Discussion:
Finally, a hundred for young Patel
(too old to reply)
Aditya Basrur
2003-07-10 21:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Raising himself from all fours,
http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/NEW/LIVE/frames/IND-A_YORKS_09-1
1JUL2003.html
Maybe this will give him the confidence to start improving as a
batsman -- would be needed against the Aussies.
seems to be have been a very aggressive innings. 129 off 146 balls,
out of 185 scored while he was at the crease.
Indeed. I'd also like to know, if someone has watched him bat
recently, if he's added more to his run-scoring armoury. The last
time I watched him bat, he played exactly three run-scoring shots: a
dab down to third-man, a front-foot drive square of the wicket or
towards covers, and the flick off his pads.
Cheers,
Shishir
Which, according to the pundits on rsc, should make him 1.5 times the
batsman Ravi Shastri was.

Right?

Aditya
Shripathi Kamath
2003-07-10 21:30:40 UTC
Permalink
http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/NEW/LIVE/frames/IND-A_YORKS_09-1
1JUL2003.html
Maybe this will give him the confidence to start improving as a
batsman -- would be needed against the Aussies.
Actually, the more encouraging thing about the match seems to be the
bowling
in the first innings. Patel is probably first choice keeper for India in
tests anyway, so batting is a bonus.
I think that his batting will be crucial, otherwise we may experiment again
with Ratra/Dasgupta/a-brand-new-18-yr-old-kid-with-potential
Balaji 16 4 52 1 (1nb, 1w)
Bhandari 16 5 51 1
Pathan 15.2 3 60 4 (1w)
Mishra 21 5 42 4 (2nb)
Kartik 9 2 28 0
Pathan seems to be taking some wickets, finally. Don't know much about
Mishra, but he seems to be less expensive than Pathan. Very unusual for a
leggie to have no-balls though. (No pun there, please.)
Question to Larry: Is Leeds in early July typical of English conditions?
Aditya [Pathan with Nehra and Zaheer for NZ?] Basrur
Your'e kidding right?

In order of availability, & based on what they have done so far:

Zaheer Khan
Nehra
Srinath (if available, and we need three pacers)
Agarkar
...
Salvi
...
Irfan/balaji/bangar...
--
Shripathi Kamath
Aditya Basrur
2003-07-10 21:51:38 UTC
Permalink
http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/NEW/LIVE/frames/IND-A_YORKS_09-1
Post by Shripathi Kamath
1JUL2003.html
Maybe this will give him the confidence to start improving as a
batsman -- would be needed against the Aussies.
Actually, the more encouraging thing about the match seems to be the
bowling in the first innings. Patel is probably first choice keeper
for India in tests anyway, so batting is a bonus.
I think that his batting will be crucial, otherwise we may experiment
again with Ratra/Dasgupta/a-brand-new-18-yr-old-kid-with-potential
If the batting is so crummy in Aus that openers and the middle order can't
put on decentish totals on a regular basis, then the problems will be bigger
than some 18-yr-old with potential can solve. The keeper should, at worst,
have to bat with the tail. That would be an ideal situation of course.
Indian batting abroad is seldom ideal. My point is that in tests, the
keeper's work behind the stumps should be the first priority. The batting is
secondary. Indian bowling abroad is narrowly more hopeless than the batting
abroad, as a general rule, so any chances MUST be held on to.

I don't think they should drop Patel on the basis of his batting. If his
keeping is substandard, and his batting sucks, then yes, they should drop
him. If they can be sure that Ratra/Dasgupta/some 15-yr-old will keep better
than Parthiv, Parthiv isn't keeping that well, and perhaps bolster the
batting more than Parthiv does, then they may have grounds to drop PP as
well. But not solely on the basis of his batting. Keeping should still be
paramount.

I see the merits of the opposite approach to ODOs, and can live with it. I'm
not sure how much longer Dravid will be expected to keep. He had his moments
in the World Cup, but the batting or Nehra generally pulled India out of the
muck. Tests are a different ball game. And if Ponting thrashes us like he
did in the World Cup final, then the keeping becomes irrelevant anyway.

<snip with Bride and Prejudice, starring Anupam Kher, Aishwarya Rai, and
Martin Henderson>
Post by Shripathi Kamath
Aditya [Pathan with Nehra and Zaheer for NZ?] Basrur
Your'e kidding right?
Zaheer Khan
Nehra
Srinath (if available, and we need three pacers)
Agarkar
...
Salvi
...
Irfan/balaji/bangar...
Well, I was kidding, but just a bit.

I have Khan and Nehra at the top of my list. I think a series against NZ is
a good time to blood a replacement for Srinath. If the replacement sucks in
the first match, give Aggy a shot. If Aggy sucks, then get Srinath back in
for Australia. Or maybe not - just an idea I'm tossing up in my mind. I
don't think one test is a long enough period to judge a player by.

My pace priority list for tests, however, would probably be:

Zaheer
Nehra
Salvi
Aggy

Srinath <if desperately needed by the time of the Australian series>

Alternatives other than Bangar.

I'm not sure how they'd work out who's good and who's bad. I think we should
look at moving away from Srinath more aggressively. He seems to want to
retire, and no doubt he'll still have enough gossip to pass on to Deep
Point. But if we can find a reliable bowler whose name is not Agarkar, in
Tests, than I'd be happier. Aggy has disappointed too much too often. He may
have had a reasonable Ranji Trophy, but I'd like to see him play some
slightly higher representative Cricket before he's risked again at Test
level. It would have been useful for him to go on this A-tour, but it didn't
work out. Perhaps the warm-up matches against NZ (if Dalmiya's still
allowing those) would give me a clearer picture. At present, however, I'm
happier with him in ODIs only, and a possible 12th man for Tests.

Cheers,

Aditya
Amol Cricketwallah
2003-07-11 08:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aditya Basrur
http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/NEW/LIVE/frames/IND-A_YORKS_09-1
Post by Shripathi Kamath
1JUL2003.html
Maybe this will give him the confidence to start improving as a
batsman -- would be needed against the Aussies.
Actually, the more encouraging thing about the match seems to be the
bowling in the first innings. Patel is probably first choice keeper
for India in tests anyway, so batting is a bonus.
I think that his batting will be crucial, otherwise we may experiment
again with Ratra/Dasgupta/a-brand-new-18-yr-old-kid-with-potential
If the batting is so crummy in Aus that openers and the middle order can't
put on decentish totals on a regular basis, then the problems will be bigger
than some 18-yr-old with potential can solve. The keeper should, at worst,
have to bat with the tail. That would be an ideal situation of course.
Indian batting abroad is seldom ideal. My point is that in tests, the
keeper's work behind the stumps should be the first priority. The batting is
secondary. Indian bowling abroad is narrowly more hopeless than the batting
abroad, as a general rule, so any chances MUST be held on to.
This might be true to some extent - but it doesnt happen anymore, and
wont. There is no team in the world today that picks a keeper purely
on glovework IMHO, and ignores the batting - it isnt possible to do
in the cricket of today (test or ODI). In fact, IMHO a pure gloveman
who cant bat for nuts wont even make most Ranji sides nowadays - because
the role is different. In the early part of the century you had keepers
who might come #10 or even #11 on occasion - I cant think of even fc
sides in which that happens anymore, the keeper is *expected* to be
at least a #7 or so. Ratra was probably the worst batting-keeper India
has picked in a while - but that was because he was reputed to be good
with the gloves and could hit a bit with the bat too, and had improved
a bit (had scored heavily in U19 cricket his final year after failing
with the bat in U19 cricket the previous 2-3 years), and they thought he
would improve a lot. Finally IMHO it was his batting that undid him
the most, despite the stats - he had a century in Antigua (which is
still the most surprising Indian knock by anyone in a while to me), but
other than that he even looked horrible with the bat, apart from not
even getting to 20 at any time IIRC.

The good thing to me about Parthiv's batting here is that he is finally
getting fc batting experience, and that is key IMHO. From talking to
people even 2-3 years ago, Ive heard about Parthiv for a long time -
and it was as a very bright young talent, best seen arriving in quite
a while, someone who could keep very well *and* bat very well, better
than many other specialist bats. Of course this was when he was about
15 years old - that is, he was better than many other "specialist 15
year old bats". When he was 16 he used to open the batting for Gujarat,
and made 200 against Bombay U16. For his age-group he was *always* an
outstanding batsman (note this was *not* true of Ratra for most of
his younger days at all - Ratra used to always be a #7 or so for him
U16, U19 teams in his earlier days). Parthiv was then put pretty much
straight to the test team from U16 3-day games (and very few U19 3-day
games). IMHO the talent in terms of batting was always there for him,
lots of shots and some very good shots too - but not developed enough
for the highest level. But given his age it was always likely that it
would get there IMHO - because the way it works with batting in India,
the best 16 year old bats usually turn into the best 19 year old bats
and finally end up among the best 25 year old bats too (in that, the
final pool of batsmen for India are often players who are very well
known from the 16-year-old days - this has been true of all of the
current Indian batsmen in the national and A-teams, even if it isnt
always true of bowlers).

It was an aggressive innings yesterday - but then everyone played
aggressively (India scored 336 in 93 overs, that is just over a day's
worth of batting). Anyone who made runs did it fairly quickly. Jaffer
was the 2nd highest scorer for this innings, and he made 67 of the
first 91 runs before falling (sounds like a very typically lazy
Jaffer innings too - 67 with *15* fours! That is, 15 fours, and 7
singles in the course of the knock :-) Parthiv batted at #5, even
ahead of Rohan Gavaskar, and he had 22 fours in his 129 - clearly his
best fc knock ever by a very long way. And hopefully the sign of many
many more to come, IMHO. Clearly the idea of sending him higher in the
order in the course of this tour has been a great success already - the
idea was to give him the best chance to improve his batting, and at least
that part seems to be working so far.
Post by Aditya Basrur
Post by Shripathi Kamath
Aditya [Pathan with Nehra and Zaheer for NZ?] Basrur
Your'e kidding right?
Zaheer Khan
Nehra
Srinath (if available, and we need three pacers)
Agarkar
...
Salvi
...
Irfan/balaji/bangar...
Well, I was kidding, but just a bit.
I have Khan and Nehra at the top of my list. I think a series against NZ is
a good time to blood a replacement for Srinath. If the replacement sucks in
the first match, give Aggy a shot. If Aggy sucks, then get Srinath back in
for Australia. Or maybe not - just an idea I'm tossing up in my mind. I
don't think one test is a long enough period to judge a player by.
Zaheer
Nehra
Salvi
Aggy
Srinath <if desperately needed by the time of the Australian series>
Alternatives other than Bangar.
Hm. Salvi's leapfrogged Agarkar a little quickly, surely? They *did* play
about 3 games together last year in the Ranjis, 2 of them in the semis
and finals in which they took the new ball together, and Agarkar was
the better bowler in all 3 games (and by a bigger margin in the semis
and finals). And Salvi has since gotten injured and not bowled a ball
on this tour so far with a split webbing. So it should still take a
little more work from him before he can move clearly to the #3 spot.
Post by Aditya Basrur
I'm not sure how they'd work out who's good and who's bad. I think we should
look at moving away from Srinath more aggressively. He seems to want to
retire, and no doubt he'll still have enough gossip to pass on to Deep
Point. But if we can find a reliable bowler whose name is not Agarkar, in
Tests, than I'd be happier. Aggy has disappointed too much too often. He may
have had a reasonable Ranji Trophy, but I'd like to see him play some
slightly higher representative Cricket before he's risked again at Test
level. It would have been useful for him to go on this A-tour, but it didn't
work out. Perhaps the warm-up matches against NZ (if Dalmiya's still
allowing those) would give me a clearer picture. At present, however, I'm
happier with him in ODIs only, and a possible 12th man for Tests.
Surely the question is not who was disappointing or not, but simply who
is the better of the options present, who is the best of the rest. And
we actually *do* have performances lately to compare them and pick one.

I dont know about it "not working about" for Agarkar going on this A-tour -
he could have been selected if the selectors so wished, but they didnt.
I dont think he's actually doing anything at the moment - everyone is
just taking a break (he isnt playing League Cricket in England either
IIRC, as many other Ranji players are). He was not picked for the A-tour
because he isnt seen as being an A-level player right now - he is more
secure in his position than Salvi/Balaji/Pathan are in theirs.

Take Pathan, for instance. He basically emerged in the Duleep Trophy of
2001-2002, a year and a half ago, when he came out of the U19s and was
picked for West Zone purely because of Vengsarkar (DBV was manager of
India U19, and insisted when he came back home that more U19 players be
given a shot at the Duleeps that year - even though they had missed a
lot of the Ranji season. Pathan was thus picked ahead of players like
Iqbal Siddiqui for the Duleeps even without any Ranji games that year,
and he responded by being the top wicket-taker among *all* bowlers for
the year in the Duleeps! It was a quite outstanding performance).

However, as a result of that Duleep performance, Pathan was elevated to
India-A to tour Sri Lanka - and on a rain-affected tour he actually wasnt
*that* good, he was outbowled marginally by Balaji on tour. On returning
to India Pathan actually *slipped* - he did poorly in domestics, and
was actually *not* among the pacemen picked for the tour of WI (the 4
picked were Balaji, Yohannan, Rakesh Patel and Salvi). Pathan stayed
home and had a very poor year actually - he only had 18 wickets in
7 Ranji Trophy matches at an average of 39.33. His team got to the
semis, but Irfan was poor for most of the season anyway.

He even got to play against Bombay in the semis to round off the season,
head to head against other India contenders. The figures were as follows:
Agarkar 15-4-46-5, Salvi 10-4-20-1; Zaheer 23-8-46-5, Pathan 26-5-93-0,
Rakesh Patel 24-10-54-1; Agarkar 9-5-10-1, Salvi 7-2-13-2.

As you can see, Pathan was comfortably the least effective of the
seamers in this match. But when it came time to picking the A-team
to England, Zaheer/Nehra/Agarkar were not A-type guys, and Rakesh Patel
had just failed badly in WI-A. And Yohannan apparently has had enough
tours already and isnt being considered for A-teams anymore. So they
went with Salvi, Balaji, Bhandari and Pathan, IMHO in that order - after
the domestics IMHO Pathan was the #4 pick for this tour.

Now on this tour all the pacemen uniformly sucked for the first OD and
the first 2 3-dayers - but still Balaji was probably the best of a
very poor lot, better than Pathan. Pathan however has turned it around
this last week - having a good OD game (1/32) and a good fc first
innings here (4/60). Thus so far Pathan has been best on the tour
overall among a poor pace-performance overall - but surely not nearly
good enough to be suddenly all the way in India contention, not after
his latest season. (Salvi has escaped all the carnage, because he
hasnt bowled a single ball all tour long due to injury).

This tour still has a ways to go, of course, and hopefully Pathan
will keep up his recent form and keep improving - but as of the moment
Iam not even sure he is in #5 seamer spot for India (ahead of Balaji),
in fact I think he isnt ( all this, BTW, is assuming Srinath isnt
playing anymore, else everyone moves down one spot in the rankings).
As of the moment, IMHO, it is still Agarkar at 3, Salvi at 4, and
probably Balaji just ahead of Pathan for 5 (Balaji keeps having monster
Ranji seasons, 2 years in a row now, far better than Pathan or others -
but Balaji is also now on his 4th consecutive A-tour without really
breaking out at all, which must surely hurt his rank a bit).


Sadiq [ Misra might be sneaking ahead of Karthik, too ] Yusuf
Post by Aditya Basrur
Cheers,
Aditya
Aravind
2003-07-12 03:02:33 UTC
Permalink
http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/NEW/LIVE/frames/IND-A_YORKS_09-1
Post by Shripathi Kamath
1JUL2003.html
Maybe this will give him the confidence to start improving as a
batsman -- would be needed against the Aussies.
<snip>
He still has to work on his technique though.Has a tendancy to open the face
of the bat when he is playing balls outside off stump.He has to learn to
bring the bat straight than at an angle.Even when he plays those drives the
balls more squarish than straightish.Didn't see his knock against
Yorkshire.Hopefully he has improved on his tehnique.

Aravind
Uday Rajan
2003-07-10 22:09:15 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by Aditya Basrur
Indeed. I'd also like to know, if someone has watched him bat
recently, if he's added more to his run-scoring armoury. The last
time I watched him bat, he played exactly three run-scoring shots: a
dab down to third-man, a front-foot drive square of the wicket or
towards covers, and the flick off his pads.
Which, according to the pundits on rsc, should make him 1.5 times the
batsman Ravi Shastri was.
Possibly. And possibly not.

Depends partly on whether variety in strokeplay is all that makes
a batsman; in which case Tendulkar would be several times the
batsman Gavaskar was. There is the small matter of temperament,
which Shastri had in oodles.

As to the 1.5, depends also on which particular Shastri model you
look at. The 1981 model had exactly one shot, a flick off his
legs. In 1982-83, he revealed a second weapon, a snick down to
third man. No, it was not a dab, it was a real, old-fashioned
edge. Later, he'd expanded his repertoire even more, to include,
among other things, hoicks over various parts of the field.
Aditya Basrur
2003-07-10 22:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uday Rajan
.
Post by Aditya Basrur
Indeed. I'd also like to know, if someone has watched him bat
recently, if he's added more to his run-scoring armoury. The last
time I watched him bat, he played exactly three run-scoring shots: a
dab down to third-man, a front-foot drive square of the wicket or
towards covers, and the flick off his pads.
Which, according to the pundits on rsc, should make him 1.5 times the
batsman Ravi Shastri was.
Possibly. And possibly not.
Depends partly on whether variety in strokeplay is all that makes
a batsman; in which case Tendulkar would be several times the
batsman Gavaskar was. There is the small matter of temperament,
which Shastri had in oodles.
For the record, I don't think that strokeplay is all that makes a batsman. I
am something of an aesthete, both when it comes to Hindi movies and batting.
I prefer watching Hindi movies with good-looking heroines, and like nothing
better than an innings played with a variety of strokes. This is perhaps why
I enjoyed watching Azhar on form, and like Dravid's and Ganguly's (on the
off-side, particularly) strokeplay. But I've been heavily disappointed by
several players who looked great but didn't have the application to stick
around. Temperament does come into it, particularly concentration and
application. There's no point having a player who has wonderful wrists and
timing but can't make more than 10 runs.

Ideally, a player will have variety in strokeplay, concentration, and
application. (I didn't have any, actually.) Somewhere along the way, this
should translate to lots of runs. The main criticism that I could level at
SRT in the innings I've seen is that his concentration has often been
lacking, perhaps explaining why he hasn't had any huge series. What he does
seem to have a lot of is power, making the ball go a long distance, which I
understand Viv Richards did as well. If some aspects are lacking, but the
player makes runs regularly as well, then I find my respect for him growing.
He may not become a *favourite*, but I wouldn't see that as cause to drop
him.

I suppose that muddled up explanation may serve as something of a philosophy
on Cricket. My ideas aren't concrete yet, but I have found myself enjoying
fluid strokeplayers a lot. I'd prefer to watch a Mark Waugh hundred to a
Steve Waugh 150 most days of the week, but I can agree with the Australian
selectors' decision to drop Mark and retain Steve - particularly as Mark
wasn't making a helluva lot of hundreds.

What I don't see a lot of on rsc is a discussion of strokeplay. More often
than not, we see oodles of stats pulled out on every occasion. Stats serve a
purpose, and I rely on them to make a point from time to time as well. But
I'm always willing to defer an opinion of a match based on a scorecard to
someone who's actually seen the match being played. Otherwise, we'd have
invidious statements like "Tendulkar's 193 was more crucial than Dravid's
148 at Headingley". I saw highlights of the match, and I disagree with the
sentiment entirely.

All I'm asking for is a bit of balance in analysis. I don't think that's too
much to ask for.

Cheers,

Aditya
<snip without prejudice>
Shripathi Kamath
2003-07-10 22:58:59 UTC
Permalink
"Aditya Basrur" <***@hotmale.com> wrote in message news:bekq88$to8$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...

<snip>
Post by Aditya Basrur
What I don't see a lot of on rsc is a discussion of strokeplay.
Do the names Michael Dalvi and Gopal Bose ring a bell? At the test level,
GRV, Patil, Brijesh Patel, Surinder Amarnath, Engineer, Azhar, SRT (of
course), Kambli, Siddhu, Badani, and Laxman come to mind readily, over the
last 2-3 decades.

I think C K Nayudu & Merchant will figure in there somewhere.

Then we need to go outside India, and there're plenty more.

Seriously, SHS and RK could be doing more of this for the Indian players.
They seem to have the eye for *that* defensive shot that raced to the
boundary during the 3rd over the 7th match of the 1992 WC.
Post by Aditya Basrur
More often
than not, we see oodles of stats pulled out on every occasion. Stats serve a
purpose, and I rely on them to make a point from time to time as well. But
I'm always willing to defer an opinion of a match based on a scorecard to
someone who's actually seen the match being played. Otherwise, we'd have
invidious statements like "Tendulkar's 193 was more crucial than Dravid's
148 at Headingley". I saw highlights of the match, and I disagree with the
sentiment entirely.
I all fairness, all Ram Jaane has said on that front is that SRT was the top
scorer. He hasn't yet ascribed a qualitative judgement to it.
Post by Aditya Basrur
All I'm asking for is a bit of balance in analysis. I don't think that's too
much to ask for.
It is, it is. Just trust me on that one.
--
Shripathi Kamath

<snipped without prejudice>
Arvind Borde
2003-07-10 23:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aditya Basrur
I prefer watching Hindi movies with good-looking heroines,
That separates you cleanly from those who like movies with ugly ones.
Post by Aditya Basrur
and like nothing better than an innings played with a variety of strokes.
Is this the pre- or post-pubescent Aditya talking?
Post by Aditya Basrur
What I don't see a lot of on rsc is a discussion of strokeplay.
Strokeplay? What Statsguru column does that come under?

I suspect that rsc is, to some extent, a refuge for the many of us
who get to watch far too little cricket, almost none of it in the flesh.
Those who can, do (watch cricket); those who can't, flock to rsc.
It's hard to discuss strokeplay if you haven't seen a stroke in
ten years.

Arvind
Shishir Pathak
2003-07-11 00:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arvind Borde
Post by Aditya Basrur
I prefer watching Hindi movies with good-looking heroines,
That separates you cleanly from those who like movies with ugly ones.
Post by Aditya Basrur
and like nothing better than an innings played with a variety of strokes.
Is this the pre- or post-pubescent Aditya talking?
Post by Aditya Basrur
What I don't see a lot of on rsc is a discussion of strokeplay.
Strokeplay? What Statsguru column does that come under?
I suspect that rsc is, to some extent, a refuge for the many of us
who get to watch far too little cricket, almost none of it in the flesh.
Those who can, do (watch cricket); those who can't, flock to rsc.
It's hard to discuss strokeplay if you haven't seen a stroke in
ten years.
To summarize the two posts above, here are the keywords from the text:

good-looking heroines, flesh, strokes, post-pubescent, hard

Cheers,

Shishir
Shripathi Kamath
2003-07-11 00:41:37 UTC
Permalink
"Aditya Basrur" <***@hotmale.com> wrote in message news:bekvnk$1dp$***@lust.ihug.co.nz...

<snipped without prejudice>
Fair enough. All I'm saying is that there's room to talk about *how* a guy
made his runs, rather than *how many* he made. I'm sure you enjoy Bharat's
and Sadiq's match reports as much as I do. I do see room for stats, but to
argue their supremacy in the face of compelling counter-evidence raises
pitfalls.
Again, for the last time, I am convinced that CK Nayudu was a good player,
and maybe a great Indian cricketer. He just did not play 30 tests which, as
a rule with very few exceptions, I consider as a cutoff.

Maybe if Mai ka lal produced some set of articles on the bowlers who
terrorized all in the Pentagular (except of course CKN), I may reconsider.
And no Catch-22 type analysis either. For example

"Vajifdar in a spell reminiscent of Ambrose's 7 for 1, would have terrorized
Nayudu's meek teammates into abject surrender, and were it not for the
disdainful six that Nayudu lofted off him over midon with consumate ease, he
would have more to show for his 3 for 107 performance"

will not prove that Vajifdar was a good bowler.

Nor will the mere mention of the greatest Irish cricketer ever, bowling to
CK Nayudu, prove that C K Nayudu did well against great bowling.

And if you continue to insist upon this line of unwarranted badgering, I
will have to resort to plonking you!

--
Shripathi Kamath

Looking up how to work the killfile
Shripathi Kamath
2003-07-11 01:00:07 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Shripathi Kamath
Maybe if Mai ka lal produced some set of articles on the bowlers who
terrorized all in the Pentagular (except of course CKN), I may
reconsider. And no Catch-22 type analysis either. For example
"Vajifdar in a spell reminiscent of Ambrose's 7 for 1, would have
terrorized Nayudu's meek teammates into abject surrender, and were it
not for the disdainful six that Nayudu lofted off him over midon with
consumate ease, he would have more to show for his 3 for 107
performance"
will not prove that Vajifdar was a good bowler.
Nor will the mere mention of the greatest Irish cricketer ever,
bowling to CK Nayudu, prove that C K Nayudu did well against great
bowling.
You idiot, I was not talking about C K Nayudu, but about Cricket in
general.
oops! My bad. Please accept my unreserved apologies.


--
Shripathi Kamath

<snip>
Arvind Borde
2003-07-11 01:38:32 UTC
Permalink
I'm sure you enjoy Bharat's and Sadiq's match reports as much as I do.
No I don't. I enjoy them more.

For the record, I like watching cricket in the flesh,
preferably from the North stand of the Brabourne stadium in
Bombay. That's where I caught my first glimpse of test cricket
when I was very, very, very young and was struck by the crazy
way Sobers had arranged the field (all those guys behind the
wicket, all those gaps -- didn't the guy know how to place
fielders in the sort of neat circle my friends and I used?).
My father's mutterings about what sounded like a "slip cauldron"
didn't help, but I was fascinated just the same. My last time there
was the last day of the Bombay-Australia match in '98, and I
found that that first glimpse of white-clothed players on the
improbably green ground -- the grime of Churchgate is just feet
away -- still had that almost magical ability to take my breath
away.

I was lucky for years, in that I got
to see a certain amount of cricket at various levels. I went
to the same high school and college that Gavaskar did (I was
several years younger, and didn't know him) and got to watch
a fair bit of him and Milind Rege. I went to tests and to
Ranji and Duleep matches. I paused every time I cut through Azad
maidan or Shivaji park to watch whatever cricket was going on
there.

So, yes, I like strokeplay.

Arvind
Arvind Borde
2003-07-11 02:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Perhaps you'd consider writing a note on the day's play and your sundry
observations, your time and memory permitting? You know the kind of
things
that media doesn't report in its dispatches, but a cricket fan might?
I saw only a half hour or so of the match and have written about it. See

http://tinyurl.com/glub

Arvind
Andrew Dunford
2003-07-11 03:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uday Rajan
Perhaps you'd consider writing a note on the day's play and your sundry
observations, your time and memory permitting? You know the kind of
things
that media doesn't report in its dispatches, but a cricket fan might?
I saw only a half hour or so of the match and have written about it. See
http://tinyurl.com/glub
Ah yes. I forgot to comment at the time, but in the stats you provided I
was tickled to see that Malcolm Marshall's "worst nightmare" was taking 87
wickets at 22.51 against Australia.

Andrew
Shripathi Kamath
2003-07-11 04:59:53 UTC
Permalink
"Shripathi Kamath" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@free.teranews.com...
<snip>
What's Tuffey's, Andrew, bowling the second over?
Mat W BB BowlAv 5w SR
overall 14 47 6/54 26.85 1 51
away 7 9 3/38 59.77 0 107.3
home 7 38 6/54 19.05 1 37 (includes a 2/152
against Pak)

Actually, it appears to be bowling anywhere except in New Zealand.

--
Shripathi Kamath
Andrew Dunford
2003-07-11 05:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shripathi Kamath
<snip>
What's Tuffey's, Andrew, bowling the second over?
Mat W BB BowlAv 5w SR
overall 14 47 6/54 26.85 1 51
away 7 9 3/38 59.77 0 107.3
home 7 38 6/54 19.05 1 37 (includes a 2/152
against Pak)
Not to mention his debut against Australia, when he was torn to shreds by
Martyn, Gilchrist and Langer (9-0-75-0 and 11-1-52-0). He got a decent
round of applause for the maiden over in the second innings.

<snip>

Andrew
Amol Cricketwallah
2003-07-11 08:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arvind Borde
For the record, I like watching cricket in the flesh,
preferably from the North stand of the Brabourne stadium in
Bombay. That's where I caught my first glimpse of test cricket
when I was very, very, very young and was struck by the crazy
way Sobers had arranged the field (all those guys behind the
wicket, all those gaps -- didn't the guy know how to place
fielders in the sort of neat circle my friends and I used?).
My father's mutterings about what sounded like a "slip cauldron"
didn't help, but I was fascinated just the same. My last time there
was the last day of the Bombay-Australia match in '98, and I
found that that first glimpse of white-clothed players on the
improbably green ground -- the grime of Churchgate is just feet
away -- still had that almost magical ability to take my breath
away.
For the record, if I had been so close but so far in this respect, I
would still be regretting it :-) As it is I still do even without
coming *that* close. Ive seen every ball of the next 2 "international
games" played at CCI - RSA vs BPXI, and Bombay vs Australia Part Deux
in 2001 - and in each one of them Ive sat next to various people on
various days (friends in 20s, friends in 30s, strangers-but-big-fans
in their 70s etc), and all of them have uniformly insisted that the
Sachin innings in 1998 was the best innings theyve ever seen in their
lives, bar none, tests, ODIs, fc, schools, universities, clubs, all
inclusive. And theyve all spent ages and ages talking about it, over
and over again, even so many years later. And you missed it by less
than 24 hours? :-)
Post by Arvind Borde
I was lucky for years, in that I got
to see a certain amount of cricket at various levels. I went
to the same high school and college that Gavaskar did (I was
several years younger, and didn't know him) and got to watch
a fair bit of him and Milind Rege. I went to tests and to
Ranji and Duleep matches. I paused every time I cut through Azad
maidan or Shivaji park to watch whatever cricket was going on
there.
So, yes, I like strokeplay.
Hmm. Now you know, many would say that if youve only watched Gavaskar
and others (mostly Bombay Boys) play Ranji and Duleep and Shivaji Park
matches... when did you see any strokeplay at all, re? Maybe a
lifetimes worth of watertight coaching manual defense, lots of
concentration, mountainous scores made thru gritted-teeth and numerous
huge Bombay victories, hanh, but what strokeplay? :-)


Sadiq [who saw Ramesh Powar "natraj" Mcgrath for four at Brabourne] Yusuf
Post by Arvind Borde
Arvind
Arvind Borde
2003-07-11 13:49:59 UTC
Permalink
No dabbler, My accusation was not at the 'same school as smg' but
with 'several years yougner'..
You've got me there. In the version published in my book I was careful
to say "several years his junior", meaning in a lower grade/standard,
leaving open the question of my chronological age. My school, apart
from producing Gavaskar, was famous for boys who took their
time to absorb the material in each standard, sometimes two or three
years at every stage. In the seventh standard, when most boys were
12 or 13, two boys in my class were old enough to vote. Both used
their adult status well. One supplied us cheap pornography and ended
up in later years, we were told, a successful pimp in South Bombay.
The other became a legend by showing up at a local catholic dance
in the tightest of pants and the pointiest of shoes and asking our
class teacher of he could have the next dance. I don't know what
happened to him. As with cricket, there are these boys who show
precocious talent, have all the graces at an early age, then come to
nothing

Arvind
Aditya Basrur
2003-07-11 21:00:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arvind Borde
No dabbler, My accusation was not at the 'same school as smg' but
with 'several years yougner'..
You've got me there. In the version published in my book I was careful
to say "several years his junior", meaning in a lower grade/standard,
leaving open the question of my chronological age. My school, apart
from producing Gavaskar, was famous for boys who took their
time to absorb the material in each standard, sometimes two or three
years at every stage. In the seventh standard, when most boys were
12 or 13, two boys in my class were old enough to vote. Both used
their adult status well. One supplied us cheap pornography and ended
up in later years, we were told, a successful pimp in South Bombay.
The other became a legend by showing up at a local catholic dance
in the tightest of pants and the pointiest of shoes and asking our
class teacher of he could have the next dance. I don't know what
happened to him. As with cricket, there are these boys who show
precocious talent, have all the graces at an early age, then come to
nothing
Arvind
ROLF.

Is there a pun on the "come" in the last sentence?

Aditya [Unburdened of the aura of St. Xavier's, BTW.] Basrur
Uday Rajan
2003-07-11 20:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arvind Borde
I went to tests and to
Ranji and Duleep matches. I paused every time I cut through Azad
maidan or Shivaji park to watch whatever cricket was going on
there.
So, I have to ask, did you go to any of the following matches at
Brabourne? I'm trying to figure out whether there's any chance we
were at the same match.

Bombay vs Rajasthan, Ranji final, 1970. Gavaskar had a
workmanlike century, Ashok Mankad a stroke-filled 170-odd, and
Raj Singh Dungarpur was one of Rajasthan's opening bowlers.

Bombay vs Maharashtra, 1970...your namesake got a century,
Engineer ran out Solkar, Maharashtra won on the first innings.

West Zone vs South Zone, 1971. Abid Ali sliced through the West
batting, such as it was, and South won.

Eng Universities vs Ind Universities (or something like that,
maybe they called it U-21 or U-23 or something), 1969-70 or
'70-71. India featured a left-handed allrounder, Anil Mathur, and
England had someone called Dudley Booth (opening bowler, IIRC).

I lived within walking distance of Dadar Union, and it was a
treat to watch them play in the early '70s, when over half the
side was in the Ranji team. And in the mid-70s; every time
Vengsarkar was batting, people would stop and watch, to see him
hit a six or two.

Oh, strokeplay, it's obvious we watch cricket for what it makes
us feel, and not just to add up the runs. But then what did
Gavaskar lack in terms of strokeplay? A 94-ball hundred against
Marshall and the WIPQ, the most runs ever scored in a single day
by an Indian batsman, a superb straight drive, what did he lack?
He eschewed the cut and the pull for a few years, but he could
play them all right.
Arvind Borde
2003-07-15 14:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Thus to my mind, you would have been born somewhere between 1954 and
1956,
You're a regular Sherlock, aren't you? Any thoughts about dogs
that don't bark in the night time?
taking any names, but RK, you know who you are.) Any thoughts on the
SMG-GRV comparison at your end?
You're trying to get me into trouble.

I'll chat about chaat if I have time later.

Arvind

Satya Nitta
2003-07-11 01:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aditya Basrur
Otherwise, we'd have
invidious statements like "Tendulkar's 193 was more crucial than Dravid's
148 at Headingley". I saw highlights of the match, and I disagree with the
sentiment entirely.
I followed this match live on the telly and I'm with you 100%. Though
I am a huge SRT fan, I have to admit that his 193 was nowhere near
Dravid's 148 in class. The 148 from RD has to be his best innings to
date. IIRC, the MOM adjudicator got it dead right as well when Dravid
was named the MOM.

Satya
Satya Nitta
2003-07-11 01:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uday Rajan
Depends partly on whether variety in strokeplay is all that makes
a batsman; in which case Tendulkar would be several times the
batsman Gavaskar was. There is the small matter of temperament,
which Shastri had in oodles.
ISTR that Gavaskar had all the strokes in his repertoire. The big
difference between him and SRT is in approach IMO. SRT looks to attack
more often than not while Sunny had to be persuaded to display his
range of strokes. This makes SRT seem a more complete batsman in terms
of the number of strokes he plays, but in reality, I can only think of
two strokes that he plays that Sunny could/did not (the drive on the
up through the covers off either foot and the paddle sweep). Okay, so
I cheated. That's three strokes, so sue me!

Cheers,
Satya
Uday Rajan
2003-07-11 20:57:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Satya Nitta
Post by Uday Rajan
Depends partly on whether variety in strokeplay is all that makes
a batsman; in which case Tendulkar would be several times the
batsman Gavaskar was. There is the small matter of temperament,
which Shastri had in oodles.
ISTR that Gavaskar had all the strokes in his repertoire.
All the ones in the book, yes, but Tendulkar seems to have a few
more sometimes.
Post by Satya Nitta
The big
difference between him and SRT is in approach IMO. SRT looks to attack
more often than not while Sunny had to be persuaded to display his
range of strokes.
Mostly, I guess, though there were occasions on which Gavaskar
played his strokes. I agree on approach; Tendulkar is more
creative with his shots than Gavaskar was. Gavaskar's strokes
were all technically correct, and an extension of his own good
technique, as it were. Tendulkar is willing to pull a short ball
outside off to mid-wicket, or jump out of the crease to a
medium-pacer and loft him over mid-wicket.
Post by Satya Nitta
This makes SRT seem a more complete batsman in terms
of the number of strokes he plays, but in reality, I can only think of
two strokes that he plays that Sunny could/did not (the drive on the
up through the covers off either foot and the paddle sweep). Okay, so
I cheated. That's three strokes, so sue me!
I've seen Gavaskar drive on the up off the front foot. He was a
surprisingly good exponent of the front foot drive (both sides of
the wicket) for someone so short.
Satya Nitta
2003-07-12 16:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uday Rajan
Post by Satya Nitta
Post by Uday Rajan
Depends partly on whether variety in strokeplay is all that makes
a batsman; in which case Tendulkar would be several times the
batsman Gavaskar was. There is the small matter of temperament,
which Shastri had in oodles.
ISTR that Gavaskar had all the strokes in his repertoire.
All the ones in the book, yes, but Tendulkar seems to have a few
more sometimes.
Upon reflection, I agree with your assessment a bit more than with my
own. It would be doing SRT a grave disservice to suggest that he only
has a couple of shots outside the textbook.
Post by Uday Rajan
Mostly, I guess, though there were occasions on which Gavaskar
played his strokes. I agree on approach; Tendulkar is more
creative with his shots than Gavaskar was. Gavaskar's strokes
were all technically correct, and an extension of his own good
technique, as it were. Tendulkar is willing to pull a short ball
outside off to mid-wicket, or jump out of the crease to a
medium-pacer and loft him over mid-wicket.
For me, SRT's signature stroke is his cover drive on the up to a
medium pacer or a fast bowler. For a short man, he hits it extremely
well and extremely hard and the ball seems to explode off his bat. He
also gives the bowlers very little margin for error when he's batting
well.

When I think about it, what makes SRT different from SMG is a couple
of things. The first is that SRT hits the ball very hard while SMG
used to more or less caress it to the boundary. This is partly because
he (SMG) used a very light bat as pointed out someone else (RK?) in a
related thread. SMG keeps joking on his commentary stints that he was
the more effective batsman because his shots kept the fielder
interested all the way to the boundary, hence they (the fielders)
tended to tire more when he was batting! IMO, another reason why SRT
hits the ball a lot harder than SMG is that his grip allows him to use
the bottom hand a lot more. SRT holds the bat all way at the base of
the handle while Gavaskar had a more classical mid-handle grip. SRT's
grip allows him to be very forceful off either foot considering his
height, while for a short player, it's a bit harder to drive
powerfully, especially off the back foot, when you hold the bat higher
up on the handle which SMG used to do.

To me, the next big difference between the two is that when SRT is in
the mood, he more or less makes the bowlers pitch the ball where he
wants it pitched. A good example of this was in the recent WC match
against England when Caddick was bowling to SRT. The first ball was
pitched well up on off to SRT who absolutely creamed him to the
square-leg fence with a flick-drive across the line. In reply, Caddick
pitched it just a bit short of length about a foot outside off and
SRT, who was waiting for that ball, pulled him out of the ground. It
was a magnificient shot and what was amazing about it was that SRT
knew what Caddick was going to do with that ball. It was almost as if
he willed him to pitch it short since he got creamed when he pitched
it up. Obviously, this won't come off all the time, but this sort of
anticipation is what sets SRT apart from SMG.

To me, there's little doubt that SRT is on a different plane than SMG
as far as batsmanship goes, but equally, without SMG, there not have
been an SRT IMO. Gavaskar is great for many reasons, but one of the
more important reasons is the fact that he was the first genuine all
time great batsman from India and he gave the players who came after
him the confidence to be world beaters.

Satya
Satya Nitta
2003-07-13 15:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Satya Nitta
When I think about it, what makes SRT different from SMG is a couple
of things. The first is that SRT hits the ball very hard while SMG
used to more or less caress it to the boundary. This is partly because
he (SMG) used a very light bat as pointed out someone else (RK?) in a
related thread.
Hmm...no, Gavaskar didn't caress the ball. Not in public, anyway.
Vishy, Azhar, Laxman to some extent, they caress the ball. I
agree that Gavaskar didn't smash it either, like Tendulkar does.
He was somewhere in between.
I meant he timed the ball without necessarily giving it a bash - to
differentiate his style from SRT's. Azhar wasn't always a caresser and
could be pretty savage when he wanted to (memories of him hitting
Klusener for 5 boundaries in a row in the 96' Calcutta test come to
mind). Have seen very little of Vishy bat so I cannot comment, but
yes, among Indian bats Laxman probably suits the description better
than most.
The light bat...some confusion here. For many years, Gavaskar
deliberately used a heavy bat so that he would be able to resist
the temptation to cut and hook.
Hmmm. Thanks for the info. I've only seen Gavaskar play from '83 -
'87. This confusion must be somewhat widespread on rsc at the moment
because this "fact" is being advanced in other threads as well. Wonder
if anyone has some info to shed on Gavaskar's bat choices through his
career? Also, have bat weights changed much over the years? Have the
bats gotten heavier in the modern era or do more players prefer the
heavier blades or am I under a misapprehension again?
Well, yes, I agree, in the same sense that Akram is on a
different plane from practically every other bowler, because he
could do things with the ball that no one else could. OTOH, Akram
is not the greatest bowler of all time, and (in my book) Gavaskar
was a better Test batsman than Tendulkar has been.
I don't think you'll find too much disagreement from me here. I think
SRT is a special talent, but he has definitely underperformed in test
cricket thus far and he does have a hole to fill in his resume`. But,
IMO, he's not that far behind Sunny at the moment. All he needs to do
is take India to victory in just one test against Aus later in the
year (or guide India to victory in a big 4th inings run chase against
NZ) and he'll be there :-). But on a more serious note, the right time
to really compare the two will be at the end of SRT's career and I for
one have little doubt that he will comfortably be regarded as the best
batsman ever from India and perhaps even in the top 5 of the all time
list.

Satya

Satya (ever the optimist - aka blind SRT fan)
Cricketislife!
2003-07-13 16:07:31 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Jul 2003 08:38:25 -0700, ***@hotmail.com (Satya Nitta)
wrote:
Wonder
Post by Satya Nitta
if anyone has some info to shed on Gavaskar's bat choices through his
career? Also, have bat weights changed much over the years? Have the
bats gotten heavier in the modern era or do more players prefer the
heavier blades or am I under a misapprehension again?
Read this on his bats by SMG himself, happy now?!

http://www.sportstaronnet.com/tss2515/25150180.htm




.
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to ***@netfront.net
Satya Nitta
2003-07-13 23:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Satya Nitta
Wonder
Post by Satya Nitta
if anyone has some info to shed on Gavaskar's bat choices through his
career? Also, have bat weights changed much over the years? Have the
bats gotten heavier in the modern era or do more players prefer the
heavier blades or am I under a misapprehension again?
Read this on his bats by SMG himself, happy now?!
http://www.sportstaronnet.com/tss2515/25150180.htm
Actually, yes! I had no idea the number of grains on a bat was such a
big deal for these top players.

Satya
Amol Cricketwallah
2003-07-14 00:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Satya Nitta
Hmm...no, Gavaskar didn't caress the ball. Not in public, anyway.
Vishy, Azhar, Laxman to some extent, they caress the ball. I
agree that Gavaskar didn't smash it either, like Tendulkar does.
He was somewhere in between.
I meant he timed the ball without necessarily giving it a bash - to
differentiate his style from SRT's.
I agree. I think SRT hits pretty much all his shots much harder than
SMG did - even the identical shots. They do have some very similar
shots - the "bowlers's back drive", when I first saw it from SRT
many years ago, seemed to me to be exactly the same as SMG's. But in
general nowadays SRT's shots are harder all the way down the line
really - even the similar ones (front foot drive etc) are usually
hit with greater power by far.
Post by Satya Nitta
The light bat...some confusion here. For many years, Gavaskar
deliberately used a heavy bat so that he would be able to resist
the temptation to cut and hook.
Hmmm. Thanks for the info. I've only seen Gavaskar play from '83 -
'87. This confusion must be somewhat widespread on rsc at the moment
because this "fact" is being advanced in other threads as well. Wonder
if anyone has some info to shed on Gavaskar's bat choices through his
career? Also, have bat weights changed much over the years? Have the
bats gotten heavier in the modern era or do more players prefer the
heavier blades or am I under a misapprehension again?
I think there is just a change in the times - I dont know what the
actual bat weights were for SMG, but even his "heavy" bats were not
as heavy as SRT's normal bats IMHO. SMG has said this himself in the
past a few times - very few players use light bats anymore (Azhar,
for example, used a light bat, lighter than anybody else in the team
and pretty much in the world in the early 90s - and yet Azhar's bat
would have been the norm in the early 70s). SMG once said that when
he first picked up SRT's bat, he was shocked - he felt it was a bat
that only Clive Lloyd would have used in his day. When SMG went to
his own "heavy bat", it was nothing like Lloyd's was - it was only
heavy *for him*.

The other thing is, players use several grips nowadays - much more
than ever before. Kambli, in his early successful days, was said to
use *11* grips on his bat! This was unheard of in the 70s and 80s.

In general batsmen are probably stronger nowadays - there is more
weight training and a greater emphasis on physical fitness etc nowadays,
which probably plays a role. There is more power in general in the
game nowadays (and consequently less finesse, which is a pity because
finesse is always nice to watch).


Sadiq [ Klusener used a club, literally - heaviest ever maybe ] Yusuf
Post by Satya Nitta
Satya
Satya (ever the optimist - aka blind SRT fan)
Satya Nitta
2003-07-15 02:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amol Cricketwallah
I agree. I think SRT hits pretty much all his shots much harder than
SMG did - even the identical shots. They do have some very similar
shots - the "bowlers's back drive", when I first saw it from SRT
many years ago, seemed to me to be exactly the same as SMG's. But in
general nowadays SRT's shots are harder all the way down the line
really - even the similar ones (front foot drive etc) are usually
hit with greater power by far.
I know Yuvraj is reputed to be the hardest hitter in the Indian team,
but would it be accurate to say SRT and Shewag are the next hardest?
Gangs gives it a bit of a thump as well. My impression is that Indian
batsmen in general don't tend to hit it as hard as some of the players
from other countries. This is true in club cricket as well where very
very few Indian batsmen hit with any *real* power. The hardest hitters
I've seen at club level are the carribean players. Some of these guys
hit so hard that it's quite dangerous fielding at cover even(for the
average club player that is)!
Post by Amol Cricketwallah
I think there is just a change in the times - I dont know what the
actual bat weights were for SMG, but even his "heavy" bats were not
as heavy as SRT's normal bats IMHO. SMG has said this himself in the
past a few times - very few players use light bats anymore (Azhar,
for example, used a light bat, lighter than anybody else in the team
and pretty much in the world in the early 90s - and yet Azhar's bat
would have been the norm in the early 70s). SMG once said that when
he first picked up SRT's bat, he was shocked - he felt it was a bat
that only Clive Lloyd would have used in his day. When SMG went to
his own "heavy bat", it was nothing like Lloyd's was - it was only
heavy *for him*.
As I suspected. That has to be one of the reasons why Sunny never
really hit with power.
Post by Amol Cricketwallah
The other thing is, players use several grips nowadays - much more
than ever before. Kambli, in his early successful days, was said to
use *11* grips on his bat! This was unheard of in the 70s and 80s.
In general batsmen are probably stronger nowadays - there is more
weight training and a greater emphasis on physical fitness etc nowadays,
which probably plays a role. There is more power in general in the
game nowadays (and consequently less finesse, which is a pity because
finesse is always nice to watch).
Agreed.

Satya
Net_Head
2003-07-11 00:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Raising himself from all fours,
http://www-usa.cricket.org/link_to_database/NEW/LIVE/frames/IND-A_YORKS_09-11JUL2003.html
Maybe this will give him the confidence to start improving as a
batsman -- would be needed against the Aussies.
seems to be have been a very aggressive innings. 129 off 146 balls, out of 185
scored while he was at the crease.
Yes, good innings which was played when his team was in a spot of
bother.

On a related note, when was the last time a cricketer was given an
India test cap without having played a single Ranji game? iirc Parthiv
has yet to play one and he may well be selected for the home tests
against NZ in a few months.

Net_head
Lenin Maran
2003-07-11 17:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Net_Head
On a related note, when was the last time a cricketer was given an
India test cap without having played a single Ranji game? iirc Parthiv
has yet to play one and he may well be selected for the home tests
against NZ in a few months.
Was it Vivek Razdan?

Peace,
Lenin
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...