There are quite a few shouts and cry around Indian team selection for one dayers. Effigy burning in Calcutta along with open disappointment shown by Ganguly, criticism on how and why Dravid and Laxman be dropped especially under Aussie conditions, how transition from old to new should be phased and not overhauled etc, but surprisingly I have not seen any one article or post on why Murali Karthik was left out for this tour.
Murali Karthik had almost given up on playing for India (he started anchoring/commentating) before he was called up for Aussie's home one dayers last year, promptly delivered NOT ONLY with the ball but also with the bat (along with Zaheer) to clinch a thriller and a decent follow up Pakistan ODIs and then promptly gets dropped for the next tour.
I totally believe in giving opportunities to youngsters, but the vision and idea should be clear and consistent. Why was he picked for just a handful of ODIs if he is not young enough? What would selectors do if India lose the ODIs handsomely or if one or two players fail miserably. The word "Selection committee" is the antonym for Clarity.
Murali Karthik had almost given up on playing for India (he started anchoring/commentating) before he was called up for Aussie's home one dayers last year, promptly delivered NOT ONLY with the ball but also with the bat (along with Zaheer) to clinch a thriller and a decent follow up Pakistan ODIs and then promptly gets dropped for the next tour.
I totally believe in giving opportunities to youngsters, but the vision and idea should be clear and consistent. Why was he picked for just a handful of ODIs if he is not young enough? What would selectors do if India lose the ODIs handsomely or if one or two players fail miserably. The word "Selection committee" is the antonym for Clarity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment