TE Srinivasan as classy as Gavaskar
Arjun Pandit
"Sharath, Sunil subramnaian Robin Raman all have been performing well.
In the yester years v.Sivaramakrishnan, Arjan Kripal Singh also were
ignored.
T.E. Srinivasan was a classy player, as classy as Gavaskar but wasn't
selected.
All this is fine, why is that there wasn't any T.N player in Irani
Trophy even
though it was runner up. Is is by any chance fair?"
Also it is really unfair that there is no TN cricketer in the WC
squad. Despite stellar contributions in the previous WCs from Robin
Singh, Srikkanth, Ramesh, Assis Kapoor (he had his leanings towards
TN) etc.
Narayanan
news:246f4bf5.03010...@posting.google.com...
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?T23F42AF2
<snip>
Look sir, we all write trash in flame wars. Instead of pointing
fingers at me, I suggest you look at your research papers on
Islam(which you posted as Profart ) and many other blatantly
provocative posts like(joke related to cricket) and many
such during Kargil. And not to forget your own posts which
were considering Khurasiya easily better pick than VVSL
(even in Tests) and many such.
That said, time to hang my head in shame for posting utter tripe.
rkusenet
>And not to forget your own posts which
>were considering Khurasiya easily better pick than VVSL
>(even in Tests) and many such.
VVSL pre 281 wasn't any spectacularly better than any
trash batsman. Now comparing a one test bradman like
TES with a person who has scored 34 100s/10000 runs
is something.
You can judge how stupid it is by the fact that I refused
to believe Shantanu two years back when he mentioned this
post of yours but could not prove it as deja archives was
limited to post 1998 only. I was supremely confident that
no one will be that stupid to mention this. Not even a
TNer :-). Aha misplaced confidence I had.
This post takes the cake along with Agarkar is Wasim/Waqar
of India (by Shridhar).
rk-
ps: actually I won't blame you. I would rather blame Kumudam
for creating this impression.
Shishir Pathak
news:ave9cv$epiom$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de...
<snip>
> rk-
> ps: actually I won't blame you. I would rather blame Kumudam
> for creating this impression.
This is second reference to Kumudam in as many days. Can someone throw
light on what Kumudam is? Am I correct in guessing that it's a cricket
magazine / newspaper published from TN?
Cheers,
Shishir
Narayanan
>
> >And not to forget your own posts which
> >were considering Khurasiya easily better pick than VVSL
> >(even in Tests) and many such.
>
> VVSL pre 281 wasn't any spectacularly better than any
> trash batsman.
So you can say anything and get away with it? Who decides
what is reasonability here? You ? VVSL had played some
remarkable knocks here and there like 50 in debut, 167 in Sydney
in 2 sessions, 67 against pak.
In any case, I am least interested in debating this issue.
One, I have clearly taken back my crap.
Two, I am not interested in debating with you.
P.S: Also let me know what you blame for Profart trash(you see, you
choose to answer one portion of my post). I am sure magazines
which do this Islamic bashing must be 1000 times worse than
Kumudam[which I never read, only you and your family used
to. most concervative homes it was anyway banned].
rkusenet
> So you can say anything and get away with it? Who decides
> what is reasonability here? You ?
not me. The players themselves thru their stats.
To say that Khurasia deserves a chance ahead of pre 281
VVSL isn't much of a crime compared to TES == SMG in class.
Remember, in any comparison some crime appear to be worse.
> VVSL had played some
> remarkable knocks here and there like 50 in debut, 167 in Sydney
> in 2 sessions, 67 against pak.
thanks for letting me know that. I was not aware that he had
scored those runs.
> P.S: Also let me know what you blame for Profart trash(you see, you
> choose to answer one portion of my post). I am sure magazines
> which do this Islamic bashing must be 1000 times worse than
> Kumudam[which I never read, only you and your family used
> to. most concervative homes it was anyway banned].
Profart trash was directed towards AP. Why should I reply.
thanks for replying.
rk-
Raghu Jetley
"Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote in message
news:3e1a42e5$1...@news.teranews.com...
> "Arjun Pandit" <arjunpa...@indya.com> wrote in message
> news:246f4bf5.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?T23F42AF2
>
> <snip>
>
> Look sir, we all write trash in flame wars.
I check the thread - it doesn't seem to be a flame war.
Arjun Pandit
> So you can say anything and get away with it? Who decides
> what is reasonability here? You ? VVSL had played some
> remarkable knocks here and there like 50 in debut, 167 in Sydney
> in 2 sessions, 67 against pak.
Huh? Arent you one of the guys who has been advocating dropping Laxman
recently?
This despite a 281 post the stats you posted and statistics which look
like:
Last 5 matches - Ave 52
Last 10 matches - Ave 57
Last 15 matches - Ave 54
Last 20 matches - Ave 52.
Its reasonable for you to ask for his head I guess.
> P.S: Also let me know what you blame for Profart trash(you see, you
> choose to answer one portion of my post). I am sure magazines
> which do this Islamic bashing must be 1000 times worse than
> Kumudam[which I never read, only you and your family used
> to. most concervative homes it was anyway banned].
Not just magazines which do Islamic bashing. But also dotcoms like
Sulekha which have been carrying highly provocative muslim bashing
posts made by you.
Arjun Pandit
> This is second reference to Kumudam in as many days. Can someone throw
> light on what Kumudam is? Am I correct in guessing that it's a cricket
> magazine / newspaper published from TN?
Its a magazine which covers everything from movies to politics to
cricket, like say Outlook or IToday. Very informative.
You can subscribe your copy by clicking here:
http://www.kumudam.com/subscription/index.html. Its a steal at 75
USD/year.
Shripathi Kamath
"Raghu Jetley" <jraghu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:avf0kf$f29sg$1...@ID-27262.news.dfncis.de...
Patience RJ, just give it some time.
>
>
Kamesh
Just curious. What made you look for this post ?
I can imagine the embarassment on Narayanan's face.
:-)
Kamesh
rkusenet
> I can imagine the embarassment on Narayanan's face.
I don't think Narayanan meant what he wrote. I think he
was hinting that SMG had something to do with TES not getting
selected. Sometimes people speak in coded language.
If someone says "abc was as talented as Lata Mangeshkar, but never
got a chance", I am sure the first conclusion that will be made
is that Lata had something to do with it. After all her reputation
of not tolerating any competition is well known. [ Note, I am not
saying it is true. I think she was so *far* ahead of all others that
there was no competition ]
SMG became the captain of the indian team in 1978 [ excluding the one test
he was captain in 1976 ]. TES was already 28 when SMG was captain.
First it needs to be investigated why TES never got a chance
till 1978.
rk-
Kamesh
> "Kamesh" <kamesh...@yahoo.com> wrote
> SMG became the captain of the indian team in 1978 [ excluding the one test
> he was captain in 1976 ]. TES was already 28 when SMG was captain.
> First it needs to be investigated why TES never got a chance
> till 1978.
IIRC, he was an opener for TN... right?
How was he doing from the period when Chauhan retired and Srikkanth got into
the team?
It must have been Srikkanth's flamboyance that got him into the team as an
opener. Plus the fact that TES was too old for contention when Srikkanth
actually made into the team.
Kamesh
[Srikkanth got a duck on debut in both forms of the game. Wonder how many
more are in the list.]
>
> rk-
>
>
Shripathi Kamath
"Kamesh" <kamesh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:avfj3h$fa8i4$1...@ID-154916.news.dfncis.de...
Kamesh YOU
BLooDY...............................FeRal..................................
.......!
Leaving out Gopal Bose and Dalvi again, are we?
BTW, Welcome back :-)
FWIW, I saw TES bat in two Ranji matches, don't remember what he scored, but
he was a good stroke-maker, drove very well and with power. He was talked
about a lot amongst my colleagues from Madras, probably was good, and likely
went the way of many others before him.
He was no Gavaskar in class, also I think he was a converted opener.
But from what I can remember, he was better technique-wise than Srikkanth.
I don't know if that is saying much.
> >
> > rk-
> >
> >
>
>
Kamesh
"Shripathi Kamath" <firstnam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v1mkh8e...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> BTW, Welcome back :-)
Thanks. I had a nice break.
Have a great year.
Kamesh
Narayanan
"rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:avenf0.
> Remember, in any comparison some crime appear to be worse.
Like your fuck dravidians worse than my crap?
> Profart trash was directed towards AP. Why should I reply.
Entire response was directed at him.
Narayanan
news:<3e1ab5ce$1...@news.teranews.com>...
>
> > So you can say anything and get away with it? Who decides
> > what is reasonability here? You ? VVSL had played some
> > remarkable knocks here and there like 50 in debut, 167 in Sydney
> > in 2 sessions, 67 against pak.
>
> Huh? Arent you one of the guys who has been advocating dropping Laxman
> recently?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/46h5
>
> This despite a 281 post the stats you posted and statistics which look
Does that mean that is supposed to assure spot for life?
> Not just magazines which do Islamic bashing. But also dotcoms like
> Sulekha which have been carrying highly provocative muslim bashing
> posts made by you.
That is a moderated forum. They decide what is acceptable.
Your posting in rsc is different.
rkusenet
> Does that mean that is supposed to assure spot for life?
let me understand this correctly. U think there is nothing
wrong in asking for VVSL's head after he avged 52 in last
20 matches.
However u have problem with someone asking for VVSL's head
before 281 when he was aveging 27.80 in 19 matches.
I think rsc needs smart guys like you to teach how to
crawl out of the hole.
> Like your fuck dravidians worse than my crap?
Yes it was worse than ur crime. However it was much better
than your crimes in Sulekha.
now if u are smart, u will close this topic now or will stick
to cricket only. thanks for listening.
> > Profart trash was directed towards AP. Why should I reply.
>
> Entire response was directed at him.
Its my prerogative what to reply and what not to.
U have a problem with that? Go suck ...
rk-
Narayanan
> "Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote :-
>
> > Does that mean that is supposed to assure spot for life?
>
> let me understand this correctly. U think there is nothing
> wrong in asking for VVSL's head after he avged 52 in last
> 20 matches.
Who fixes 20 matches as yardstick here? Mohinder made a pair
in Kanpur test and 1 run in Delhi test. He didn't play 3rd test.
Were they right in keeping him out considering his success just
one year prior to that? Prasad was dropped after horrible series
in Lanka. Did they look at all the career achivements till that time?
>
> However u have problem with someone asking for VVSL's head
> before 281 when he was aveging 27.80 in 19 matches.
Wait a second. I am asking the basis for saying Khurasiya > VVSL
in tests. Where is this asking for head come from?
>
> > Like your fuck dravidians worse than my crap?
>
> Yes it was worse than ur crime. However it was much better
> than your crimes in Sulekha.
Really! Only you have to believe it. Forgot your sct postings?
>
> now if u are smart, u will close this topic now or will stick
> to cricket only. thanks for listening.
You posted as fuck_you_dravidans in rec.sport.cricket.
I am not talking about you nonbrahmin bastards and dravidan trash of s.c.t.
Did I?
>
> Its my prerogative what to reply and what not to.
> U have a problem with that? Go suck ...
No problem dude. I only pointed out that you were pulling it out
of context.
Amol Cricketwallah
> news:avfdgv$f33ll$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Kamesh" <kamesh...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > SMG became the captain of the indian team in 1978 [ excluding the one test
> > he was captain in 1976 ]. TES was already 28 when SMG was captain.
> > First it needs to be investigated why TES never got a chance
> > till 1978.
>
> IIRC, he was an opener for TN... right?
Yes he was. Didnt start his Ranji career at opener IIRC, but converted
to it soon enough.
BTW, he played Ranji cricket from 1970 to 1983 - just about 12 or so
full seasons of domestic cricket. His overall record in first-class
cricket was:
75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, 5 centuries
As you can see above he had 5 centuries in 12 years of domestic
cricket - he wasnt exactly making a huge push for selection by
wracking up ton after ton in the domestics in those days. And
an overall average of 34 isnt all that brilliant either.
Iam not going to bother to do a year-by-year analysis - it will take
too much trouble, especially since CI isnt listing averages year by
year for his entire career :-) But the numbers above arent *that*
stellar. The simple way to look at it is what I did - check Indian
Cricket. They list all "big seasons" by players, which they define
as anything over 500 scored in a single season. This is a *huge* list,
running into about 5 pages. Lots of players make this list on more
than one occasion after all (VB Chandrashekar, to name another TN
opener, makes it twice himself). But TE Srinivasan is not listed
in there at all - which means he never had a Ranji season
in which he scored more than 500 runs, presumably.
Given all this, why should it be so surprising that he didnt get
selected much earlier? After all, it isnt like everyone else was
doing poorly in the domestics at this time or anything like that.
For example, Chetan Chauhan in 1971 averaged 77 for the year, and
in 1972 averaged 124.71 for the year (both for Maharasthra) but didnt
get picked. Sudhir Naik got picked in 1974 by averaging 92.50 for
the season. Chauhan moved to Delhi and averaged 80.50 for the season
in 1976 again! It was only after all that that he was picked :-) (This,
BTW, is one proof offered by Maharashtra fans that their players always
get a raw deal - Chauhan was scoring tons of runs for Maharashtra, and
he never got picked. Maharashtra was a pretty damn good team in those
days too, even better than TN in the early 70s - they reached the
Ranji finals in 1971 IIRC. But their players wouldnt get picked. However,
after Chauhan moved to Delhi and scored runs, he was picked pretty
quickly :-)
> How was he doing from the period when Chauhan retired and Srikkanth got into
> the team?
> It must have been Srikkanth's flamboyance that got him into the team as an
> opener. Plus the fact that TES was too old for contention when Srikkanth
> actually made into the team.
>
Not entirely true - TES wasnt doing *that* well after Srikkant arrived
anyway, Srikkant's numbers overall were a bit better.
For example, before TES got picked (in the Ranjis)..
77/78: 221 runs at 44.20
78/79: 160 runs at 26.66
79/80: 185 runs at 30.83
(This is when Srikkant arrived, in 79/80 Srikkant had 149 runs at 29.80,
a new guy whose numbers were not *hugely* different to the experienced
guys' in the same team).
This year, in the Duleep Trophy, TE Srinivasan made 149 in one game.
That was basically what got him selected - the selectors obviously
saw it, and picked him on that one innings. As you can see, his figures
for the 3 previous seasons were not outstandingly brilliant.
This is when TE Srinivasan got picked, and went with India on tour
etc, in 80/81. This is also why he missed the entire 80/81 home
season, because he was on tour with India. While he was away
Srikkant had 458 runs at 76.33 for the season (2nd in TN runs and
averages), and truly established his name - this season was better
than any single season TE Srinivasan had ever had IIRC.
After the tour, TE Srinivasan was dropped and returned to Ranji
cricket, and never really contended again. Srikkant made the national
side the next season. In 81/82, while Srikkant missed the domestic
season, TE Srinivasan played and had 287 runs at 28.70.
The next year TE Srinivasan wasnt around anymore, while Srikkant
played only 1 match (and averaged 38) - this was 82/83. In 83/84
TE Srinivasan came back for 2 more matches for TN, and averaged
6.33 in those 2 games - and he never played again after that.
Sadiq [ V Siva, Abdul Jabbar etc often did better anyway ] Yusuf
rkusenet
> Who fixes 20 matches as yardstick here? Mohinder made a pair
> in Kanpur test and 1 run in Delhi test. He didn't play 3rd test.
> Were they right in keeping him out considering his success just
> one year prior to that? Prasad was dropped after horrible series
> in Lanka. Did they look at all the career achivements till that time?
excuse me, MA at that time was himself more interested in getting
dropped. He is on record saying that he was forced to play that
series against his wishes.
> >
> > However u have problem with someone asking for VVSL's head
> > before 281 when he was aveging 27.80 in 19 matches.
> Wait a second. I am asking the basis for saying Khurasiya > VVSL
> in tests. Where is this asking for head come from?
can u show the post where it was explicitly said that Khurasia > VVSL.
A quick search on deja reveals that few rscers were asking for VVSL's
head pre 281 and gave a list of probables (incl.Khurasia) who can
replace VVSL. Khurasia had never played a test match.
Now that is totally different from ur allegation that Khurasia > VVSL.
Bottomline: I fully agree with Raghu and Arjun Pandit
in Feb 2001 when they were posting thakela laxman.
At that time it was justified. Similarly I agree with
your drop-vvsl postings now since it is justified now.
or .. both are not justified.
> You posted as fuck_you_dravidans in rec.sport.cricket.
how is anti north indian posts in rsc by u any different
from mine.
rk-
Kamesh
news:a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com...
>
> BTW, he played Ranji cricket from 1970 to 1983 - just about 12 or so
> full seasons of domestic cricket. His overall record in first-class
> cricket was:
>
> 75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, 5 centuries
[snipped]
>
> Not entirely true - TES wasnt doing *that* well after Srikkant arrived
> anyway, Srikkant's numbers overall were a bit better.
>
> For example, before TES got picked (in the Ranjis)..
>
> 77/78: 221 runs at 44.20
> 78/79: 160 runs at 26.66
> 79/80: 185 runs at 30.83
> (This is when Srikkant arrived, in 79/80 Srikkant had 149 runs at 29.80,
> a new guy whose numbers were not *hugely* different to the experienced
> guys' in the same team).
That's the reason I asked the question as to how well TES was doing. Going
by numbers there wasnt much separating the two. Werent there others in the
fray who had better numbers ? But, Srikkanth made it. Just curious as to
what made Srikkanth's entry possible.
It seems like his 85 odd against England vs U-21 game (am I right?) got him
the berth. Of course he captained that side too IIRC, so he was a contender
by then.
Kamesh
rkusenet
"Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote:-
> That is a moderated forum. They decide what is acceptable.
That is hardly a reason to legitimize your postings.
A moderated forum is moderated by the owner of the forum
based on their agenda. If Shantanu/Shridhar start a forum,
what sort of moderation one can expect for Srinath bashing.
Postings like "Srinath's mother should be raped" will be
allowed.
I have no problems with what u write in other forums. In
fact it is none of my business.
While we are at it, can you please stick to cricket. You dragged
profart in this thread. In our flame war two weeks back about
Dravid, u dragged sct first. Why??? Is it is your way of winning
a cricketing argument.
rk-
Jayen
> "Kamesh" <kamesh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<avfj3h$fa8i4$1...@ID-154916.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "rkusenet" <rkus...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:avfdgv$f33ll$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de...
> > > "Kamesh" <kamesh...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > SMG became the captain of the indian team in 1978 [ excluding the one test
> > > he was captain in 1976 ]. TES was already 28 when SMG was captain.
> > > First it needs to be investigated why TES never got a chance
> > > till 1978.
> >
> > IIRC, he was an opener for TN... right?
>
> Yes he was. Didnt start his Ranji career at opener IIRC, but converted
> to it soon enough.
>
> BTW, he played Ranji cricket from 1970 to 1983 - just about 12 or so
> full seasons of domestic cricket. His overall record in first-class
> cricket was:
>
> 75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, 5 centuries
>
>
> As you can see above he had 5 centuries in 12 years of domestic
> cricket - he wasnt exactly making a huge push for selection by
> wracking up ton after ton in the domestics in those days. And
> an overall average of 34 isnt all that brilliant either.
>
<snip the rest>
From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
"different". He was actually quite good against pace. What quality
pace he faced is a different matter. Also, he "looked" good against
pace, techniquewise. Which is "different"-enough by Indian standards,
but in addition, he sucked against spin :-). And if you think about
the spinners he faced in the 70s in club and South Zone Ranji, you've
got Prasanna, Chandra, Ramnarayan, Venkat, Kumar etc. - quite a
formidable list, who really showed him up.
The above won't show up in the averages, but this was the impression
in Chennai about him. It may, however, account for why he's held in
higher esteem than his average might warrant. He stood out because of
his contemporaries' comparitive lack of skill against pace.
Are there any other such cases who are inverses of Brijesh Patel?
Regards,
Jayen
Shripathi Kamath
Jobbed I tell you, J-O-B-B-E-D!
Gopal Bose and Michael Dalvi were both JOBBED! No sense in denying it. TES
made it, and Bose and Dalvi didn't. Mother of all injustices!
Shame on you Kamesh, for blatantly ignoring this repeatedly.
--
Shripathi Kamath
I wish I had a Kryptonite cross, because then you could keep both Dracula
AND Superman away.
- Jack Handey
> Kamesh
>
>
Arjun Pandit
> "Arjun Pandit" <arjunpa...@indya.com> wrote in message
> news:246f4bf5.03010...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > recently?
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/46h5
> >
> > This despite a 281 post the stats you posted and statistics which look
>
> Does that mean that is supposed to assure spot for life?
a. I said drop Laxman when he was avging low 20s after around 20 tests
and when he didnt have a 167/281.
b. You ask for Laxman's head when his last 20 odd test avg is around
50 and when he has a 167/281.
You ridicule my comment on Laxman, while justifying yours by saying he
is not assured spot for life. You look really stupid man.
BTW, I still say Laxman should be dropped. He should be given a kick
in his butt every now and then.
>
> > Not just magazines which do Islamic bashing. But also dotcoms like
> > Sulekha which have been carrying highly provocative muslim bashing
> > posts made by you.
>
> That is a moderated forum.
This is what you wrote:
> I am sure magazines which do this Islamic bashing must be 1000 times worse
> than Kumudam
This gives an impression you are anti Islam bashing and were pointing
how I am a fanatic. I just pointed out your Islam bashing posts on
Sulekha which were atleast equally bad. Anyway I was bashing Paki
muslims ...
> They decide what is acceptable.
Are you telling me the Sulekha guys find IB acceptable?
> Your posting in rsc is different.
You have never deviated from cricket on RSC??????? Including your
hajaar anon ids. Gimme a break!
Narayanan
>
> "Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote:-
>
> > That is a moderated forum. They decide what is acceptable.
>
> That is hardly a reason to legitimize your postings.
Who are you to decide that?
> A moderated forum is moderated by the owner of the forum
> based on their agenda. If Shantanu/Shridhar start a forum,
> what sort of moderation one can expect for Srinath bashing.
> Postings like "Srinath's mother should be raped" will be
> allowed.
They have explicitly stated what is acceptable what is not. And
they used to delete all inflamatory posts anyways. That doesn't
mean they expect every one to swear by political correctness.
>
> While we are at it, can you please stick to cricket. You dragged
> profart in this thread.
There were enough "cricket jokes" doing rounds during Kargil.
So, I will decide what is "cricket" to me like everyone else does.
> In our flame war two weeks back about
> Dravid, u dragged sct first. Why???
Who says you don't quote other forums here? You have cited
how you are not a anti-south as you people in someother forum
think you are pro south for Ilayaraja fanhood You don't tell me
what I must mix and what I must not. See, when you don't have
problems forwarding mails from one to another despite
repeated requests from me, you don't have to expect me to
handle you with kid gloves.[If you really go back that is *where*
our flame wars started]. I simply knew, one day I will have to
deal with you.
Don't even try to defend yourself in this business of not mixing
issues.
> Is it is your way of winning
> a cricketing argument.
And you rascal accused me of posting when I didnt post as
bo...@nospam.com. I swear by God and my parents I didn't
post it. Can you honestly say that, you didn't accuse me purely to
win arument? Consider the fact that I have sworn now and come
out honestly. You don't even have to swear.
Rewind back 5 years. There was an obnoxious post on HP which
fell on you. And *I* was the only guy to trust you. Oh! nevermind.
Narayanan
"Arjun Pandit" <arjunpa...@indya.com> wrote in message > a. I said drop
Laxman when he was avging low 20s after around 20 tests
> and when he didnt have a 167/281.
I didn't have problems with ur drop VVSL. All I ask os how
come Khurasia > VVSL even in tests. VVSL first class stats
57. Domestics stats 66 or so. Khurasia first class stats 44.
Dropping is not a non issue per me.
Narayanan
> "Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote:-
> > Who fixes 20 matches as yardstick here? Mohinder made a pair
> > in Kanpur test and 1 run in Delhi test. He didn't play 3rd test.
> > Were they right in keeping him out considering his success just
> > one year prior to that? Prasad was dropped after horrible series
> > in Lanka. Did they look at all the career achivements till that time?
>
> excuse me, MA at that time was himself more interested in getting
> dropped. He is on record saying that he was forced to play that
> series against his wishes.
What about Prasad? What about asking for Kumble's head
when he tours abroad considering most bowlers don't average
even 40 abroad? I just think it is fair to ask for their heads based
on performance. Just because you average 50 with the bat
over the last so many tests doesn't mean you can get away with
poor performances.
In VVSL's case, he has one 50+ knock after Lord's test.
>
> can u show the post where it was explicitly said that Khurasia > VVSL.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=70ddn0%24h5t%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.ne
t&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
> > You posted as fuck_you_dravidans in rec.sport.cricket.
>
> how is anti north indian posts in rsc by u any different
> from mine.
You don't talk of north bashing. Pranshu Behari posted you mail
to him as a reply his post in rsc. Not a day passes without you
posting trash against Sardarjis/Punjabis here in rsc.
You don't talk about anyone else. Just go to groups.google.com
and search for the String "Ravi Krishna"
rkusenet
> I just think it is fair to ask for their heads based
> on performance.
>What about Prasad? What about asking for Kumble's head
>when he tours abroad considering most bowlers don't average
>even 40 abroad?
Let me get it correctly. Are u trying to justify ur point
of (VVSL should be dropped) based on prasad and Kumble.
In that case Arjun Pandit can easily bring up a precedence
of other players who were dropped for good despite having
a superior record than VVSL in Feb 2001.
Does Kambli ring a bell.
It is equally fair to ask for a newcomer Khurasia over a
failure VVSL pre 281 (19 tests avg 27).
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=70ddn0%24h5t%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.ne
> t&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Bollocks. He just said that based on domestic form he should be given
a chance ahead of VVSL. I thought like Shantanu/Shridhar said AA > JS,
he explitictly said it.
In fact per ur logic, when any rscer wants x to be replaced by y,
it would automatically mean y > x. This everyone is guilty of,
including WVRaman supporters.
Can u show me a post where someone said, "even though x is better
than y, i want y to replace x for the next test".
> You don't talk of north bashing. Pranshu Behari posted you mail
> to him as a reply his post in rsc. Not a day passes without you
> posting trash against Sardarjis/Punjabis here in rsc.
>
> You don't talk about anyone else. Just go to groups.google.com
> and search for the String "Ravi Krishna"
Unlike you I am not denying I have posted flames and neither
am I pointing it to you as if I didn't do it. My hypocrisy
will stand exposed only if I try to given an impression that
I am a saint in this regard, which is what u are doing in this
thread.
Once again, it is none of my business what u write. Just don't
act as a saint in pointing out flames to others. Now how many
times I should tell this.
rk-
Arjun Pandit
>
> I didn't have problems with ur drop VVSL. All I ask os how
> come Khurasia > VVSL even in tests.
What is more criminal. TES (0 Tests and a 34 avg in domestics) = SMG*
(One of the best openers in tests) or Khurasia (0 tests, 44 avg taking
your word in domestics) can be given a chance over VVSL (a miserable
flop in tests, avging some 20 odd after 20 odd tests). In fact I am
still all for giving any rookie doing reasonably well in domestics a
chance over VVSL. You cant compare your post to mine.
* My SMG bashing posts are all to irritate your bed partner RK.
samarth harish shah
> "Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote in message news:<3e1ccd27$1...@news.teranews.com>...
> >
> > I didn't have problems with ur drop VVSL. All I ask os how
> > come Khurasia > VVSL even in tests.
>
> What is more criminal. TES (0 Tests and a 34 avg in domestics) = SMG*
TES played one test vs. NZ in 1980-1. He scored 19 in the first innings
and 29 in the second.
-Samarth.
Narayanan
> "Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote:-
>
> > I just think it is fair to ask for their heads based
> > on performance.
>
> >What about Prasad? What about asking for Kumble's head
> >when he tours abroad considering most bowlers don't average
> >even 40 abroad?
>
> Let me get it correctly. Are u trying to justify ur point
> of (VVSL should be dropped) based on prasad and Kumble.
Let me put this straight for you another time. I am not making
any issue about VVSL dropping so to say(then or now). All
Prasad and Kumble were dropped too. There was some rationale.
It is not right to talk of last n matches where n is arbiratay only for
VVSL. As such I have not questioned the whole dropping thing.
Is that clear enough?
> It is equally fair to ask for a newcomer Khurasia over a
> failure VVSL pre 281 (19 tests avg 27).
>
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=70ddn0%24h5t%40bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.ne
> > t&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
>
> Bollocks. He just said that based on domestic form he should be given
> a chance ahead of VVSL.
This is the quote.
"Hes easily a better pick than VVSL (even in tests) if domestic
form is the criteria"
It means going by domestics Khurasia is a clearly better pick in
Tests. Khurasia's avg in domestics is 44. VVSL is 66. Who
is easily a better pick purely by domesitics. you tell me. I am
not saying VVSL must not be dropped. I am not debating
whether Khurasiya deserves a chance. I am not talking about
VVSL's test record. I am asking who is easily a better pick going
by *domestics*[which means VVSL's test records is not a
criterian for _comparision_]. A guy who avgs 44 or a guy who
avgs 66.
> Once again, it is none of my business what u write. Just don't
> act as a saint in pointing out flames to others. Now how many
> times I should tell this
With so much in your backyard, it is you who digs others posts.
When you confuse newsgroups and personal mails when it
suits you, why is that *you* talk about others and their
inconsistencies and etc.etc.You like to think your posts in s.c.t
are irrelevent(check the "despicable tamilains" thread
you have quoted rsc there and repeatedly reposted it too IIRC).
Likewise, I think my posts are not Y2K compliant. If other ngs
were so irrelevent, "USA is a terrorist state" post wouldn't have
made it to rsc right? Or is it that such arbitraray rules are
applicable only for you, your posts & based on your whims?
If you want to decide what is irrelevent for you, allow everyone
to decide what is irrelevent for them based on their whims.
rkusenet
"Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote:-
> Let me put this straight for you another time. I am not making
> any issue about VVSL dropping so to say(then or now).
then what is this debate all about. If u don't have any problems
someone asking for VVSL in Feb 2001 and now, then why bother to
write anymore on this topic.
I thought u only raised this topic as a sacrilege, something akin to
TES == SMG.
> With so much in your backyard, it is you who digs others posts.
Even if I dig out other posts, how does it tantamounts to saying
that I don't post flames. U not only referred irrelevant stuff
of mine but also denied posting flames/trolls or said u don't
do like that. Finally it took
some specific reference to some post of urs for u to acknowledge
Narayanan
>
> "Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote:-
>
> > Let me put this straight for you another time. I am not making
> > any issue about VVSL dropping so to say(then or now).
>
> then what is this debate all about. If u don't have any problems
> someone asking for VVSL in Feb 2001 and now, then why bother to
> write anymore on this topic.
> I thought u only raised this topic as a sacrilege,
I did not RAISE the topic about dropping. I was asked why
I asked for VVSL's head not so long ago. Read it and come
back.
>something akin to TES == SMG.
>
>
> > With so much in your backyard, it is you who digs others posts.
>
> Even if I dig out other posts, how does it tantamounts to saying
> that I don't post flames
When you post "Tendulkar must sell batata vada" and point
my post for inconsistency then I have a problem. I have written
so much trash. But, batata vada, Chaupati(sic), and
Devasam, school dropouts you must not point fingers
were exclusively your domain. With that you must not
point fingers anyone. The moment someone points to your
s.c.t you get too defensive speak as though you don't
mix ngs. If that is the case, why did alt.bh90210
posts come to rsc? Why did you post their about
Shridhar there talking about his posts in cricket and
movies n.g? It all suited you.
In short, you don't bring up my posts in
1996 or 1998 unless you are willing to explain things like
"Non brahmin assholes, thier semen is also black in color".
Or else remove your posts which crossposted to this
ng/reposted from some other ng from google archives and
everyone's memory.
P.S: I am a little hard pressed for time at work. So this is
my last response to this thread. As such I am posting at
vague hours.
rkusenet
> When you post "Tendulkar must sell batata vada" and point
> my post for inconsistency then I have a problem.
Did I post Tendulkar must sell batata vada during SMG vs SRT
war. U dragged it when TES == SMG was mentioned, as if that
is the only way u can win. U seem to be desperate to win at
any cost. Like u did in that Dravid flame war.
> In short, you don't bring up my posts in 1996 or 1998
> unless you are willing to explain things like
> "Non brahmin assholes, thier semen is also black in color".
how about this:-
"all Muslims/Christians in india should be killed if india
wants to permanently solve its problems".
>So this is my last response to this thread.
sure I believe u.
rk-
rkusenet
"Narayanan" <tiger_va...@yahoo.com.spamnot> wrote
> Why did you post their about
> Shridhar there talking about his posts in cricket and
> movies n.g?
This is like saying since I flame shridhar all the time,
I should be flaming Sadiq and Bharat Rao also.
The rule I follow for Shridhar need not be followed to
others.
And u don't talk about mixing cricket with non cricket issues.
The best example when u refused to acknowledge in rsc that
SRT did well in Aus 1999-2000 based on a non cricket reason
" did they(srt fans) apologize for his comments on hindi".
(as if they both are related).
The acknowledge did come, but a year after that series.
rk-
Sundar Subramanian
> From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> "different". He was actually quite good against pace. What quality
> pace he faced is a different matter. Also, he "looked" good against
> pace, techniquewise. Which is "different"-enough by Indian standards,
> but in addition, he sucked against spin :-).
TES was a classy and talented batsman believed to be one of the better players of pace, IIRC. I remember watching his batting
somewhere, probably at the Viveka or at the MCC grounds, when he scored about 82 runs. The manner in which he batted appeared
quite cavalier, dispatching all and sundry to all parts and, in fact, IIRC, he hit a six when on 75 (!!). So too was the
statement that was rumoured to have come from him: "Tell Lillee TES has come to Australia". Unfortunately he did not grab the
solitary (?) Test opportunity that he got and is probably still ruing the missed chances. He will forever be one of my
favorite Indian batsman.
> The above won't show up in the averages, but this was the impression
> in Chennai about him. It may, however, account for why he's held in
> higher esteem than his average might warrant. He stood out because of
> his contemporaries' comparitive lack of skill against pace.
Don't know how much was true and how much was the stuff of legends though, when one recalls that VBC was touted (by Vengy
that blaster of express pace bowling) as a potentially great batsman capable of demolishing pace attacks. What he achieved
was quite different.
Best,
Sundar
Sundar Subramanian
> From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> "different". He was actually quite good against pace. What quality
> pace he faced is a different matter. Also, he "looked" good against
> pace, techniquewise. Which is "different"-enough by Indian standards,
> but in addition, he sucked against spin :-).
TES was a classy and talented batsman believed to be one of the better players of pace, IIRC. I remember watching his batting
somewhere, probably at the Viveka or at the MCC grounds, when he scored about 82 runs. The manner in which he batted appeared
quite cavalier, dispatching all and sundry to all parts and, in fact, IIRC, he hit a six when on 75 (!!). So too was the
statement that was rumoured to have come from him: "Tell Lillee TES has come to Australia". Unfortunately he did not grab the
solitary (?) Test opportunity that he got and is probably still ruing the missed chances. He will forever be one of my
favorite Indian batsman.
> The above won't show up in the averages, but this was the impression
> in Chennai about him. It may, however, account for why he's held in
> higher esteem than his average might warrant. He stood out because of
> his contemporaries' comparitive lack of skill against pace.
Don't know how much was true and how much was the stuff of legends though, when one recalls that VBC was touted (by Vengy
Sundar Subramanian
> From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> "different". He was actually quite good against pace. What quality
> pace he faced is a different matter. Also, he "looked" good against
> pace, techniquewise. Which is "different"-enough by Indian standards,
> but in addition, he sucked against spin :-).
TES was a classy and talented batsman believed to be one of the better players of pace, IIRC. I remember watching his batting
somewhere, probably at the Viveka or at the MCC grounds, when he scored about 82 runs. The manner in which he batted appeared
quite cavalier, dispatching all and sundry to all parts and, in fact, IIRC, he hit a six when on 75 (!!). So too was the
statement that was rumoured to have come from him: "Tell Lillee TES has come to Australia". Unfortunately he did not grab the
solitary (?) Test opportunity that he got and is probably still ruing the missed chances. He will forever be one of my
favorite Indian batsman.
> The above won't show up in the averages, but this was the impression
> in Chennai about him. It may, however, account for why he's held in
> higher esteem than his average might warrant. He stood out because of
> his contemporaries' comparitive lack of skill against pace.
Don't know how much was true and how much was the stuff of legends though, when one recalls that VBC was touted (by Vengy
Sundar Subramanian
> From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> "different". He was actually quite good against pace. What quality
> pace he faced is a different matter. Also, he "looked" good against
> pace, techniquewise. Which is "different"-enough by Indian standards,
> but in addition, he sucked against spin :-).
TES was a classy and talented batsman believed to be one of the better players of pace, IIRC. I remember watching his batting
somewhere, probably at the Viveka or at the MCC grounds, when he scored about 82 runs. The manner in which he batted appeared
quite cavalier, dispatching all and sundry to all parts and, in fact, IIRC, he hit a six when on 75 (!!). So too was the
statement that was rumoured to have come from him: "Tell Lillee TES has come to Australia". Unfortunately he did not grab the
solitary (?) Test opportunity that he got and is probably still ruing the missed chances. He will forever be one of my
favorite Indian batsman.
> The above won't show up in the averages, but this was the impression
> in Chennai about him. It may, however, account for why he's held in
> higher esteem than his average might warrant. He stood out because of
> his contemporaries' comparitive lack of skill against pace.
Don't know how much was true and how much was the stuff of legends though, when one recalls that VBC was touted (by Vengy
Sundar Subramanian
> From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> "different". He was actually quite good against pace. What quality
> pace he faced is a different matter. Also, he "looked" good against
> pace, techniquewise. Which is "different"-enough by Indian standards,
> but in addition, he sucked against spin :-).
TES was a classy and talented batsman believed to be one of the better players of pace, IIRC. I remember watching his batting
somewhere, probably at the Viveka or at the MCC grounds, when he scored about 82 runs. The manner in which he batted appeared
quite cavalier, dispatching all and sundry to all parts and, in fact, IIRC, he hit a six when on 75 (!!). So too was the
statement that was rumoured to have come from him: "Tell Lillee TES has come to Australia". Unfortunately he did not grab the
solitary (?) Test opportunity that he got and is probably still ruing the missed chances. He will forever be one of my
favorite Indian batsman.
> The above won't show up in the averages, but this was the impression
> in Chennai about him. It may, however, account for why he's held in
> higher esteem than his average might warrant. He stood out because of
> his contemporaries' comparitive lack of skill against pace.
Don't know how much was true and how much was the stuff of legends though, when one recalls that VBC was touted (by Vengy
Sundar Subramanian
> From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> "different". He was actually quite good against pace. What quality
> pace he faced is a different matter. Also, he "looked" good against
> pace, techniquewise. Which is "different"-enough by Indian standards,
> but in addition, he sucked against spin :-).
TES was a classy and talented batsman believed to be one of the better players of pace, IIRC. I remember watching his batting
somewhere, probably at the Viveka or at the MCC grounds, when he scored about 82 runs. The manner in which he batted appeared
quite cavalier, dispatching all and sundry to all parts and, in fact, IIRC, he hit a six when on 75 (!!). So too was the
statement that was rumoured to have come from him: "Tell Lillee TES has come to Australia". Unfortunately he did not grab the
solitary (?) Test opportunity that he got and is probably still ruing the missed chances. He will forever be one of my
favorite Indian batsman.
> The above won't show up in the averages, but this was the impression
> in Chennai about him. It may, however, account for why he's held in
> higher esteem than his average might warrant. He stood out because of
> his contemporaries' comparitive lack of skill against pace.
Don't know how much was true and how much was the stuff of legends though, when one recalls that VBC was touted (by Vengy
rkusenet
"Jayen" <rsc_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:-
> From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> "different". He was actually quite good against pace.
heard from whom. If I have to go by the words of Mumbai folks,
Agarkar and Kambli are "different" and good.
TES who is described as classy in this thread by few TNers had
an impressive avg of 34 in Ranji Trohpy. He played only 1 test
and hence I am not quoting his test figures. It is as good
as not playing any test cricket.
And he being good against pace is a laughable matter bcos
of pace attack he must have faced in India.
It should be "TES looked classy against ranji pace attack
he faced".
rk-
Shripathi Kamath
"Sundar Subramanian" <sun...@infi.net> wrote in message
news:3E1EEC23...@infi.net...
Lemme guess, Attack of the Clones Part Deux?
Thank you, CloneAid!
Amol Cricketwallah
> news:a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > BTW, he played Ranji cricket from 1970 to 1983 - just about 12 or so
> > full seasons of domestic cricket. His overall record in first-class
> > cricket was:
> >
> > 75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, 5 centuries
>
> [snipped]
>
> >
> > Not entirely true - TES wasnt doing *that* well after Srikkant arrived
> > anyway, Srikkant's numbers overall were a bit better.
> >
> > For example, before TES got picked (in the Ranjis)..
> >
> > 77/78: 221 runs at 44.20
> > 78/79: 160 runs at 26.66
> > 79/80: 185 runs at 30.83
> > (This is when Srikkant arrived, in 79/80 Srikkant had 149 runs at 29.80,
> > a new guy whose numbers were not *hugely* different to the experienced
> > guys' in the same team).
>
> That's the reason I asked the question as to how well TES was doing. Going
> by numbers there wasnt much separating the two. Werent there others in the
> fray who had better numbers ? But, Srikkanth made it. Just curious as to
> what made Srikkanth's entry possible.
>
Ah, but you snipped the main part :-) It might be quite questionable as
to why TES got picked - his record wasnt very good in the preceding
3 years after all. But he got picked because he had a century in the
Duleep Trophy (which the selectors presumably watched).
Srikkant, OTOH, just came in and had a season as good as TES above.
But then, the next season Srikkant had 458 runs at 76! *That* is
what made him a contender - he already had a domestic season that
was better than TES had *ever* had in his life, despite TES already
being picked. This season above is why Srikkant became a contender
in the first place, because of that one terrific season.
> It seems like his 85 odd against England vs U-21 game (am I right?) got him
> the berth. Of course he captained that side too IIRC, so he was a contender
> by then.
>
Hm. Not sure when this was - Srikkant played against the touring
English on more than one occasion with his career on the line after
all :-) He was given a debut in 1981 against England (which was right
after his previous very good domestic season, and might indeed be
after an 85 you list above, dont quite recall). But he didnt do
much in that series and was dropped by the end of it. He then was
sent to Pakistan as a backup opener (top 2 openers were Gavaskar
and Arun Lal - Arun Lal did very well to start the series, but then
did badly in the 2nd and 3rd tests and so was dropped). Srikkant came
in for the 4th and 5th tests and failed, and was dropped again (he
made 2, 5 and 21 in Pakistan). So then we turned to Shastri to open
with Gavaskar in the last test in Pakistan - and he responded with
a century. However Shastri was still seen only as a stop-gap opener
and was moved back down the order immediately.
After this Srikkant was dropped and didnt play tests for 2 years.
Then in 84/85 England toured again, and this time Srikkant came back
into contention for test cricket. And he did it by scoring 92
against England for U25 (is this the innings youre talking about?
He wasnt the captain though - Shastri was, and Azhar made 151 and
U25 beat England outright with room to spare). Just this 92 would
not have been enough to get Srikkant back into the test side - but
he followed up the 92 with 50 in the 1st ODI, and followed that
with 99 in the 2nd ODI. Meanwhile Gaekwad was failing in the tests
at opener. This is what brought Srikkant back into the test side
again, for the 4th test in front of his home crowd at Madras.
He failed at home though, getting 0 and 16. Thus his spot was still
up in the air going into the final test at Kanpur. There however
he saved his place - he was lucky early on, dropped quite a few
times in scoring a strokeful 84. And then in the 2nd innings he
got 41* - and was a certainty in the team for SL and Australia. He
did well in Australia too, and was always a certainty in the side
from that point onwards, culminating in captaincy of the country.
Sadiq [ rough start for Sri, tho: 7 tests, avg 14.8, 1 fifty;
until Kanpur after which he made himself a sure pick ] Yusuf
> Kamesh
Amol Cricketwallah
> cricke...@hotmail.com (Amol Cricketwallah) wrote in message news:<a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> >
> > As you can see above he had 5 centuries in 12 years of domestic
> > cricket - he wasnt exactly making a huge push for selection by
> > wracking up ton after ton in the domestics in those days. And
> > an overall average of 34 isnt all that brilliant either.
> >
>
> <snip the rest>
>
> From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> "different". He was actually quite good against pace. What quality
> pace he faced is a different matter. Also, he "looked" good against
> pace, techniquewise. Which is "different"-enough by Indian standards,
> but in addition, he sucked against spin :-). And if you think about
> the spinners he faced in the 70s in club and South Zone Ranji, you've
> got Prasanna, Chandra, Ramnarayan, Venkat, Kumar etc. - quite a
> formidable list, who really showed him up.
>
Still, the fact remains that he had 5 tons in 12 years of domestic
cricket - surely that has to affect one's chances of earning honours
at the highest level?
Ive heard that "good against pace" idea too - but again, TES *was*
a middle-order batsman to start with. In fact, he was still batting
in the middle-order even in 1977 etc! His first Duleep Trophy ton
came in the middle-order too - batting at about #6 IIRC. So surely
he couldnt have been considered easily for international opener,
when he was coming down the order in domestic matches (and not doing
brilliantly well either)?
As for facing spin - of course, he never faced Venkat or Kumar listed
above in first-class cricket, since they were from the same team. One
might forsee Karnataka giving him trouble, since he would have to face
Pras and Chandra (not many batsmen that combo didnt give trouble to,
actually :-) But surely when he played Hyderabad and Kerala and Goa
etc that wasnt *that* much of a problem? Yes people like Narasimha
Rao were decent - but they werent awesome to the same level as Pras
or Chandra were.
And while TES might have done well against pace in the leagues, in
those days South Zone wasnt exactly known for its pace attack, was it?
South has produced pacemen like Srinath, Prasad, Ganesh, etc lately -
even Kumaran, Yohannan, Balaji etc now. But in the early to mid 70s
the pace attacks in the South Zone were not really all that strong.
North had the Mohinder's (pure bowler in those days), Madan Lal's etc
(and even the Kapil's by 76/77 etc when TES was beginning to rise as
a contender). West had Salgaonkar, Abdul Ismail, Ghavri et al - a
fair list usually. Even East had Subroto Guha in the early 70s, Barun
Burman in the late 70s etc. But South would open the bowling even at
the zonal level with Abid Ali and not much else IIRC, and then switch
to Prasanna, Venkat, Chandra, VV Kumar etc to demolish the opposition.
> The above won't show up in the averages, but this was the impression
> in Chennai about him. It may, however, account for why he's held in
> higher esteem than his average might warrant. He stood out because of
> his contemporaries' comparitive lack of skill against pace.
>
> Are there any other such cases who are inverses of Brijesh Patel?
>
Again, it is a presumption IMHO that he was better against pace than
even Brijesh Patel! Yes it was supposedly his strong suit etc, at
the domestic level. But Brijesh had no problems with pace whatsoever
at the domestic level - he fed voraciously on it! It was only when
Brijesh came up against Willis and Holding without helmets that he
had troubles (and even then he wasnt clueless or anything - note his
innings in WI at POS that took us to the win. Brijesh overall did
quite ok against very quick pace without a helmet - with a helmet he
conceivably would have done much better if he had been given a chance).
Overall there was IMHO no real way TES could have been picked before
he was anyway - he was, after all, a middle-order batsman competing
with the likes of Brijesh Patel, Sudhakar Rao etc, and there was really
no reason IMHO that he could have been picked ahead of them. Heck, even
when TES finally *was* picked to play for India, it was mostly on the
back of his 149 against a quite weak East Zone attack in the Duleep
Trophy in 1979/80 - and even in that game TES batted at #3, not
opener (and in that very same innings Brijesh Patel batted at #4
and scored 163, BTW :-)
And when he was picked, I dont think he was particularly ill-treated
either. IMHO he was sort of a marginal selection to start with - a
guy who was used at #3 and opener, as warranted. He played several
fc games in Australia on tour (with 1 fifty in 8 innings IIRC, plus
a few not outs), and 2 ODIs (in which he scored 6 and 4 respecitvely).
He then went on to NZ and got a test there as well without doing
anything amazing (19 and 29). On returing he was dropped - not
particularly shocking IMHO, nor a particularly egregious selectorial
decision (I remember it didnt surprise me all that much at the
time).
Now if you want a truly shocking decision that was unfathomable to
me at the time and still is today... how about Chetan Chauhan? He was
the 2nd opener for both the above tours. He made 97 in the 2nd test
at Adelaide, an excellent innings. He made 85 in the 2nd innings of
the 3rd test at Melbourne on a deteriorating pitch - an innings at least
as responsible for India's most famous victory abroad as the much-more
lauded GRV's ton on first innings. Even in NZ he made 78 in the 2nd
test at Christchurch. And yet (after 36 and 7 in the next and final test
in NZ), on returning to India Chetan Chauhan was dropped. For good.
Never to be seen again in Indian colours, or even anywhere near
contention. To me that was far more inexplicable at the time, and
remains so today.
Sadiq [ no wonder he went into politics :-) ] Yusuf
> Regards,
> Jayen
Amol Cricketwallah
> "Kamesh" <kamesh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:avh7ld$fna0e$1...@ID-154916.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> Gopal Bose and Michael Dalvi were both JOBBED! No sense in denying it. TES
> made it, and Bose and Dalvi didn't. Mother of all injustices!
>
BTW, for both of them...
TE Srinivasan 75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, high 149
Michael Dalvi 95 innings, 3089 runs, avg 35.51, high 151
I suppose you *can* make the case that Dalvi was jobbed - after all,
as seen from the numbers above, he was clearly superior and he never
got to play (his average is a full 1.3 higher, and his highest
score is a full 2 runs higher ;-)
(Seriously, for more Dalvi discussions, check "Sadiq+rk+Dalvi" on
deja, there should be plenty there :-)
And we've already discussed Bose before anyway - he clearly had a
better case than either TES or Dalvi IMHO, and he stayed in contention
for longer too as a result. But I dont think he was particularly badly
treated either, as we've discussed earlier. Anyway :-)
Sadiq [ why dont TN'ers talk about V.Siva, anyway? ] Yusuf
Jayen
> "Jayen" <rsc_p...@yahoo.com> wrote:-
>
> > From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> > "different". He was actually quite good against pace.
>
> heard from whom. If I have to go by the words of Mumbai folks,
> Agarkar and Kambli are "different" and good.
>
It was also recently mentioned in V. Ramnarayan's "Mosquitos and other
Jolly Rovers: The story of Tamil Nadu Cricket".
> TES who is described as classy in this thread by few TNers had
> an impressive avg of 34 in Ranji Trohpy. He played only 1 test
> and hence I am not quoting his test figures. It is as good
> as not playing any test cricket.
>
Eh? I am not disputing any test or other figures of his or saying that
he's classy. I'm trying to explain why he is talked about by TNers,
even though there may be other TN players with better averages, who
are not talked about.
> And he being good against pace is a laughable matter bcos
> of pace attack he must have faced in India.
>
> It should be "TES looked classy against ranji pace attack
> he faced".
>
How is this different from the statement in the original post that
said:
"What quality pace he faced is a different matter."
Did you even read the entire post?
Regards,
Jayen
Sundar Subramanian
First of all, apologies to everyone for posting the same multiple times. It was inadvertant.
> And we've already discussed Bose before anyway - he clearly had a
> better case than either TES or Dalvi IMHO, and he stayed in contention
> for longer too as a result. But I dont think he was particularly badly
> treated either, as we've discussed earlier. Anyway :-)
Dalvi. Another classy and talented batsman from TN. May be we should start a thread comparing Bhaskar Pillai, TES, and
Dalvi! The first one, IIRC, was also left out from the Test squads although he was a mainstay in the Delhi team.
> Sadiq [ why dont TN'ers talk about V.Siva, anyway? ] Yusuf
Somehow V.Siva's name is not talked about in the same breath as TES. Why not Abdul Jabbar and Satwendar Singh?
Best,
Sundar
Shripathi Kamath
> Amol Cricketwallah wrote:
>
> First of all, apologies to everyone for posting the same multiple times.
It was inadvertant.
>
> > And we've already discussed Bose before anyway - he clearly had a
> > better case than either TES or Dalvi IMHO, and he stayed in contention
> > for longer too as a result. But I dont think he was particularly badly
> > treated either, as we've discussed earlier. Anyway :-)
>
> Dalvi. Another classy and talented batsman from TN. May be we should start
a thread comparing Bhaskar Pillai, TES, and
> Dalvi! The first one, IIRC, was also left out from the Test squads
although he was a mainstay in the Delhi team.
>
Jobbed I tell you, J-O-B-B-E-D!
Gopal Bose and Michael Dalvi were both JOBBED! No sense in denying it. TES
made it, and Bose and Dalvi didn't. Mother of all injustices!
You tell 'em Sundar! You tell 'em how Michael Dalvi was jobbed!
Sundar Subramanian
> Jobbed I tell you, J-O-B-B-E-D!
>
> Gopal Bose and Michael Dalvi were both JOBBED! No sense in denying it. TES
> made it, and Bose and Dalvi didn't. Mother of all injustices!
>
> You tell 'em Sundar! You tell 'em how Michael Dalvi was jobbed!
Shripati, I have no clue what you are saying here, perhaps the result of not
keeping in touch with RSC as much the last several days. In the hallowed
traditions of RSC, asking for explanation will only invite more terse
follow-ups, so I will not :-)
Best,
Sundar
Spaceman Spiff
Sundar Subramanian <sun...@infi.net> drummed on his chest and bellowed:
shripati has adopted gopal bose and michael dalvi as his pet selection (or
non-selection) peeves.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
Tried to please her, she only played one night stands
Tried to please her, she only played one night stands now
She was a day tripper, Sunday driver yeah
It took me so long to find out, and I found out
Say tripper, day tripper yeah.
Amol Cricketwallah
>
> First of all, apologies to everyone for posting the same multiple times. It was inadvertant.
>
> > And we've already discussed Bose before anyway - he clearly had a
> > better case than either TES or Dalvi IMHO, and he stayed in contention
> > for longer too as a result. But I dont think he was particularly badly
> > treated either, as we've discussed earlier. Anyway :-)
>
> Dalvi. Another classy and talented batsman from TN. May be we should start a thread comparing Bhaskar Pillai, TES, and
> Dalvi! The first one, IIRC, was also left out from the Test squads although he was a mainstay in the Delhi team.
>
There is no comparison, IMHO :-) The only time we see these comparisons
is here on rsc - maybe because there are more TN fans than Delhi fans
here (who would otherwise raise monster objections with very valid
reasons against this sort of comparison :-)
First of all, Dalvi etc should not be compared to the others - because
it was a long time ago, and they were in different eras. Dalvi arrived
in about 1969, and was around till the mid-to-late 70s. So he should
really be compared to other mid-to-late-70s contenders only. And we've
done this before (when Dalvi was compared to Ashok Mankad, for example,
and it was found that both played in 70s and were contemporaries, and
yet Dalvi averaged 35 over his Ranji career while Ashok Mankad averaged
just over 70 in his Ranji career at the very same time). Other
comparions would be Brijesh Patel, or Parthasarthy Sharma etc - other
mid 70s players.
TES and Bhaskar Pillai are slightly better comparisons - but even
they arent quite right. Their careers overlapped by only a little
bit. TES stretched from 1970 to about 1984 or so, and Bhaskar Pillai
arrived only about 2 years before TES left. Pillai then stayed till
the early 90s.
Still, if you *do* want to compare them on performances... again, as
I said, there is really no comparison :-) For when we look at their
respective fc records we get:
TE Srinivasan 75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, high 149
Michael Dalvi 95 innings, 3089 runs, avg 35.51, high 151
KP Bhaskar 95 matches, 5443 runs, avg 52.84, high 222*
As you can see, there is a *big* difference there. TES, for example,
scored a grand total of 5 centuries in 12 years of first-class
cricket. Those are pretty poor number really - less than 1 century
every 2 years! Bhaskar Pillai OTOH scored 18 first-class centuries
in a career lasting 11 seasons - almost 1.5 centuries *per* season.
The centuries/match is even more glaring - TES 1 ton every 15
matches, Bhaskar Pillai 1 ton every 5.3 matches!
I know this view makes me unpopular, but I personally dont think there
were *that* many TN players who got particularly raw deals in the old
days. The TNCA was always a very powerful organization and got its
players in quite easily - if you read the autobiographies of Erapalli
Prasanna and Bhagwat Chandrashekhar, for example, you will these
views expressed very often. Both of them are convinced that it was
because of the power of the TNCA (as compared to the weakness of the
KSCA in those days) that Venkat got to play so much test cricket ahead
of Prasanna, for example. I remember Chandra mentioning how Jaisimha
was captain of South Zone one year, for example. And the next year
how Prasanna and Chandra were the top 2 spinners in South Zone, and
were the top contenders for test cricket - that Venkat might not even
make the South Zone XI (which would have put him out of test match
contention completely to start that year). And before the Duleep Trophy
was played, the team was announced - and suddenly Venkat was South
Zone captain :-) That is, he had been elevated all the way to SZ
captaincy, which obviously assured his spot in the team - and the former
captain now had to play under him. And both Prasanna and Chandra were
thus promptly relegated to 2nd and 3rd spinner. Both Chandra and Pras
were of the view that this would never have happened the other way
around - that is, Prasanna would never have been named captain *ahead*
of Venkat, thus eliminating Venkat from contention etc, because of
the strength of the TNCA in South Zone cricket.
In those days particularly, TN was always the most powerful "lobby"
in the South IMHO - and KSCA etc were quite weak. The KSCA only got
powerful in the early 90s with GRV's arrival (and there are at least
a few people who will tell you that GRV ill-treated TN players after
his arrival too - for example, Srikkant was dropped from captaincy and
team immediately on GRV's entrance into the selection committee, and
Srikkant never played for India at all while GRV was a selector. When
GRV was removed from selector, Srikkant promptly make a comeback to
the national side in Australia in 1992, and for the World Cup. And when
GRV returned the next season as selector, Srikkant promptly vanished
from the side again, this time for good :-)
If youre looking for good bats who were ill-treated, again there are
several whose names are probably a lot more deserving than TES or
Dalvi, IMHO at least. KP Bhaskar listed above, with a fine record.
Another Delhi-ite would be Ajay Sharma, who has a mind-bogglingly
brilliant domestic record, and yet he was only ever given 1 test match
(in which he didnt do *that* poorly either - scoring 30 and 23, no worse
than TES did. And while TES averaged 35 in the Ranjis in his career,
Ajay Sharma averaged well over 75!)
Maharashtra would throw up Milind Gunjal, Shantanu Sugwekar and
Surendra Bhave. Gunjal played in the 80s (with some overlap with
TES IIRC) - and he averaged 51 for his career. Bhave played late 80s
and early 90s, was an opener, and averaged over 65 for his first 7-8
Ranji seasons IIRC without ever getting a break (heck, Bhave once
had a score of 280 against South Zone in the Duleep Trophy, against
2/3 test bowlers - and still couldnt get a break :-) Sugwekar in his
first 4-5 seasons was averaging over 70 as well. And then there was
Srikant Kalyani - who played several good seasons, and then moved to
Bengal and played several more good seasons.
Even Hyderabad would throw up names like Abdul Azeem - a contemporary
of Srikkant's who opened in the same zone, and yet consistently had
a superior domestic record IIRC without getting a break (partly because
he was supposed to be too much of a hitter, which is amusing when you
think Srikkant was picked over him :-) Azeem opened and averaged 44
in the South Zone for his career - some Hyderabadis will still tell you
that he was "more talented than Azhar" but was never given a chance etc.
Or, in the middle-order, Dr MV Sridhar - a very consistent scorer in
the early 90s.
Heck, even Bombay can throw up Lalchand Rajput in the 80s :-) An
opener who was given only 2 tests in SL as a 23-year-old, in which
he made 32, 61, 0 and 12 - and was never picked again. (These 2 tests
werent particularly high-scoring either - India's other opener and #3 in
these 2 tests had scores of 2, 3, 64, 25 and 9, 16, 0, 25 respectively,
for example). Rajput was an incredibly consistent scorer at domestic
level after that, without ever getting another chance - and not only
did he score at the Ranjis, he is actually has one of India's all-time
best records in the zonal Duleep Trophy! He was 2nd alltime in Duleep
Trophy runs, and averaged 73 in the Duleeps for his career! He actually
had 2 Duleep *double centuries* after being dropped - 221 against North
Zone that same year, 2 centuries in the same match against South Zone
the next year (109 and 105), and 275 against Central Zone the year
after that. But he never approached contention after that at all -
not until he suddenly reappeared in some probables list after he moved
away from Bombay to Assam IIRC, a good 5-7 years later :-)
Sadiq [ who still thinks Brijesh should have played more ] Yusuf
rkusenet
"Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote
> I know this view makes me unpopular, but I personally dont think there
> were *that* many TN players who got particularly raw deals in the old
> days.
actually TN'ers have an annoying habit of too much whining. That's how
I got sucked into Dalvi thingy. They talk as if they have produced
great cricketers, where as the fact is that even Punjab has given
Sidhu and Harbhajan, which TN has not.
TN remains at the bottom of the contribution list and at the top of
whining list.
>that GRV ill-treated TN players after
>his arrival too - for example, Srikkant was dropped from captaincy and
>team immediately on GRV's entrance into the selection committee, and
>Srikkant never played for India at all while GRV was a selector. When
>GRV was removed from selector, Srikkant promptly make a comeback to
>the national side in Australia in 1992, and for the World Cup. And when
>GRV returned the next season as selector, Srikkant promptly vanished
>from the side again, this time for good :-)
There is something wrong here. Chikka was removed from the captaincy
and the team for the NZ 1990 tour when Raj Singh Dungarpur was the
selector. Remember his "team for the next millinium" crap which he
used to justify taking some youngsters for the NZ tour.
IIRC GRV became the selector only around 1991/92 and was there till
Eng 1996 tour.
Am I right?
rk-
Ambrish Sundaram
> I said, there is really no comparison :-) For when we look at their
> respective fc records we get:
>
> TE Srinivasan 75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, high 149
> Michael Dalvi 95 innings, 3089 runs, avg 35.51, high 151
> KP Bhaskar 95 matches, 5443 runs, avg 52.84, high 222*
Some good points raised, Sadiq. Here's another guy whose first class
career started in the early 80s and extended into the early 90s.
Carlton Saldanha -
66 matches
104 innings
15 Not Outs
4066 runs
144 highest score
45.68 Average
7 100s
26 Half-centuries
Pretty good numbers, don't you think ?
And since we are talking about Abdul "Dependable" Jabbar, whose career
extended from the early 70s to the mid-80s, here are his numbers
(remember he was an all-rounder) -
Matches - 87
Innings - 125
Not Outs - 20
Runs - 4270
Highest Score - 201*
Average - 40.66
100s - 4
50s - 27
Balls - 3274
Runs - 1139
Wickets - 40
Average - 28.47
Best - 4-63
5fers - 0
10fers - 0
Strike Rate - 81.8
Economy Rate - 2.08
Also, great numbers for V. Sivaramakrishnan, whose first class-career
extended from around 73/64 to 89/90, when he played for Bihar and Tamil
Nadu in the Ranjis -
Matches - 100
Innings - 161
Not Outs - 11
Runs - 6032
Highest score - 177
Average - 40.21
100s - 11
50s - 34
These are some of the players players that, imho, got a bad deal from
the national selectors.
Ambrish Sundaram
Ambrish Sundaram
indicated below...
Ambrish Sundaram wrote:
^^^^^
Should read - 73/74.
Shreesh Mudri
to 'cricinfo' and calls it an era of unprecedented success at home.
--
Shreesh Mudri
"Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a374a779.03011...@posting.google.com...
off-stump
"Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a374a779.03011...@posting.google.com...
news:<c81d0ffd.03010...@posting.google.com>...
> > cricke...@hotmail.com (Amol Cricketwallah) wrote in message
news:<a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > 75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, 5 centuries
> > >
> > >
> Again, it is a presumption IMHO that he was better against pace than
> even Brijesh Patel! Yes it was supposedly his strong suit etc, at
> the domestic level. But Brijesh had no problems with pace whatsoever
> at the domestic level - he fed voraciously on it! It was only when
> Brijesh came up against Willis and Holding without helmets that he
> had troubles (and even then he wasnt clueless or anything - note his
> innings in WI at POS that took us to the win. Brijesh overall did
> quite ok against very quick pace without a helmet - with a helmet he
> conceivably would have done much better if he had been given a chance).
>
> Overall there was IMHO no real way TES could have been picked before
> he was anyway - he was, after all, a middle-order batsman competing
> with the likes of Brijesh Patel, Sudhakar Rao etc, and there was really
> no reason IMHO that he could have been picked ahead of them. Heck, even
> when TES finally *was* picked to play for India, it was mostly on the
> back of his 149 against a quite weak East Zone attack in the Duleep
> Trophy in 1979/80 - and even in that game TES batted at #3, not
> opener (and in that very same innings Brijesh Patel batted at #4
> and scored 163, BTW :-)
>
against Imran and the visiting Pakistani team
around a month later. I read most of the posts in this thread and no one
mentioned this innings. Not surpising since TE
was neither a great test batsman nor that match anything spectacular. I
remember reading the match report in Hindu. It
was supposedly a very good innings. Created a lot of buzz. Srikanth hit 90
in the same inning. BTW, Patel hit 35 in the
same innings. Since I haven't seen TES bat, can't say if he deserved to be
selected or not. But thought I would point out
this match since many people here seems to be surprised how TES was selected
on one Duleep century.
Raj S
samarth harish shah
<snip>
> Sadiq [ why dont TN'ers talk about V.Siva, anyway? ] Yusuf
Been there, done that. I think a search on Deja for the names of Arun
Simha and yours truly as authors and those of Gaekwad and V. Siva in the
text will yield what you're looking for.
-Samarth.
Jayen
> rsc_p...@yahoo.com (Jayen) wrote in message news:<c81d0ffd.03010...@posting.google.com>...
> > cricke...@hotmail.com (Amol Cricketwallah) wrote in message news:<a374a779.03010...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > 75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, 5 centuries
> > >
> > >
> > > As you can see above he had 5 centuries in 12 years of domestic
> > > cricket - he wasnt exactly making a huge push for selection by
> > > wracking up ton after ton in the domestics in those days. And
> > > an overall average of 34 isnt all that brilliant either.
> > >
> >
> > <snip the rest>
> >
> > From what I remember having heard about him, TE Srinivasan was
> > "different". He was actually quite good against pace. What quality
> > pace he faced is a different matter. Also, he "looked" good against
> > pace, techniquewise. Which is "different"-enough by Indian standards,
> > but in addition, he sucked against spin :-). And if you think about
> > the spinners he faced in the 70s in club and South Zone Ranji, you've
> > got Prasanna, Chandra, Ramnarayan, Venkat, Kumar etc. - quite a
> > formidable list, who really showed him up.
> >
>
> Still, the fact remains that he had 5 tons in 12 years of domestic
> cricket - surely that has to affect one's chances of earning honours
> at the highest level?
>
You're arguing with the wrong guy :-). I am not arguing that he should
have been picked, just recollecting what I've heard of him.
> Ive heard that "good against pace" idea too - but again, TES *was*
> a middle-order batsman to start with. In fact, he was still batting
> in the middle-order even in 1977 etc! His first Duleep Trophy ton
> came in the middle-order too - batting at about #6 IIRC. So surely
> he couldnt have been considered easily for international opener,
> when he was coming down the order in domestic matches (and not doing
> brilliantly well either)?
>
> As for facing spin - of course, he never faced Venkat or Kumar listed
> above in first-class cricket, since they were from the same team.
And what stops people from getting this idea of him by watching club
cricket?
Anyway, Ramnarayan claims that he was weakest against left-arm spin
bowling :-)
> One
> might forsee Karnataka giving him trouble, since he would have to face
> Pras and Chandra (not many batsmen that combo didnt give trouble to,
> actually :-) But surely when he played Hyderabad and Kerala and Goa
> etc that wasnt *that* much of a problem? Yes people like Narasimha
> Rao were decent - but they werent awesome to the same level as Pras
> or Chandra were.
Ramnarayan? Mumtaz Hussain? A number of guys at club level? If TES
sucked against even some of them, wouldn't this impression spread?
>
>
> And while TES might have done well against pace in the leagues, in
> those days South Zone wasnt exactly known for its pace attack, was it?
> South has produced pacemen like Srinath, Prasad, Ganesh, etc lately -
> even Kumaran, Yohannan, Balaji etc now. But in the early to mid 70s
> the pace attacks in the South Zone were not really all that strong.
> North had the Mohinder's (pure bowler in those days), Madan Lal's etc
> (and even the Kapil's by 76/77 etc when TES was beginning to rise as
> a contender). West had Salgaonkar, Abdul Ismail, Ghavri et al - a
> fair list usually. Even East had Subroto Guha in the early 70s, Barun
> Burman in the late 70s etc. But South would open the bowling even at
> the zonal level with Abid Ali and not much else IIRC, and then switch
> to Prasanna, Venkat, Chandra, VV Kumar etc to demolish the opposition.
>
It's possible that the impression of TES vs Pace is built on very few
instances of good displays against above-average (by South Indian
standards) pace bowling. There was a century against
Kapil/Madan/Mohinder in the Duleeps, which sounds more impressive than
it actually is, because this was before Kapil was even picked for
India, which means he was around 17 years old or so :-).
But anyway, the impression (which may well be unjustified) definitely
existed in Chennai, which is the reason, IMO, why he's talked about,
while Jabbar and Dalvi aren't.
<snip a lot of stuff about why TES wasn't badly done by, none of which
is disputed>
One further point - V.Siva. Forget averages - the people who matter
(PWM) also take "looks" into account. What I've heard (and don't ask
me for references - I have none, it's all hearsay) is that the reason
why he was not even considered for the national team is because he
just did not have the range of strokes and the PWM felt that he
wouldn't cut it at the senior level. There was no politics here - Siva
had no lack of "pull" in TN cricket, coming from one of the first
families of cricket in Chennai.
Regards,
Jayen
Spaceman Spiff
probably the poorest standard of fc cricket outside of zimbabwe and bangladesh,
you will be meat and drink to test class bowlers.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
Sometimes at night I think I understand.
None of us can win.
Outside that dream, still that hairy man.
Well sometimes at night I think I understand.
Shadowboxing the apocalypse, wandering the land.
Ambrish Sundaram
> Raising himself from all fours,
> i disagree. if you can't average more than 40-45 in ranji trophy- which is
> probably the poorest standard of fc cricket outside of zimbabwe and bangladesh,
> you will be meat and drink to test class bowlers.
>
Each to himself, Spaceman. But since you indicate that a batsman with
Ranji average of 40-45 will be meat and drink to test class bowlers,
here are the stats for some "not necessarily meat and drink to test
class bowlers" batsmen. I am going solely by the 1st class average of
40-45 or so -
G.R. Viswanath -
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
308 486 47 17970 247 40.93 44 89
Mohinder Amarnath -
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
248 379 61 13747 207 43.22 30 67
Vinoo Mankad -
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100
233 361 27 11591 231 34.70 26
Chetan Chauhan -
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
179 299 22 11143 207 40.22 21 59
Just a random selection, I admit. Each of these batsmen had his ups and
downs in Test cricket, and some like Chetan Chauhan did not necessarily
set the Thames on fire. But nevertheless each one of them did make
significant contributions in their roles as Test batsmen.
I also agree that my numbers here indicate first-class average, not all
of which may be in Indian first-class cricket (Ranji, Duleep, Deodhar
etc.). Given that I am not exactly a stats person, somebody may prove me
wrong by just quoting the Ranji-Duleep-Deodhar etc. stats for these
batsmen. But I would be very surprised if their "Indian-only"
first-class averages were significantly different from their overall
first-class stats.
Also, I was not saying that Saldanha/V.Siva/Jabbar would have been the
panacea for the ills plaguing Indian cricket even in those days. But one
cannot totally discount their first-class performances either.
Ambrish Sundaram
Raghu Jetley
"Ambrish Sundaram" <asun...@twmi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3E231AF...@twmi.rr.com...
> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>
> > Raising himself from all fours,
>
> > i disagree. if you can't average more than 40-45 in ranji trophy- which
is
> > probably the poorest standard of fc cricket outside of zimbabwe and
bangladesh,
> > you will be meat and drink to test class bowlers.
> >
>
>
> Each to himself, Spaceman. But since you indicate that a batsman with
> Ranji average of 40-45 will be meat and drink to test class bowlers,
> here are the stats for some "not necessarily meat and drink to test
> class bowlers" batsmen. I am going solely by the 1st class average of
> 40-45 or so -
>
> G.R. Viswanath -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
> 308 486 47 17970 247 40.93 44 89
>
> Mohinder Amarnath -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
> 248 379 61 13747 207 43.22 30 67
>
> Vinoo Mankad -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100
> 233 361 27 11591 231 34.70 26
>
> Chetan Chauhan -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
> 179 299 22 11143 207 40.22 21 59
>
I think both your & SS's use of stats here is incorrect.
What the relevant stat here is - what was Viswanath's, Mohinder's,
Mankad's, Dalvi, TES's etc first class stats when they did, didn't get
selected
- not their career FC stats.
Spaceman Spiff
>
>> Raising himself from all fours,
>
>> i disagree. if you can't average more than 40-45 in ranji trophy-
>> which is probably the poorest standard of fc cricket outside of
>> zimbabwe and bangladesh, you will be meat and drink to test class
>> bowlers.
>>
>
>
> Each to himself, Spaceman. But since you indicate that a batsman with
> Ranji average of 40-45 will be meat and drink to test class bowlers,
> here are the stats for some "not necessarily meat and drink to test
> class bowlers" batsmen. I am going solely by the 1st class average of
> 40-45 or so -
>
> G.R. Viswanath -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
> 308 486 47 17970 247 40.93 44 89
>
> Mohinder Amarnath -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
> 248 379 61 13747 207 43.22 30 67
>
> Vinoo Mankad -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100
> 233 361 27 11591 231 34.70 26
>
> Chetan Chauhan -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
> 179 299 22 11143 207 40.22 21 59
>
you are posting their complete first class stats (includes tests, tour matches,
county cricket, etc.),
what are their stats for only ranji trophy?
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
Catfish John was a river hobo who lived and died by the river's bed,
Looking back I still remember I was proud to be his friend.
rkusenet
"Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote
> you are posting their complete first class stats (includes tests, tour
matches,
> county cricket, etc.),
> what are their stats for only ranji trophy?
also once an indian player establishes himself in test, he hardly
cares about ranji matches. I am sure after 1975/76 there were many
ranji dadas who consistently outperformed SMG in ranji trophy.
i agree with Raghu Jaitely that ranji record before they got
selected is a better indicator.
rk-
samarth harish shah
Good post, Ambrish. Saurav Ganguly also averages only 40-something in FC
cricket. He has also not always been "meat and drink" for international
bowlers. Also, in the 70s and 80s, I would suspect that there weren't that
many 50+ FC average batsmen in the Ranji Trophy, as compared with the 90s.
So, Saldanha et al's averages may look puny as compared with, say, Ajay
Sharma's, but was pretty good by 70s-80s standards, I suspect.
BTW, Deodhar Trophy is not really FC cricket. It's an ODI tournament. :-)
-Samarth.
>
> Ambrish Sundaram
>
>
Lenin Maran
>
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote
>
> > you are posting their complete first class stats (includes tests, tour
> matches,
> > county cricket, etc.),
> > what are their stats for only ranji trophy?
>
> also once an indian player establishes himself in test, he hardly
> cares about ranji matches. I am sure after 1975/76 there were many
> ranji dadas who consistently outperformed SMG in ranji trophy.
1st class avg. before Test debut : 51.31
Overall Test avg : 51.12
Overall First Class avg : 51.46
Peace,
Lenin
samarth harish shah
Before they got selected to play for India, Chetan Chauhan averaged 35 in
Ranjis and Yashpal Sharma averaged 38. I am sure Vengsarkar's Ranji
average was not very high when he was first chosen to play for India. He
was chosen based on 1 Irani knock, mostly. Anshuman Gaekwad had a Ranji
batting average in the 20s when chosen to play for India. He had started
his Ranji career as a bowling all-rounder.
Mohinder Amarnath and Ravi Shastri also were first chosen to play for
India as bowlers and then became batsmen. I am sure their Ranji averages
when first chosen to play for India were also not that high. Same with WV
Raman.
Basically, in those days (70s/80s) it was not necessary that someone who
averaged less than 40-45 in RT would definitely fail in tests.
Especially among openers, which Gaekwad, Chauhan, Saldanha and V. Siva all
eventually became. I think even Srikkanth may have averaged < 40 in RT
when first chosen and even after. Note that all the above mentioned
(except Raman) averaged >= 30 in tests and were hence not really "meat and
drink" to test-class bowlers. Even Raman had his moments in tests. Some
guys who were first chosen as bowlers became batsmen later! Only in the
late 80s and 90s, Ranji Trophy became a batting-fest in which even test
#11s like Maninder and L. Siva could hit a century.
-Samarth.
>
> rk-
>
>
>
>
Shripathi Kamath
"samarth harish shah" <shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.030113...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu...
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, rkusenet wrote:
>
> >
> > "Spaceman Spiff" <spaceman_spiff@no_spam_mail.com> wrote
> >
> > > you are posting their complete first class stats (includes tests, tour
> > matches,
> > > county cricket, etc.),
> > > what are their stats for only ranji trophy?
> >
> > also once an indian player establishes himself in test, he hardly
> > cares about ranji matches. I am sure after 1975/76 there were many
> > ranji dadas who consistently outperformed SMG in ranji trophy.
> >
> > i agree with Raghu Jaitely that ranji record before they got
> > selected is a better indicator.
>
> Before they got selected to play for India, Chetan Chauhan averaged 35 in
> Ranjis and Yashpal Sharma averaged 38. I am sure Vengsarkar's Ranji
> average was not very high when he was first chosen to play for India. He
> was chosen based on 1 Irani knock, mostly. Anshuman Gaekwad had a Ranji
> batting average in the 20s when chosen to play for India. He had started
> his Ranji career as a bowling all-rounder.
>
Jobbed I tell you, J-O-B-B-E-D!
Gopal Bose and Michael Dalvi were both JOBBED! No sense in denying it. TES
made it, and Bose and Dalvi didn't. Mother of all injustices!
<snipped>
rkusenet
"samarth harish shah" <shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote
> Before they got selected to play for India, Chetan Chauhan averaged 35 in
> Ranjis and Yashpal Sharma averaged 38. I am sure Vengsarkar's Ranji
> average was not very high when he was first chosen to play for India.
I must say this is a valid point for which I have no answer.
rk-
Amol Cricketwallah
> "Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > I know this view makes me unpopular, but I personally dont think there
> > were *that* many TN players who got particularly raw deals in the old
> > days.
>
> actually TN'ers have an annoying habit of too much whining. That's how
> I got sucked into Dalvi thingy. They talk as if they have produced
> great cricketers, where as the fact is that even Punjab has given
> Sidhu and Harbhajan, which TN has not.
> TN remains at the bottom of the contribution list and at the top of
> whining list.
>
Well, I dont agree - I think TN had a crucial contribution to Indian
cricket. In the early days of Indian cricket it was purely a city
game, and that is how it first developed - and Madras was probably
2nd only to Bombay in terms of importance of cricket. Which meant that
everyone south of the deccan came to Madras to play. If that had not
happened, maybe cricket would never have taken off in India at all!
Certainly in South India - after all, how long could Bombay alone
do it, with people able to come travel to it and play mostly from
Western India only?
In that sense, a few cities were critical. Bombay was most, of course -
everything sort of started there, the Quadrangular's and then the
Pentangular's were the life-blood of Indian cricket without which
there would have been no interest created in the first place, and
without which IMHO cricket would have died in India at several different
moments. But even in the worst moments, when there were no foreign
tours etc, the Bombay Quadrangulars kept a very high level of interest
in cricket thru the country - people used to wait days for the newspaper
to hear news of what happened, and players would come from all over.
(There are still stories of grand celebrations in Punjab in the 1920s -
when news reached by newspaper 3 days later that the Europeans had
been beaten in the Bombay Quadrangular :-) Europeans vs Parsis vs Hindus
vs Muslims - *everyone* was interested in it, with a great passion. It
drew so much interest that players would play across the country at
times, and lots of games would be played thru the season, all
"practicing" for the grand contest of the season, the Quadrangulars.
So Bombay was the main city for that reason. But there were others.
Lahore and Karachi were important centres too - lots of players came
from there (Punjab had a decent team, and its core was Lahore and
Karachi. And there were players from every community of course - Lahore's
biggest hero pre-1947 was Lala Amarnath after all). Calcutta was a
very important centre out east. And Madras was the only really
important city down South - I'd rate Madras maybe 2nd or 3rd most
important centre overall (after Bombay, and maybe Lahore). They held
their own version of the Quadrangulars - the Madras Presidency matches -
and these were 2nd in importance only to the Quadrangulars as a tournament
(they even had players like Lala Amarnath travelling there to play
etc). All the other places - Delhi, Bangalore, Chandigarh etc were
really not even on the horizon, they played little quality cricket
there, and they produced no cricketers whatsoever in the early days.
Thus TN played a vital role in early Indian cricket - and that is a
contribution that is more important than anything else, in some ways.
But even after that it continued of course - in the early days of
Indian cricket, thru till the 1970s (a *very* long time), TN was
easily the major power down south. Why do you think the TNCA was so
powerful anyway? :-) Because of history - they always had the best
cricket, produced the best cricketers, were clearly #1 down south.
Hyderabad battled them a bit, but that was it - no other real
contenders. Karnataka really wasnt on the same level as TN or
Hyderabad IMHO, not in terms of cricketing importance (the team
played the Ranjis as "Mysore" anyway).
Thus TN also had a fair number of players contributed to the Indian
team in the old days - when there were very few tours and tests played
by India. Cota Ramaswami played in the first ever test that India
played after all, and C Rangachari was a fast bowler for India in the
early-ish days too (he was probably in India's 2nd line of pacemen then
however, with Nissar and Amar Singh being the first line. But he was
still a major name in those days).
Prior to Rangachari was MJ Gopalan - a quite towering figure. He
played only 1 test for India, but that is unimportant - he was a major
figure and an amazing sportsman (played both cricket and hockey for
India. In 1936 he was on both national teams! He was picked for the
Olympics - but refused to go, and instead went with the Indian cricket
team to England! In those days being on the Indian hockey team meant
you were one of the best 20 players in the world, really :-) He thus missed
the 1936 Olympics, where India won the gold easily and his team-mates
like Dhyan Chand became national heroes. And instead he went to England
with the cricket team, and couldnt even play - because Nissar, Amar
Singh and Jahangir Khan were the first 3 pacemen, and he was #4 in
line! Gopalan later mentored Rangachari, who also went on to bowl
fast for India.
These early contributions to Indian cricket continued with great
regularity. CD Gopinath played for India in the 1950s, as did Kripal
Singh and Milkha Singh (both sons of AG Ram Singh). And then in the 60s
VV Kumar and Venkat arrived - Venkat became TN's first Indian captain.
Followed by Bharat Reddy, then Srikkant in the 80s, Laxman Siva,
Raman, Ramesh etc. As you can see, the contribution of TN has been
steady and ever-present - they have always consistently thrown up players
into national contention and thence to the national side.
For all that, though, most TN fans would agree that their contribution
has been a little disappointing. They were the undisputed #1 team
down South to start with - but Hyderabad caught up soon after, and
also kept throwing up players with fair regularity. Starting early
with Aibara - in those days they were not a match with TN. But then
they produced Ghulam Ahmed - a vital figure in the 50s. And then
they really broke thru in the 60s and 70s - Pataudi, Jaisimha,
Abbas Ali Baig, Abid Ali, even Asif Iqbal (though he was a counter-
contributor to Indian cricket, I suppose :-) And then Hyderabad kept it
up in the 80s and 90s - Shivlal Yadav, Raju, Azhar (yet another
national captain), and finally VVS Laxman (and, a few years from now,
Rayudu :-) In terms of history TN's contribution is more and longer -
but Hyderabad has caught up in the past few decades and has produced
players of arguably greater national impact.
In terms of overall contribution, Karnataka's (Mysore's) is much
more uneven. In the early days they had almost no contribution
whatsoever - Bangalore was not a major cricketing centre, and Mysore
really produced no national contender players. TN and Hyderabad were
both streets ahead. Mysore had the odd good player - Benjamin Frank in
the early 50s, maybe. But there was nobody who was national contender
level. Kasturirangan was another, but it was mostly slim pickings. Thru
the 30s, the 40s, the 50s, TN and Hyderabad continously produced a few
players who became contenders at the national level and played for
India - but thru all these decades Mysore had almost no contribution
whatsoever. It was actually a quite weak team.
For Mysore it changed only in the very late 50s, really the 60s. And
since then it has been a flood, and a huge impact. First Budhi Kunderan
arrived. And then Prasanna, then Chandra. Then Vishy - followed by
Brijesh Patel and Sudhakar Rao. And the flood continued thru the
90s - Dravid, Srinath, Kumble, Prasad, Joshi etc. Thus Mysore's
contribution has been far shorter than Hyderabad's and much much
shorter than TN's - but it has been a much more concentrated effort.
In a relatively short period of time Mysore has produced players of
far greater national impact than anyone else.
> >that GRV ill-treated TN players after
> >his arrival too - for example, Srikkant was dropped from captaincy and
> >team immediately on GRV's entrance into the selection committee, and
> >Srikkant never played for India at all while GRV was a selector. When
> >GRV was removed from selector, Srikkant promptly make a comeback to
> >the national side in Australia in 1992, and for the World Cup. And when
> >GRV returned the next season as selector, Srikkant promptly vanished
> >from the side again, this time for good :-)
>
> There is something wrong here. Chikka was removed from the captaincy
> and the team for the NZ 1990 tour when Raj Singh Dungarpur was the
> selector. Remember his "team for the next millinium" crap which he
> used to justify taking some youngsters for the NZ tour.
>
>
> IIRC GRV became the selector only around 1991/92 and was there till
> Eng 1996 tour.
>
> Am I right?
Partly - Dungarpur was *Chairman of Selectors* when Srikkant was
removed from captaincy. But of course there are always 5 selectors
in any committee - and the South Zone representative when Srikkant
was removed was GR Vishwanath. Of course the selectors work as a
team, or supposedly do anyway - but the fact is that everyone has
only 1 vote, and in general a player makes it (or doesnt make it)
because of the selector from his own zone. (Thus when Madan Lal was
national selector Harbhajan was left out of a test team in favour
of Nikhil Chopra, for instance :-) I have heard it suggested at least
a few times that GRV did not "fight hard enough" as SZ representative
for Srikkant to be retained as captain after India drew the test series
in Pakistan - that if the representative had been from TN, he would
have fought harder and Srikkant would not have lost his spot. Of course
there is no way of really knowing that for sure, one way or the other.
I know I personally felt shocked when Srikkant was removed from captaincy,
after managing to draw a series in Pakistan with a much-reduced team
(even if he had been awful with the bat himself).
However, Vishy first became selector that year - and immediately after
he became selector, Srikkant was dropped from captaincy and left out
of the team at the same time. (89/90). Dungarpur was Chairman (and
Central Zone representative).
The next year Vishy stayed selector, and Srikkant stayed out of the
side. Dungarpur was no longer selector, his term was over - he was
replaced by Shukla, and Tamhane was COS (90/91). (I remember this
a bit- there was this huge and hard-hitting Srikkant innings
in the Buchi Babu, and there was talk in TN circles that Srikkant
should be picked again. However they asked Vishy about this and his
comment reported by some of the papers was something to the effect of
"it is only Buchi Babu, first-class games are what matter" or something
like that. I know some of us werent happy with this, because we all
felt very sorry for Srikkant for being wrongly kicked out in our minds
to start with :-).
The next year was a big move down south, due to some outrage in
quite powerful TN circles. Vishy was removed from the selection
committee, and replaced by Venkat. Vishy was actually very bitter
about this. He actually commented in the Wisden Cricket Monthly
after being removed that regionalism was a big problem in selections
and in Indian cricket in general - and said that, in his opinion,
the national selection committee should be a 3-man team, with no
regional affiliations whatsoever. He suggested the names of Gavaskar,
Wadekar and Pataudi to fill the 3 spots saying "so what if 2 of them
are from Bombay?" :-) (This can be found in WCM magazines in about
early 1992 IIRC - about when India was touring Australia. IIRC R Mohan
might have been reporting for WCM from India in those days).
When Vishy was removed, he was replaced by Venkat - 91/92. The first
team picked after that was ODIs at home against RSA, and Srikkant
was back (to most of us being completely delighted) and did well enough.
He was then picked for the test tour of Australia, followed by the World
Cup team, where he did quite horribly both times IMHO.
After the season ended, Venkat was removed as SZ representative in a
counter-coup, and Vishy installed again! Venkat was very bitter this
time, and said that he would never be selector again - he said he would
become a full-time umpire instead (and he proceeded to do that, becoming
for a few years one of the best umpires in the world, before deteriorating
about 2/3 years ago IMHO). What added to Venkat's bitterness was that
the Chairmanship was rotating to the South Zone - so he would have been
Chairman of Selectors, if he hadnt been deposed at the last minute.
In 1992/93 Vishy returned to the selection committee, as Chairman of
Selectors (and SZ rep, of course). Srikkant was left out of the team
to tour RSA of course, and retired soon after. Vishy stayed COS from
1992/93 thru 1995/96.
That is the chronology of events. Note, BTW, that I dont actually buy
the "Vishy hated TN players and so left out Srikkant" bit - never really
did. Only mention it because I *have* heard that theory - and later it
was pointed out that Srikkant had never ever played for India when
Vishy was a selector, which proved to be accurate when I went back
and checked. I know that in 1989-90 I myself totally blamed Raj Singh
Dungarpur for Srikkant's dropping and Azhar's elevation - mostly due
to a player-power thing, as much as bad form with the bat. Vishy only
acquiesed as SZ selector, when maybe he shouldnt have (at least in my
mind in those days).
And when Srikkant came back to the side (with Venkat selector), I personally
totally agreed with it and was delighted - I thought he had been wronged
to start with, and was thrilled he was back. However I was wrong obviously,
because I thought he looked godawful in Australia, looked like he was
past it to me (even though he did play a couple of nice ODI innings).
And when Vishy was back as COS before the RSA tour and he dropped
Srikkant, I thought it was quite justified - we had found Jadeja in the
World Cup who looked a pretty decent opening prospect (more at that time
than later, IMHO), plus Shastri was around. And then we went with Raman
as the other opener due to Duleep and Ranji scores, and I didnt disagree
that Raman was ahead of Srikkant now (though I personally still wanted
Sidhu back and was annoyed that they kept ignoring him, IIRC :-)
Sadiq [ enough rambling. sheesh ] Yusuf
>
> rk-
samarth harish shah
Excellent post. You missed the name of SMH Kirmani from the list of
Karnataka greats, however. :-( How could you forget Kiri? :-) Also, this
accusation of GR Viswanath "jobbing" ((c) Shripathi Kamath 2002) Srikkanth
makes me wonder because Srikkanth always rated GRV amongst his all-time
favorite cricketers and mentors in the Indian team. (The commonality
between the two supposedly being neither's ability to speak even passable
Hindi.)
-Samarth.
Amol Cricketwallah
>
> > Raising himself from all fours,
>
> > i disagree. if you can't average more than 40-45 in ranji trophy- which is
> > probably the poorest standard of fc cricket outside of zimbabwe and bangladesh,
> > you will be meat and drink to test class bowlers.
> >
>
>
> Each to himself, Spaceman. But since you indicate that a batsman with
> Ranji average of 40-45 will be meat and drink to test class bowlers,
> here are the stats for some "not necessarily meat and drink to test
Dont disagree with it - you can take averages so far only, and then you
must look for more too. And also career averages dont always tell you
everything, you may have gotten into contention based on a couple of
really huge years after all (this is how it usually happens anyway).
And then there is discrepancy during the years - you can only compared
between contemporaries. I mean, in the 70s scores in the Ranjis were
much lower compared to the 90s - there is a big difference in averages
of bowlers and batsmen as a result.
Anyway, all that is for later - will respond to your post elsewhere,
Ambarish :-) As for now...
> class bowlers" batsmen. I am going solely by the 1st class average of
> 40-45 or so -
>
> G.R. Viswanath -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
> 308 486 47 17970 247 40.93 44 89
>
Ranjis are 5653 runs at 45.95 for Vishy. Note BTW that he played in the
60s and 70s to start with - and scores in Ranjis were *much* lower
in those days in general. For example, Michael Dalvi played Ranjis
at a similar time to Vishy - Dalvi too started in 68 or 69 IIRC, and
went on to the late 70s. And Dalvi, as you see, averaged 35 for his
career - a full 10-runs less than Vishy's career average! (And Vishy's
career Ranji average is not very good anyway, there are quite a few
better. One reason for this might be that Vishy was dropped from test
cricket in 1982 itself, but played Ranji cricket till 1988! His Ranji
career thus lasted over 20 years, from about 66 to 88 or so. His last
few years were quite lean in terms of runs, IIRC).
> Mohinder Amarnath -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
> 248 379 61 13747 207 43.22 30 67
>
4016 at 43.65 for Mohinder in Ranjis. But his was surely the strangest
career ever :-) He started in the 60s as well - and he started as a
pure bowler for Punjab. And I mean a pure bowler - he used to bat #9
for Punjab, and was a pure seamer! And he was a pretty damn good pure
seamer too in those days (1969-70 Ranji season, Mohinder had 7/27
and 5/7 in the same match against J&K - match figures of 12/34 :-)
And later in the same season he had 47-29-40-6 against Railways! No,
that is not a typo - 47 overs, 6/40 :-) Mohinder even opened the
bowling for North Zone in the Duleep Trophy - sharing the new ball
with rival Madan Lal (who often made the national team ahead of Mohinder
as bowling allrounder in the early 70s). Mohinder became a pure batsman
much later in his career. And when he did he was a pretty damn good
domestic batsman too - as Karnataka and Bombay bowlers will attest,
having been ground into dust by him in semis and finals of the
Ranjis in the early 80s :-)
> Vinoo Mankad -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100
> 233 361 27 11591 231 34.70 26
>
3135 at 37.32 in the Ranjis. Vinoo Mankad, of course, started his career
when the Ranjis werent even that important :-) In those days (even though
the Ranjis were being played), nobody really paid much attention to
them, not even to select the national side. The main tournament was
the Quadrangular (later the Pentangular) in Bombay - the standard was
*much* higher. The 5 communities played each other, and *everyone* who
was any good played - the standard was higher than any other tournament
has achieved in India since, IMHO, in relation to its time-period. Wilfred
Rhodes and Hirst played for the Europeans a could of times, CK Nayudu,
Merchant, Mankad etc all played for the Hindus, Nissar etc for the
Muslims (the early Pakistan test teams were drawn heavily from players
who had played for the Muslims in the Pentangular - captain Wazir Ali,
Amir Elahi etc too). When Mankad made his debut, this is what was
the important tournament - it was by performing in this tournament
that Mankad first made the Indian test team at a young age.
Mankad also played for Bombay, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Bengal in the
Ranjis - in only 87 matches (out of 233 in all :-) He was a true
internationalist, and a professional - he played 365 days a year,
playing a full Lancashire League season as a professional (and coaching
on the other days), playing as a pro in the Ranjis etc. He also took
180 wickets at 21 in the Ranjis.
> Chetan Chauhan -
>
> M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50
> 179 299 22 11143 207 40.22 21 59
>
5490 runs at 47.32 for his Ranji career.
Played mostly in the 60s and 70s. And he made it because of really
*big* seasons to start with - his average might be really up there
when he first made the side. For, as I pointed out elsewhere, in
1971 he scored 540 runs at 71.14, in 1972 he scored 873 runs at 124.71,
in 1976 he scored 640 runs at 80.50 etc.
Sadiq [ checking the numbers ] Yusuf
Amol Cricketwallah
> > Still, if you *do* want to compare them on performances... again, as
> > I said, there is really no comparison :-) For when we look at their
> > respective fc records we get:
> >
> > TE Srinivasan 75 matches, 3487 runs, avg 34.18, high 149
> > Michael Dalvi 95 innings, 3089 runs, avg 35.51, high 151
> > KP Bhaskar 95 matches, 5443 runs, avg 52.84, high 222*
>
> These are some of the players players that, imho, got a bad deal from
> the national selectors.
Below you say this (have extracted above here, to amplify a response).
I happen to disagree with it :-)
IMHO all these were solid players - good solid domestic performers. But
one can be a honest Ranji performer without neccesarily being treated
harshly in not getting an international selection. It depends on
what is needed, who the other contenders are, how one is doing in
relation to other contenders. And, of course, it depends on whether
one has a big season or two to stand out, and whether one performs
in the next level (Duleeps, Iranis etc) where the competition might
conceivably be higher. I think this is even more true of the older
days than today - nowadays I sometimes think of Duleeps as being
a relatively ordinary tournament without much team-orientation to it
and played on some crappy tracks (since we often play them in remote
areas rather than at test centres). But especially in the old days
these tournaments were often not devalued - the test players played,
they played at test centres in front of big crowds, and they could
sometimes be a pretty good test. Also things were better organized
in general - one moved from Ranji to Duleep to tests etc (rather than
the much more haphazard route we sometimes have nowadays). Anyway.
>
> Some good points raised, Sadiq. Here's another guy whose first class
> career started in the early 80s and extended into the early 90s.
>
> Carlton Saldanha -
>
> 66 matches
> 104 innings
> 15 Not Outs
> 4066 runs
> 144 highest score
> 45.68 Average
> 7 100s
> 26 Half-centuries
>
> Pretty good numbers, don't you think ?
>
Pretty good numbers, yes. The Ranji numbers are actually slightly
higher than this too - 86 inns, 3471 runs, avg 47.54. This is from
1993, when Carlton Saldhana had retired only about a year or so
previously IIRC.
But again, he was contending with some other good openers too - and
IMHO he did not deserve to be picked ahead of some of them. Not on
the basis of his domestic performances.
Take, for example, Lalchand Rajput. Looking at only Ranjis in 1993,
Rajput had 103 inns, 4649 runs, avg 51.65.
And remember, the above is only Ranjis - which is only one level. At
the next level, the Duleeps, Saldhana had only 1 Duleep century in
his career, 102 against West Zone in 86/87. Rajput, OTOH, had *five*
Duleep centuries! Rajput had 221 against North Zone in 85/86, the
previous year (which would obviously make him a stronger candidate
to start with). In 86/87, in the match where Saldhana scored 102,
Rajput in that same match had 109 and 105 for the opposition! And
the next year (87/88) Rajput put up a monumental 275 against Central.
Overall Rajput averaged 74 in the Duleep Trophy over his career
with almost 1500 Duleep Trophy runs - and he got only 2 test matches
for it, both when he was 23 years old (with 1 fifty, both tests played
before those huge seasons in the Duleeps listed above). Remember,
this is in 1993 - that is, a similar-time-frame comparison with
Carlton Saldhana (though Rajput has 1000 more runs). I dont know what
Rajput's Ranji record is *today* - it has probably deteriorated a
little bit, because Rajput was still playing Ranji Trophy cricket
at age 40, captaining and managing a young Vidarbha team only 1 year
ago!
Then there was Raman Lamba, for instance - yet another opener who was
a contemporary of Carlton Saldhana, who also had a superior record.
Lamba had 86 innings (exactly the same as Carlton), 4205 runs (800
more runs), avg 53.51. And Lamba also had 5 centuries in the Duleep
Trophy (though he did not score 1000 runs in the Duleep Trophy and
so I dont have his average). Lamba got only 4 tests in his career -
he showed a few technical weaknesses IMHO (which is why I personally
think Rajput could have gotten more, Lamba looked more an ODI-type
player to me and a pretty decent one). But, regardless, Lamba had
some outstanding domestic performances and earned his chances.
And then there was Arun Lal - 53 average in the Ranjis, 66 in the
Duleeps. He too was a contender for an opener spot at this time. He
was older than Lamba/Rajput etc by a good 5 years so maybe he shouldnt
have stayed a contender as late as he did (ie when they were 26 or
so, he was already in his early 30s). One could have made an age
argument against him - but he was still scoring bundles of runs, far
more than Saldhana ever did in his career.
Look at it this way - Saldhana played in the 80s, and by the early
90s he had 3471 runs at 47.4. At this same time, Chandrakant Pandit
had 3198 runs at 54.20 - and he was a wicketkeeper, and he *still*
wasnt getting many tests at this time! Abdul Azeem, an opener playing
in the very same zone as Carlton Saldhana, by the time Saldhana
retired had scored 3576 runs at 49.80 himself (both numbers superior
to Saldhana's). The much-maligned Ghulam Parkar, who opened mostly
in the 1980s himself, averaged 49.79 for his career - and he was
easily the best fielder in the country to boot. Yusuf Ali Khan,
another opener (in the weaker-bowling Central Zone, maybe),
averaged 54.74 in 64 innings by this time.
And the above, of course, are openers being listed. If youre talking
just batsmen you could toss in Amarjeet Kaypee (61.51), Milind
Gunjal (54.54), KP Bhaskar (61.35) etc.
Or you could even list Surendra Bhave, yet another opener. By 1993,
Bhave was averaging 81.03 for his career! And he held up in individual
year comparisons with Saldhana too - Saldhana had only 2 seasons in
which he crossed 500 runs over his career, for example. For Carlton
Saldhana those 2 years were 1986 (718 runs at 71.18) and 1990 (671
runs at 74.55). Bhave also had 2 years by this time - 1988 (730
runs at 91.25) and 1991 (651 runs at 93.00). As you can see, his
2 "best seasons" were actually better than Carlton's - and they came
at about the same time period.
Also, BTW, one cannot really use the "strong South Zone attacks"
argument for Saldhana either IMHO. For 1986 in a perfect example -
while Saldhana scored 718 runs at 71.8 against South Zone attacks
that season, Arshad Ayub (yes, the off-spinner) scored 621 runs
at 77.62 in the same year (1986) against those very same attacks :-)
> And since we are talking about Abdul "Dependable" Jabbar, whose career
> extended from the early 70s to the mid-80s, here are his numbers
> (remember he was an all-rounder) -
>
> Matches - 87
> Innings - 125
> Not Outs - 20
> Runs - 4270
> Highest Score - 201*
> Average - 40.66
> 100s - 4
> 50s - 27
>
> Balls - 3274
> Runs - 1139
> Wickets - 40
> Average - 28.47
> Best - 4-63
> 5fers - 0
> 10fers - 0
> Strike Rate - 81.8
> Economy Rate - 2.08
>
I know about Abdul Jabbar - yet another very good and consistent
Ranji performer. But once again, the above are not *great* numbers
IMHO. I mean, calling him an allrounder is stretching it slightly,
surely, given that he took an average of less than 1 wicket every
2 matches? And again, the numbers are not *great* - Roger Binny
was a far superior bowler, obviously, and Binny averaged 43 with the
bat for his career in the same zone playing at a similar time. Why
would Jabbar have made it ahead of Binny, say? (Not to mention that
allrounders were actually not really needed at this time, with India
having Kapil, Ghavri, Madan Lal etc in the 70s/80s - and then
Kapil, Madan, Chetan Sharma, Prabhakar, Shastri etc in the later
80s). Iam not sure Jabbar would make it ahead of most of those on
batting alone - and surely not even close on the bowling. No?
> Also, great numbers for V. Sivaramakrishnan, whose first class-career
> extended from around 73/64 to 89/90, when he played for Bihar and Tamil
> Nadu in the Ranjis -
>
> Matches - 100
> Innings - 161
> Not Outs - 11
> Runs - 6032
> Highest score - 177
> Average - 40.21
> 100s - 11
> 50s - 34
>
Again, a good solid Ranji record. But again, a Ranji average of 40
is *not* "great" IMHO. It was better in the 70s than in the 80s, but
even then there were quite a few batsmen who were doing quite well.
As you can see from the averages of people like Milind Gunjal, or
Ashok Mankad etc. V Siva had great longevity - thus it is hard to
come up off-hand with contemporaries as such. But there are literally
dozens of 1980s Ranji bats who averaged well over 40 without ever
getting a sniff of contention IMHO. For example Khalid Abdul Qayyum
of Hyderabad averaged 44 - he played at a similar time too, really.
(Another example, Shishir Hattangadi of Bombay played a lot in the 80s
and scored 3500+ runs at 43 - and I dont think Ive ever heard *anybody*
describe him as a national contender. He hardly ever played Duleeps,
in fact). V Sivaramakrishnan also had only 1 Duleep ton in his career -
in 80/81 against Central Zone.
> These are some of the players players that, imho, got a bad deal from
> the national selectors.
>
Again, I disagree - but that is purely a personal opinion.
Sadiq [ 40 in the Ranjis really wasnt *that* much ] Yusuf
> Ambrish Sundaram
Amol Cricketwallah
Note, BTW, that Spaceman said "Ranji" above, while Ambrish seems to be
talking more of First-Class records overall. Depends what you mean
with respect to Saurav Ganguly - he had a major discrepancy in his
stats overall.
For example, Iam looking at the Indian Cricket of 1996, when Saurav
was just picked for the Indian team in England. His stats are as follows:
Ranji Trophy : 1927 runs in 27 matches at 70.34; plus 28 wickets
Duleep Trophy: 849 runs in 14 matches at 38.6
Irani Trophy : 144 runs in 5 matches at 27.3
Overall 3074 runs at 48.74
Firstly, his stats were probably a little skewed in that he made his
debut at a *very* young age - so his stats in the early days were not
all that good.
As you can see, he had done very well in the Ranjis - maybe partly due
to a weak East Zone, but still. In the Duleeps he had averaged almost
39 - not great, obviously. But then he was playing Duleeps since age
18 almost. In 1995/96 he made 171 against West Zone in the Duleeps -
that was immediately prior to his being picked for England (ie maybe
a case to be made for "improving"? :-)
As for Iranis - he did very poorly. He had a 4-fer in his first Irani
Trophy in 1990/91, which is what led to his being picked for the
Australian tour (as an allrounder type). In the early 90s Bombay won
a couple of Irani Trophy's however, and won them by preparing pretty
green tracks. I especially seem to recall one Irani match that was
over in less than 2.5 days, with all the batsmen failing badly. Ganguly
struggled in that match too (against Ankola and Kuruvilla mostly IIRC),
but he did get something like 40 in one innings - which in the context
of the match was actually a pretty decent score!
> So, Saldanha et al's averages may look puny as compared with, say, Ajay
> Sharma's, but was pretty good by 70s-80s standards, I suspect.
>
Somewhat true - definitely more "big averages" in the 1990s. But even
so, as I have posted elsewhere, there were others who did better
than Saldhana in the 80s as well. 47 for the Ranjis was a solid
enough average for Saldhana, it makes him a good player IMHO. But
I dont think it forms a valid case for "badly discriminated against",
when you look at a fair number of other batsmen who also did well
or better in the Ranjis in the 80s (and much better in the Duleeps).
> BTW, Deodhar Trophy is not really FC cricket. It's an ODI tournament. :-)
>
Make that OD tournament - hardly any I's playing nowadays ;-)
Sadiq [ who is slightly bored with the Deodhars this year ] Yusuf
> -Samarth.
>
> >
> > Ambrish Sundaram
> >
> >
Vinay Deolalikar
If I recall correctly, Saldanha's scores against touring teams also let him
down. Much was expected from Saldanha - he had a physical resemblance (in
terms of stature and technique) to Sunny that was often commented upon, and
that was indeed high praise, but somehow he never quite made the big scores
that would have got him the selector's nod.
Amol Cricketwallah
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, rkusenet wrote:
>
Hum. Lots of disagreements (mostly mild, some not-so-mild :-) Lots of
nits to pick. Hopefully not *too* long a post :-)
> >
> > i agree with Raghu Jaitely that ranji record before they got
> > selected is a better indicator.
>
First of all, you cant just select on stats. If you did, we could
select a team sitting in the USA :-) You have to look at things too.
But, more than that, even stats have context and should. I mean, if
a guy comes in at age 17 and doesnt score his first 2 years, but
scores his next 2 years - should you not pick him at 21 because his
entire record is still poor? Or shouldnt you see that he was very
young then, and his last 2 years are what ought to be looked at more
than anything else? Secondly, you also get to watch players at the
Duleep and Irani levels and see how they do - and pick on that basis,
very often.
Thirdly, in those days University Cricket was big too, not just
Ranjis - lots of players were first identified in the Rohinton
Baria tournament. This is not the case anymore. But Gavaskar was
first identified there, as was Vijay Manjrekar IIRC. So were a host
of others.
Fourthly, it depends on the team's situation. Are there lots of
established bats doing well? Or is everyone doing horribly - in
which case selectors often invest in talented youth, no matter
what, in the hope for a better future. (This played a part in
Tendulkar's arrival, even though SRT did very well in domestics his
first year - the other backup batsmen were WV Raman and Raman Lamba,
and pretty much everyone knew these werent likely to be world stars
anytime soon. You could tell that much looking at either bat even
for a short time. So investing in youth was easier to do).
Anyway.
> Before they got selected to play for India, Chetan Chauhan averaged 35 in
> Ranjis and Yashpal Sharma averaged 38.
I object to the above statement, if only in the sense that it seems to
imply Chauhan was well-treated :-) Chauhan was more sinned-against
than sinning by the selectors, all his life.
First, context. It was 1969, and India had *no* openers. None. It
was a desperate situation. Sardesai was used at opener (converted),
and didnt do much - and then got injured and wasnt around (hurt hand
once, then thigh muscle). Jaisimha was tried at opener too. So
was Ramesh Saxena. So was keeper Kunderan. Then keeper Engineer. Finally
we were opening in test matches with Engineer and Abid Ali.
Chauhan was young, only 22. He had come into prominence with great
performances in the Vizzy Trophy first. Then Ranjis in 67/68, still
a kid and very defensive, got a 50 against Bombay (with 4 test bowlers)
for Maharasthra. Then 85 & 46 against Saurashtra. Next year, 68/69,
he played Bombay on a rain-affected track (note, BTW, that at this
time Bombay were about 13-consecutive-times defending Ranji champs).
On the rain-affected track, Maharasthra were 52/6 but Chauhan opened
the batting and batted thru to getting 101, a terrific knock. Next
match against Baroda he got 98 run out.
So he was brought into Duleep Trophy cricket. He got 103 against
South Zone (bowling attack Prasanna, Venkat, VV Kumar etc). He
was still only about 21.
Now, at this stage when the 69/70 season started and India had *no*
openers of any kind, Chauhan was already close to selection given
his good performances the previous year (a Ranji ton against champions,
plus 98, plus a ton against South Zone). He didnt do much in the Iranis
on a difficult track - but nobody did, ROI was 96 allout! Competition
Sudhir Naik and Abid Ali failed too. Then in the next match, the
Duleep Trophy, Chauhan had 10 and 73* - and during the 73* he put on
170 with the Indian captain Wadekar.
It was given all this context that Chauhan was picked for test cricket
in 69/70 - at age 22. He made 18 in 53 minutes - then made 34 in 200
minutes in the 2nd innings (note that this is the Bangar-type of role,
to blunt the new ball. He did that job, at least). So he was retained
for the 2nd test - he got 14 and 19, and took 5 catches. But he was
dropped after this test anyway.
He came back in the 5th test (after some more openers had failed). He
made 19 and 1, and was dropped totally and completely.
Now, IMHO, given the context Chauhan's picking was not so surprising,
or bad. But once he was dropped, he was *very* badly ill-treated IMHO.
He was not picked for anything - no Duleeps, no Iranis, no tour matches,
nothing. While he was continuously doing well in the Ranjis, for 5
whole years. Meanwhile Jayantilal went to WI, Gopal Bose to SL etc.
In 1971/72 Chauhan made 540 at 71 in the Ranjis - and got nothing for it.
He actually made the most total runs in the Ranjis that year,in *any*
zone. The next year he made 873 runs at 124! So he got 2 tests against
England in 73 and failed. But he was not given any touring matches
against the touring WI at all as a result.
Finally in 1975 he moved to Delhi. He still didnt get picked for the
Irani Trophy - Venkat Sundaram (his Delhi teammate) was picked instead!
Chauhan got to play Sri Lanka in a tour match, for North Zone - he
scored 107 and 67. Still no dice, still Sundaram picked over him.
So he went back to Ranjis. And made 121 against Haryana (Kapil, Rajinder
Goel, Sarkar Talwar). Then 106* against East Zone in Duleeps, followed
by 116* against West Zone in Duleeps. And still he couldnt make it
back.
Next year NZ and England were touring India. Chauhan made 150 in the
Duleeps against Central Zone - but failed in 2 fc games against England,
and so couldnt make it back. So back he went to Ranjis - 158 against
Haryana, 200 against Punjab, 147 against Karnataka. Overall 640
runs at 80.50 for the season. And *still* he couldnt make it back!!
Next year, in the Duleeps, he made 128 to start the year against West
Zone, and also took 3/67 with the ball! And finally, after all those
consistent scores season after season, he was picked again - to
tour Australia with the Indian team in 77/78. There he finally
established himself, and was a solid rock for the Indian team at
opener for the next few years - before he was once again most
unfairly dropped.
Overall, if you look at Chauhan's career above, I dont think he got
any favours from the selectors at all. Maybe in 1969 when he was a kid
and had a terrific season at 21 and we were desparate for openers - maybe
then. But on that basis he was also seeming labelled a "Ranji king", and
really given hardly any chances at all, despite repeatedly scoring very
heavily in the domestics at every level (Ranji and Duleep both). He
eventually forced his way in by weight of scores, with some quite
terrific domestic seasons.
> I am sure Vengsarkar's Ranji
> average was not very high when he was first chosen to play for India. He
> was chosen based on 1 Irani knock, mostly.
Not true, BTW - in terms of Ranji average that is :-) He just hadnt
played much, but he hadnt done badly.
Again, context. Awful batting side for India, no real talented players
at all bar SMG and GRV. Repeated batting failures by the rest, time
and again at test level. And suddenly this young 19 year old appears
in the Irani Trophy, and takes apart Bedi and Prasanna with 7 sixes
(so saith Uday) and a quite brilliant century.
Then he goes to the Ranjis, and scores 77, 0 and 125 in the 3 games
he gets to play - thus his Ranji average is actually 67, in a very
small sample size. But the key is, he has now played Iranis and
done great, then continued doing quite well in 3 Ranji games too, at
a time the selectors are desperate. So he was promptly taken into
the test 14 for the tours of NZ and WI.
OK, this is getting too involved. So Iam going to break this post
into 2 parts - and handle the other names you mentioned later :-)
Sadiq [ more fun than the NZ ODIs, anyway ] Yusuf
>
> -Samarth.
>
> >
> > rk-
> >
> >
> >
> >
Amol Cricketwallah
Hmm. Part II - the Yashpal Story. Continuing from elsewhere (where
Chauhan has been talked about, and Vengsarkar's pre-selection Ranji
average of 67 mentioned ;-)
Once again, average probably doesnt tell his whole story. He played
for Punjab in his early days, and he made his first-class debut
at 18 IIRC. Very few players really shine at that early age, and it
cant really be held against them. Those that do are invariably really
quality batsmen and often get an early push (note Vengsarkar, who
was picked on the basis of great Irani Trophy at age 19).
For Yashpal he made an early debut, and didnt do all that much. Didnt
really get into contention for a while, not until 1977 - a full 5
years after his debut, when he was 23 years old. This was in 1977/78,
when he made his Duleep Trophy debut - and scored 173 on his Duleep
debut, against a South Zone attack consisting of Chandra, Prasanna
and Venkat.
Despite this 173 he was *not* taken to Australia in 77/78 - because he
was 23, and this was his first real spark after 5 years of domestic
cricket. This is as it should be, of course.
Then Yashpal hit 2 centuries in the same match against Uttar Pradesh
the same year - 157 out of 287 allout, and 142 out of 275 allout.
These were standout innings obviously - lone defiant hands etc.
They won him a place in the Irani Trophy team for 1978/79.
In the Irani Trophy, ROI were 115/3 - and then Vengsarkar and Yashpal
put on a 222-run stand, a new record. Vengsarkar made 151, Yashpal
was finally runout for 99. Thus Yashpal made the Indian squad to
tour Pakistan - he was the last backup batsman picked for the tour,
and he did not play any test matches obviously.
Now, as can be seen above, Yashpal didnt make it just as a random
pick or anything. His record was skewed in his early years by age,
and then he got much better. He had a brilliant Duleep ton against
very good bowlers, then a good Ranji season, then 99 in the Irani
Trophy game. It was all that which enabled him to make a touring
squad.
And again, it still didnt win him a test match. He didnt play a single
test in Pakistan, and didnt play a single test at home against WI
in 1978/79 either. But during this tour he got to play for North
Zone against the touring West Indies - and in that tour match he
promptly made 135* against them! This kept him in the race, and
enabled him to be on the squad to tour England in 1979.
Getting to England in 1979, Yashpal didnt play a single game in the
World Cup. But when the proper England tour started, he got to play
the County Matches. He made 49 & 38 against Northants, 59* and 59*
against MCC, and 45 against Leics in the 3 matches. But he still
couldnt displace either Gaekwad or Mohinder for a test place.
Meanwhile Mohinder failed in the test - he had been failing for a
while, had developed a serious defect against the short ball and had
been hit on the head and carried out of the ground 3 times in 6 months.
After the first test, there were more County Games - and Yashpal
made 110* against Minor Counties (out of 305), 64* & 33 against
Gloucs, and 111 against Somerset.
This was what finally won him a spot in a test match for India.
Eventually, at the end of the England tour, Yashpal had 884 runs
at 58.93 for the tour - he topped the entire Indian averages for
the tour (ahead of Gavaskar's 55.89 - Gavaskar was first in total
runs ahead of Yashpal, and he got there only in the final innings
of the tour, the 221 at the Oval).
Again, as you can see above, Yashpal clearly wasnt a random pick or
retention - his average notwithstanding. Once again, he was picked
(and retained) due to solid performances at different levels. One
only has to note how Gopal Bose did in the County Matches on the
1974 tour of England, for instance - he lost himself his spot based
on those fc games. Yashpal, OTOH, started the tour well down the
pecking order, but he performed so well in those county games that
he actually topped the total averages for the tour! He actually
cemented his spot as a national-contender on that tour.
Sadiq [ who thinks the selection makes fair sense, overall ] Yusuf
> rk-
Amol Cricketwallah
>
> was chosen based on 1 Irani knock, mostly. Anshuman Gaekwad had a Ranji
> batting average in the 20s when chosen to play for India. He had started
> his Ranji career as a bowling all-rounder.
>
OK, Part III, the Anshuman Gaekwad story :-)
Great pedigree, son of a former captain, coached by a former test
cricketer etc. Thus inducted into the Baroda Ranji team at age 17!!
Did nothing in those days, obviously - this was in 1969.
In his early years, he batted at #9 and bowled slow off-spin - coming
on 3rd or 4th change, usually. Completely irrelevant to what he
eventually became.
In 1970 he finally made his first fifty. In 1971 he got his first
5-fer. Still doing nothing much - described at lazy in the field,
and content with "small achievements" :-)
Finally his batting underwent a total change in 1973/74 - he was
still pretty young, in university. In the Inter-University tournament
(which was followed and watched seriously by selectors in those days),
he suddenly scored 215* followed by 70 and 75.
In the Ranjis that same year, he made his first Ranji ton - 155 against
Maharasthra. Overall in 73/74 he scored 324 Ranji runs at 53.33
and took 9 wickets at 27.88.
Thus he was called up to play for Rest of India against India - a
selection match for the tour of Sri Lanka (non-test tour, sort of
like an A tour). He made 38 with captain Pataudi and put on 129,
against Ghavri, Shivalkar, Salgaonkar etc. And the selectors were
apparently watching and noted it, even if it was a small innings.
Next year, 1974/75, Gaekwad was appointed captain of Baroda at age
22. He played a captain's knock at Bulsar on a terrible pitch -
75*, where he actually carried his bat thru the innings! But then
he didnt do much in the Duleep Trophy and wasnt really a contender
for the national side yet, even if he *was* someone to watch among
the younger kids.
He then played for West Zone against the touring Windies team - and
made 22* in his only innings, not of much consequence.
Then he played WI again, for Combined Universities - and he came in
at 65/4 and made a terrific 105 with 13 fours and 2 sixes.
Then WI went and beat India in the first test at Bangalore, with
the batting failing quite badly as usual.
Gaekwad returned to Ranji cricket meanwhile, and got 93 and 85
in consecutive matches.
Then WI played India again at Delhi in the 2nd test - and won
again, now leading the 5-test series 2-0.
By now the selectors were desperate - they made 5 changes to the
final 11 for the third test :-) And Gaekwad was one of them.
Clearly this selection was a gamble - Gaekwad didnt have a long and
distingushed Ranji record or anything. But India was failing badly
and were already 2-0 down in 2 tests. Gaekwad was a promising and
talented youngster, who had averaged 53 the previous year, and
was in good form this year (with 75*, 93 and 85 in 3 Ranji games).
And Gaekwad had scored a century against these same touring
Windies already! So the selectors gambled and picked him, as one of
5 changes to the final 11.
And the gamble worked, actually. In the 3rd test he came in
with India 32/3 plus captain Pataudi retired hurt - and he made 36,
putting on 62 with Vishwanath. India won the test.
Next test is the famous Madras one, the supposed "lightning pitch"
where Vishy played "the greatest Indian innings of all-time" with
97* on first innings :-) In that 2nd innings, with the scores of the
first innings almost exactly even, Gaekwad top-scored with 80 before
being run out. And India won the test again.
In the final test India lost - but Gaekwad made 51 and 42.
Thus his picking may have been a gamble - though it could conceivably be
argued that a talented youngster had been picked on form of the previous
2 seasons and on the strength of a ton against the same touring team.
But there is little doubt that the gamble paid off quite well in this
one instance, at least in the short-term.
Sadiq [ Phew ] Yusuf
>
> -Samarth.
>
> >
> > rk-
Shripathi Kamath
"Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a374a779.03011...@posting.google.com...
news:<Pine.GSO.4.31.030113...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, rkusenet wrote:
> >
>
> Hum. Lots of disagreements (mostly mild, some not-so-mild :-) Lots of
> nits to pick. Hopefully not *too* long a post :-)
>
>
> > >
> > > i agree with Raghu Jaitely that ranji record before they got
> > > selected is a better indicator.
> >
>
> First of all, you cant just select on stats. If you did, we could
> select a team sitting in the USA :-) You have to look at things too.
>
Agree with a 100%. The 'things' one has to look at, specifically what you
mention, however are not consistently applied for every one. That of all
things is what I find hard to digest.
> But, more than that, even stats have context and should. I mean, if
> a guy comes in at age 17 and doesnt score his first 2 years, but
> scores his next 2 years - should you not pick him at 21 because his
> entire record is still poor?
True enough. However it should be true enough if the ages were 21 and 25 or
23 and 27. Of course, I won't be surprised at you mentioning 'not so' and
then proceed on a long dissertation on the differences at 17 and 23, or how
selectors consider 28 to be old.
They are not under discussion. The common thread is one of recent form, in
both cases recent form overrides prior failures.
> Or shouldnt you see that he was very
> young then, and his last 2 years are what ought to be looked at more
> than anything else? Secondly, you also get to watch players at the
> Duleep and Irani levels and see how they do - and pick on that basis,
> very often.
>
True. Again this is not under dispute, as long as it is done on a
semi-consistent basis.
> Thirdly, in those days University Cricket was big too, not just
> Ranjis - lots of players were first identified in the Rohinton
> Baria tournament. This is not the case anymore. But Gavaskar was
> first identified there, as was Vijay Manjrekar IIRC. So were a host
> of others.
>
And there was at least another one, the one you accidently ignore in this
thread, but kind of forget to mention the background in the next one.
> Fourthly, it depends on the team's situation. Are there lots of
> established bats doing well?
Has it really EVER been the case where you had lots of established bats in
the Indian team all doing well, seriously?
> Or is everyone doing horribly - in
> which case selectors often invest in talented youth, no matter
> what, in the hope for a better future. (This played a part in
> Tendulkar's arrival, even though SRT did very well in domestics his
> first year - the other backup batsmen were WV Raman and Raman Lamba,
> and pretty much everyone knew these werent likely to be world stars
> anytime soon. You could tell that much looking at either bat even
> for a short time. So investing in youth was easier to do).
>
> Anyway.
>
> > Before they got selected to play for India, Chetan Chauhan averaged 35
in
> > Ranjis and Yashpal Sharma averaged 38.
>
>
> I object to the above statement, if only in the sense that it seems to
> imply Chauhan was well-treated :-) Chauhan was more sinned-against
> than sinning by the selectors, all his life.
>
I don't have a dispute with the case of Chauhan or Yashpal. The issue is
not whether they deserved their places or whether they justified it. The
point is that a 34 average did not take someone out of contention as long as
there were 'other considerations'. There are enough examples in Indian
cricket to conclude that.
It is simpler, to discard someone on the basis that he had a 34 average
compared to someone else who had a 70 average, with the supposition that
both of them were fighting exactly for one single spot is off-the-mark.
The fact is that some folks got a chance with averages in the 30s, some
didn't. To claim (and I am talking Dalvi, and I did see the long lost
thread of comparisons between Mankad and Dalvi) that there were exactly two
candidates for one position is what's flawed, or that to claim that one 30
average is vastly superior to another.
<snipped elaborate history of how Chauhan was jobbed>
>
> > I am sure Vengsarkar's Ranji
> > average was not very high when he was first chosen to play for India. He
> > was chosen based on 1 Irani knock, mostly.
>
> Not true, BTW - in terms of Ranji average that is :-) He just hadnt
> played much, but he hadnt done badly.
>
> Again, context. Awful batting side for India, no real talented players
> at all bar SMG and GRV.
> Repeated batting failures by the rest, time
> and again at test level.
Magically a lack of talent seems to first appears at this vital juncture.
And yet nowhere before or during this time was there a slot for Dalvi,
correct?
Here are a select few of Dalvi's stats:
MK Dalvi 2 4 1 248 112 82.66 1 1 1 - SOUTH
75/76 Duleep Trophy
MK Dalvi 1 2 0 35 18 17.50 - - - - SOUTH
76/77 Duleep Trophy
He saw the writing on the wall for him at this stage with TN and South zone,
and moved to Bengal.
MK Dalvi 4 5 1 271 151 67.75 1 1 2 - BENG
77/78 FC
MK Dalvi 7 13 2 438 112 39.81 1 2 1 -
BENG/EAST FC
BTW, I did see Dalvi bat on many an occasion. He 'looked good' -- one of
your sure-shot criteria (kinda like Yohannan looks good), and he had some
success to back him up. Not overwhelming in stats, but he had good
technique, moved his feet well, bat and pad were close together, and
certainly merited a shot, especially in an era where as you say 'no real
talented players at all bar SMG and GRV.' I suppose his Duleep Trophy
knocks were practically useless because of one of the other 4 reasons.
Surinder Amarnath made it, Dalvi was technically sounder than him. Don't
take my word for it, ask someone else who had seen both of them.
My argument is not that he would have been a success in tests, just that he
never got a shot. Gaekwad for e.g. got a shot IIRC with poor averages too
(but I forgot that he was real young then, so it is different).
> And suddenly this young 19 year old appears
> in the Irani Trophy, and takes apart Bedi and Prasanna with 7 sixes
> (so saith Uday) and a quite brilliant century.
>
> Then he goes to the Ranjis, and scores 77, 0 and 125 in the 3 games
> he gets to play - thus his Ranji average is actually 67, in a very
> small sample size. But the key is, he has now played Iranis and
> done great, then continued doing quite well in 3 Ranji games too, at
> a time the selectors are desperate. So he was promptly taken into
> the test 14 for the tours of NZ and WI.
>
So this is justified on the theory that since no talent was available
whatsoever, might as well go with the young.
> OK, this is getting too involved. So Iam going to break this post
> into 2 parts - and handle the other names you mentioned later :-)
>
see you there
Shripathi Kamath
"Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a374a779.03011...@posting.google.com...
news:<avvkv1$jd24n$1...@ID-75254.news.dfncis.de>...
> > "samarth harish shah" <shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote
> >
> > > Before they got selected to play for India, Chetan Chauhan averaged 35
in
> > > Ranjis and Yashpal Sharma averaged 38. I am sure Vengsarkar's Ranji
> > > average was not very high when he was first chosen to play for India.
> >
> > I must say this is a valid point for which I have no answer.
> >
>
> Hmm. Part II - the Yashpal Story. Continuing from elsewhere (where
> Chauhan has been talked about, and Vengsarkar's pre-selection Ranji
> average of 67 mentioned ;-)
>
> Once again, average probably doesnt tell his whole story.
Of course not :-) That probably is the case for Dalvi alone.
<snipped Yashpal's justification with no prejudice>
> Again, as you can see above, Yashpal clearly wasnt a random pick or
> retention - his average notwithstanding. Once again, he was picked
> (and retained) due to solid performances at different levels. One
> only has to note how Gopal Bose did in the County Matches on the
> 1974 tour of England, for instance - he lost himself his spot based
> on those fc games. Yashpal, OTOH, started the tour well down the
> pecking order, but he performed so well in those county games that
> he actually topped the total averages for the tour! He actually
> cemented his spot as a national-contender on that tour.
>
Of course the fact that Bose garnered a 170+ in IC just before, scored a 100
in SL, and then failed except for one match on a disastrous tour of '74
justified his exclusion (never mind that just about everybody failed on that
tour, which I bet you will find to be more forgiving for a Gaekwad or DBV
under similar circumstances).
Then after that tour, he scored 62 + 100 in the IC just before the 74-75 WI
series, but of course we probably had a 'surplus' of openers for the WI. Or
did we?
Gavaskar getting injured, and Sudhir Naik getting axed (another jobbing
victim of spineless mgt, really) still did not clear this 'surplus' of
openers. Or did it? It seemed so when Gopal Bose made it to the XIV (on a
nice 58 against the WI which steam rolled East Zone), but could not displace
Eknath Solkar as an opener. The same Solkar who had been tried in 1974 in
England as an opener.
Yes 105 trumps 58, but they were not contending for the same spot, were
they?
For a side that cried for a specialist opener, and had one in Gopal Bose,
not to use him was fair? I suppose he was old, or had failed once before in
'74, or something about a youth movement, (got to go to your last post to
really see the reasons) but clearly was not jobbed?
Gimme a break.
Again, I have nothing against Yashpal, or Chauhan, or Gaekwad, or DBV or
their piddly averages, nor am I claiming that Bose or Dalvi would have
succeeded in tests, just that of the many folks India tried in the
seventies, a chance or two each could easily have been found. TES at 28 in
'80 wasn't too far off that old qualification, was he?
They were jobbed, no other way to put it! Bose should have played at least
once in England '74 or against WI in '74-75. Dalvi should have played at
least once in 76, 77, or 78 -- the year when you identified Indians having
no one but SMG and GRV (or why DBV made it).
I suppose we will disagree on this, but honestly, take the same
rationalizations you pose here for the other players, and you just might see
it a little differently.
I would bet against it, though :-)
BTW, in your last post about Chauhan you mention:
'Meanwhile Jayantilal went to WI, Gopal Bose to SL etc.' when arguing for
Chauhan
Guess who else besides SMG was so great in Rohinton Baria? Yet, your
isolation above seems to not provide the same rationalization as you did for
SMG. It is not the case that Jayantilal was picked on a whim, he had almost
similar stats to SMG IIRC. Of course you can use his failure in WI to
discard his claim, but that was after.
Likewise, the 170 odd Bose scored in IC does not count as much for him,
either.
samarth harish shah
<snip>
> Again, a good solid Ranji record. But again, a Ranji average of 40
> is *not* "great" IMHO. It was better in the 70s than in the 80s, but
> even then there were quite a few batsmen who were doing quite well.
> As you can see from the averages of people like Milind Gunjal, or
> Ashok Mankad etc. V Siva had great longevity - thus it is hard to
> come up off-hand with contemporaries as such. But there are literally
> dozens of 1980s Ranji bats who averaged well over 40 without ever
> getting a sniff of contention IMHO. For example Khalid Abdul Qayyum
> of Hyderabad averaged 44 - he played at a similar time too, really.
> (Another example, Shishir Hattangadi of Bombay played a lot in the 80s
> and scored 3500+ runs at 43 - and I dont think Ive ever heard *anybody*
> describe him as a national contender. He hardly ever played Duleeps,
> in fact). V Sivaramakrishnan also had only 1 Duleep ton in his career -
> in 80/81 against Central Zone.
V. Siva was an opener. Qayyum (ah, memories, memories!), Gunjal and
Hattangadi were not, IIRC. So you're really comparing apples and oranges.
V. Siva was probably the closest to national selection of the TN bats of
the 70s and 80s. I thought his record merited consideration until Arun
Simha did some research on Gaekwad's record and proved it superior. Even
so, I don't think V. Siva got as many opportunities as he should have in
the Duleeps, FC games vs. touring sides, etc.
Other TN bats (Jabbar, eg.) also could probably have gotten more games at
a higher (Duleep, FC games visiting teams) level. I think throughout the
90s also this was the problem: not that TN players didn't get to play
tests, but that they didn't get a chance at a higher level than the RT.
Vasu, for example, had outstanding Ranji figures but had hardly played a
Duleep game. (I remember reading a very convincing case being made for him
in The Hindu's Saturday Sports Special. Purely on his stats in comparison
with some others' and very little of the author's obviously biased
opinion.) Same with Sunil Subramanian and Sharath, I suspect.
-Samarth.
samarth harish shah
<snip>
> > Before they got selected to play for India, Chetan Chauhan averaged 35 in
> > Ranjis and Yashpal Sharma averaged 38.
>
>
> I object to the above statement, if only in the sense that it seems to
> imply Chauhan was well-treated :-)
I am implying no such thing. It was mentioned that a batsman with a Ranji
average of 40-45 is probably not going to cut it at international level
and hence shouldn't be picked. I am only saying that this was not
necessarily true 30 years ago, although it may be now.
Once again, I agree with most of what you have had to say on this thread.
You know very well I would've jumped in much earlier if I disagreed. :-) I
am not saying V. Siva should've played for India or Abdul Jabbar should've
played for India or TE Srinivasan should've played for India. I am not
saying Chauhan and Yashpal shouldn't have played for India. I am only
saying that a Ranji average of 45-ish in the 70s/80s doesn't indicate
sure-shot test-level failure. I am not contending that it's great and
someone who averaged that much and didn't play tests was *definitely*
robbed, either.
<snip>
-Samarth.
samarth harish shah
<snip>
> Sadiq [ Phew ] Yusuf
Unfortunately, you seem to have missed the point. Your posts brought to
light little new. If anything, they only supported my contention that a
not-really-outstanding Ranji record in the 70s/early 80s did not
necessarily mean no chance whatsoever in international cricket. As it does
now. And for the last time, the above does not automatically mean V. Siva
was hard done by, simply because his average was not indicative of certain
failure at international level.
-Samarth.
>
>
> >
> > -Samarth.
> >
> > >
> > > rk-
>
Mike Holmans
<shs...@students.uiuc.edu> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On 13 Jan 2003, Amol Cricketwallah wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> > Before they got selected to play for India, Chetan Chauhan averaged 35 in
>> > Ranjis and Yashpal Sharma averaged 38.
>> I object to the above statement, if only in the sense that it seems to
>> imply Chauhan was well-treated :-)
>
>I am implying no such thing. It was mentioned that a batsman with a Ranji
>average of 40-45 is probably not going to cut it at international level
>and hence shouldn't be picked. I am only saying that this was not
>necessarily true 30 years ago, although it may be now.
>
>Once again, I agree with most of what you have had to say on this thread.
<snip>
> I am only
>saying that a Ranji average of 45-ish in the 70s/80s doesn't indicate
>sure-shot test-level failure. I am not contending that it's great and
>someone who averaged that much and didn't play tests was *definitely*
>robbed, either.
I'd contend that domestic averages are no *real* guide to likely Test
performance in *any* country.
A decent batsman in whatever class of cricket is going to average 40+.
To some extent, how much above that he can manage is going to be
dependent on the competition - huge averages tend to require that
batsmen get the chance to score double hundreds, and that doesn't
always make tactical sense in domestic games.
But a domestic batsman is only going to be making runs against a
domestic attack, and even in those domestic comps where there are a
lot of strong bowlers, such as the Australian one (few teams for the
bowlers to play for) or the English (lots of foreign Test bowlers as
well as the domestic crapola), there are a lot of bowlers of a quality
which you're not going to come across in Tests (except when a fill-in
bowler is spinning out time until the new ball).
*All* that domestic averages and performances can tell you is whether
they are good performers in that class of cricket. You can take it
that someone who can't cut it at one level is exceedingly unlikely to
be able to cut it at a higher one, but unless you have made detailed
observations of when he scores his runs, against whom on what kind of
pitches, all you can deduce from domestic figures is that he isn't a
complete duffer and therefore *might* succeed at a higher level.
Cheers,
Mike
Lenin Maran
news:a374a779.03011...@posting.google.com...
You can claim him to be a fomer Bombay guy, after all he was born there:-)
This is my opinion on why many from Banaglore are high on Carlton.
Just after his best Ranji season Gavaskar retired( of course we did not
have cricinfo to check on others like Bhave or others, I for one have not
seen
him bat at all. Lamba despite his stats never impressed me when I saw him)
Due to his height, batting style which resemebled SMG many thought he
should be given a chance(and of course DH would hype him).
Then again after his next best seasson in 90-91 there was this period when
Srikkanth was kicked out Raman was tried and failed, Sidhu was tried,
Shastri was brought back to open, Prabhakar was asked to open(he was very
decent
IMO) and I felt that maybe Carlton should be given a chance.
I do agree that he did not perform well in the 2 odd matches he got against
the visiting WI & PAK teams.
Peace,
Lenin
Amol Cricketwallah
> "Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a374a779.03011...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > select a team sitting in the USA :-) You have to look at things too.
> >
>
> Agree with a 100%. The 'things' one has to look at, specifically what you
> mention, however are not consistently applied for every one. That of all
> things is what I find hard to digest.
>
If you say so :-)
> > But, more than that, even stats have context and should. I mean, if
> > a guy comes in at age 17 and doesnt score his first 2 years, but
> > scores his next 2 years - should you not pick him at 21 because his
> > entire record is still poor?
>
> True enough. However it should be true enough if the ages were 21 and 25 or
> 23 and 27. Of course, I won't be surprised at you mentioning 'not so' and
> then proceed on a long dissertation on the differences at 17 and 23, or how
> selectors consider 28 to be old.
>
> They are not under discussion. The common thread is one of recent form, in
> both cases recent form overrides prior failures.
>
Well, colour yourself unsurprised :-) I think age does matter - and
matters a whole lot to national selectors. If a person comes in at
age 18 and fails for 2 years, then suceeds for 2 years - and so he
has been a success for 2 years at age 21, I think he has a great
chance of getting in. If a person has come into Ranji cricket at
age 24 and fails for 2 years, then suceeds for 2 years - I think,
at age 28, he has *very* little chance of getting in. That is the
reality of the situation, whether you agree with it or not.
The simple fact is, people who do well at age 21 are not so common -
they are seen as much rarer talents. People who do well at age 28
are not that uncommon OTOH - they are more seasoned in lots of
different
forms of cricket. They are not considered to be "learning" anymore.
You may think it is only a matter of a "common thread of recent form"
- I disagree. I think it is more than that, it is often a matter of
talent etc itself. (I also happened to oppose Debang Gandhi's being
picked when he was in 1999 - he too had played for many years without
huge successes at the Ranji level. And then he too had 2 very big
years against weakish East Zone competition at age 27/28. Not only
did I feel he shouldnt be picked, I thought picking someone like
Nikhil Haldipur from his very same Ranji team would make more sense
in my opinion - Haldipur was only about 23 at the time. Because IMHO
there was a difference in talent level alone - and Debang didnt have
it in spades IMHO. Anyway).
>
> > Thirdly, in those days University Cricket was big too, not just
> > Ranjis - lots of players were first identified in the Rohinton
> > Baria tournament. This is not the case anymore. But Gavaskar was
> > first identified there, as was Vijay Manjrekar IIRC. So were a host
> > of others.
> >
>
> And there was at least another one, the one you accidently ignore in this
> thread, but kind of forget to mention the background in the next one.
>
When I say Rohinton Baria above, it is often not enough itself. That
is,
people were not picked for the national team on the basis of the
Rohinton
Baria, a college tournament. But if people did very well in that
tournament
(at an age of about 20), they became "people to watch". Then if they
had a year or two of good performances in the domestics, they had a
chance
to make it - because the name was sort of well known by then.
This is not something that can apply to a 28 year old. If it does, his
University days were 5 years past, and he had 5 years worth of no-big-
deal performances in the meantime. That counts far more than any
Rohinton Baria would, for him. Again, IMHO the age is a vital
criterion here.
> > Fourthly, it depends on the team's situation. Are there lots of
> > established bats doing well?
>
> Has it really EVER been the case where you had lots of established bats in
> the Indian team all doing well, seriously?
>
Yes. Right now, before going to NZ. We had 2 test batsmen with a test
average of over 50. And 3 more with a test average of over 40. In
that scenario, there is no reason to push in someone like Ambati
Rayudu too early - there is no emergency. If OTOH our lineup had
1 batsman average over 50, 1 over 40, 2 over 30 and 2 in their 20s...
I think Rayudu would have been considered a bit more. Because it would
be a "not much to lose" situation.
>
> I don't have a dispute with the case of Chauhan or Yashpal. The issue is
> not whether they deserved their places or whether they justified it. The
> point is that a 34 average did not take someone out of contention as long as
> there were 'other considerations'. There are enough examples in Indian
> cricket to conclude that.
>
Again, it isnt *just* Ranjis. If someone had a poor-ish Ranji average,
he had met a couple of other criterion, hadnt he? For example, he was
always young (21-22), and his overall average was poor due to teenage
years, while his latest Ranji year had been very solid. *And* he had
at least one or two solid performances at Duleep level, or against
a touring side. This applied to Chauhan, Yashpal and Gaekwad.
> It is simpler, to discard someone on the basis that he had a 34 average
> compared to someone else who had a 70 average, with the supposition that
> both of them were fighting exactly for one single spot is off-the-mark.
>
> The fact is that some folks got a chance with averages in the 30s, some
> didn't. To claim (and I am talking Dalvi, and I did see the long lost
> thread of comparisons between Mankad and Dalvi) that there were exactly two
> candidates for one position is what's flawed, or that to claim that one 30
> average is vastly superior to another.
>
30 averages can be different too - a 30 average after 3 years of
Ranjis
when youre still 21 years old (and your latest year was average 50) is
totally and completely different from a 30-average after 7 years when
youre now 27 years old IMHO. Again, IMHO age does play a big part
there.
Also, refer above - 21 years old, overall 30 Ranjis but latest year
good, plus at least a good performance or two at Duleeps or against
touring teams. I dont see how this is directly comparable to (say)
27 years old, with 5 poor years and 2 decent years so now averaging
30, with 1 good Duleeps in that 7 year span. IMHO the two are very
very different cases.
>
> Magically a lack of talent seems to first appears at this vital juncture.
> And yet nowhere before or during this time was there a slot for Dalvi,
> correct?
>
Oh come on. Talent, plus some demonstration of it with a big score or
two,
at a young age - how is that comparable to Dalvi in 1976? How can you
ignore the age part totally?
> Here are a select few of Dalvi's stats:
>
> MK Dalvi 2 4 1 248 112 82.66 1 1 1 - SOUTH
> 75/76 Duleep Trophy
> MK Dalvi 1 2 0 35 18 17.50 - - - - SOUTH
> 76/77 Duleep Trophy
>
> He saw the writing on the wall for him at this stage with TN and South zone,
> and moved to Bengal.
>
> MK Dalvi 4 5 1 271 151 67.75 1 1 2 - BENG
> 77/78 FC
> MK Dalvi 7 13 2 438 112 39.81 1 2 1 -
> BENG/EAST FC
>
>
> BTW, I did see Dalvi bat on many an occasion. He 'looked good' -- one of
> your sure-shot criteria (kinda like Yohannan looks good), and he had some
> success to back him up. Not overwhelming in stats, but he had good
> technique, moved his feet well, bat and pad were close together, and
> certainly merited a shot, especially in an era where as you say 'no real
> talented players at all bar SMG and GRV.' I suppose his Duleep Trophy
> knocks were practically useless because of one of the other 4 reasons.
>
Heh. I dont even know where to start :-)
OK. The first time this Dalvi argument came up, it was to say that he
should have been picked in 1971/72. So that was how it was argued at
the time - with comparable figures etc. Now suddenly the argument is
that he should have been picked in 1976! You mention elsewhere that he
should have made the team from 76-79, was it?
Well ok. Lets look at Dalvi at this stage, if you like.
1975/76:
Before the season starts, Michael Dalvi is *THIRTY YEARS OLD*. This
is *before* the season starts. And at this stage he has never been
a real contender for a national side. He has never even played a
Duleep Trophy match for South Zone (this is surely not the national
selectors fault). He has consistently averaged in the 30s and no
better at the Ranji level - he started playing in 1969, and has now
played for 7 full seasons to compile this 30-odd record. And, with
no Duleep Trophy games, he hasnt had huge successes at the "Ranji
knockout" level either - the one season TN went all the way to the
finals he averaged 10 in the knockouts, for example (72 IIRC).
So 1975/76 season begins. The Ranjis commence. Dalvi has:
vs Andhra: 25
vs Kerala: Washed out, DNB
vs Hyd : 16 & 78*
vs Kar : 1
Thus 1 fifty and 0 centuries in the Ranji season, with the notout
bringing his average up to 40.00. This is a fair performance, but
surely not a whole lot more? After all, he *is* 30 years old - which
still cannot be ignored. And 40.00 for the year isnt exactly a
mind-bogglingly brilliant performance or anything - 23 year old
Yajuvendra Singh, for instance, had just completed this same Ranji
season with 583 runs at 97.17 for the year.
Still, this is a good performance, one of his better Ranji shows in
a while. So he gets a promotion, and plays for South Zone in the
Duleep Trophy this same season. And he does well. In the Duleeps
Dalvi has:
vs Central Zone: 112 & 79*
vs North Zone : 43 & 14
Note he had an amazing game against Central Zone - whose mighty
bowling lineup consisted of Sardar Khan, Hyder Ali, Gulrez Ali
and H Ahmad. In this same match Brijesh Patel (another contender
much younger than Dalvi and with a superior Ranji record) also
got a century - exactly 100.
In the game against North Zone Dalvi had 43 and 14 - not bad of
course. But sort of paling in comparison to Brijesh Patel who had
another century - 105. And another contender, Surinder Amarnath,
came in at #3 and made 122* and stayed undefeated while North Zone
were allout.
This was a good Duleep Trophy for Dalvi - as you mention above. But
again, he had 248 runs at 82.66. Meanwhile in this same tournament
Surinder Amarnath had 263 runs at 87.66 (more runs at a better
average - Oh, and Surinder was 3 years younger). Chauhan had 303 runs
at 75.75 (with 2 centuries) - Chauhan was 2 years younger, with a far
more consistent Ranji record. Brijesh had 221 at 73.66 (also with 2
centuries) - Brijesh also had a far better Ranji record, and was
*seven*
years younger!
Gaekwad (also 7 years younger) played only 1 Duleep game this season
to Dalvi's 2. Yet Gaekwad had 56 & 115* in his 2 innings - for an
average of 171.
Thus you had at least 5 players who had done very well in this Duleep
season. One of them was 30 years old - and it was his first standout
performance in 7 years of domestic cricket. Almost all the others had
superior Ranji records at the time - certainly superior *recent* Ranji
records. And they were 28, 27, 23 and 23 years old. I know which ones
would be the strongest contenders if I was a selector. And this is
not even mentioning people like Yajuvendra Singh, Ashok Mankad, or
Dilip Vengsarkar (who had just emerged in the Iranis and Ranjis - heck
Vengsarkar had played only 4 matches, and yet he had 2 centuries on
his short domestic season to Dalvi's 1!)
Still, this was only 1975/76 - and Dalvi's terrific show in the
Duleeps
probably made him a genuine contender. Another good season the next
year and he would be in line maybe, even given his age, if the others
failed badly. (They didnt, both Amarnath and Brijesh scored test tons
on
the twin tours, and Brijesh was part of the famous POS win. But anyway
-
surely Dalvi was still in with an outside shot going into the next
year).
So, onto 1976/77 - England would be coming to town, and there were
still possibly places to be won. Dalvi was now 31 years old, but
still was a contender (maybe).
Ranjis, 76/77:
vs Andhra : 1 & 10
vs Kerala : 108*
vs Hyd : 9 & 2
vs Kar : 1
QFs vs Rlws: 1 & 15
SFs vs Bbay: Did Not Play
Duleeps, 76/77:
vs West : 17 & 18
As you can see, he got 6 matches in the season - and he got past 20
exactly once, when he went on to 108* against Kerala. The century
brought his Ranji average up to exactly 21.00 for the season (147
runs in the year). In the Duleeps he averaged 17.5 (35 runs total).
He was 31 years old at this stage - what chance would he have had to
make the national team at this stage? In this season, while Dalvi
was averaging 21.00 in the Ranjis, Ashok Mankad made 827 runs at
206.75 in an attempt to try and come back to the Indian team (only to
be heckled by RK's cousin :-) Brijesh Patel made 601 runs at 100.16
this same season, and stayed a regular in the national side. Heck,
even people like Abdul Hai of UP did well (550 runs at 50.00).
This was such a poor season for Dalvi that he wasnt even picked to
play for South Zone against the touring England side (surely a
decision
made by South Zone selectors, not national selectors). Surinder
Amarnath
did play for North Zone, and did well. And when he was recalled to the
test side, Surinder did well enough in his 2 tests to top the Indian
batting averages for the series! (Brijesh didnt do great, but he was
2nd in the total series aggregate, after only Gavaskar).
So, the next year, 1977/78. Now Dalvi is 32 years old, and has moved
to Bengal in the East Zone.
vs Orissa: DNB
vs Assam : 151
vs Bihar : 1 & 32*
QF vs Hyd: 68 & 19
Overall 4 matches, 5 inns, 1 notout, 271 runs, avg 67.50.
It might be pointed out that East Zone wasnt particularly strong -
which
might have played a part in Dalvi putting up both his highest-ever
Ranji score and best-ever Ranji season at age 32. But then that would
be uncharitable, wouldnt it? :-) (So I'll be content with pointing
out that Palash Nandy scored 320 runs for Bengal that same year,
at 65.00 himself.
And, BTW, by this time there were quite a few good Ranji batting
performances in general. This same season, Venkat Sundaram made 608
runs at 86.87. Yashpal Sharma (23 years old with a Duleep ton behind
him) had 554 runs at 79.14. And Roger Binny in Karnataka had 563
runs at 62.55 (and, you recall, Binny was not only young, he even
bowled a little bit :-)
At any rate, Dalvi wasnt picked for the Duleep Trophy for East Zone
this season.
Finally, the last year of your time-frame, 1978/79. Dalvi was now 33
years old, and he had 5 matches, 9 innings, 2 notouts, 273 runs,
avg 39.00 for Bengal, with a high of 72*. This time he *was* picked
for the Duleeps - and playing against North Zone he made 25 & 23 in
his 2 innings.
That is the full record of Michael Dalvi. Again, I dont personally see
when he should have made it and was ill-treated myself. If you have
one particular moment when he should have been in the team but was
jobbed, please say so - and I'll try and analyze that exact moment,
what other contenders existed at that moment who took his spot etc.
> Surinder Amarnath made it, Dalvi was technically sounder than him. Don't
> take my word for it, ask someone else who had seen both of them.
>
Yes, well. Kaif is much more sound technically than Sehwag - look who
is playing test cricket for India at the moment (and why? Because Kaif
was tried on the basis of "technical soundness" without a great fc
record - and he came up short. Sehwag OTOH had a terrific fc record
despite lack of technique and no soundness in choice of stroke - and
he has responded in test cricket with 2 centuries abroad, in England
and in South Africa). Surinder might not have been great technically,
but he was a terrific strokeplayer who had some great international
moments.
The simple fact is that Surinder Amarnath had a superior domestic
record to Dalvi. Once again, Dalvi had *ONE* Duleep Trophy century
in his life - and 1 really good Duleep game! That one year when
Dalvi had a great Duleep season, Surinder Amarnath had a *better*
season (more runs at a better average)! And Surinder was 3 years
younger at that time.
The next year Surinder did poorly in the Duleeps - average 27.00 in 2
matches. But that was still better than Dalvi (avg 17.5).
The year after that, Dalvi didnt make the Duleep Trophy side. Surinder
did, and averaged 52.33.
The year after that, Dalvi averaged 24.00 in the Duleep Trophy.
Surinder
averaged 46.50.
And all this not even taking into account the fact that Surinder
overall
had a better Ranji record than Dalvi (he averaged nearly 42 in the
Ranjis, compared to Dalvi's 35). Nor the fact that Surinder was 3
years younger (and had done well against touring teams - like against
England in 76/77, which is how he made the team against England to
start with).
> My argument is not that he would have been a success in tests, just that he
> never got a shot. Gaekwad for e.g. got a shot IIRC with poor averages too
> (but I forgot that he was real young then, so it is different).
>
Oh, it is different :-) You may choose not to believe it, but there
isnt
a selector in the world who doesnt believe that age matters. Oh, and
it might be pointed out that Gaekwad got in after scoring a century
against that touring team (at age 22) - when did Dalvi do that,
exactly?
> > And suddenly this young 19 year old appears
> > in the Irani Trophy, and takes apart Bedi and Prasanna with 7 sixes
> > (so saith Uday) and a quite brilliant century.
> >
> > Then he goes to the Ranjis, and scores 77, 0 and 125 in the 3 games
> > he gets to play - thus his Ranji average is actually 67, in a very
> > small sample size. But the key is, he has now played Iranis and
> > done great, then continued doing quite well in 3 Ranji games too, at
> > a time the selectors are desperate. So he was promptly taken into
> > the test 14 for the tours of NZ and WI.
> >
>
> So this is justified on the theory that since no talent was available
> whatsoever, might as well go with the young.
>
Yep. Note that he was 19 (compared to Dalvi's 31 at that time) - and
he still already had 2 centuries for the season in only 4 games when
the team was picked (while Dalvi had 1). Not to mention his century
in the Iranis came against Bedi and Prasanna - a slightly better
attack than Hyder Ali, Gulrez Ali etc? :-)
Sadiq [ who never thought he'd go thru another Dalvi argument ] Yusuf
Shripathi Kamath
"Amol Cricketwallah" <cricke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a374a779.03011...@posting.google.com...
> "Shripathi Kamath" <firstnam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<KaQU9.62667$t06.3...@news2.east.cox.net>...
<snip>
> > > But, more than that, even stats have context and should. I mean, if
> > > a guy comes in at age 17 and doesnt score his first 2 years, but
> > > scores his next 2 years - should you not pick him at 21 because his
> > > entire record is still poor?
> >
> > True enough. However it should be true enough if the ages were 21 and
25 or
> > 23 and 27. Of course, I won't be surprised at you mentioning 'not so'
and
> > then proceed on a long dissertation on the differences at 17 and 23, or
how
> > selectors consider 28 to be old.
> >
> > They are not under discussion. The common thread is one of recent form,
in
> > both cases recent form overrides prior failures.
> >
>
> Well, colour yourself unsurprised :-) I think age does matter - and
> matters a whole lot to national selectors. If a person comes in at
> age 18 and fails for 2 years, then suceeds for 2 years - and so he
> has been a success for 2 years at age 21, I think he has a great
> chance of getting in. If a person has come into Ranji cricket at
> age 24 and fails for 2 years, then suceeds for 2 years - I think,
> at age 28, he has *very* little chance of getting in. That is the
> reality of the situation, whether you agree with it or not.
>
Like I said, not surprised. The issue if a bat has done poorly for two
years, and then does well for the next two. Of course, if there is no spot
in the side, so be it. But iirc, according to you the cupboard was bare
other SMG and GRV. In fact, you said that in large part really necessitated
the need for DBV.
Unless there was one and only spot, your deviation from that is not
surprising.
> The simple fact is, people who do well at age 21 are not so common -
> they are seen as much rarer talents. People who do well at age 28
> are not that uncommon OTOH - they are more seasoned in lots of
> different
> forms of cricket. They are not considered to be "learning" anymore.
>
Simple question: How did this apply to TES? I think he was 28ish.
<snipped vivid recollection of Hadipur *correlated*, preemptive defense of
Debang Gandhi>
>
> >
> > > Thirdly, in those days University Cricket was big too, not just
> > > Ranjis - lots of players were first identified in the Rohinton
> > > Baria tournament. This is not the case anymore. But Gavaskar was
> > > first identified there, as was Vijay Manjrekar IIRC. So were a host
> > > of others.
> > >
> >
> > And there was at least another one, the one you accidently ignore in
this
> > thread, but kind of forget to mention the background in the next one.
> >
>
> When I say Rohinton Baria above, it is often not enough itself.
Neither did I, nor did I tag with doing so. I mentioned the rather subtle
omission of K. Jayanthilal in that company in *this* thread, and the rather
subtle mention of the same person in the *next* thread.
<snipped applicability of Rohinton Baria tourney to 28 year olds>
>
> > > Fourthly, it depends on the team's situation. Are there lots of
> > > established bats doing well?
> >
> > Has it really EVER been the case where you had lots of established bats
in
> > the Indian team all doing well, seriously?
> >
>
> Yes. Right now, before going to NZ. We had 2 test batsmen with a test
> average of over 50. And 3 more with a test average of over 40. In
> that scenario, there is no reason to push in someone like Ambati
> Rayudu too early - there is no emergency. If OTOH our lineup had
> 1 batsman average over 50, 1 over 40, 2 over 30 and 2 in their 20s...
> I think Rayudu would have been considered a bit more. Because it would
> be a "not much to lose" situation.
>
Just so that we keep it in the context, has it ever really been the case
when we are talking about DBV, and Dalvi?
>
>
> >
> > I don't have a dispute with the case of Chauhan or Yashpal. The issue
is
> > not whether they deserved their places or whether they justified it.
The
> > point is that a 34 average did not take someone out of contention as
long as
> > there were 'other considerations'. There are enough examples in Indian
> > cricket to conclude that.
> >
>
> Again, it isnt *just* Ranjis. If someone had a poor-ish Ranji average,
> he had met a couple of other criterion, hadnt he? For example, he was
> always young (21-22), and his overall average was poor due to teenage
> years, while his latest Ranji year had been very solid. *And* he had
> at least one or two solid performances at Duleep level, or against
> a touring side. This applied to Chauhan, Yashpal and Gaekwad.
>
Again, that is not under dispute. One of the main comparisons you made in
the go-look-it-up thread were the Ranji stats for Mankad and Dalvi. My
point is that those stats alone do not suffice, as was clear in the case of
the above folks. Given the state of the mo in the 70s, I contended that
Dalvi deserved a chance. Now clearly he did not have the stats, but I
listed other attributes as to why he should have been picked. Then, of
course it is not a matter of moving the goal posts, but simply a new field
of play.
>
>
> > It is simpler, to discard someone on the basis that he had a 34 average
> > compared to someone else who had a 70 average, with the supposition that
> > both of them were fighting exactly for one single spot is off-the-mark.
> >
> > The fact is that some folks got a chance with averages in the 30s, some
> > didn't. To claim (and I am talking Dalvi, and I did see the long lost
> > thread of comparisons between Mankad and Dalvi) that there were exactly
two
> > candidates for one position is what's flawed, or that to claim that one
30
> > average is vastly superior to another.
> >
>
> 30 averages can be different too - a 30 average after 3 years of
> Ranjis
> when youre still 21 years old (and your latest year was average 50) is
> totally and completely different from a 30-average after 7 years when
> youre now 27 years old IMHO. Again, IMHO age does play a big part
> there.
>
How old is Rohan Gavaskar?
> Also, refer above - 21 years old, overall 30 Ranjis but latest year
> good, plus at least a good performance or two at Duleeps or against
> touring teams. I dont see how this is directly comparable to (say)
> 27 years old, with 5 poor years and 2 decent years so now averaging
> 30, with 1 good Duleeps in that 7 year span. IMHO the two are very
> very different cases.
>
You are comparing stats alone. Here is a simpler puzzle: You have three
bats: A, B, and C. All three 'look good', all three have decent technique.
A and B have better stats 55+ to C who has 35+. A and B are given chances
(rightly so), they fail at the test level, to the level that they do not
indicate any signs of being possible successes. Yet C is not afforded a
solitary shot because after A and B are done (for now) E and F are tried,
and when they fail, back come A and B. My only point is that C deserved a
shot if not when A and B failed the first, then at least before they were
recalled the second time.
>
> >
> > Magically a lack of talent seems to first appears at this vital
juncture.
> > And yet nowhere before or during this time was there a slot for Dalvi,
> > correct?
> >
>
> Oh come on. Talent, plus some demonstration of it with a big score or
> two,
> at a young age - how is that comparable to Dalvi in 1976? How can you
> ignore the age part totally?
>
Some are late bloomers, some never got shots early on in life, plenty of
reasons.
I mean, how old is Rohan Gavaskar?
I am sorry, I do not recall (I may have) bringing that time period up, if I
did so, I stand corrected. He might or might not have deserved a shot then,
I do not know, I did not even see him then.
I am providing a time frame during which he could have been picked. If as
you say the talent was missing (other than GRV and SMG), those were the
years I picked because he did have decent DT and RT performances.
> So that was how it was argued at
> the time - with comparable figures etc. Now suddenly the argument is
> that he should have been picked in 1976! You mention elsewhere that he
> should have made the team from 76-79, was it?
>
See above.
> Well ok. Lets look at Dalvi at this stage, if you like.
>
> 1975/76:
>
> Before the season starts, Michael Dalvi is *THIRTY YEARS OLD*. This
> is *before* the season starts. And at this stage he has never been
> a real contender for a national side. He has never even played a
> Duleep Trophy match for South Zone (this is surely not the national
> selectors fault). He has consistently averaged in the 30s and no
> better at the Ranji level - he started playing in 1969, and has now
> played for 7 full seasons to compile this 30-odd record. And, with
> no Duleep Trophy games, he hasnt had huge successes at the "Ranji
> knockout" level either - the one season TN went all the way to the
> finals he averaged 10 in the knockouts, for example (72 IIRC).
>
> So 1975/76 season begins. The Ranjis commence. Dalvi has:
>
> vs Andhra: 25
> vs Kerala: Washed out, DNB
> vs Hyd : 16 & 78*
> vs Kar : 1
>
> Thus 1 fifty and 0 centuries in the Ranji season, with the notout
> bringing his average up to 40.00. This is a fair performance, but
> surely not a whole lot more? After all, he *is* 30 years old - which
> still cannot be ignored. And 40.00 for the year isnt exactly a
> mind-bogglingly brilliant performance or anything - 23 year old
> Yajuvendra Singh, for instance, had just completed this same Ranji
> season with 583 runs at 97.17 for the year.
>
This is where we get back to a player with purely higher average, and
discard the 'looks', his own not too shabby average, lack of players, etc.
> Still, this is a good performance, one of his better Ranji shows in
> a while. So he gets a promotion, and plays for South Zone in the
> Duleep Trophy this same season. And he does well. In the Duleeps
> Dalvi has:
>
> vs Central Zone: 112 & 79*
> vs North Zone : 43 & 14
>
> Note he had an amazing game against Central Zone - whose mighty
> bowling lineup consisted of Sardar Khan, Hyder Ali, Gulrez Ali
> and H Ahmad. In this same match Brijesh Patel (another contender
> much younger than Dalvi and with a superior Ranji record) also
> got a century - exactly 100.
>
Again, were both of them contending for exactly one spot? And was it sealed
up by Patel for good?
BTW, you forgot to mention that not out, and how it boosts averages :-)
> In the game against North Zone Dalvi had 43 and 14 - not bad of
> course. But sort of paling in comparison to Brijesh Patel who had
> another century - 105. And another contender, Surinder Amarnath,
> came in at #3 and made 122* and stayed undefeated while North Zone
> were allout.
>
> This was a good Duleep Trophy for Dalvi - as you mention above. But
> again, he had 248 runs at 82.66. Meanwhile in this same tournament
> Surinder Amarnath had 263 runs at 87.66 (more runs at a better
> average - Oh, and Surinder was 3 years younger). Chauhan had 303 runs
> at 75.75 (with 2 centuries) - Chauhan was 2 years younger, with a far
> more consistent Ranji record. Brijesh had 221 at 73.66 (also with 2
> centuries) - Brijesh also had a far better Ranji record, and was
> *seven*
> years younger!
>
And IIRC has had a few chances as well.
> Gaekwad (also 7 years younger) played only 1 Duleep game this season
> to Dalvi's 2. Yet Gaekwad had 56 & 115* in his 2 innings - for an
> average of 171.
>
And suddenly, there is no mention of small sample sizes, or not outs
boosting one'e average.
Funny how the not outs *only* boost Dalvi's average. And not to mention the
one and only match played for the 17.5 ave.
> He was 31 years old at this stage - what chance would he have had to
> make the national team at this stage?
The same that TES got a few years later (I know 28 < 31).
> In this season, while Dalvi
> was averaging 21.00 in the Ranjis, Ashok Mankad made 827 runs at
> 206.75 in an attempt to try and come back to the Indian team (only to
> be heckled by RK's cousin :-) Brijesh Patel made 601 runs at 100.16
> this same season, and stayed a regular in the national side. Heck,
> even people like Abdul Hai of UP did well (550 runs at 50.00).
>
> This was such a poor season for Dalvi that he wasnt even picked to
> play for South Zone against the touring England side (surely a
> decision
> made by South Zone selectors, not national selectors).
Just because Dalvi belonged to South zone did not mean that he was treated
fairly by them. A main reason he quite South Zone was due to his own
perceptions of that.
> Surinder
> Amarnath
> did play for North Zone, and did well. And when he was recalled to the
> test side, Surinder did well enough in his 2 tests to top the Indian
> batting averages for the series! (Brijesh didnt do great, but he was
> 2nd in the total series aggregate, after only Gavaskar).
>
>
> So, the next year, 1977/78. Now Dalvi is 32 years old, and has moved
> to Bengal in the East Zone.
>
> vs Orissa: DNB
> vs Assam : 151
> vs Bihar : 1 & 32*
> QF vs Hyd: 68 & 19
>
> Overall 4 matches, 5 inns, 1 notout, 271 runs, avg 67.50.
>
> It might be pointed out that East Zone wasnt particularly strong -
> which
> might have played a part in Dalvi putting up both his highest-ever
> Ranji score and best-ever Ranji season at age 32. But then that would
> be uncharitable, wouldnt it? :-)
You are :-), and it may or may not be, the metric for ratings certainly seem
different. Other than South Zone, Goel in Haryana, and Shivalkar in Bombay,
most of the Ranji attacks were not exactly juggernauts, were they? Or were
they benign in the case of just Dalvi?
> (So I'll be content with pointing
> out that Palash Nandy scored 320 runs for Bengal that same year,
> at 65.00 himself.
>
Actually was surprised to see you wait that long :-)
> And, BTW, by this time there were quite a few good Ranji batting
> performances in general. This same season, Venkat Sundaram made 608
> runs at 86.87. Yashpal Sharma (23 years old with a Duleep ton behind
> him) had 554 runs at 79.14. And Roger Binny in Karnataka had 563
> runs at 62.55 (and, you recall, Binny was not only young, he even
> bowled a little bit :-)
>
> At any rate, Dalvi wasnt picked for the Duleep Trophy for East Zone
> this season.
>
> Finally, the last year of your time-frame, 1978/79. Dalvi was now 33
> years old, and he had 5 matches, 9 innings, 2 notouts, 273 runs,
> avg 39.00 for Bengal, with a high of 72*. This time he *was* picked
> for the Duleeps - and playing against North Zone he made 25 & 23 in
> his 2 innings.
>
>
> That is the full record of Michael Dalvi. Again, I dont personally see
> when he should have made it and was ill-treated myself. If you have
> one particular moment when he should have been in the team but was
> jobbed, please say so - and I'll try and analyze that exact moment,
> what other contenders existed at that moment who took his spot etc.
>
Nope, nothing other than what I already did. And you pointed with changing
criteria the reasons he was not included: younger, poorer average than one
other person at least, lack of spots in the team, availability of spots but
only one slot open, etc. Unlikely that you will do that.
I did that with Bose, who had a stronger case, and failed to convince you,
this one has little shot.
>
>
> > Surinder Amarnath made it, Dalvi was technically sounder than him.
Don't
> > take my word for it, ask someone else who had seen both of them.
> >
>
> Yes, well. Kaif is much more sound technically than Sehwag - look who
> is playing test cricket for India at the moment (and why? Because Kaif
> was tried on the basis of "technical soundness" without a great fc
> record - and he came up short.
Couple things:
1) Kaif got a shot, Dalvi did not. Not even close in comparison.
2) Sehwag is still in consideration (so is Kaif), Surinder fell out of
consideration.
3) Yohannan got a shot over Agarkar/Nehra, on basis of 'looks' alone!
> Sehwag OTOH had a terrific fc record
> despite lack of technique and no soundness in choice of stroke - and
> he has responded in test cricket with 2 centuries abroad, in England
> and in South Africa). Surinder might not have been great technically,
> but he was a terrific strokeplayer who had some great international
> moments.
>
> The simple fact is that Surinder Amarnath had a superior domestic
> record to Dalvi. Once again, Dalvi had *ONE* Duleep Trophy century
> in his life - and 1 really good Duleep game! That one year when
> Dalvi had a great Duleep season, Surinder Amarnath had a *better*
> season (more runs at a better average)! And Surinder was 3 years
> younger at that time.
>
> The next year Surinder did poorly in the Duleeps - average 27.00 in 2
> matches. But that was still better than Dalvi (avg 17.5).
>
in one match. But really, that is a telling stat.
> The year after that, Dalvi didnt make the Duleep Trophy side. Surinder
> did, and averaged 52.33.
>
> The year after that, Dalvi averaged 24.00 in the Duleep Trophy.
> Surinder
> averaged 46.50.
>
> And all this not even taking into account the fact that Surinder
> overall
> had a better Ranji record than Dalvi (he averaged nearly 42 in the
> Ranjis, compared to Dalvi's 35). Nor the fact that Surinder was 3
> years younger (and had done well against touring teams - like against
> England in 76/77, which is how he made the team against England to
> start with).
>
Which is fine that he got his shot ahead of Dalvi.
>
> > My argument is not that he would have been a success in tests, just that
he
> > never got a shot. Gaekwad for e.g. got a shot IIRC with poor averages
too
> > (but I forgot that he was real young then, so it is different).
> >
>
> Oh, it is different :-) You may choose not to believe it, but there
> isnt
> a selector in the world who doesnt believe that age matters. Oh, and
> it might be pointed out that Gaekwad got in after scoring a century
> against that touring team (at age 22) - when did Dalvi do that,
> exactly?
>
I think it would be easier if you listed n criteria with n weights, and set
a threshold on a cumulative score :-)
>
> > > And suddenly this young 19 year old appears
> > > in the Irani Trophy, and takes apart Bedi and Prasanna with 7 sixes
> > > (so saith Uday) and a quite brilliant century.
> > >
> > > Then he goes to the Ranjis, and scores 77, 0 and 125 in the 3 games
> > > he gets to play - thus his Ranji average is actually 67, in a very
> > > small sample size. But the key is, he has now played Iranis and
> > > done great, then continued doing quite well in 3 Ranji games too, at
> > > a time the selectors are desperate. So he was promptly taken into
> > > the test 14 for the tours of NZ and WI.
> > >
> >
> > So this is justified on the theory that since no talent was available
> > whatsoever, might as well go with the young.
> >
>
> Yep. Note that he was 19 (compared to Dalvi's 31 at that time) - and
> he still already had 2 centuries for the season in only 4 games when
> the team was picked (while Dalvi had 1). Not to mention his century
> in the Iranis came against Bedi and Prasanna - a slightly better
> attack than Hyder Ali, Gulrez Ali etc? :-)
>
And there was just one spot in the team that made up for the difference
between totally barren, and replete, correct? Which is why DBV got it.
news.verizon.net
Not to get involved in this discussion (I'll surely drown in the reams
of prose that the Sadiq-autotext-generator comes up with), but I
think Shripathi, clearly age is a huge factor.
I mean, why is everyone so high on Parthiv --- because he is 17
for God's sake. And *everyone* does *MUCH* better at 21 than
they do at 17 (barring injury or some such).
Given similar performances by an 19-year-old and a 22-year-old
it is virtually guaranteed that the younger kid has a much higher
ceiling. In reality, things might be different -- after all, you have a
Bangar, who by sheer dint of will manages to get into the Test
team at 30+ and does a reasonable job -- but the younger the
kid is when he shows something, the more likely he is to get picked.
(And it has shown with Patel who improved by leaps and bounds
between the English tour and the end of the WI home series.)
And rightly so -- as that kid has much more of a chance to be
a superstar. Why do so few people make their debuts after
28 or so? Because if they were any good they would have been
picked in their low 20's... At 27 you have (with some exceptions)
achieved the peak of your abilities and what you see is what
you will get. At 21, you have a ways to grow (and fall too:-).
Of course, looks are important too. Looking at Sehwag there
is no reason to believe he will succeed in Tests, and that is
what kept him out of the team for a while -- so it doesn't always
work. But in the long run, you bet on talent, and young talent,
coz thats what will really pan out...
Bharat [testing his new ISP]
--
----
R. Bharat Rao
rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com
Shripathi Kamath
"news.verizon.net" <rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote in message
news:q44V9.54489$uL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> "Shripathi Kamath" <firstnam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:QCQU9.62788$t06.3109647@news2.east.cox.net...
>
> Not to get involved in this discussion (I'll surely drown in the reams
> of prose that the Sadiq-autotext-generator comes up with), but I
> think Shripathi, clearly age is a huge factor.
>
Oh, no question, I am sorry that I gave an impression otherwise. I am not
arguing that. Given all other things to be equal, younger one wins. But
all other things are rarely equal. I am only contesting that if TES can
make it at 28 with an inferior average to Dalvi, Dalvi certainly deserved
one lousy test sometime when 'apart from SMG and GRV, the cupboard was
bare'.
In other words, it shouldn't be the case that you pick exactly a revolving
criteria to discard a guy.
Of course, I realize the futility of the argument itself. After all: 'Dalvi
did not deserve a shot, because Dalvi was never selected,' right?
> I mean, why is everyone so high on Parthiv --- because he is 17
> for God's sake. And *everyone* does *MUCH* better at 21 than
> they do at 17 (barring injury or some such).
>
Yes. As far as I was concerned, there was little to pick between Patel and
Ratra. There is always a fascination with *young* players, they seem to be
that much more promising. It is quite natural. Every positive thing gets
amplified. Patel's 17* gets more notice than Ratra's hundred iirc in the
WI.
"But Ratra has done nothing else, his batting ave. is crap!!!"
Check Patel's, it is not exactly in a different time zone.
> Given similar performances by an 19-year-old and a 22-year-old
> it is virtually guaranteed that the younger kid has a much higher
> ceiling. In reality, things might be different -- after all, you have a
> Bangar, who by sheer dint of will manages to get into the Test
> team at 30+ and does a reasonable job -- but the younger the
> kid is when he shows something, the more likely he is to get picked.
> (And it has shown with Patel who improved by leaps and bounds
> between the English tour and the end of the WI home series.)
>
To me, he is a good wk, impressive in patches, overall he has looked not a
whole lot differrent than Ratra. Both are young, and I only hope one does
well.
The 17 v 21 does not imo give a huge advantage. Ratra could have served
India for 10 years, and Patel for 14 years. Too far down the road. In
*that* specific case, I see little either way.
May be Patel is a better wk. But I can't really tell the difference in
class between him and Ratra - wking or batting.
Fine with either, would prefer an incumbent. Did when Patel came in, and
now that he is in, might as well keep him.
> And rightly so -- as that kid has much more of a chance to be
> a superstar. Why do so few people make their debuts after
> 28 or so? Because if they were any good they would have been
> picked in their low 20's... At 27 you have (with some exceptions)
> achieved the peak of your abilities and what you see is what
> you will get. At 21, you have a ways to grow (and fall too:-).
>
Bob Taylor? Clearly there were younger ones. He made his debut pretty
late.
Steve Waugh? Clearly there are younger and some would say better ones.
Alec Stewart? Clearly there are younger and some would say better ones.
Gilchrist came on pretty late, I think.
I disagree with the peak at 27. imo, I believe it is 28 to 34, somewhere in
there for batsmen, 3-4 years earlier for pacers, and about the same (28 to
34) for spinners
> Of course, looks are important too. Looking at Sehwag there
> is no reason to believe he will succeed in Tests, and that is
> what kept him out of the team for a while -- so it doesn't always
> work. But in the long run, you bet on talent, and young talent,
> coz thats what will really pan out...
>
I would go with the proven or best player available regardless of age. If
Waugh has two more years, I would take it.
The Lakers and the Bulls have won a lot of championships with aging players,
if you have noticed. Somewhere in the last decade, I appreciated the
simplicity of that. There often is little substitute for experience.
> Bharat [testing his new ISP]
Did you have to sell your name?
Ambrish Sundaram
Deodhar Trophy part. I did mean to mention tournaments like the
Quadrangular etc. that were pretty important in the earlier days of
Indian cricket (as Sadiq has pointed out), but this was a genuine error.
Sadiq - I wasn't trying to say that the likes of V. Siva or Jabbar or
Saldanha deserved to play for the national team at all costs. I just
felt good about these players personally having had the opportunity to
watch them play quite a few times. This does not mean that I am
personally against the likes of Hattangadi or Rajput or Khalid Abdul
Qayyum or Abdul Azeem or the many others that you have pointed out. Just
that I did not get to watch them a lot. In addition my posting on the
first-class stats of GRV, Chauhan etc. were in response to Spaceman
Spiff's contention that a batting average of 40-45 in first class
cricket (Ranjis etc.) was nothing to write home about. And yes, after
providing the first-class stats for these players, I had also indicated
that I did not have the "Indian first-class" stats either and was just
going by the overall first-class stats, with the assumption (I admit,
not necessarily a logical one) that the overall average would not be
significantly different from their Ranji-Duleep etc. average. The other
point that I was also trying to make that a Ranji average (good or bad)
may not always be a good indicator of a player's performace at the
international level. In your posts (in this thread and in earlier
postings) you have talked about the likes of Brijesh Patel. Their (the
likes of Brijesh Patel, Ashok Mankad etc.) international averages have
little in connection to their Ranji averages.
Personally there were a few other players that I had watched growing up
and their memories stay fresh in my memory. For example - Hari Gidwani
and Ramesh Saxena were two players that I got to watch in the late 70s
(aah...those memories). They did fairly well in domestic cricket, but
did little of note at the higher level. But anyway - I digress......
I agree with you Sadiq that averages and statistics may not always give
the correct picture of an individual's ability. So a batsman who has a
Ranji average of 70 may not necessarily do well in international
cricket. By the same token, can we say with certainty that a batsman who
has an average of, say 40 - 45, in Indian domestic cricket, will be a
necessary failure in international cricket? :-)
Ambrish [yes Sadiq, there is no "a" between the "b" and the "r", *AND*,
I am not a "Bonda B@#$%*" as some might want to say] Sundaram :-)
news.verizon.net
>
> "news.verizon.net" <rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com> wrote in message
> news:q44V9.54489$uL2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > of prose that the Sadiq-autotext-generator comes up with), but I
> > think Shripathi, clearly age is a huge factor.
> >
>
> Oh, no question, I am sorry that I gave an impression otherwise. I am not
> arguing that. Given all other things to be equal, younger one wins. But
> all other things are rarely equal. I am only contesting that if TES can
meant as a pejorative).
>
> > I mean, why is everyone so high on Parthiv --- because he is 17
> > for God's sake. And *everyone* does *MUCH* better at 21 than
> > they do at 17 (barring injury or some such).
> >
>
> Yes. As far as I was concerned, there was little to pick between Patel
and
> Ratra. There is always a fascination with *young* players, they seem to
be
> that much more promising. It is quite natural. Every positive thing
gets
> amplified. Patel's 17* gets more notice than Ratra's hundred iirc in the
> WI.
>
> "But Ratra has done nothing else, his batting ave. is crap!!!"
>
> Check Patel's, it is not exactly in a different time zone.
That is the point exactly.... They are roughly comparable right now.
The expectation is that because of Patel's youth -- not the age
difference per se -- is that he will be MUCH better than Ratra.
> To me, he is a good wk, impressive in patches, overall he has looked not a
> whole lot differrent than Ratra. Both are young, and I only hope one does
> well.
>
> The 17 v 21 does not imo give a huge advantage. Ratra could have served
> India for 10 years, and Patel for 14 years. Too far down the road. In
> *that* specific case, I see little either way.
Its got absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the 10 years vs. 14 years of
service. Its got something to do with the 4 years difference in age;
but its got everything to do with Patel's precocious youth...
If they were 22 and 26 it wouldn't be that much of a deal. The point is
that at 17 Patel is a lot further away from his expected performance,
whereas at 21 Ratra is a lot closer to about as good as he is likely
to be... The very fact that they are similar and Patel is 17, makes
it a slam dunk choice that Patel is -- by roughly a factor of 2 IMO.
Its got -- in a statistical sense -- an estimate of expected value,
and the plain facts are that Patel's value is a lot more than Ratra's.
Of course, this is just expectation -- Patel could bomb out, let
his superstardom go to his head, get injured, and Ratra may by
dint of hard work improve his game beyond recognition -- but
barring injury, in a couple of years, I'd bet that Patel will be a
significantly better than Ratra, and in 2 more, light years ahead
of him... And that is why age is important... or rather youth is..
>
> May be Patel is a better wk. But I can't really tell the difference in
> class between him and Ratra - wking or batting.
>
> Fine with either, would prefer an incumbent. Did when Patel came in, and
> now that he is in, might as well keep him.
See above... And hope my name got fixed this time:-)
Bharat
Shripathi Kamath
If I am not mistaken, you are asserting that there is no chance that Patel
would not improve, and no chance that Ratra at 21 could have gotten better.
Do people never improve after 21? Is that even the predominant case?
Do 17 year olds always improve? Is that even the predominant case?
> > To me, he is a good wk, impressive in patches, overall he has looked not
a
> > whole lot differrent than Ratra. Both are young, and I only hope one
does
> > well.
> >
> > The 17 v 21 does not imo give a huge advantage. Ratra could have served
> > India for 10 years, and Patel for 14 years. Too far down the road. In
> > *that* specific case, I see little either way.
>
> Its got absolutely *NOTHING* to do with the 10 years vs. 14 years of
> service. Its got something to do with the 4 years difference in age;
> but its got everything to do with Patel's precocious youth...
>
Huh?
> If they were 22 and 26 it wouldn't be that much of a deal. The point is
> that at 17 Patel is a lot further away from his expected performance,
> whereas at 21 Ratra is a lot closer to about as good as he is likely
> to be... The very fact that they are similar and Patel is 17, makes
> it a slam dunk choice that Patel is -- by roughly a factor of 2 IMO.
>
The factor of 2 sounds kinda official, but on what basis is this expected
performance being grafted?
Is it the case that if Patel does not play now, he is a lost cause in 4
years? If that were the case, why wouldn't you *always* get every 17 year
old in the team?
There are plenty of late bloomers, not many child prodigies. Which is
exactly what makes the prospect of a child prodigy that much more exciting.
Heck, Shastri was not even considered a bat when he came on.
> Its got -- in a statistical sense -- an estimate of expected value,
> and the plain facts are that Patel's value is a lot more than Ratra's.
> Of course, this is just expectation -- Patel could bomb out, let
> his superstardom go to his head, get injured, and Ratra may by
> dint of hard work improve his game beyond recognition -- but
> barring injury, in a couple of years, I'd bet that Patel will be a
> significantly better than Ratra, and in 2 more, light years ahead
> of him... And that is why age is important... or rather youth is..
>
Er...ok. I am sure that I do not understand that. I think you are saying
that Patel is a talented kid who could fail, and that Ratra is not talented.
> >
> > May be Patel is a better wk. But I can't really tell the difference in
> > class between him and Ratra - wking or batting.
> >
> > Fine with either, would prefer an incumbent. Did when Patel came in,
and
> > now that he is in, might as well keep him.
>
> See above... And hope my name got fixed this time:-)
>
No, it still appears as a host name.
Raghu Jetley
> See above... And hope my name got fixed this time:-)
It didn't.
I am wondering if there is a new server somewhere with the
name Bharat Rao.
>
> Bharat
Girish Bhat
> > Fine with either, would prefer an incumbent. Did when Patel came in, and
> > now that he is in, might as well keep him.
>
> See above... And hope my name got fixed this time:-)
And here's hoping that's ALL you got fixed. Because in the Bonda/baboon wars
,we don't want someone who is neuter err ... nuetral.
cheers,
Girish
Amol Cricketwallah
> On 13 Jan 2003, Amol Cricketwallah wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Again, a good solid Ranji record. But again, a Ranji average of 40
> > is *not* "great" IMHO. It was better in the 70s than in the 80s, but
> > even then there were quite a few batsmen who were doing quite well.
> > As you can see from the averages of people like Milind Gunjal, or
> > Ashok Mankad etc. V Siva had great longevity - thus it is hard to
> > come up off-hand with contemporaries as such. But there are literally
> > dozens of 1980s Ranji bats who averaged well over 40 without ever
> > getting a sniff of contention IMHO. For example Khalid Abdul Qayyum
> > of Hyderabad averaged 44 - he played at a similar time too, really.
> > (Another example, Shishir Hattangadi of Bombay played a lot in the 80s
> > and scored 3500+ runs at 43 - and I dont think Ive ever heard *anybody*
> > describe him as a national contender. He hardly ever played Duleeps,
> > in fact). V Sivaramakrishnan also had only 1 Duleep ton in his career -
> > in 80/81 against Central Zone.
>
> V. Siva was an opener. Qayyum (ah, memories, memories!), Gunjal and
> Hattangadi were not, IIRC. So you're really comparing apples and oranges.
Hattangadi was, actually. So was V.Siva - but not quite all the time.
TN floated their lineup quite often in those days - for a while actually
V Siva batted at #4 in the lineup (with Dalvi at #3 and TE Srinivasan
at #5!) But he did open for longish periods too.
> V. Siva was probably the closest to national selection of the TN bats of
> the 70s and 80s. I thought his record merited consideration until Arun
> Simha did some research on Gaekwad's record and proved it superior. Even
> so, I don't think V. Siva got as many opportunities as he should have in
> the Duleeps, FC games vs. touring sides, etc.
>
Actually, V. Siva played lots of Duleeps and first-class games against
touring sides etc.
For example, in Duleeps:
75/76: 1 match, 2 inns, 28 runs, avg 14.00
76/77: Did not Play
77/78: 1 match, 2 inns, 78 runs, avg 39.00 1 fifty
78/79: 1 match, 2 inns, 45 runs, avg 22.50
79/80: 2 match, 3 inns, 115 runs, avg 38.33 1 fifty
80/81: 1 match, 2 inns, 110 runs, avg 55.00 1 ton
81/82: 1 match, 1 inns, 1 run, avg 1.00
82/83: 1 match, 2 inns, 58 runs, avg 29.00
84/85: 1 match, 2 inns, 45 runs, avg 22.50
As you can see, from 1975 to 1984, he was on the South Zone Duleep
team in 8 out of 9 years - that is, playing for them very often
indeed. Remember in these days Duleep Trophies were straight
knock-out affairs - thus South Zone often ended up playing only 1
game in a season, sometimes 2. Thus a lot of the "1 match" lists
above are actually the entire Duleep tournament for South Zone (though
not all of them).
Also, he actually got to play touring sides quite a lot. In those days
most touring sides played *tons* of first-class games - they usually
played all the zones individually on their tours. I didnt bother to
check their "other" fc tour games (ie vs Colts, vs Combined Univs,
vs Board Presidents XI, vs Ranji Champs etc) - but just from touring
teams playing against South Zone V Siva played against tons of touring
teams. For example:
vs England 76/77 for SZ : 27 & 2
vs WI 78/79 for SZ : 4 & 1
vs Australia 79/80 for SZ : 7 & 32 (at #5)
vs Pakistan 79/80 for SZ : 6 & 2
vs England 81/82 for SZ : 38 & 30
As you can see, he didnt do all that well against touring teams - in
5 matches (10 innings) against touring sides, he never reached 40.
This is probably what really cost him as far as getting into true
contention for an India spot, IMHO. For example, Gaekwad first got
into the national side by hitting a century against the touring
Windies in 74/75 when he was only 22 years old - that always seems
to make a difference. (TE Srinivasan got into contention after
scoring a century against the touring Pakistanis in the 79/80 game
listed above - though TES was batting at #5 then IIRC, not opening
the innings).
> Other TN bats (Jabbar, eg.) also could probably have gotten more games at
> a higher (Duleep, FC games visiting teams) level. I think throughout the
> 90s also this was the problem: not that TN players didn't get to play
> tests, but that they didn't get a chance at a higher level than the RT.
> Vasu, for example, had outstanding Ranji figures but had hardly played a
> Duleep game. (I remember reading a very convincing case being made for him
> in The Hindu's Saturday Sports Special. Purely on his stats in comparison
> with some others' and very little of the author's obviously biased
> opinion.) Same with Sunil Subramanian and Sharath, I suspect.
>
I dont agree with the above either - all of them *did* play Duleep
matches. Not always consistently, but a fair bit. And Sharath has
actually been *very* regular in the Duleep XI for South Zone.
For example, looking at these players (didnt bother to do actual
results for them, takes up too much time to do it for everyone :-)..
but, looking at these players as far as playing for South Zone in
the Duleep Trophy in the 90s is concerned:
1990/91: Vasu 1 match
1991/92: Vasu 2 matches
1992/93: Vasu 1 match
Note that in all the 3 seasons listed above, the Duleeps were straight
knock-outs - thus sometimes 1 match was all that South Zone played. In
the season after this, 1993/94 onwards, the Duleep Trophy was converted
to a round-robin, and each team now got to play 4 games. In these
seasons:
1993/94: Vasu 2 matches, Sharath 4 matches, Sunil Subs 2 matches
1994/95: Sharath 4 matches, Sunil Subs 4 matches
1995/96: Vasu 2 matches, Sharath 4 matches
After this season, the Duleep Trophy again reverted to a round-robin
format, and once again you could be one-and-done, thus getting only
a single game. In these seasons:
1996/97: Sharath 1 match (SZ played 2)
1997/98: Sharath 1 match (SZ played 1)
1998/99: Sharath 1 match (SZ played 1)
1999/00: Sharath 1 match (SZ played 1)
The 3 cases referred to above are different. Vasu, for example,
was a regular in the South zone for his first 3 years, and eventually
played in 5 different years. He was a solid performer, but it was
slightly hard for him to get in - he wouldnt IMHO get in on either
batting or bowling, but as allrounder. On batting alone there were
probably more than 5 SZ players ahead of him IMHO. As for bowling,
he was seam plus spin - he didnt deserve to make the team either as
a pure paceman (with Prasad, Ganesh, Srinath, David Johnson etc around),
nor as pure spinner (with Sunil Subs, Raju, Kumble, Joshi etc around).
Thus he was really a true utility player - and a very good one - and
that was his role. But with the presence of Robin Singh (often a regular
after the early 90s) his situation got more difficult IMHO. Plus he
was unlucky (I remember him being picked for a Challenger Trophy
once, with all the selectors watching - and he had to fly home before
a single game had been played due to a death in the family, poor chap).
Sunil Subramanium was in an out-and-out difficult situation IMHO - he
was a spinner in a zone full of good spinners. In the early 90s he
couldnt get in because he was competing with someone like Raju. I
especially remember 1993/94 actually - the "stars" were available for
only the first 2 matches (then they went off to play something, maybe
the Hero Cup, not sure). Thus for the first 2 matches Sunil Subramanium
didnt get to play - it was Raju and Kumble. But he was first-choice
backup LAS, and played the next 2 (after Raju had left). The next
season Raju wasnt around, so he played all 4 matches.
After that things got even more difficult for him - he was displaced
as first-backup LAS by Sunil Joshi (who had had an awesome season or
two at the Ranjis and was an allrounder to boot). So his chances
to play Duleeps vanished entirely - either Sunil Joshi was #1 for
India (in which case Raju was #1 for SZ) or vice versa, and either
left Sunil Subramanium as #3.
In his couple of seasons, though, Sunil Subramanium got a couple of
opportunities. He got to play Duleeps, and then also Iranis one year
IIRC. And I seem to recall him playing a couple of Wills Trophy etc
as well (for some reason I seem to recall Manjrekar sweeping him
for 5 fours in one over, dont know why :-)
And finally Sharath. He has not been ill-treated at all as far as
getting Duleep opportunities are concerned - Sharath has, as you can
see above, missed only *1 match* that South Zone played in the Duleeps
from 1993 to 2000!
Overall, if you want my own personal opinion, I dont think most of
these TN players were discriminated against at all, purely IMHO. I
dont think V Siva was, nor Vasu nor Sunil Subramanium (in that I
personally dont think they were overwhelmingly deserving of more chances
than they got, either). Heck, I dont even think Robin Singh was
overlooked more than he should have been - I think in his major days
we were loaded with better allrounders and so didnt need him :-)
The one man from TN who I think was very hard done by is Sharath. I
think he was a terrific batsman, who was very-illtreated over the
years. It might not seem that way, looking at the fact that he played
7 straight years of unbroken Duleeps in the 90s, for example. But I
think he was a quality guy who deserved more - and he wasnt given
more. I didnt check how he did in the Duleeps, but I recall him doing
pretty damn well - better than even Dravid and Laxman in the early
years, without ever getting the breaks they did.
IMHO Sharath was a victim of the stupidity of the national selectors,
and how they have changed over the years. There is too much concentration
on ODIs nowadays, so they are always looking for ODI-type players. Sharath
could score quickly enough, but for them "ODI type" also seemed to mean
players who could do more than 1 thing! Thus a decent batsman would be
a contender only if he could also bowl a bit! This is downright stupid
for tests, but thats how they looked at it - a contender was a contender
was a contender, and they didnt seem to change for tests or ODIs. When
they picked their A-teams, they seemed to pick it with ODIs in mind
too, not just tests - and thus ended up picking the wrong players IMHO.
And, of course, the second stupidity was that the selectors didnt
believe in truly forming a backup line. If this was Australia, theyd
pick about 25 men for a roster, and pay them all for the season
(according to contract), and maybe that would make them select 25
proper players, 2 proper sides worth (with maybe 3 "allrounder types"
added in to make up 25). But we never did that. And so our selectors
wasted the A-tours etc, using silly players half the time.
In the 1990s, the test team was the test team - fine. But IMHO the 2nd
line could have and should have been developed and made *very* strong -
by selecting the right players to tour with A-teams etc. If the
test squad had Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Azhar, Laxman that was
ok - but the A-team should have *always* had a lineup that was something
similar to Amol Muzumdar, Sridharan Sharath, Pravin Amre, Jatin Paranjpe
and Hrishikesh Kanitkar (maybe). Those were the true quality players -
and IMHO could each have pushed for a test spot, and if they had gotten
to play test cricket would have IMHO done pretty damn well with a proper
run. (I think Kanitkar was the least likely of that 4 in terms of
pure batting actually; but he was decent talent-wise without great
technique, and he got in ahead of everyone else for tests and ODIs -
because he could bowl, of course). In particular I think Amol and
Sharath would have done very well if they ever had to be pushed into
a test match - I think they would have flourished, actually, and might
have even created pressure on someone like Ganguly. Amre, of course,
played tests and averaged over 40 - IMHO Amol was actually a better
bat and maybe Sharath too (Iam biased since Ive seen more of Amol,
probably).
Heck, even the 2nd line openers should IMHO have been Jaffer and
Haldipur probably (if the first line was Sidhu/Ramesh/Das) - before
Haldipur was replaced by Sriram in the late 90s.
It was only after this 2nd line of batsmen that we should have had
players like Debang Gandhi at opener, or Rohan Gavaskar, or Vijay
Bharadwaj, or even Hemang Badani IMHO.
But with our selectors this never happened - they always picked the
wrong players IMHO, with amazing consistency. Since Amol and Sharath
were not prototypical ODI type batsman and couldnt bowl either, they
were sidelined even from A tours (Iam thinking of the tour to
Pakistan, to WI, even to Netherlands etc). Kanitkar, Bharadwaj and
even Rohan played for India or went on A-tours because they could
bowl too. Badani was the worst case in some ways - he played on the
same team as Sharath and wasnt half the batsman Sharath was, ever.
And yet he made it because he happened to hit 140 in a Ranji semis
in front of the selectors, while poor Sharath happened to pick that
one game to relatively "fail" in. If the selectors had any regard
for the most important thing, consistency, they would have picked
Sharath over Badani years before that.
And if the selectors had done their job, of course, we wouldnt be in
half as bad a situation today as we are. This is what Australia did -
even when they had Taylor, Slater, Blewett and sometimes Matthew Elliot
at opener who were all doing well at times, they didnt "throw away"
a Hayden (who was sitting in the wings, but always seen as a "likely").
When they had a full middle-order, they didnt throw away Langer - who
didnt play tests for about 7 years, but was still there, still a
contender, still being paid 150 grand a year by the Australian Cricket
Board. With all that, even when these guys had to come back when they
were 28 years old (after early exposure and early failure), they were
fine and ready - and they have been wonderful since their return.
If the Indian board had done a similar job, conceivably we would have
had Sharath and Amol ready even today - and if we had injuries and/or
serious form issues (as in NZ in the past month, for instance), we'd
have a couple of players ready to step in right away, who IMHO at
least could have averaged over 40 in test cricket themselves (though
this is purely a personal opinion).
Sadiq [ now those were the *truly* hard done by cases,
not the Dalvi's and TES's of the world ;-) ] Yusuf
> -Samarth.
>
Aditya Basrur
> samarth harish shah <shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.31.030114...@ux10.cso.uiuc.edu>...
> > On 13 Jan 2003, Amol Cricketwallah wrote:
> >
>
> Heck, even the 2nd line openers should IMHO have been Jaffer and
> Haldipur probably (if the first line was Sidhu/Ramesh/Das) - before
> Haldipur was replaced by Sriram in the late 90s.
>
Does anyone know what Nikhil Haldipur is doing now? Is he likely to
make it still? I don't follow the domestic scene in India much, so
insights would be useful. I still haven't figured out what the
'disciplinary issue' against him was, either.
Thank you.
Aditya Basrur
Spaceman Spiff
apparently he's making a pretty good living at it.
or at least that's what his brother informs me.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
I'm gonna buy me an airplane and fly all over your town
Tell everybody baby, lord knows you're fine
Come on pretty baby now, I just can't help myself
You're so young and pretty I don't need nobody else.