Bona fide 'passengers', no-brainers and 'Agar from Wish': A candid look at India's perplexing T20 WC squad

Adam Voges had great numbers at Test level, but we all know he was no match winner, certainly not on a regular basis. I think Pandya's the same. Both will have good days and you would certainly know more about those than I, but all up, I don't think he inspires the sort of concern in opposition teams that he should.

I suspect both are being chosen on reputation more than results, Arnab. Certainly Rohit is/was a talented opening bat in Tests but at 37, his best years are behind him, even in that format, ( I thought he struggled in the England series against a pretty underwhelming attack). As you've said, he's hardly set the world on fire when batting in the easiest position in the T20 format. As for Pandya, I don't recall him ever playing a statement game at international level with either bat or ball. In fairness, he's suffered a lot of injuries but in between, has been no better than okay.

someone needs to tell me why we need all of Cummins Starc Haze Ellis Marsh Stoinis and Green, and i would be culling based on record, pace and ability to bat and field.... that has Marsh Green and Stoinis well ahead of some other names in the list IMHO. making it about Green versus Stoinis gives the selectors a lave pass IMRFHO

warner smashed the last ODI WC, has 5 50's in the last 2 T20 WC's, got two aggressive half centuries in the home summer, started the IPLs with 3 scores and then had a week or so getting out as you, and then got injured. that seems pretty decent form, record and current form? we need a replacement in the squad if he flops... JFM... Cummins out...?

it's absolutely, completely the opposite his T20 WC record is average 51 and SR 151. that's off the charts good. he goes above his already excellent SR, while improving his average he's been able to do that coming at the notoriously hard #5, where we are often behind the rate (home WC) and/or wickets falling at the other end.

Stoinis got 59* off 18, exactly when we needed a spark.

Dubai is a long time ago now - what did all these guys do in the last T20 World Cup? , at home I might add…

Of the four I mentioned he’s probably the one I have least issue being in the squad – but I feel those numbers are boosted by a lot of meaningless performances in bilateral series, as it feels just about every time he comes in under any real pressure he capitulates against spin bowling (with the exception being that one time with Wade v Pakistan) I think his bowling is handy enough, but we didn’t need both him and Green in the squad, if they wanted Stoinis, no need for Green and could’ve gone with JFM or Short instead. Warner should be absolutely nowhere near the squad on current form and age.

I'm surprised there's no room for Gill in there. I'm also disappointed that room couldn't be found for Fraser-McGurk in the Aussie squad. We need some fresh blood in the squad - the fearlessness of youth etc. Everyone is saying he's young, and I guess he is, but it's a sign of the times when we're saying 22 is "very young". There was a time when 22 was considered as moving towards the golden age for a batter. 19/20 was considered "young" and 32/33 was considered "old and about to retire". Now we are dogged by a surplus of middle-aged men like Warner (close to 38!) who are plugging up the system and postponing the careers of players like JF-M. One factor that needs to be considered is that a squad laden with 30+ members is more likely to suffer the burden of injuries and be slower in the field. We have a situation where our batting order has two of the top three recently injured and have been selected on their reputations and past performances. Personally, I'd prefer it if Warner and Wade had been put out to pasture. Stoinis is an interesting one. His T20 and ODI performances differ greatly. He shouldn't be allowed near the ODI team again but T20 is different. I'm not sure about Stoinis - need to ponder a bit more!

I dunno if it's the same at all 13th. The assessment above seems to be that certain players are picked despite having never performed at international level, solely because of the rep in other formats; Sharma, Pant and Jadeja principally. In contrast, Warner, Starc and to a lesser degree Wade, have all performed at the highest level in T20 cricket for Australia at numerous periods. Even Stoinis has done well at international level and in world cups in this format. It might be that they're over the hill and we should have gone with younger talent, but the records of those three India players don't even suggest they should have been picked at their 'peak'.

yes agree strongly i mean I think generally this is the sort of format where the surplus of allrounders mean that teams often have players who neither bat nor bowl in a game (Georgia Wareham famously won a WC medal doing neither in both the semi and the final.) my preferred solution would be to make it 9 a side, including in the field. but in the absence of that, a Stoinis type who can tonk well or bowl an over or two and jag a wicket now and then - who/what else are you going to pick. and as you say he his international record playing that difficult role is pretty good. good enough. he batted well enough in the Dubai win he got 59* off 18 in the home one. 29 average and 145 SR coming in lateish is pretty impressive by international standards.

Stoinis has played 18 T20Is in the last 24 months, averaging 31.25 with the bat (SR 154) and 18.94 with the ball (ER 8.97). Stoinis is also one of the top players in terms of overall impact in the IPL this season. He should have been dropped from the ODI squad years ago, but he's a legit T20 player.

So true 13th re Dad's Army. I'm a believer in young blood particularly when they are in good form If only some had the good grace to retire so plans can be put in place to rebuild before others are forced out with injury and age Just giving vent to my feelings :laughing:

Your comments on Indias selections could be mirrored for Australia too - picking Warner, Stoinis, Starc, Wade are all based entirely on name alone rather than any merit based selection criteria. Glad other countries are also following the same laughable conservative selection logic as it means we are still a chance even with the dads army squad we are taking.

Having watched a bit of the IPL I am a bit surprised that Abhishek Sharma isn't in the squad. He seems like an incredible talent with a temperament made for major tournaments.

Interesting comments Arnab. It seems Indian selectors are cut from the same cloth as both Australia and England; ultra conservative with who they choose and heavily reliant on previous form in similar tournaments. In England's case, that policy was used last WC and failed miserably so I'm sure plenty are wondering whether it will work this time round. I also wonder whether the selections of Rohit and Pandya were made on the basis of their leadership, rather than performances? I can't remember any significant contributions from either player at a T20 World Cup, which in part answers why India's done so poorly at these tournaments for the best part of a decade.