From: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: (none)
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:38:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: m.1992Nov12.183859.18384
Reply-To: bharat@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

pvr@owlnet.rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.222056.7091@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, bharat@cs.uiuc.edu (R. Bharat Rao) writes:
>|> pvr@argo.rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao) writes:

>|> >We must decide between Raman and Jadeja and play _only one_ of them. If we
>|> >are indecisive and play both (with one of them coming in the middle order),
>|> >it doesn't look convincing.


>|> tour I had thought Amre would play, Jadeja has definitely come shown
>|> some ability and is good nice (if you don;t play him now, when will


>Let me just make it clear that I have nothing against Jadeja and I in fact like him. I wrote
>after the world cup that he had showed in his ODI innings that he had the temperament
>needed for playing in tests and I said he should to be tried in tests in near future (and, I said
>the same thing about Amre too).

>If you don't play him now (this is assuming you want to give Raman another chance and
>persist wiht him for this test), you can still play him in future tests. I would personally
>prefer to let Jadeja and Amre make their debuts in this test and drop Raman (but play him in
>the tour matches until he comes good).

I think Jadeja will definitely play -- when you consider the fact that
he did not play in the President's 11 game after his 200.  I would
conclude that he was probably "in" unless BOTH Amre and Raman sparkled
in the Prez11 game -- since that did not happen, I think Jadeja is in
for sure.

>|> with PVR that playing all 3 openers is bad -- besides I suspect Raman
>|> is a number 6 bat, masquarading as an opener (also, didn't Chappel say


>Actually, Raman got most of his good scores in domestics at #3,4. He did play at #5,6 too,
>but that was at the beginning of his career.

>I don't say that "playing all 3 openers is bad" - if you think Raman would be a better #6 than
>Amre (or whoever is available), fine, I have no problem, play Raman at #6. But, I do not
>think that's the case. All I say is don't change the batting positions _just_ to play the guys
>you want to play.

>I think your suggestion of playing Raman at #6 and opening with Jadeja is much saner than
>the one suggesting Jadeja should bat at #6. Personally I feel Amre is a better bet for #6
>(though I think the ideal position for him would be #4 - but, SRT fits it better) than Raman
>or Jadeja.  

I think number 4 is locked up for many years to come, just the way
Vishwanath made it his own.  The fight is going to be for the number 2
and 6 positions: however, the number 6 position has both Kambli and
Amre vying for it as well, so I suspect whoever gets the nod as opner
in this Test will have a VERY good chance of solidifying his place as
an opener for the future.

I think Jadeja can be the future opener and if they give him a chance
now to open, I have a hunch that he will make it his own with some
sterling performances.  No reason -- just a gut feeling.

Now, even if Amre is better at #6 (which is unclear) I think Raman
must be allowed to play UNTIL Amre wins the spot back.  Amre has not
dazzled so far on the tour, and with Raman having succeeded (sort of)
in the Zim test -- well he did do better than numbers 1,4, and 5 by a
fair margin -- I think you can;t just oust him unless Amre has been
scoring tons of runs.

Yet, I fear that the selectors will make Jadeja bat #6 -- I hope I am
wrong though... Actually, if both Raman and Jadeja do become regulars
(and this of course will be at the expense of local favorites Amre and
Kambli), it will be good for the 1-dayers as well (as both of them
could open) and will keep the pressure on each other.

>SVM, SRT and Azza fit very very well in #3,4 and 5 respectively. I see no reason for playing
>with those positions.

Agreed!  Mind you, that was not so clear after Australia with the way
Manjrekar was floundering, but he appears to have come back with a
bang.

>|> While I think Kumble is the better bowler, I suspect that (given 4
>|> bowlers) they may well (gasp) go with Raju.  I don;t think they will,
>|> but it is not an impossibility.  However, I am reasonably confident

>What did Kumble do to be dropped? He was OK in the test with Zim - he got 3 wkts in the
>1st inn as opposed to Raju's 0. Though he got only 3, he was supposed to have bowled well
>(much better than Raju). Moreover, it was Kumble's 2nd test. You can't expect expect the
>guy to become a Chandra in his first few tests itself. You've got to give him some chacnes.

I agree with you totally.  I just said that the selectors (whose
reasoning process is unknown to all but a select few) may continue
their love affair with Raju...

>I don't think all these are just my views - even the tour management seems to think that
>way. Remember, they played only Raju in the match against Board president's XI. Kumble
>(along with Kapil) was rested. I think it means that Raju is in the situation in which Hirwani
>was on the tour of Oz. He will replace Kumble only if he does well in the tour matches and
>Kumble does badly. And, Raju didn't do very well in the match against Board president's XI.

EXACTLY what I think of as the situation with Amre and Raman/Jadeja at
this point.

>If they want to play both spinners (as SA is supposed to be weak against spin), then they
>may play Raju, but I don't think he will replace Kumble. Shastri's recent exploits make the
>situation only worse for Raju.

Thats is one very good thing to come out.  Shastri bowling again -- he
can be an excellent foil to an ATTACKING spinner at the other end... 

>PVR

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)