FC matches.

[Sin Hombre]

I haven't seen the correlation between list A and ODI averages (and S/Rs). Kedar was brought into the team based on the former and he has been inconsistent for the most part. Karthik had a stellar season for TN with a list A average of 85 at a SR of 106 and was brought back into the national team but it is evident that he is not an international player. Rayadu was another in a similar vein in the past.

There is a lot more evidence of first class averages translating into international level quality for batsmen.

[PKBasu]

Rishabh Pant had a spectacular season last year (his first full Ranji season), making 4 centuries, including a triple century (in a match in which the opposing side also had a couple of double centurions). His first-class average is based on that spectacular single season. This year, his scores in the Ranji trophy are 30, 26, 41, 99, 16, 49 (6 innings at 43.5 runs apiece). Prior to that, he played a couple of one-day matches for the Board President's XI against NZ, making 7 and 15 -- and prior to that he played a couple of List A matches for India A against NZ A, making 1 and 2 runs in the two matches. Basically, he hasn't lived up to last year's promise, and so is no longer at the front of the queue for a place in the India side.

[prasen9]

Rayudu did fine in the chances he got in ODIs. He has been dropped unfairly.

I am not saying that a domestic success automatically guarantees international success. I am saying lack of domestic success almost always guarantees international failure. I do not recall an example of one such case where the person was a domestic failure and succeeded internationally.

The FC record for Pant even this year while not spectacular is not total crap either. I think we had Yuvraj play many tests based on domestic performances similar to Rishab's in FC matches. Of course, Yuvraj was hyped because of his ODI prowess.

[Sin Hombre]

Virat had hardly played any list A matches and was considered a surprise call when he was first included in the ODI team. Of course, he had stellar first class and youth numbers.

My point is that FC records are more important, and when it is a special talent, you need to give them chances. Better them than the no-hopers average players we keep persisting with. KL Rahul should have played a lot more international games by now.

I don't think Hardik is a special talent but I do appreciate Kohli and Shastri persisting with him since they believe he is one and that he can be a potential difference maker. Otherwise, there is a reluctance to play the younger guys.


Rayadu has an average of 38 at a SR of 78 in ODIs (excluding Zimbabwe where we send B-teams). Not sure how dropping him can be considered unfair.

[prasen9]

Rayudu had 21 completed innings out of which 9 were at Zimbabwe. If you drop those, then he has been given 12 completed innings. Dropping someone on the basis of 12 completed innings is unfair. 38 runs/wkt is not bad. As for the strike rate, that is brought down by two innings in NZ where his SR was 58. In those matches, he came in at ~20/2 and ~30/3 respectively. At least he batted out some overs after that and scored some runs. Not enough but better than that of Rohit, Dhawan and Rahane in the second match and better than Dhawan and Rahane in the first. The story in Australia where his SR is 61 is possibly similar. In the first match, he played slowly because people around him were falling like nine pins. We were 65-4. Dhawan, Virat, and Raina in single digits. At least he stayed at the wicket for a while and fought it out.

His record in England is great as it is in India.

Bottom-line is that if we started with him, we should have given him enough chances and we did not. He did not light the ground on fire but he did reasonably well.

[prasen9]

Virat had hardly played any list A matches and was considered a surprise call when he was first included in the ODI team. Of course, he had stellar first class and youth numbers.

I'm actually somewhat more in favor of giving someone the benefit of doubt and giving them an international cap than giving someone who has done badly in List-As in the domestics an international cap. So, last year I was more in favor of Pant being given a chance. After seeing him struggle in the List-As and to some extent in the T20s, I don't think he is ready yet. I am all for grooming him in the academy and in India-A teams with good coaches such as Dravid working with him. He has enough of a challenge to deal with domestic bowlers and overcome his deficiencies to score well against them. When this challenge becomes not a challenge for him, he should certainly be moved to the first team.

I believed we destroyed the careers of Piyush Chawla, Laxman Siva, Parthiv, Maninder Singh by introducing them too early. Only SRT, Harbhajan, and Chandra were fine despite being introduced early. In the MLB, they track the minor leaguers progress carefully and then move them into the MLB even if they are not ready. They say that these guys have succeeded in the AAAs and now they need at-bats in the majors. But, if one does not master the AAAs, rarely is one moved. There are some who leap classes and are fast-tracked but not those that struggle in the AAAs. Let Pant prove he can play List-As first.

[prasen9]

Kuldeep Yadav was picked for the first ODI, did not bowl, did better than most with the bat, and was dropped for the second ODI for a young, untested off spinner, who turns the ball the same way as he does. Why? There seems to be no logic in choosing him and then dropping him except for the different grounds. But even accounting for the grounds, I do not see why he has to be replaced by Sundar!

[prasen9]

Flat track's back!

[suresh]

Flat track's back!

[prasen9]

So the meaningless matches are over. Now is the time when a lot of people's careers will be over --- in the next two years.

Sri Lanka has a shaky batting lineup and they want to play with five bowlers plus Matthews and Gunaratne, who can give you 5-6 overs and a wicket at about 5 runs/over more or less. They are not that talented that they can leave out Thirimanne and Chandimal and win! So their batting crashed.

Wrt the Indian ODI team, this is what we found out --- at least on flat tracks because that is all we have evidence for.

Iyer seems to be a better bat than Karthik and maybe even Manish/Kedar. So, my batting lineup becomes: Rohit, Dhawan, Kohli, Iyer, Dhoni, Kedar, Pandya. Backup: Pandey. Of course, on livelier wickets, we will need Rahul, etc.

The wrist spinners are doing much better than the finger spinners. So, I'd continue with Chahal and Kuldeep in the first XI. Backup: Axar. I am not a big fan yet of ex-India player Washington Sundar. He needs to go back to the domestics and work things out. Or the other exes Ashwin and Jadeja in ODIs.

My top two pacers would be Shami and Bumrah. I am not a big fan of it. But, if you want a defensive bowler who will keep the runs out and also take fewer wickets, choose Bhuvi. Given the evidence of the last tests, Ishant looks to be able to maintain his line and length much better than Umesh. So, I will commit blasphemy and choose Ishant. Umesh is too wayward.

Among the pacers, I would like to give a decent run to Dhawal, who would be useful perhaps only in England. And, a left armer: Unadkat or Sran? But, of course, I am sure none of this will happen.

[PKBasu]

Good to see Unadkat get a chance, and immediately prove himself. But Chahal and Kuldeep are absolutely stellar bowlers -- and are surely beginning to look like serious competition to Ashwin and Jadeja in the longer formats (especially Kuldeep, who is a proven test match-winner).
Manish Pandey got his chance and grabbed it in style. Dhoni at #4 did the job perfectly too. A satisfying start to the T20I series.

[prasen9]

With the field placement rules, in ODIs at least we should play both wrist-spinners until they lose form. There is no reason to go to Ashwin and Jadeja except their batting and J's fielding. But, if we need that, we should get the pacers be all-rounders. Hardik is one. Bhuvi should be goaded to practice his batting. As should Bumrah and Shami. Look at the Aussie tail-enders. Cummins averages ~25. Starc is a good bat. And Pattinson can bat too. We absolutely need that. Chahal should improve his fielding. Though I have not seen him this season. I am talking from my impression last season.

[PKBasu]

Chahal was brilliant in the field yesterday. I'm not sure what your problem is with his fielding...

[Sin Hombre]

With the field placement rules, in ODIs at least we should play both wrist-spinners until they lose form. There is no reason to go to Ashwin and Jadeja except their batting and J's fielding. But, if we need that, we should get the pacers be all-rounders. Hardik is one. Bhuvi should be goaded to practice his batting. As should Bumrah and Shami. Look at the Aussie tail-enders. Cummins averages ~25. Starc is a good bat. And Pattinson can bat too. We absolutely need that. Chahal should improve his fielding. Though I have not seen him this season. I am talking from my impression last season.

Are you talking about tests or ODIs here with batting?

We don't and shouldn't need Bhuvi's batting in ODIs.

We need a middle order which is not pathetic.