Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Balance of power needed.  (Read 18682 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

atticus

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #120 on: March 02, 2006, 10:41:04 AM »

atticus:

if you re read my post, you will see that the faults you are finding in my argument are non existent.

My posts touched on 2 points
1) professional and accountable selectors
2) selectors with more experience / repute

Based on this context, I said that given the set up of the coach having advisory powers and not a vote, there is no diff if the coach is a lesser luminary than the selector because the balance of power was meant to remain with professional selectors who hold the voting powers, not the coach.

and the difference between you and I is that I do not believe that the end justifies the means which seems to be ok with some. For the record, i felt just as strongly when selection whims ended Jimmy Amarnath's career (of course there was no DG then).

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was against the current selectorial structure much before SG made his international debut. So to use Cover Point's defense about me being concerned about one player cuts very little ice with me.

A system breaks when you ignore the right of one -- you dont have to wait till several are victimised before fixing a system.

Yes. I don't care about the means. That doesn't make my point wrong or bad. Why should I care about the means? It is cricket - entertainment. I watch cricket to be entertained. I get the most pleasure if India wins or at least the boys give their best even in a losing cause (as an aside, one of the best RD innings in my memory is not any of his centuries or his fifties. It was not even 30. It was his 27* against SA in SA. In a match in which we scored 100 and 66 in 2 innings, he played brilliantly. I may have blocked out some of his misses, but as far as I can remember he wasn't event beaten once). I don't care if the winning runs were hit by SG or some rookie. I also don't get what great injustice has been done to SG. If he retires today, he is going to retire as the best captain (at least w.r.t results) India ever had, the 4th highest ODI scorer and a more than average test batsman. He also made a lot of money out of it. 20 years from now, people are going to remember the positives more than the negatives. He could still force his way back - just like VVS, hit 9 centuries in a row. No one will be able to ignore that. I would feel more for some one like S Ramesh. He neither made a name for himself nor got a lot of money out of it. Now he is not even in the T.N. team. As to your last point, I don't think anyone is victimised. I will want to change the system, if the system does not produce the results. PERIOD.  Anyway, I don't think we can agree about this. So we will agree to disagree. This will be my last post on this subject.
Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #121 on: March 02, 2006, 12:10:25 PM »

i agree with kban, the australian method is quite logical, ours seems a bit haywire.

This is there in my earlier post to kban .. but bears repetition ...

Lets take Australia as a case in point ... they dropped Damien Martyn after the Ashes. Did he retire? NO. Is he still playing? YES. Did they recall him when Micheal Clarke failed? No, they plumped for Brad Hodge - a newcomer, not proven, but still worth investing in. Did they recall Matthew Hayden to the ODI squad when a stop gap opportunity presented itself? NO. They opted for Jaques, and sent him back to the domestic arena when Katich came back. So, what is so different from our "haywire" method?
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #122 on: March 02, 2006, 12:19:56 PM »

keep it cool:

The planning for the future argument does not hold when
1) the opportunities in question are only stop gap opportunities
2) the younger players are getting international exposure in ODIS.


Wow!!!! At this point, let me say I'm quite convinced you are a bit too moved by SG's plight. More than any great need to change the system. Anyway, we all want a better system dont we? After that whole debate I had with you on RD's 'taking a stance', physically attending the selection meeting, and now this whole thread...

That point no.1 is utter nonsense. 'stop gap' opportunities? What does that even mean?!!!
These kind of opportunities are precisely what a young lad can use most cos he's not really under the gun. In other words, he is not finally coming on the scene getting his one or two chances with the pressure to do well - the old Indian model. He can get a couple of 30s and yet not worry unduly about being kicked out. Hang around on the fringe getting the odd chance, WITHOUT ever exhausting/using your one real chance. Mohd.Kaif's example will help us understand this really well. He has 8 Tests/15 inns for a total of 307 runs at a average of 21.92. Just two fifties. Now suppose he had got his chance and played these 8 Tests back to back or pretty much at a stretch, with this kind of performance, he'd be long gone. But now, the team still owes him his one real chance. At this point, one believes he can probably benefit from his 8 Tests. Which he otherwise wouldn't have if we were to buy into your model.

As to bringing up the Aussie method, I can't believe you went there. Its obvious to everyone that our domestic system is not the same...we dont produce the same kind of ready-to-play-ball players. But I suspect you know this too.


Really, I have esteem for you ability to articulate and write nuanced stuff. But inspite of all this and your formidable intellect, its increasingly hard to believe that you aren't just basing yourself on a foundation of bitterness about Ganguly's career ending.

I was actually planning to keep slient, couldn't resist after seeing some posts.


Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #123 on: March 02, 2006, 12:23:48 PM »

i agree with kban, the australian method is quite logical, ours seems a bit haywire.

This is there in my earlier post to kban .. but bears repetition ...

Lets take Australia as a case in point ... they dropped Damien Martyn after the Ashes. Did he retire? NO. Is he still playing? YES. Did they recall him when Micheal Clarke failed? No, they plumped for Brad Hodge - a newcomer, not proven, but still worth investing in. Did they recall Matthew Hayden to the ODI squad when a stop gap opportunity presented itself? NO. They opted for Jaques, and sent him back to the domestic arena when Katich came back. So, what is so different from our "haywire" method?

Achu,
Please, in the Aussie system, Dada wouldn't have lasted even this long. But then again, in that system, Dada may not have taken his position for granted and possibly never have slumped so much. We'l never know. But Aussie system is less forgiving than ours, lets be sure.

And yeah, dont we alll know their domestic and ours dont compare?
Logged

achutank

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,565
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #124 on: March 02, 2006, 01:48:50 PM »

SP

kban is responding to the concept of taking young players in your reserve. where does SG really figure in this i don't understand. maybe you do. but i agree with kban on the fact that the aussie system of blooding young players (unless of exceptional talent like Lee) is through the one day mode and they are not passengers on series. they are asked to play for their first class teams if they have no real work to do in the national side.
Logged
there is more than meets the i

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #125 on: March 02, 2006, 04:49:55 PM »

Senthilpeter:

Quote
That point no.1 is utter nonsense. 'stop gap' opportunities? What does that even mean?!!!

As I read your post, I get the feeling that you did not read my post in detail. Stop gap opportunities means exactly that – when one of the established middle order are injured / missing, you get an off chance to play.

Quote
These kind of opportunities are precisely what a young lad can use most cos he's not really under the gun. In other words, he is not finally coming on the scene getting his one or two chances with the pressure to do well - the old Indian model. He can get a couple of 30s and yet not worry unduly about being kicked out. Hang around on the fringe getting the odd chance, WITHOUT ever exhausting/using your one real chance. Mohd.Kaif's example will help us understand this really well. He has 8 Tests/15 inns for a total of 307 runs at a average of 21.92. Just two fifties. Now suppose he had got his chance and played these 8 Tests back to back or pretty much at a stretch, with this kind of performance, he'd be long gone. But now, the team still owes him his one real chance. At this point, one believes he can probably benefit from his 8 Tests. Which he otherwise wouldn't have if we were to buy into your model.

Again you did not read my post. Kaif (or Raina or whoever the new talent is) is owed a run of consecutive opportunities to play irrespective of whether they play in these one off opportunities. That’s how we test a player’s capabilities since our domestic system is not a refined testing ground.

What makes you think giving them a shot at the off opportunities will eliminate the need to give them a proper run later anyways ?

And why should they be given the special advantage of playing without pressure in one off opportunities ? Most people make their mark by forcing their way in via limited opportunities – remember RD and SG and how they grabbed a  one off opportunity to seize their place in the test team.

All I have said is that there is no rush to put Kaif or Raina in the reserve slot right now because on current form SG is ahead of the 2 in the pecking order for a reserve spot. When their form is better than SG’s, you put MK or SR ahead of SG in the pecking order for the reserve spot.

I would be interested in choosing the best team and on current form SG is ahead of the other 2. That’s my best combination now when one of the regular middle order bats is unavailable. Besides, I would rather have motivated people on the reserve spot –someone like SG who will realize that much like his test debut, it is perform or perish (in these limited opportunities that he will get as a fill in). And he will also know that his spot on the reserves is hotly contested by MK and Raina and that the day they hit form, they will supercede SG in the pecking order.

If your intent was to illustrate the principle of giving a reasonable run to a player to establish his credentials without the pressure of being axed based on limited opportunities, then you and I are on the same page. But for that we do not need to give them a pressure free one off opportunity when they don’t deserve it on form –that can be achieved by a consistent selection policy when the actual opportunity comes knocking (read slot in the 11)

If not, then your logic in making this point is way off. You want to give Kaif a chance so he can play the one off test without pressure ? Really ? When is test cricket without pressure ? And how much of a testing ground is it for him if he knows he does not risk having a poor performance count against him ? And if that is really your logic, how motivated do you think Kaif (or raina) will be knowing that they will get a fair run later on when a slot opens up (one of the established bats retiring or being dropped –not a one off opportunity) ?   

Not saying that Kaif or Raina will necessarily approach it that way, just pointing out the fallacy in your argument by extending the logic you used in your post.

Quote
As to bringing up the Aussie method, I can't believe you went there. Its obvious to everyone that our domestic system is not the same...we dont produce the same kind of ready-to-play-ball players. But I suspect you know this too.

Now you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Again re read my post. I said several other countries including Australia for one. Secondly, did I indicate anywhere that our domestic system and Australia’s are comparable ? That is expressly why I emphasized the point that the ODI exposure gives our guys (the youth brigade) the opportunity to play international cricket and so these guys  wont be thrown into the deep end later on (due to lack of exposure) when the opportunity arises to claim  a permanent batting spot. It also gives us an opportunity to find out whether they belong on the international stage or not.

Once again, the point is simple. When it comes to reserves, the youth argument is superfluous. Select the best batsman for the reserve spot based on form – today it is SG, tomorrow it may be Kaif, Raina, V Rao, Amol Majumdar, whoever.

If you are worried about the preparing the youth brigade for the transition that’s upcoming in the next 3 -4 yrs, make them play the ODI’s. There is no need to push them for the test spot when there isn’t a spot available in the XI just for the sake of the youth argument while ignoring the form question.

Quote
Really, I have esteem for you ability to articulate and write nuanced stuff. But inspite of all this and your formidable intellect, its increasingly hard to believe that you aren't just basing yourself on a foundation of bitterness about Ganguly's career ending.

I was actually planning to keep slient, couldn't resist after seeing some posts

I appreciate you words even though they come with a slight zap. So I shall address the zap.

why do you think any argument that I am making is centered around my alleged bitterness over SG’s exclusion ? Don’t you think by using that refrain, you are trivializing my reasoning as well as the issue at hand ?

Just because these issues have arisen (in their current incarnation) with the SG selection / exclusion, does that mean it renders any actual systemic issues / flaws in the system and their discussion thereof irrelevant / redundant ?

What if I were to make the same argument against someone who argues the opposite side – that their joy over SG’s exclusion or their support for GC / KM / RD / take your pick is making them oblivious to flaws existent in our current system ? Would that not be trivializing that person’s entire logic by virtue of bringing in the premise of emotional attachment or motivation ?

This IMO, is unfair. I am pretty sure than an intelligent person like you can discuss the logic of the points without resorting to aspersions about my emotional attachment to an individual.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2006, 05:23:10 PM by kban1 »
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #126 on: March 02, 2006, 05:59:40 PM »

keep it cool

Quote
I think then it is a matter of view. Coz in my opinion
- You can groom a youngster when it is a stop gap arrangement; even if he fails, at least you have a back up available in the form of the regular player as and when he comes in
- On the other hand, if you need to find a regular in the middle order, you need an experienced hand who knows something about being there. In any case, there is no percentage in playing a person who may have just a few years of cricket ahead of him in the occassional test, as it takes away the opportunity of trying out a person in a live environment.

why would you want to test player in a stop gap arrangement just because he is young when there is a player in better form available. Shouldn’t one select the best available team –you are playing for your country, why wouldn’t you go for the best now. And if the best now based on form is the young player, then so be it.

Trying out  a person in a live environment is fine and dandy with me even in a one off opportunity provided the person has earned his spurs (read current form), not based on an age criteria that trumps form.

The bottom line goal should be best team, best performance.

The argument is that if it’s a stop gap situation, play your best option based on form irrespective of age as long as the youth brigade get their opportunities for international exposure in the ODI’s.

Quote
Now, on the test v/s ODI issue
- it is good that YS did come to the fore playing ODIs; so did Sehwag. But then we also have the likes of jadeja and robin singh who played well over time in ODIs and looked totally out of their depth in the tests ... micheal bevan of Australia is another case in point. My point is that it is not necessary that a test player will be good at ODIs or vice versa .. they may be more than 50% of the time, but there is still a good probability that the transition may not be made.

Oh absolutely agree about separating the chaff (ODIs) from the wheat (tests). But what purpose will giving these players a one off chance in a test team solve ?  The only way you will separate the Shewag from the Jadejas is when you get a chance to give them an extended run in the test version and currently that opportunity is non existent due to packed middle order. These one off chances does not settle the question one way or the other. At the end of the day, every potential player in form needs to be given a reasonable run in tests (consecutive) to see if they cut it or not.

Quote
- On the Australian example, sure they do not keep many reserves, but then the standard of their domestic cricket is also very high .. the gulf between sheffield shield and test cricket is not as yawning as we see in India. Even here, and correct me if I am wrong, the Aussies did not go back to a darren lehman or a damien martyn in the test matches when clarke failed. They opted for brad hodge, who probably they feel is a much more longer term prospect although maybe not in the same class. Neither have they gone back to a matthew hayden in ODIs when one of the openers got injured or dropped out - they opted to play jaques instead, give him a feel of the international scene, and then reverted to katich when he was available. So, what is being done out here is not so different really.

I am not talking about the domestic cricket standards between India and Australia. I agree our system is less of a preparation for test cricket, which is why I emphasized other international exposure such as ODIs (should have included A team, BP XI against touring sides et all).

And I mentioned several other teams including Australia, not specifically the Aussies. The point I made again has to do with the general procedure of transitioning from ODI’s before tests rather than specific selection decisions which can be debated either way. And your examples do not show anything contrary to that.

In your example, Lehman does not figure in the equation because he really took himself out of the equation. As for Martyn, I personally did not agree with the Australian selection decision to exclude him. What you are arguing here is that they selected youth over experience –frankly, Hodge isn’t a spring chicken for one. Secondly he was tested in ODI’s before his transition. And thirdly, he was selected for a direct opening in the playing XI, not a reserve spot. Even if Hodge plays the role of a reserve, he was selected based on form, not for his youth alone.

Either way, The argument you are putting forward with examples of Aussie selection relates to youth vs experience question whereas my reference to their system (among others) was based on the principle of ODI experience transitioning into a test spot when available –separate points of thrust I believe. As far as the Odi’s there is a prevailing thought in Australia about hayden clearing his cobwebs (which his test form of late suggests he has) before they consider bringing him back, which they may or may not do taking into account his age –kinda similar to what we did with SG and VVS vis-à-vis ODIs. But again this example relates to the youth vs experience issue as opposed to the context in which I mentioned Australia.

My quotation of a strength of the Australian system is not meant to imply that their system is infallible – The examples you are quoting relate to selection decisions regarding youth vs experience. This addresses a separate point and really does not refute or disprove the general principle I referred to –which is that Australians along with several others groom players through the ODI’s before transitioning them into tests when slots are available.

Quote
And I agree there have been a multitude of reasons given for SG's exclusion ... which I believe is a sad state of affairs ... but do you think this is to hide GC's ego or to handle the SG situation. Let us accept it, whether we want him in the team or not, SG is a border line case today; he is in no way one of the certainties. And there seems (and this is only what I percieve; may not be true) that there has been external pressure to include him in the team in the tests against SL and Pak. In this context, first a selector has to explain why they picked him and then why they dropped him .. Obviously, it would come out as a confused set of statements. To my mind, where the selectors or More goofed up was in not coming out straight with the reasons to keep him out ... just a simple "he is no longer getting young, not playing well enough to conclusively edge out any of the younger prospects and we want to focus on building a team to avoid the pain of sudden transition" would have been enough. It would still have led to a widespread debate and protests, but would at least have been a statement of intent.

The key here is that whatever be the divergence in reasons given, it still does not take away from the fact that when viewed against the experience (current) v/s youth (future) equation, SG does not seem to offer a significantly higher value proposition than the available youth options to warrant plumping for experience. Of course, this is only my view ... but it is as credible (if not more) as the opposite view. Ascribing the entire issue just to GC's ego is really taking the easy way out. GC's ego would have not been able to do anything had SG not presented such a weak case for himself.

On the contrary ascribing this to ego is not taking the easy way out. Its is putting yourself in those shoes and imagining the natural human reaction to such a spat (and make no mistake, it was a bad spat –I am not sure whether you have followed all the reports, but there were ugly and volatile exchanges between the 2). You apply common psychology and some of this is evident.

Also, when you quote pressure to include SG in SL and Pak as a defense for the convoluted and tortured logic that the selectors have provided to justify SG’s inclusion and exclusion, You are forgetting to take into account the fact that the pressure did not manufacture itself – it arose because it was unheard of that a player (whatever his failings in the past season) would be dropped after scoring a hundred 2 tests before, irrespective of the opposition.

Also, it arose because of the player doing well in domestic cricket  --indication that he was coming out of the form slump. The pressure also arose because he performed reasonably well against SL on a difficult pitch only to be dropped in the next test (changing the winning combination be damned) in favor of a player (MK) who was going through a bad run of scores.

And by concentrating only on the post selection committee meeting press briefings, you are ignoring leaked reports of what happened in the meetings – and what kind of objections were raised against the player and more importantly by whom. Yes these are leaks, but when you have different media sources in the country reporting independently more or less the same story, then you know that this is a story that probably needs to be taken seriously.

Like I said, you have to look at things in perspective, serially, and in order to make the conclusion. And that is mine.

And I say that without exonerating SG from his part in the mess – he is responsible for the spat as well. But the guy paid the price for it too. Captaincy, ODI spot, test spot. But to continue denying him even the one off opportunity to prove his worth and capability (when he is in form) by any and every means possible and using every excuse conceivable and then some, reeks of agenda.

Again you may agree or disagree with this part. I respect your right to disagree, so I shall not prolong this discussion further.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #127 on: March 02, 2006, 06:15:21 PM »

atticus:

It is entirely your prerogative whether you care about the means or not. Just to clarify that I did not attach a value judgment to it.

As for the majority of the rest of your post, you are not saying anything new, so not much to comment on except:

Sadagopan Ramesh ?? __ a guy who was given umpteen opportunities, spoken to by both captain and especially coach and specifically told not to throw his wicket away after being set (to make use of his opportunities because others were knocking at the door). Wow!!

Of course you do not believe anyone was victimized, this is but natural  --most people fail to realize the plight of victims or identify with them until fate deals them a cruel blow and then wisdom comes suddenly. Hopefully none of us have to go through a personal reversal of fortune in our lifetimes to realize that but a reasonable knowledge of Indian cricket history, and its rather dark history off victimizing players might help provide you with some perspective about vicitmization and the system which you so stoutly defend.

A system, which has ended the careers of people like Mohinder Amarnath &  Syed Kirmani, --to name just a couple (and mind you the system has remained unchanged since then) probably deserves a little more examination than your cavalier response suggests.

But like you said, only results matter and we shall agree to disagree on that note.
Logged

j

  • First Class Player
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 232
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #128 on: March 02, 2006, 06:21:25 PM »

atticus:

It is entirely your prerogative whether you care about the means or not. Just to clarify that I did not attach a value judgment to it.

As for the majority of the rest of your post, you are not saying anything new, so not much to comment on except:

Sadagopan Ramesh ?? __ a guy who was given umpteen opportunities, spoken to by both captain and especially coach and specifically told not to throw his wicket away after being set (to make use of his opportunities because others were knocking at the door). Wow!!

Of course you do not believe anyone was victimized, this is but natural  --most people fail to realize the plight of victims or identify with them until fate deals them a cruel blow and then wisdom comes suddenly. Hopefully none of us have to go through a personal reversal of fortune in our lifetimes to realize that but a reasonable knowledge of Indian cricket history, and its rather dark history off victimizing players might help provide you with some perspective about vicitmization and the system which you so stoutly defend.

A system, which has ended the careers of people like Mohinder Amarnath &  Syed Kirmani, --to name just a couple (and mind you the system has remained unchanged since then) probably deserves a little more examination than your cavalier response suggests.

But like you said, only results matter and we shall agree to disagree on that note.
Kirmani was unceremoniously exited when he had 198 scalps. Our best wicketkeeper-bat was not even given a chance to get to 200 when he was at his best. As for Amarnath, the less said the better.
Logged

atticus

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #129 on: March 02, 2006, 07:30:18 PM »

atticus:

It is entirely your prerogative whether you care about the means or not. Just to clarify that I did not attach a value judgment to it.

As for the majority of the rest of your post, you are not saying anything new, so not much to comment on except:

Sadagopan Ramesh ?? __ a guy who was given umpteen opportunities, spoken to by both captain and especially coach and specifically told not to throw his wicket away after being set (to make use of his opportunities because others were knocking at the door). Wow!!

Of course you do not believe anyone was victimized, this is but natural  --most people fail to realize the plight of victims or identify with them until fate deals them a cruel blow and then wisdom comes suddenly. Hopefully none of us have to go through a personal reversal of fortune in our lifetimes to realize that but a reasonable knowledge of Indian cricket history, and its rather dark history off victimizing players might help provide you with some perspective about vicitmization and the system which you so stoutly defend.

A system, which has ended the careers of people like Mohinder Amarnath &  Syed Kirmani, --to name just a couple (and mind you the system has remained unchanged since then) probably deserves a little more examination than your cavalier response suggests.

But like you said, only results matter and we shall agree to disagree on that note.

Well, thanks for hoping I won't be victimised in my personal life. Very thoughtful of you. I do hope that you realise that even according to my POV that the system failed when Mohinder Amarnath & Syed Kirmani were dropped. India did not produce the results when they were dropped. So the system was a failure according to my theory in those cases.

I was only using S. Ramesh as an example of a player who did not make a name for himself, but played enough international cricket. I was saying that I would feel more sorry for a player like him - NOT him in particular. I know the reason he is out of the team is all his fault.

Logged

atticus

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #130 on: March 02, 2006, 07:37:39 PM »

Just a small addition,

The system has not remained unchanged since those days. Apparently, now the selectors listen to the coach/captain and try to get them the team they want (as much as possible). That is why SG is still parised for backing his palyers and getting the team he wanted. That is why we don't have the silliness of a selection of Noel David in place of Srinath. This is not the ideal system, sure. But given the fact that currently only the coach/captain are accountable, I want them to get the team they want. I already told you in my post long back - change the accountability system, then I agree with you about the Blanace of power

<quoute> You want the selectors holding the balance of power instead of the coach/captain. I want the reverse purely because the selectors currently are not accountable. Make them accountable and I will agree with you. Until then, I would rather have the team a coach wants. </quote>
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #131 on: March 02, 2006, 08:59:21 PM »

And in anycase when you are picking 11 (or 15 ) out of a billion people power will come in play. Point is the head of BCCI is a VERY powerfull man in India. The selectors ARE very powerful. It is only recently that the coach and captain (who were always held accountable) are seeing some (even if it is indirect) power.

Unless you have a system where selectors are ELECTED by the people (and even there we have seen democracy fails us ) the power would be concentrated somewhere.

So some people think GC is too powerful. That is subjective. I do hold him responsible for delivering results for the Indian cricket team. He cant do that in a vaccum. He needs to be heard and listened to and given what he wants.

I have heard Gavaskar's name brandied about. Gavaskar has a big name but I cant remember the last time he actually did anything good for India (since his playing days). When he was helping the team he failed to use his "stature" to indeed help and later wrote coloumns about how the team did not listen to Wright. I am sorry the only reason people are using his name is because he has made noises about being sympathetic to SG's plight.

I think we need to get over some of this and not worry about this power business. Actually I have heard some good arguments for consolidation of power rather than diluting it by spreading it among too many people. Nothing gets done in large committees or where 20 signatures are needed to get one decision made.

Today (as in SG's time) GC doesnt have a vote in the selection. What he does have is a receptive audience (as in SG's case who additionally had a BCCI president in his pocket) who listen to his "vision". With the results he has shown so far it is hard not to.

If/when he fails, trust me knives will be out for him AND with a vengeance. Basically what GC is doing is stirring the pot he is instilling a hard and tough work ethic (which was lacking in later Wright days). He is making people work hard and be uncomfortable. He has sent a message that you woudl have to work hard to survive in this team. Cant sit on old laurels. Doing enough to just get by isnt going to cut it. In the process he is making enemies (he could have been like Wright .. do enough to get by and not stir anything and that would have been BAD for Team India and Indian cricket!!!)

Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #132 on: March 02, 2006, 09:46:51 PM »

atticus:

a few points:

1) When Kirmani was dropped India was actually doing reasonably well. And Mohinder Amarnath was dropped soon after he played a match winning innings to lead India to victory in the Asia Cup tournament over Pakistan. So the results were positive then too. We followed up Kirmani's dropping with an overseas victory against England (in England) -- so the results right after the dropping were good. In Amarnath's case we went to West Indies and lost.

So in at least 1 out of the 2 instances, the system failed as per your theory, not both.

2) Which also brings me to the following:

The results matter but not the individuals who actually have contributed to such results ?
Or do only the future results matter ? Past results can be discarded just as those who contributed to those past results, even before their time ?

And then you confused me by mentioning that you are likely to feel sorry for someone who did not make money or play enough international cricket.

Which suggests that the relative prominence and wealth achieved by some individuals in the very team you support actually counts against you feeling anything for them ?
How do you reconcile that to the fact that players who usually earn more money and play more international cricket than others are likely the ones who were in the team and performed well enough to retain their spot and also grant you (and other cricket fans) with the very results that you value so much ?

3) Your quote
Quote
I already told you in my post long back - change the accountability system, then I agree with you about the Blanace of power

Quote
You want the selectors holding the balance of power instead of the coach/captain. I want the reverse purely because the selectors currently are not accountable. Make them accountable and I will agree with you. Until then, I would rather have the team a coach wants.


maybe you have been skimming through my posts and not really reading them. I repeatedly mentioned in my previous posts the need for professional selectors who will be held accountable. I shall repost the relevant excerpt from my last post again for your benefit.

Quote
atticus:

if you re read my post, you will see that the faults you are finding in my argument are non existent.

My posts touched on 2 points
1) professional and accountable selectors
2) selectors with more experience / repute

4)
Quote
Well, thanks for hoping I won't be victimised in my personal life. Very thoughtful of you.

Your comment suggests you misconstrued my comment as being a dig -- let me clarify, it was not.

I simply mentioned I can see why as a third person, you would not necessarily agree with the victim's point of view and how people generally do not till they face a similar situation. My following comment about none of us having to face that situation was again a general comment.

If my comment sounded like a personal dig at you, then I hope this clarifies.
Logged

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #133 on: March 02, 2006, 10:03:24 PM »

And in anycase when you are picking 11 (or 15 ) out of a billion people power will come in play. Point is the head of BCCI is a VERY powerfull man in India. The selectors ARE very powerful. It is only recently that the coach and captain (who were always held accountable) are seeing some (even if it is indirect) power.

Unless you have a system where selectors are ELECTED by the people (and even there we have seen democracy fails us ) the power would be concentrated somewhere.

So some people think GC is too powerful. That is subjective. I do hold him responsible for delivering results for the Indian cricket team. He cant do that in a vaccum. He needs to be heard and listened to and given what he wants.

I have heard Gavaskar's name brandied about. Gavaskar has a big name but I cant remember the last time he actually did anything good for India (since his playing days). When he was helping the team he failed to use his "stature" to indeed help and later wrote coloumns about how the team did not listen to Wright. I am sorry the only reason people are using his name is because he has made noises about being sympathetic to SG's plight.

I think we need to get over some of this and not worry about this power business. Actually I have heard some good arguments for consolidation of power rather than diluting it by spreading it among too many people. Nothing gets done in large committees or where 20 signatures are needed to get one decision made.

Today (as in SG's time) GC doesnt have a vote in the selection. What he does have is a receptive audience (as in SG's case who additionally had a BCCI president in his pocket) who listen to his "vision". With the results he has shown so far it is hard not to.

If/when he fails, trust me knives will be out for him AND with a vengeance. Basically what GC is doing is stirring the pot he is instilling a hard and tough work ethic (which was lacking in later Wright days). He is making people work hard and be uncomfortable. He has sent a message that you woudl have to work hard to survive in this team. Cant sit on old laurels. Doing enough to just get by isnt going to cut it. In the process he is making enemies (he could have been like Wright .. do enough to get by and not stir anything and that would have been BAD for Team India and Indian cricket!!!)



Ok I am now kicking myself for dropping the name of Gavaskar (actually I said someone 'like' Gavaskar). The specter of the great batsman is so potent that he seems to have derailed the central issue (despite kban pointing this out repeatedly). So two clarifications:

1. The question is of Balance of Power, not whether there should be power dynamics at all (of course that is inevitable).

2. I have mentioned Gavaskar, but also Pataudi, Amarnath and even Ashoke Mankad. If the post of the selector becomes a well paid job, people who were previously not interested will be.

3. Being a good selector is not just about picking good cricketers (India has no shortage of talent) but also being able to continuously clarify the criteria of merit, and the ethics of selection. A youngster like Chawla should know what exactly is the vision of the Indian cricket team, and on what grounds of fairness a player is picked or dropped. This is where More has failed miserably. The cumulative effect of his "SG has to prove form and fitness" to "we don't want to change the winning combination" to "SG is an allrounder" to "SG cannot sit in the dressing room" to "We have opted for experience" to "We are looking towards the future" to "we do not make calls because that is not how we do things here" is clear: I am here to be stooge number one for GC's single point agenda -- get rid of one individual by hook or by crook.  At every stage, I will use whatever convenient statement or reason that comes to mind to defend my actions. Perception number two to young cricketers -- if you get into GC's personal bad books, there is no one to stand up for you, because, as demonstrated, at the end of the day, it is the coach who calls the shots.

4. It is precisely because of More's failure that the cricketing judgments pertaining to SG's inclusion or non-inclusion in the team cannot be separated from the personal animosity between SG and GC.
Logged

gouravk

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,199
  • Which way will this ball swing ?
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #134 on: March 02, 2006, 10:16:18 PM »

To a large extent it depends upon how much true independence selectors have. Just as you claim that More is a stooge of GC I can claim that he and others have been stooges of JD for long.
Logged
...Tvameva Vidya Dravidam Tvameva ... Tvameva Sarvam Mama Deva Deva !!

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #135 on: March 02, 2006, 10:23:09 PM »

kban,   i give up.

We clearly differ in team building methods as ur quote below shows. In my world, ideally, neither RD nor SG should have had to be in that situation, where for ex, if SG did not get his 100, he was toast. I prefer planning, taking calculated losses - if any - for steady future gains, etc, etc...

Quote
And why should they be given the special advantage of playing without pressure in one off opportunities ? Most people make their mark by forcing their way in via limited opportunities – remember RD and SG and how they grabbed a  one off opportunity to seize their place in the test team.

On a parting note, just for the amount you've typed up to all of us, I think we need to join the chorus to bring SG back. My vote to bring SG back for whatever its worth.

Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #136 on: March 02, 2006, 10:33:05 PM »

sp:

You took that quote out of context -- if you remember the circumstances when RD & SG came into the team, you would have realized the parallel to the current situation

RD and SG came into a packed middle order -got their chances because Siddhu flew back and Manjerekar was out. Had the failed in their outing, they would not have been discarded but they would again have to wait for another chance to get in and display their wares. They succeeded and therefore were both able to create a space for themselves by ousting incumbents. This was the context of my comment, not the way you interpreted it (as in I support inordinate pressure, you get one chance,perform or you will never again be considered, et all).

Let us agree to disagree here.

A suggestion though --  when you get a chance, go through my posts carefully. You might find lot of your concerns already covered in my posts. Reading your responses on this thread has given me the distinct impression that you have skimmed through my posts instead of giving it a thorough read.
Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #137 on: March 03, 2006, 12:14:50 AM »

Peace.
Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #138 on: March 03, 2006, 04:02:33 AM »

keep it cool

Quote
I think then it is a matter of view. Coz in my opinion
- You can groom a youngster when it is a stop gap arrangement; even if he fails, at least you have a back up available in the form of the regular player as and when he comes in
- On the other hand, if you need to find a regular in the middle order, you need an experienced hand who knows something about being there. In any case, there is no percentage in playing a person who may have just a few years of cricket ahead of him in the occassional test, as it takes away the opportunity of trying out a person in a live environment.

why would you want to test player in a stop gap arrangement just because he is young when there is a player in better form available. Shouldn’t one select the best available team –you are playing for your country, why wouldn’t you go for the best now. And if the best now based on form is the young player, then so be it.

Trying out  a person in a live environment is fine and dandy with me even in a one off opportunity provided the person has earned his spurs (read current form), not based on an age criteria that trumps form.

The bottom line goal should be best team, best performance.

The argument is that if it’s a stop gap situation, play your best option based on form irrespective of age as long as the youth brigade get their opportunities for international exposure in the ODI’s.

Quote
Now, on the test v/s ODI issue
- it is good that YS did come to the fore playing ODIs; so did Sehwag. But then we also have the likes of jadeja and robin singh who played well over time in ODIs and looked totally out of their depth in the tests ... micheal bevan of Australia is another case in point. My point is that it is not necessary that a test player will be good at ODIs or vice versa .. they may be more than 50% of the time, but there is still a good probability that the transition may not be made.

Oh absolutely agree about separating the chaff (ODIs) from the wheat (tests). But what purpose will giving these players a one off chance in a test team solve ?  The only way you will separate the Shewag from the Jadejas is when you get a chance to give them an extended run in the test version and currently that opportunity is non existent due to packed middle order. These one off chances does not settle the question one way or the other. At the end of the day, every potential player in form needs to be given a reasonable run in tests (consecutive) to see if they cut it or not.

Quote
- On the Australian example, sure they do not keep many reserves, but then the standard of their domestic cricket is also very high .. the gulf between sheffield shield and test cricket is not as yawning as we see in India. Even here, and correct me if I am wrong, the Aussies did not go back to a darren lehman or a damien martyn in the test matches when clarke failed. They opted for brad hodge, who probably they feel is a much more longer term prospect although maybe not in the same class. Neither have they gone back to a matthew hayden in ODIs when one of the openers got injured or dropped out - they opted to play jaques instead, give him a feel of the international scene, and then reverted to katich when he was available. So, what is being done out here is not so different really.

I am not talking about the domestic cricket standards between India and Australia. I agree our system is less of a preparation for test cricket, which is why I emphasized other international exposure such as ODIs (should have included A team, BP XI against touring sides et all).

And I mentioned several other teams including Australia, not specifically the Aussies. The point I made again has to do with the general procedure of transitioning from ODI’s before tests rather than specific selection decisions which can be debated either way. And your examples do not show anything contrary to that.

In your example, Lehman does not figure in the equation because he really took himself out of the equation. As for Martyn, I personally did not agree with the Australian selection decision to exclude him. What you are arguing here is that they selected youth over experience –frankly, Hodge isn’t a spring chicken for one. Secondly he was tested in ODI’s before his transition. And thirdly, he was selected for a direct opening in the playing XI, not a reserve spot. Even if Hodge plays the role of a reserve, he was selected based on form, not for his youth alone.

Either way, The argument you are putting forward with examples of Aussie selection relates to youth vs experience question whereas my reference to their system (among others) was based on the principle of ODI experience transitioning into a test spot when available –separate points of thrust I believe. As far as the Odi’s there is a prevailing thought in Australia about hayden clearing his cobwebs (which his test form of late suggests he has) before they consider bringing him back, which they may or may not do taking into account his age –kinda similar to what we did with SG and VVS vis-à-vis ODIs. But again this example relates to the youth vs experience issue as opposed to the context in which I mentioned Australia.

My quotation of a strength of the Australian system is not meant to imply that their system is infallible – The examples you are quoting relate to selection decisions regarding youth vs experience. This addresses a separate point and really does not refute or disprove the general principle I referred to –which is that Australians along with several others groom players through the ODI’s before transitioning them into tests when slots are available.

Quote
And I agree there have been a multitude of reasons given for SG's exclusion ... which I believe is a sad state of affairs ... but do you think this is to hide GC's ego or to handle the SG situation. Let us accept it, whether we want him in the team or not, SG is a border line case today; he is in no way one of the certainties. And there seems (and this is only what I percieve; may not be true) that there has been external pressure to include him in the team in the tests against SL and Pak. In this context, first a selector has to explain why they picked him and then why they dropped him .. Obviously, it would come out as a confused set of statements. To my mind, where the selectors or More goofed up was in not coming out straight with the reasons to keep him out ... just a simple "he is no longer getting young, not playing well enough to conclusively edge out any of the younger prospects and we want to focus on building a team to avoid the pain of sudden transition" would have been enough. It would still have led to a widespread debate and protests, but would at least have been a statement of intent.

The key here is that whatever be the divergence in reasons given, it still does not take away from the fact that when viewed against the experience (current) v/s youth (future) equation, SG does not seem to offer a significantly higher value proposition than the available youth options to warrant plumping for experience. Of course, this is only my view ... but it is as credible (if not more) as the opposite view. Ascribing the entire issue just to GC's ego is really taking the easy way out. GC's ego would have not been able to do anything had SG not presented such a weak case for himself.

On the contrary ascribing this to ego is not taking the easy way out. Its is putting yourself in those shoes and imagining the natural human reaction to such a spat (and make no mistake, it was a bad spat –I am not sure whether you have followed all the reports, but there were ugly and volatile exchanges between the 2). You apply common psychology and some of this is evident.

Also, when you quote pressure to include SG in SL and Pak as a defense for the convoluted and tortured logic that the selectors have provided to justify SG’s inclusion and exclusion, You are forgetting to take into account the fact that the pressure did not manufacture itself – it arose because it was unheard of that a player (whatever his failings in the past season) would be dropped after scoring a hundred 2 tests before, irrespective of the opposition.

Also, it arose because of the player doing well in domestic cricket  --indication that he was coming out of the form slump. The pressure also arose because he performed reasonably well against SL on a difficult pitch only to be dropped in the next test (changing the winning combination be damned) in favor of a player (MK) who was going through a bad run of scores.

And by concentrating only on the post selection committee meeting press briefings, you are ignoring leaked reports of what happened in the meetings – and what kind of objections were raised against the player and more importantly by whom. Yes these are leaks, but when you have different media sources in the country reporting independently more or less the same story, then you know that this is a story that probably needs to be taken seriously.

Like I said, you have to look at things in perspective, serially, and in order to make the conclusion. And that is mine.

And I say that without exonerating SG from his part in the mess – he is responsible for the spat as well. But the guy paid the price for it too. Captaincy, ODI spot, test spot. But to continue denying him even the one off opportunity to prove his worth and capability (when he is in form) by any and every means possible and using every excuse conceivable and then some, reeks of agenda.

Again you may agree or disagree with this part. I respect your right to disagree, so I shall not prolong this discussion further.

kban,

I think we should agree to disagree on how the team should be built or the means to go about grooming youngsters for tests/ODIs ... you have your point of view and I have mine ... and if one ponders carefully, both have its own pros and cons. I am not saying that "my" method is infallible or "yours" is, but, as things stand today, this seems more logical to me.

Second, on GC's ego and SG, if you read what I posted very carefully, I did not rule out that GC has a very big ego and is against SG coming back. All I am saying is that ascribing SG's exclusion to GC's ego alone is a mistake. I do not think SG has done enough to make a decision on his comeback anything more than a marginal one. The ability of the chairman of selectors to handle the media on this issue may be pathetic, but one can definitely agree that there can be a logical case built to not include SG in the team. Not dropping after scoring a 100 two matches ago against any opposition is a silly argument in my view ... it harks back to days when statistics was the only platform to evaluate a player. And scoring 4 thirties/forties and looking good cannot by itself warrant you a place in the team ... and if you want to go by domestic circuit performances then both the players who have been selected over SG have good records as well in the run up to the selection. In short, my view is that SG over MK or SR does not make the team significantly superior that it is now ... it is definitely not an open and shut case Remember, nayan mongia was dropped unceremoniously from the Indian team - no reasons given, just some vague references to indiscipline / whatever else ... and surely, everyone will agree, we still have to find a keeper as good ...and it is only now that we have found a wicket keeper who bats better than him. I do not remember any major ruckus that time around; although questions were asked, the benefit of doubt was given to the team management. Why not now??

Thirdly, when you talk of leaks and take them at face value, you would also appreciate that there have been leaks about how there was pressure on the team management to include SG first in the team to Pakistan and then in the playing XI in Pakistan - when in fact, they did not want the same. Given this history, do you blame any coach/captain for believing that they are better off without SG even if they have to give up a bit in terms of near term upside due to the exclusion; at least it will leave them free of the said pressures and allow them to focus on selecting the team that they want. I, for one, do not blame them.
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #139 on: March 03, 2006, 04:25:21 AM »

CLR, I think I may have written too long a para on Gavaskar (Kban has been inspiring us :) ) . I understand that he isnt central to this issue.

But the point I was making still stands on its own. It is the power given to the coach to allow him to get his input in team selection that is necessary to hold him ultimately responsible for the performance.

I think Indian cricket has been moving towards professionalism (atleast in the players and coaches dept) and this step is necessary. I personally think this Selection committe has done a great job of working with chappel and rd on building this team. It would be easy to see selectors of the past just focussed on their personal agendas and pushing regionalism. Here credit has to go to SG too. He started all this by asking for and getting the players he wanted. Now it is GC /RD in the same shoes.

I really wouldl like to take it further and actually give Coach a real say (vote) in the process. We hold him responsible for results dont we?

Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #140 on: March 03, 2006, 05:48:39 AM »

k-i-c:

Yes, there are definitely some differences in our viewpoints on this issue. We have different ways of approaching the issue, but as you said that does not make one better than the other --just different approaches to a common goal.

But I also think there are quite a few points we are in agreement here:

1) GC's ego is not the sole reason --it is the major reason.

2) SG's performance could have rendered the issue moot, taken away this card from GC, but SG did not come up with a performance that made for an open and shut case.

My personal belief is that the axe was lowered so fast because they did not want to give SG any more chances, simply because chances just raised the possibility of SG playing an innings of substance and significance that would have nullified any reasoning to drop him. So better to take the step now than give him a decent number of opportunities for him to come good (if you will note, he basically got 4 innings to bat interspersed by 3 tests --not even a full series). And SG's performance against SL and in Karachi (based on confidence, and fluency of performance) definitely gave indications that an innings of substance was round the corner --that possibility was nullified by the axing, in fact that possibility was the reason for the axing, IMO ---And this is where I see the final act of an ego driven 1 point agenda.

3) I do not deny at all that pressure was brought to bear on the management and selecton commitee to select SG for Pakistan. I have not seen reports about whether that extended to the XI, but on the first point I shall agree. But the pressure did not materialize on its own --its origins had to do with the early manifestations of this 1 point agenda, which in turn resulted in the protests, which then resulted in pawar intervening.

On the note of what management might have felt in dealing with such a prickly problem, I can imagine their predicament --its the choice of picking a player and angering the coach or struggling to keep both pacified. It might make sense to read an article that I posted today as it touches upon this very issue.

here is the link:
http://www.votegupta.com/cricketf2orum/index.php?topic=1166.0

All in all, thank you for a healthy and stimulating debate.  ;D
Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #141 on: March 03, 2006, 06:22:05 AM »

kban,

thanx to u too .. the debate was indeed healthy and stimulating .. just that I do not now remember where it all started ... nevertheless, back to work now!!
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

Blwe_torch

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,148
  • Last man standing
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #142 on: March 03, 2006, 06:38:43 AM »

I can add all players in the Indian team in the pre-GC era have forced their way into the team, by way of their superlative performances n the limited chances that they got.
Be it SRT,SG, RD, YS, Kaif, Harbhajan, AK, ZK, AN, IP, or MSD. All these players without exception, and there are more whom I haven't named cemented their position in the side by their superlative performances. These are the players who form the back-bone of the Indian team, either in the past or currently.
None of them were carried as passengers in the name of a vague 'future vision'. Players who are carried in the name of latent potential, IMO will drop of certainly in the near future, if their indifferent performances carry on.
Nowadays, the coach and captain try to justify carrying potential stars, by exemplifying Yuvraj Singh, how he was persevered with and how he has flowered now!
But people tend to forget that Yuvraj in his maiden appearance won India the match against a rampant Australia, when the chips were down. You cannot deny such players a place in the side. They just automatically qualify.
But GC's agenda is to persevere with players at all positions, just so as to block SG's entry into the team.
He is keeping no option open for him. You ask for openning, even there he would prefer WJ and GG ahead of SG.
I don't want to run down players. But my opinion is SG merits a place in the current 11, in both formats of the game, all this hog-wash about vague future visions notwithstanding.
Vision is important for a successful organisation not short-sighted future vision. More so, when it is driven by malice and narrow personal agenda.
With this kind of a mean mentality, GC can be a great player himself but he cannot build a successful team.
Logged

gouravk

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,199
  • Which way will this ball swing ?
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #143 on: March 03, 2006, 07:04:28 AM »

But blwe
Surely you agree that SG is not an opener ?? Do you actually think he can do a good job there ??
Logged
...Tvameva Vidya Dravidam Tvameva ... Tvameva Sarvam Mama Deva Deva !!

Blwe_torch

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,148
  • Last man standing
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #144 on: March 03, 2006, 07:12:46 AM »

no..I think he can do a better job at no 4, 5 or 6.
And I believe he is no mug at openning as well, just in case there are far superior players in those positions already ( which I am not ready to believe).
Logged

gouravk

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,199
  • Which way will this ball swing ?
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #145 on: March 03, 2006, 09:30:40 AM »

He can do a better job at 4 than tendulkar ? at 5 than VVS ? at 6 than Yuvi ?
Logged
...Tvameva Vidya Dravidam Tvameva ... Tvameva Sarvam Mama Deva Deva !!

justforkix

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,896
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #146 on: March 03, 2006, 09:33:39 AM »

As of now, perhaps better at 5 than VVS  ;D. But then Yuvi at 5 and Kaif at 6 seems perfect as of now ;)
Logged

Blwe_torch

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,148
  • Last man standing
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #147 on: March 03, 2006, 10:12:21 AM »

He can do a better job at 4 than tendulkar ? at 5 than VVS ? at 6 than Yuvi ?
what tendulkar?..what vvs?
Logged

justforkix

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,896
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #148 on: March 03, 2006, 10:13:14 AM »

maybe he means Endulkar ;) (j/k)
Logged

gouravk

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,199
  • Which way will this ball swing ?
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #149 on: March 03, 2006, 10:14:06 AM »

no i dont
Logged
...Tvameva Vidya Dravidam Tvameva ... Tvameva Sarvam Mama Deva Deva !!

Blwe_torch

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,148
  • Last man standing
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #150 on: March 03, 2006, 10:21:44 AM »

He can do a better job at 4 than tendulkar ? at 5 than VVS ? at 6 than Yuvi ?

Can't u imagine an indian team without tendulkar or vvs?...strange!
on one hand you endorse chappel's vision of future and again, you don't want to forget the past?!
Logged

achutank

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,565
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #151 on: March 03, 2006, 10:28:38 AM »

some day these guys have to retire why not make them mentally prepared from no by dropping them once in a while? :)
Logged
there is more than meets the i

Blwe_torch

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,148
  • Last man standing
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #152 on: March 03, 2006, 10:32:04 AM »

i am totally for gc's idea of a new indian team..all youngsters....no oldies!
but plz make no distinctions....drop one oldy...drop all oldies.
don't bother abt their past contributions.
set yourself free from all emotional baggage!
Logged

justforkix

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,896
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #153 on: March 03, 2006, 10:37:48 AM »

No. artists (read VVS) has no such thing as age. So, can't bring in eungsters instead of an artist)again read VVS)  ;D
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #154 on: March 03, 2006, 02:23:42 PM »

GC's vision isnt to drop ALL oldies. ONLY crap ones who subvert the team!
Logged

gouravk

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,199
  • Which way will this ball swing ?
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #155 on: March 03, 2006, 05:12:43 PM »

Really other than SG which oldie has been dropped ? None.
Logged
...Tvameva Vidya Dravidam Tvameva ... Tvameva Sarvam Mama Deva Deva !!

Blwe_torch

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19,148
  • Last man standing
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #156 on: March 04, 2006, 05:21:46 AM »

actually coaches too need to be young, say for example like, Sandeep Patil or Tom Moody. Otherwise there is an unhealthy generation gap between players and coaches. Players tend to deal with the coaches as if they are like an uncle. This has its own good and bad effects. I was just reading one article in the Other Sports section on Indian football....on similar sentiments expressed by a star Indian footballer, Baichung Bhutia.
http://www.votegupta.com/cricketf2orum/index.php?topic=1203.0
Logged

gouravk

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,199
  • Which way will this ball swing ?
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #157 on: March 05, 2006, 08:37:31 AM »

blwe, you actually make a good point. Applause.
Logged
...Tvameva Vidya Dravidam Tvameva ... Tvameva Sarvam Mama Deva Deva !!
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up