quote:

Originally posted by *Chandan*:
I hope that the two U-19 bowlers are ready after 2 years of domestic cricket.

I doubt this. I don't know exactly which two you're refering to but Ishant Sharma is 17 years old, and I'm sure both Ahmed and Yomahesh are 18.

I'd suggest they not be picked for international cricket for atleast another five years. They still need to grow physically and mentally.

I was talking about Ahmad and Yomahesh. They won't grow after 18 and a half or 19 years. And two years of domestic cricket will make them ready. After one year, if they're doing well, they can be chosen for India A too where they can bowl in foreign conditions to better players.

2 years are enough, Elite.

quote:

Originally posted by *Chandan*:
I was talking about Ahmad and Yomahesh. They won't grow after 18 and a half or 19 years. And two years of domestic cricket will make them ready. After one year, if they're doing well, they can be chosen for India A too where they can bowl in foreign conditions to better players.

2 years are enough, Elite.

I thought you were asking whether they would be ready to play top level international cricket.

Seeing as you were refering to them playing in the Indian A side, I say pick them ASAP.

They must have some experience of FC cricket before they get chosen for our second XV. Let them play in the Ranji Trophy and then claim their place in Ind A.

quote:

Originally posted by *Chandan*:
They must have some experience of FC cricket before they get chosen for our second XV. Let them play in the Ranji Trophy and then claim their place in Ind A.

Ishant Sharma has played for Dehli and North Zone, but I don't know how many games.

Ishant is very promising. I made a thread abt him. India's bowling cupboard seems fuller then Pak's at this moment.

quote:

Ishant Sharma has played for Dehli and North Zone, but I don't know how many games

He hasn't played any FC matches though.

Ishant Sharma

quote:

Originally posted by little_master:
Ishant is very promising. I made a thread abt him. India's bowling cupboard seems fuller then Pak's at this moment.

The quality is still missing from the 'cupboard' fast bowlers.

Doremi,

Unless those bowlers get a chance to bowl, how do you know that quality is missing?

Exactly. These boys have played 5-15 matches, thats not enough to judge them one way or another. Certainly 5-10 isnt, by 15 odd test you get a fair picture.

l_m,

Before test matches, they must play FC games first. At least two full seasons at domestic cricket.

I agree, but the other school of thought says throw them in the deep end, wasim akram like, and see if they sink or swim!

Little_Master...... be careful man.

Chandan might just say youre being parochial, or incompetent or something.

There can be one and only one method of selecting a cricket team. Anything else is cheating.

Women eh?



How's the study going yaar?

quote:

Originally posted by Kartikeya:
Little_Master...... be careful man.

Chandan might just say youre being parochial, or incompetent or something.

There can be one and only one method of selecting a cricket team. Anything else is cheating.

May I ask what is this Kartikeya?

If it was a joke, I certainly didn't like it. Or if it had some other meaning, I'd like you to explain.

quote:

Originally posted by *Chandan*:

quote:

Originally posted by Kartikeya:
Little_Master...... be careful man.

Chandan might just say youre being parochial, or incompetent or something.

There can be one and only one method of selecting a cricket team. Anything else is cheating.

May I ask what is this Kartikeya?

If it was a joke, I certainly didn't like it. Or if it had some other meaning, I'd like you to explain.

Did you say selecting VRV ahead of Agarkar suggested that something other than merit was involved in the selection?


Thats all ive said in that post. If you dont like it..... thats just too bad.

Didn't cut the ice, Kartikeya.

I'm insisting on having our aspiring pace bowlers to play for at least two seasons in the domestic cricket. Do you know how many FC matches has VRV played? Just 8, before being included for the test side.

I think you've lost your ability to read and understand posts.

quote:

Originally posted by *Chandan*:
Didn't cut the ice, Kartikeya.

I'm insisting on having our aspiring pace bowlers to play for at least two seasons in the domestic cricket. Do you know how many FC matches has VRV played? Just 8, before being included for the test side.

I think you've lost your ability to read and understand posts.

The trouble is that i understand all too well. You can insist all you want - but can you ignore the exceptions staring you in the face - Wasim and Waqar?


Thats the difficult thing about selection - you dont know if someones going to be a Wasim or a Waqar unless you try him out - test him out against good opposition.

But at the same time, you cannot keep giving chances to people endlessly.


Thats where judgement comes in.


My problem is with your assertion that anytime the selectors do something that doesnt agree with your judgement (which is always made with the benefit of hindsight), you think the selectors are fools or cheats.


Im not trying to cut any ice. Im merely asking you to not get carried away.

Why only 2 seasons? why not atleast 3 seasons? Why not base it on number of games?


The bottom line is that what youre insisting on is nonsense - it isnt necessary as a hard coded condition on selection.


Selectors - given the nature of their job, should not have the accountability required of managers. They are supposed to make big picture judgements.


And the selectors have done superbly since the Ganguly-Wright era began.

And if you thought that Vrv Singh is going to become next Wasim or Waqar, then I don't have much to say about your judgement.

You think that you understand things all too well??

I don't think anyone needs to argue with " Kartikeya, the Indian Imran" with an eye to catch the genius!!!

quote:

Originally posted by *Chandan*:
And if you thought that Vrv Singh is going to become next Wasim or Waqar, then I don't have much to say about your judgement.

You think that you understand things all too well??

I don't think anyone needs to argue with " Kartikeya, the Indian Imran" with an eye to catch the genius!!!

But you havent understood my point at all.

My simple point is - that just because the selectors dont do what you expect, it doesnt make them parochial cheats, because it is the nature of selection.

Before you label someone a cheat or of doing misdeeds, you have to have very strong reasons and very strong evidence.

Which you dont have. A choice made between a proven failure and a rookie is not reason enough.

Thats just the way it is.

So where did I say that the selectors are parochial cheats?

If I do not agree with the system of zonal selectors doing the selection means I'm calling them cheats? Wonder how you came to this conclusion!!!

You said specifically that the selection of VRV in the place of Agarkar suggested that something other than merit was at work.

I dont know what else that means Chandan.

You need not agree with the system of zonal selectors, but you cannot assume that just because you do not agree with a selection, it is a function of zonal quotas.

The funniest thing is that none of you are actually willing to state what you mean by "zonal quota".

Why don't you clarify that first?

I wonder how you're assuming thing after thing about what I said. In a gist I had said that I didn't like the system of zonal selectors where honorary members are given the job and I felt that there was no accountability and the job should go to paid professionals.

You had asked me give name of any one selection which was unfair and I had given you the name of VRV Singh over Agarkar in WI test series which I felt, was unfair.

Since then we were discussing just this case and I just wonder where you read me saying things like 'zonal quotas' or 'selectors are parochial cheats' and so on!!

It only proves that you didn't read even one of my post properly and I was unnecessarily wasting my time and energy replying to you.

Now please leave this thread of selection topic. It is about Indian fast bowlers, if you haven't read.

If you have to say something on this topic, say or else spare this thread.

I wish my thread about Wright was available.

By the way Chandan - when you say (and you did say) that the VRV selection was decided on factors other than merit, what exactly do you mean?

Apart from the zonal quota or selectorial cheating, what else can that comment possibly suggest?

quote:

Apart from the zonal quota or selectorial cheating, what else can that comment possibly suggest?

Again it is your assumption. I thought that Agarkar's selection for WI test series had more merit because of his experience and lack of experience of other pace bowlers available in the squad. Yet Agarkar was overlooked because obviously selectors are no fools and VRV vindicated them by 2 tenfers in the matches that he played!!!

Now if you have to say anything on 'Indian fast bowler' which is the title of the thread, say so.