The Association Football Cricket thread

Remove this Banner Ad

If management want to teach Pant a lesson for playing irresponsible shots by dropping him, then shouldn’t half of the team be dropped for bad decision making? Start with Jaiswal who clearly wasn’t focused when India were fielding.
 
Jaiswal is a fantastic batsman, their next superstar and the one who fought tooth and nail in that 4th innings to save the match. His dropped catches were immensely costly for them however his position is surely under no question mark.

Some of his senior teammates however should be the ones to make way. Rohit shouldn’t be in and that’s kind of the elephant in the room for Indian cricket at the moment. Dhruv Jurel is a very good batsman too however that’s massive if they drop Pant. Just him being back playing international cricket at this level is a phenomenal outcome after that car crash. He’s fortunate to be here really.

Dropping him would be wild, unless he’s injured like Deep is (sore back I read).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If management want to teach Pant a lesson for playing irresponsible shots by dropping him, then shouldn’t half of the team be dropped for bad decision making? Start with Jaiswal who clearly wasn’t focused when India were fielding.
Why would India drop their best performing batsman? I hope they do, because that would gift Australia the series.

Sharma first, Lyon made more in his second innings than Sharma has in the whole series.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Interesting twist.



This is classical politics, posturing over the usage of words. He’s clearly dropped or not selected or so on. However “opting out” or “rested” saves face and allows a great of the game a level of respect soften the impact. That press conference though, sheesh. The opening minute or so when he dismissed the questions about Rohit playing today was tense and odd. All is not right in their camp clearly.

Dropping Pant would be idiotic. Remains to be seen if that’s true.
 
It was that momentary still where it seemed the ball was touching the ground partially whilst the rest of it was grasped in his fingers, that was sufficient doubt it seemed from what the third umpire was saying.
 
It was that momentary still where it seemed the ball was touching the ground partially whilst the rest of it was grasped in his fingers, that was sufficient doubt it seemed from what the third umpire was saying.
This. I agree with the call tbh
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Association Football Cricket thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top