From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Subject: Re: (none)
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 05:27:19 GMT

pvr@argo.rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.183859.18384@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao) writes:

>|> Now, even if Amre is better at #6 (which is unclear) I think Raman

>I am sure Raman is not in the team for his ability to play at #6 in a test
>team, but he is there as an opener. The possibilities for #6 were Amre and
	[stuff deleted]
>First, it is silly to compare Raman's performances at #2 with Amre's at #6
>to decide who should bat at #6.

>Second, Amre hasn't done too badly either. He did well enough in the ODI

Come on PVR, either I am not expressing myself well or you are being
deliberately obtuse....

>It should be the other way. I think you can't just oust someone who is in
>the team as a #6 to accommodate someone who is in as an opener, unless the
>latter has been |> scoring tons of runs.

>To me, the whole thing looks like a farce. It's an artificial problem.

One more time, and this is just RESTAING my opinion -- as we play 6
bats; the 4 obvious plus 2 more.  Its a matter of selecting 2 from
Jadeja, Raman, and Amre.

1. Raman has performed well enough in TESTS to merit a place in the
   team.
2. Jadeja has been very good (OK better than Amre) in the tour so far.
3. Amre has been OK so far on the tour.

You may argue with the above 3 points (i.e., Raman's 43 was streaky,
Jadeja scored 200 against a high school side, and Amre's ODI knock was
brilliant), but if you accept the above 3 points, all I have said is
that Raman and Jadeja should play this Test.

I then pointed out that GIVEN that these 2 would play, Raman should
play at number 6 as I feel he is "a number 6 masquarading as an
opener".  You agreed (sort of) that this made some sense, but that you
preferred Amre.

In a subsequent post, I merely said that given the relatively decent
performance of Raman (1 above) and Amre's so-so performance (3) you
should STILL play Raman at number 6 (but I 

>By making Raman bat at #6 today, are you planning to make him bat at #6
>for ever? 

Did you read my entire post?  I distinctly recall stating that whoever
got to open this Test would have an inside track on the opener's
position if they succeeded for many years to come.  I also hoped they
made Jadeja open, for I had a hunch he would come very good, and that
the number 6 spot would be very crowded with Amre and Kambli there as
well......

>Or, if Jadeja doesn't do well, will you again convert him to an
>opener? What is all this? What's the idea behind all this changing the
>positions arbitrarily? 

Whats ths behind dropping players arbitrarily when they have succeeded
or not playing them when they come good.  

While you cannot thrust a middle order bat into an opener's role there
is not much wrong with batting an opner in the late middle order for
TESTS.  Wasn;t it Chappel who said something about wanting a THIRD
opener for number 5/6 for the second new ball -- I repeated this in my
earlier post.  Did all this escape you in that post as well?

>Probably it is just that you don't want to drop
>Raman. But, that's a silly reason. Not professional at all ...

Of course, I wouldn't say that "it is just that you want to play Amre
at all costs" because that would be churlish, childish and rude...

>PVR

Cheers,

Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao                          E-mail: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu 
AI Group, Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801  (217)337-6498(H)
Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana
OFFICE: (217)244-0292, 333-5978 (NOTE new numbers)