The Sports-India Community

^^^fair enough. But it was Mohinder, not Lala Amarnath. Lala was the dad.

No really. I am talking of Lala. He was a much better bowler than Mohinder. Mohinder was a much better batsman. Lala is a better comparible to Chetan.

Lala: 24 tests: Batting avg. 24.38, Bowling avg. 32.91
Binny: 27 tests: Batting avg. 23.05, Bowling avg. 32.63
Ghavri: 39 tests: Batting avg. 21.23, Bowling avg. 33.54
Chetan: 23 tests: Batting avg. 22, Bowling avg. 35.45

So Lala and Binny are better than Ghavri and Chetan. In fact, Chetan was a poor man's Lala. Ghavri is the closest comp I can think of. Did I miss anyone? Lala was before my times. Maybe PKB can shed some light. He was almost certainly before PKB's time too.

I grew up to be an adult in the '80s. We had Ghavri and then Binny and Chetan - not great bats but could hang around and score some runs somewhat consistently (along with Madanlal) when the inevitable collapse of our top order happened. That is why it is so frustrating to watch the nincompoops now who cannot bat (but are superb bowlers).

You missed Ramakant Desai, Phadkar, Sreeshanth, Balaji, RP Singh and Nehraji all of whom were better bowlers than Chetan Sharma. Bottomline is he was one of those mediocre players who got a chance because he was from the same state as the captain.

Even using prasen9's own figures, Chetan Sharma was the worst of the four bowlers he cited -- by quite a long way. Having a bowling average of 35+ is unworthy of a specialist bowler. Lala Amarnath was a batting allrounder, most famous for having scored India's first test century (which he did on debut). He began the curse of test debutant centurions never making another test century, which continued until Vishy broke the spell, and then Azhar and Ganguly smashed it. (The list of those who followed Lala includes Hanumant Singh, Abbas Ali Baig, Deepak Shodhan and of course Surinder Amarnath).

Lala's batting average was low mainly because Vizzie and others messed with him a lot, and his best years were lost to the second World War (he was 28 at the start of the war, and 34 by its end). He had a very poor tour of Australia in 1948 (aged 37, averaging 14 with the bat although doing brilliantly against the state sides) and played on as captain until 1952 (vs Pakistan, winning the series) when he was 41. To compare Chetan Sharma's bowling average to Lala Amarnath (a batting all-rounder) is itself a slight on Chetan, but that Chetan comes out so much worse for the comparison only reinforces the point that India pick utter mediocrities as selectors these days.

rajitghosh wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 3:29 am You missed Ramakant Desai, Phadkar, Sreeshanth, Balaji, RP Singh and Nehraji all of whom were better bowlers than Chetan Sharma. Bottomline is he was one of those mediocre players who got a chance because he was from the same state as the captain.

I am talking about test cricket. None of these were better than Chetan. Nehra was awful. Sreesanth was bad. RP was crap. As were Desai and Phadkar.

The only medium pacers who were distinctly better than Chetan before 1990 were Kapil and Amar Singh. If you consider before 2000, you only add Srinath.

The only medium pacers who were slightly better were Ghavri, Lala, and Binny.

That is it.

I agree with PKB only in that an average of 35 is nothing to write home about. He was a mediocre bowler. But, at least, he was not utter crap like the ones you mentioned.

It is a shame that we have produced so much crap in 58 years.

All I am saying is that Chetan was about the #6 bowler (medium pacer) in the whole country over a span of 68 years. Not too bad within the national context.

PKBasu wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:04 am Even using prasen9's own figures, Chetan Sharma was the worst of the four bowlers he cited -- by quite a long way.

Not really. All of them were certainly better bowlers than Chetan but slightly. For example, Ghavri was about 5.6% better. Using this yardstick, we have to say that Bedi was better than Chandra by quite a long way. Not.

PKBasu wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 10:04 am Lala Amarnath was a batting allrounder, most famous for having scored India's first test century (which he did on debut).

If he was a batting allrounder, he was very bad at it to be barely above the likes of Binny, Ghavri, Chetan with the bat leave aside the other batting allrounders. Just because he scored India's first test century --- at that time India was quite a poor team --- does not mean that his body of work was great.

Lala's batting average was low mainly because Vizzie and others messed with him a lot, and his best years were lost to the second World War (he was 28 at the start of the war, and 34 by its end). He had a very poor tour of Australia in 1948 (aged 37, averaging 14 with the bat although doing brilliantly against the state sides) and played on as captain until 1952 (vs Pakistan, winning the series) when he was 41. To compare Chetan Sharma's bowling average to Lala Amarnath (a batting all-rounder) is itself a slight on Chetan, but that Chetan comes out so much worse for the comparison only reinforces the point that India pick utter mediocrities as selectors these days.

The best we can say is that maybe Lala had the potential to be a batting all-rounder. Calling him a batting allrounder in test cricket is ludicrous. Maybe in FC cricket he was so. Never translated to tests. Averaging 14 with the bats while brilliantly against the state sides shows that he could not translate it to tests. At the highest level he was found lacking with the bat. Yes, it is a slight on Chetan wrt bowling. But, it is perhaps an even bigger slight on Lala with respect to his batting. Yes, he missed his best years to the war and there was a lot of politics at that time but whatever be the reason, his body of work is about the same as Chetan's. Utterly mediocre to worse.

What would have happened without the war? We do not know and never know. We can only go with what we have and not what could have been.

I agree that Chetan was a mediocre player. But, coming back to Atithee's point, I was thinking that maybe the other players do not want to do it and among those who were available, Chetan was the best? It may not be a bad idea to rotate the chairmanship among batsmen, med pacers, and spinners. Throw in w-keepers. The reason is that maybe they can choose the hidden talents that they can see but others cannot. Anyway, the Lala and Amar Singh have said bye-bye. Ghavri is 70 and not eligible (see below). So, that leaves Kapil, Srinath, Binny. Srinath is a match referee and seemingly likes that. So, not available. Maybe Kapil or Binny did not want it.

Like he was to be the #2 or #3 bowler when he played, maybe he was the second or third choice and the only one who made himself available. We do not know. The likes of Gavaskar make a lot of money in broadcasting, etc. Kapil may be not interested. Madanlal just got kicked out because he turned 70 and the SCI has prescribed that all oldies be kicked out from BCCI posts, packaged carefully with a "Fragile" label on it, and shipped immediately to CSK, who want them. [I guess my insulting CSK on the day of the final will mean they will win, unfortunately. ]

Fwiw, the best coaches in the US professional sports are generally marginal players. Coaching requires analytical and motivation skills which are often quite different from athletic talent which may often drive an individual player's success.

Realize that selection isn't coaching and perhaps Cricket does not have as much of an organized coaching base, but it may be worth appointing some of our top coaches as part time selectors rather simply old players.

Binny has been selector once. That's when Stuart Binny gor selected for India

arjun2761 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:57 pm it may be worth appointing some of our top coaches as part time selectors rather simply old players.

This may be worth trying.

Scotland beat Bangladesh to get the T20I World Cup to a stunning start. Oman (with subcontinental expatriates) thrashed PNG in the other match. Zimbabwe was disqualified in 2019, so isn't even playing these qualifiers. Sri Lanka has been obliged to play the qualifying round as well. Afghanistan is in the tournament directly, despite the uncertainty over the fate of the country -- and cricket in it.

In the warm up game, KL looked impressive, while Bhuvi looked pedestrian. Looking more and more like Bhuvi is out of form.

Kishen started very slowly, he had some big shots later. Hardik was okay, too small a sample size. Looks like Kishen will have a leg up on the top order spot. Less said about Kohli, better it is.

Bangladesh somehow scrapes through. But, if Oman beats Scotland, then even if Bangla beats PNG, they may scramble things up enough such that Oman and Scotland qualify on NRR.

Looks like India will lose today. End of mauka mauka ads.