Shastri .. Good OR Bad

Shastri .. Good OR Bad

Post by Manish Tu » Mon, 06 Dec 1993 13:50:46


As L Ramasundar said, after 87 shastri along with vengy and srikanth were in
bad form BUt as you see Vengy and srikanth were dropped soon after. But the
selecters persisted with Shastri even later. He did absolutely nothing In
matches.
        One thing which Used to make Shastri a usefull player in matches
was his bowling (in pre 87 days). He always came up with some tight spells
in matches. But after 87 his bowling became real bad. He was consistently failing
with bat and ball. Some players dont contribute to the team. But his case was
that he would contribute to the Indian defeat by playing *real* slow.
        You mentioned that in australia most of the Indian Players were out of
form. Agreed. But At least they would not waste time and balls. You never can
have a player come in and waste half the overs and score pathetic amount
of runs. Indian public was so disgusted with him that his house in Bombay
was stoned after one of Indian debacles.
        In recent years his range of shots has decreased a lot. He no longer has
any good shots in his armory. After batting patheticaly slow for 120+ balls
the only way he can think of hitting would be by leaving the stumps and going
fr a mighty heave and mostly ending up getting out.
        Right now Indian team looks pretty good. I myself have quiet faith in
Jadeja. What ever little I saw of him Australia Impressed me. (strictly my
opinions). Prabhakar even though is not the best bats man, is invaluable to
the team as a bowler. He is too slow to bat lower down the order. The  only
position suitable for him then is Opening the innings. and he has not done bad
there so he can be persisted with. Thus I dont see any place in the Current
Indian team fro Shastri. If some one (say Amre ) is dropped from the team
chance should be given to sidhu or manjrekar (who is by far much better than
shastri)
        What do you think

 
 
 

Shastri .. Good OR Bad

Post by L Ramsund » Tue, 07 Dec 1993 00:30:21

Quote:

>As L Ramasundar said, after 87 shastri along with vengy and srikanth were in
>bad form BUt as you see Vengy and srikanth were dropped soon after. But the
>selecters persisted with Shastri even later. He did absolutely nothing In

           That was because he  did well...I mean faily well relative
           to the performance of the Indian team as such.

Quote:
>matches.
>        One thing which Used to make Shastri a usefull player in matches
>was his bowling (in pre 87 days). He always came up with some tight spells

          And for his slogging too coming down the order.

Quote:
>in matches. But after 87 his bowling became real bad. He was consistently failing
>with bat and ball. Some players dont contribute to the team. But his case was
>that he would contribute to the Indian defeat by playing *real* slow.
>        You mentioned that in australia most of the Indian Players were out of
>form. Agreed. But At least they would not waste time and balls. You never can
>have a player come in and waste half the overs and score pathetic amount

        Oh!!!!!!!!!!!But its always better than batsman scoring 10 of any num-
         ber of balls and getting out soon.

Quote:
>of runs. Indian public was so disgusted with him that his house in Bombay
>was stoned after one of Indian debacles.

          The general instinct is that the team should last the full 50 overs
           in an one day international. If it keeps loosing wickets then
           the result would be pathetic. You are implying that  "Its O.K
           if others(except shastri) score like 10 of 13 or 14 balls and
           get out". But if shastri scores say 50 in 90 or 100 balls in the
           same match he is reprimanded illogically. In one-days its impor-
           tant to save the wickets  and there is no point to expect
           10 of 15 balls from 2 or 3 batsmen.
Quote:
>        In recent years his range of shots has decreased a lot. He no longer has
>any good shots in his armory. After batting patheticaly slow for 120+ balls
>the only way he can think of hitting would be by leaving the stumps and going
>fr a mighty heave and mostly ending up getting out.
>        Right now Indian team looks pretty good. I myself have quiet faith in
>Jadeja. What ever little I saw of him Australia Impressed me. (strictly my
>opinions). Prabhakar even though is not the best bats man, is invaluable to
>the team as a bowler. He is too slow to bat lower down the order. The  only
>position suitable for him then is Opening the innings. and he has not done bad
>there so he can be persisted with. Thus I dont see any place in the Current
>Indian team fro Shastri. If some one (say Amre ) is dropped from the team
>chance should be given to sidhu or manjrekar (who is by far much better than
>shastri)
>        What do you think


 
 
 

Shastri .. Good OR Bad

Post by Spaceman Spif » Thu, 09 Dec 1993 00:09:48


(Manish Tuli) says:
Quote:

>        Shastri was persisted with even though he did not perform. He would
>come up with an average performance once in a while and would stick in their

                 :::::::::::::::::::
Quote:
>It looks as if he had some clout with the selectors who simply refused to
>drop him.

cool! if scoring 187, 119, 206 etc. is "average", every cricketer on earth
would love to be "average".

Quote:
>:            get out". But if shastri scores say 50 in 90 or 100 balls in the
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        He was not scoring 50 of 90 balls
>        He was scoring 10-12 runs of 100 balls
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

when was this? please give a specific answer. if you can't cite the match,
please retract your statement.

Stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look out of any window,
Any morning, any evening, any day.
Maybe the sun is shining,
Birds are winging, no rain is fallin' from a heavy sky.

 
 
 

Shastri .. Good OR Bad

Post by Manish Tu » Thu, 09 Dec 1993 01:10:13

: >As L Ramasundar said, after 87 shastri along with vengy and srikanth were in
: >bad form BUt as you see Vengy and srikanth were dropped soon after. But the
: >selecters persisted with Shastri even later. He did absolutely nothing In
:            That was because he  did well...I mean faily well relative
:            to the performance of the Indian team as such.

        Well What doyou mean by relative performance. His performance was bad

Thats it. The people you are trying to relate him to are vengy and Srikanth

They did not perform well and thus were dropped from the team. Srikanth was

sacked even though he came back from a *relatively* successfull tour of

Pak (even though his personal Performance was not good, he was a good captain)

        Shastri was persisted with even though he did not perform. He would

come up with an average performance once in a while and would stick in their

It looks as if he had some clout with the selectors who simply refused to

drop him.

: >matches.
: >        One thing which Used to make Shastri a usefull player in matches
: >was his bowling (in pre 87 days). He always came up with some tight spells

:           And for his slogging too coming down the order.

: >form. Agreed. But At least they would not waste time and balls. You never can
: >have a player come in and waste half the overs and score pathetic amount
:            
:         Oh!!!!!!!!!!!But its always better than batsman scoring 10 of any num-
:          ber of balls and getting out soon.

Yes if there is a comparison it is better to have a player score 10 of

15 balls than have a player score 10 of 100+ balls

Simple laws .....10 of 15 is at least more effiecient and that is not

using up the balls that some one else could use to score.

        Its as simple as Hit out or get out

:           The general instinct is that the team should last the full 50 overs
:            in an one day international. If it keeps loosing wickets then
:            the result would be pathetic. You are implying that  "Its O.K
:            if others(except shastri) score like 10 of 13 or 14 balls and
:            get out". But if shastri scores say 50 in 90 or 100 balls in the
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        He was not scoring 50 of 90 balls

        He was scoring 10-12 runs of 100 balls

Now that is *really* unacceptable.

:            same match he is reprimanded illogically. In one-days its impor-
:            tant to save the wickets  and there is no point to expect
:            10 of 15 balls from 2 or 3 batsmen.

        Again at least they dont waste balls.........

Remember one day games have only 300 leal balls to be bowled.

If half of those are used by a player to score 10 odd runs imagine the

pressure on the other players. A player should have the ability to keep the

board ticking....

Manish Tuli

 
 
 

Shastri .. Good OR Bad

Post by L Ramsund » Thu, 09 Dec 1993 21:03:43

Quote:


>(Manish Tuli) says:

>>        Shastri was persisted with even though he did not perform. He would
>>come up with an average performance once in a while and would stick in their
>                 :::::::::::::::::::
>>It looks as if he had some clout with the selectors who simply refused to
>>drop him.

>cool! if scoring 187, 119, 206 etc. is "average", every cricketer on earth
>would love to be "average".

>>:            get out". But if shastri scores say 50 in 90 or 100 balls in the
>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>        He was not scoring 50 of 90 balls
>>        He was scoring 10-12 runs of 100 balls
>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>when was this? please give a specific answer. if you can't cite the match,
>please retract your statement.

         Shastri never consumed 100 balls to make 10 or a 12.I remeber his
         57 of 110 balls in WC92. I think you may have to retract your
         statement if your ego permits. It seems to me that most of them
         hate shastri because he is very slow. His strike rate is around
         65%. This is a good strike rate if others in the team make the-now
         famous-strike-rate-on-the-net of 15 runs off 15 balls or 20 runs
         of 20 balls. But the fact is that when shastri makes 50 odd of 90
         odd balls (or something like that) others fail to perform well and
         all of a sudden shastri is made the scape goat. There is no logic
         in this(I mean in accusing shastri).

         Shastri has a pretty decent test average good enough to regain
         his rightfull place( guys want to flame me , go ahead Iam not
         bothered) in the Indian Team. I am very confident that he will
         be back, after the Indian Team(without him) returns from NZ with
         dismal results.

         ONE FINAL WORD....

          I may not be available to look into the replies(if any) as I am
          leaving for India(Madras) for the winter holidays. So I would
          take this oppurtunity to wish You guys (shastri haters and shastri
          lovers)

                  A HAPPY NEW YEAR.

          bye
          Regards,
          L Ramsundar
                        see you guys in feb'94

 
 
 

Shastri .. Good OR Bad

Post by Manish Tu » Sat, 11 Dec 1993 08:04:55

: cool! if scoring 187, 119, 206 etc. is "average", every cricketer on earth
: would love to be "average".

        Yeah but this would come only once in about 20 matches.
        Whats the use of a player who scores runs as rarely as that.

: >        He was not scoring 50 of 90 balls
: >        He was scoring 10-12 runs of 100 balls
: >                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: when was this? please give a specific answer. if you can't cite the match,
: please retract your statement.

        This was in world cup 1992 in australia and the matches India
played there against australia. He was pathetic in all the matches
I dont know the exact no of balls he faced in each match but he was
pretty much in the vicinity. I specifically remember more than once
when he jhad faced 100+ balls and scored about 10-12 runs

        Manish Tuli

 
 
 

Shastri .. Good OR Bad

Post by Sudh » Sun, 12 Dec 1993 05:57:06

[...]
Quote:

>         Shastri has a pretty decent test average good enough to regain
>         his rightfull place( guys want to flame me , go ahead Iam not
>         bothered) in the Indian Team. I am very confident that he will

                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quote:
>         be back, after the Indian Team(without him) returns from NZ with

          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Quote:
>         dismal results.

          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Please correct me if I have read you wrongly, but you almost seem to be *wishing*
here that the Indian team return from NZ with dismal results!

*This* is the major complaint that most Shastri haters have against him, not about
his batting or bowling averages which, I admit, are pretty decent. Selfishness
to the extent where you wish *your own* team to fail in order that an individual
can prosper... And I was under the impression that cricket was a team sport :-)

Looks like some of Shastri's monumental selfishness has rubbed on to his fans too.

[...]

Quote:

>                  A HAPPY NEW YEAR.

Thanks. Happy New Year to you too.

Quote:
>          bye
>          Regards,
>          L Ramsundar

Regards,

--Sudhi.

--

Philosopher # 1 : "To do is to be"
Philosopher # 2 : "To be is to do"
Commoner        : "Yabba Dabba doo!"