So you agree that they had enough experiance to win a world cup but then you end the sentence saying they weren't experienced enough.
There is a certain reason for me inserting "(For which even I agree upon)" between two statements. I agree for the part which is in front, not after it.
Also when you talk about them not being "fit enough", the current team we have is probably the fittest Indian team that I have ever watched. They couldn't handle the pressure? Well they did handle it pretty well to win all the games until the semi-final. That is after we lost the test series against Australia and didn't win any games in the tri-series just a month before the world cup. After that horrible performance in tri-series, most of us Indian cricket fans wouldn't have given this Indian team any chance in the world cup. However, they did overcome those expectations and performed very well until they again came short against Steve Smith who was just in a golden form.
Just because they played well in 6 games before choking doesn't mean we were deserving winners or they had all the experience in this world.
It's the fact that we couldn't chase 300+ against Australia which we were expected to do with the batting depth.
See now this is the stuff you have to come up with when you run out of logic and sensible arguments. I was replying to your posts before because it actually made sense to certain extent even though I did not agree with it. However, you completely lost me with this high school banter.
Check the quote and see who started it all.
So, if the player is not in form but he is experienced, he should be playing ( especially in big tournaments like WC ). And If the player is in form but not experienced, he should not be playing ? lol. It's ridiculous. How does a player get experience if he doesn't play ?
We sent the best men to WC and we lost in the semis. It is the only match we lost in WC. It was not a bad tournament.
Read the entire conversation from where this started. This is NZ's tour of India thread and we are discussing why experienced person who is doing well has edge over the inexperienced youngster who still needs to improve.
We had no choice back then in world cup, and hence we sent fairly inexperienced team.
I'm not denying the fact that youngsters need some chances to gain experience. I'm not telling we should have sent Gauti or Yuvi and we could have won World Cup, I'm telling as Gauti is back in form let's make him a regular Indian member.
We already saw how a team could choke without experienced players. When you have provision of playing experienced players, why don't you do it. Almost all players in team are fairly inexperienced and you definitely need someone experienced when things go wrong. Until now, things have been under control, but when things go out of control, you just can't carry the regret the decision of benching an experienced player who could have made difference.