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

Author Topic: Balance of power needed.  (Read 18690 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

justforkix

  • Global Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,896
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2006, 08:03:40 PM »

Bottomline is we are better off without SG in the side  ;)

Another one from the Prophet! Please save us these homilies if you cannot provide adequate reasons to support your v ;iew. That is what we are trying to do.

No. As you might be aware, he has reasoned out everything in his mind and just provided his conclusions here  ;)  ;)
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2006, 08:03:50 PM »

Bottomline is we are better off without SG in the side  ;)

Another one from the Prophet! Please save us these homilies if you cannot provide adequate reasons to support your view. That is what we are trying to do.

;) I would not put it exactly in such strong words as CLR, but Gourav do has this tendency to come back with a single sentence in response to a lengthy, reasoned post. It can get to you sure  ;D

but sometimes, he uses that tendency to good effect.
Logged

devatha

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2006, 08:04:53 PM »

Flute

As you know, I am not a fan of SG, don't attribute intentions to me. But exactly here, you are talking like you have blind support for GC. GC making forceful decisions is totally wrong. Nobody can be happy if GC makes his point forcefully. If anybody does that he is a blind supporter of GC, nothing else. A coach can't force selectors. He can only make his point, but not with force.

The end doesn't justify the means. SG being out of the team is a good thing. But forcing selectors to do it, is bad. What is the guarantee that GC won't force his point later for another player? He indeed did it in the case of VRV vs Munaf. He is forcing his bias for a certain player over the selectors. It is not about GC's cricketting acumen. Selectors are the people who watch each & every domestic game. GC watches one or two. If he gets a very good impression of a player based on those 1 or 2 matches, it is bad. A player can be bad in 1 or 2 games, but he can be good in many other games during that season. This is exactly what happened in case of Munaf.

GC is not a boss of selectors to make forceful points. He is there in the selection meeting only in an adviser role. He should only give his advices. It is upto selectors, to decide to take the advice or not.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2006, 08:09:12 PM by devatha »
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2006, 08:11:09 PM »

Flute

As you know, I am not a fan of SG, don't attribute intentions to me. But exactly here, you are talking like you have blind support for GC. GC making forceful decisions is totally wrong. Nobody can be happy if GC makes his point forcefully. If anybody does that he is a blind supporter of GC, nothing else. A coach can't force selectors. He can only make his point, but not with force.

The end doesn't justify the means. SG being out of the team is a good thing. But forcing selectors to do it, is bad. What is the guarantee that GC won't force his point later for another player? He indeed did it in the case of VRV vs Munaf. He is forcing his bias for a certain player over the selectors. It is not about GC's cricketting acumen. Selectors are the people who watch each & every domestic game. GC watches one or two. If he gets a very good impression of a player based on those 1 or 2 matches, it is bad. A player can be bad in 1 or 2 games, but he can be good in many other games during that season. This is exactly what happened in case of Munaf.
Devatha, not sure where you deduced my 'blind support for GC'. I am yet to make a single positive statement on this DG about GC's coaching. Again please DO read my post and make your decision. I said , "IF you agree with the eventual decision, you probably would have been happy that GC is making his point forcefully."

Now, you can take my words literally and extrapolate that I think GC is making his point forcefully, from there take it that I am indeed agreeing with GC in his use of force. Oh while you are at it, you also have to assume that 'making a point forcefully' means someone imposing his decision and forcing someone into a decision. Usually, my understanding is, 'to make a point forcefully' means putting out a point with a lot of conviction.
Logged

feverpitch

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6,622
  • Capitalism's final crisis (cartoon from 1969)
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2006, 08:11:33 PM »

Flute

As you know, I am not a fan of SG, don't attribute intentions to me. But exactly here, you are talking like you have blind support for GC. GC making forceful decisions is totally wrong. Nobody can be happy if GC makes his point forcefully. If anybody does that he is a blind supporter of GC, nothing else. A coach can't force selectors. He can only make his point, but not with force.

The end doesn't justify the means. SG being out of the team is a good thing. But forcing selectors to do it, is bad. What is the guarantee that GC won't force his point later for another player? He indeed did it in the case of VRV vs Munaf. He is forcing his bias for a certain player over the selectors. It is not about GC's cricketting acumen. Selectors are the people who watch each & every domestic game. GC watches one or two. If he gets a very good impression of a player based on those 1 or 2 matches, it is bad. A player can be bad in 1 or 2 games, but he can be good in many other games during that season. This is exactly what happened in case of Munaf.

GC is not a boss of selectors to make forceful points. He is there in the selection meeting only in an adviser role. He should only give his advices. It is upto selectors, to decide to take the advice or not.

Well said, tho i do think SG should have been in the team.

As for Flute and the caps,  my comp was stuck. I noticed it only later. Anyway, if you dont want to respond, dont! I almost know what ur answers will be anyway!
Logged
"Every rise of fascism bears witness to a failed revolution."
Walter Benjamin

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2006, 08:14:14 PM »

Flute

As you know, I am not a fan of SG, don't attribute intentions to me. But exactly here, you are talking like you have blind support for GC. GC making forceful decisions is totally wrong. Nobody can be happy if GC makes his point forcefully. If anybody does that he is a blind supporter of GC, nothing else. A coach can't force selectors. He can only make his point, but not with force.

The end doesn't justify the means. SG being out of the team is a good thing. But forcing selectors to do it, is bad. What is the guarantee that GC won't force his point later for another player? He indeed did it in the case of VRV vs Munaf. He is forcing his bias for a certain player over the selectors. It is not about GC's cricketting acumen. Selectors are the people who watch each & every domestic game. GC watches one or two. If he gets a very good impression of a player based on those 1 or 2 matches, it is bad. A player can be bad in 1 or 2 games, but he can be good in many other games during that season. This is exactly what happened in case of Munaf.

GC is not a boss of selectors to make forceful points. He is there in the selection meeting only in an adviser role. He should only give his advices. It is upto selectors, to decide to take the advice or not.

Well said, tho i do think SG should have been in the team.

As for Flute and the caps,  my comp was stuck. I noticed it only later. Anyway, if you dont want to respond, dont! I almost know what ur answers will be anyway!

fever, thanks, since you know my answers, I won't respond
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2006, 08:17:27 PM »

Flute

As you know, I am not a fan of SG, don't attribute intentions to me. But exactly here, you are talking like you have blind support for GC. GC making forceful decisions is totally wrong. Nobody can be happy if GC makes his point forcefully. If anybody does that he is a blind supporter of GC, nothing else. A coach can't force selectors. He can only make his point, but not with force.

The end doesn't justify the means. SG being out of the team is a good thing. But forcing selectors to do it, is bad. What is the guarantee that GC won't force his point later for another player? He indeed did it in the case of VRV vs Munaf. He is forcing his bias for a certain player over the selectors. It is not about GC's cricketting acumen. Selectors are the people who watch each & every domestic game. GC watches one or two. If he gets a very good impression of a player based on those 1 or 2 matches, it is bad. A player can be bad in 1 or 2 games, but he can be good in many other games during that season. This is exactly what happened in case of Munaf.

GC is not a boss of selectors to make forceful points. He is there in the selection meeting only in an adviser role. He should only give his advices. It is upto selectors, to decide to take the advice or not.
Devatha BTW, not sure if you are a student or professional or entrepreneur, but din't you ever make any forceful point before your boss?
What has boss or subordinate got to do with 'forceful' point. I used to make a lot of forceful points with my boss when I had one. Not sure where you are coming from on this.  :)
Logged

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2006, 08:19:19 PM »

Flute,

What you are saying is correct to a certain extent. I am indeed impatient with the likes of More. See, if one is a selector, one does have to use gut feelings to a certain extent. But one has to, at every step, execute that decision in line with the obvious facts. This is balance, and fairness. Hence, if there is a feeling that SG might not cut it anymore, what you do is the following:

1. Put him under the scanner (which was done) because you cannot drop him outright after that hundred in Zim. Take away his captaincy.

2. Give chances galore to youngsters in rotation so that they come up with good performances. This happened partly, because YS has emerged. But SG did show signs of good form and resilience in Kotla and Faisalabad. Four century stands under pressure each time. So in order to be fair, you can drop SG from the playing eleven (and hope he retires) but not from the squad. Especially if, in order to do the latter, you have to pick Kaif, who has been given ample opportunities to prove himself in the test level (just take a look at the annals of Indian cricket; apart from Dilip Vengsarkar, no one else has been given so many opportunities to prove himself), but has not delivered. Moreoever, Kaif has been going through horrible form lately, even in ODIs.

3. Drop him from the ODI team (this has been done) which has been his forte all these years. But IMO, if none of the youngsters who play in lieu of him (GG, YPY, VGR, SR) have not made a very very strong case (one fifty collectively from this youth brigade so far in six months), in order to be fair, you have to give SG a couple of chances here and there in rotation (and hope that he fails), especially if he has done what you originally asked him to do -- "prove form and fitness."

You see, all these questions would not have arisen if SG, in his last four test innings, had hopped around in front of fast bowling, scored in single digits and made an ass out of yourself. Or if Kaif, in the opportunity he got in Ahmedabad, had come up with a decent score, or even in the ODIs after that. You are a selector, and not a god, so if you have to close one door, you have to, in the form of a youngster, open a window at least, that shows clear light coming in. Bottomline, Kaif, with a test batting average of 21, and Raina, with a highest international score of 38 so far, will play instead of SG. That, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is not fair.


Logged

devatha

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2006, 08:22:01 PM »

Flute

I don't know you meant "making a point with conviction" by "making a point forcefully". I understood "Making a point forcefully" is same as "forcing his point over selectors". Fine. But people have this tendency of attributing intentions to the posters, exactly the same what I did. Doing that most of the times, is due to the fact that they don't want even a fly to come anywhere near GC or SG, based on whoever they support. I attributed this intention to you, just to tell you that how odd it looks for people on the other side to whom we attribute these intentions.
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #49 on: February 28, 2006, 08:23:04 PM »

Bottomline is we are better off without SG in the side  ;)

Another one from the Prophet! Please save us these homilies if you cannot provide adequate reasons to support your view. That is what we are trying to do.

ODI's atleast
The score line of 6-1 India against SL
2-2 against SA
4-1 against Pak

Reason enough?
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2006, 08:26:42 PM »

Flute

I don't know you meant "making a point with conviction" by "making a point forcefully". I understood "Making a point forcefully" is same as "forcing his point over selectors". Fine. But people have this tendency of attributing intentions to the posters, exactly the same what I did. Doing that most of the times, is due to the fact that they don't want even a fly to come anywhere near GC or SG, based on whoever they support. I attributed this intention to you, just to tell you that how odd it looks for people on the other side to whom we attribute these intentions.
Devatha, dude you are hilarious..so you don't really think I am blindly supporting GC but wanted to show me how it feels?  ;D ;D
you seem to be essentially making your point about the other thread.

You been talking to me since so long and accused me of being 'GC hater, 'GC lover', 'SG hater' etc. a few times and then backtracked. I don't what to say to you dude. :)
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2006, 08:28:31 PM »

Flute

I don't know you meant "making a point with conviction" by "making a point forcefully". I understood "Making a point forcefully" is same as "forcing his point over selectors". Fine. But people have this tendency of attributing intentions to the posters, exactly the same what I did. Doing that most of the times, is due to the fact that they don't want even a fly to come anywhere near GC or SG, based on whoever they support. I attributed this intention to you, just to tell you that how odd it looks for people on the other side to whom we attribute these intentions.
Devatha, 'Making a point forcefully' doesn't mean forcing someone, it means making your argument with force & conviction etc.
Logged

devatha

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2006, 08:29:18 PM »

Flute

I have been a professional for 8 years and participated in lot of design discussions and came across various situations where I have to make a strong point in those discussions. But it is not same as making a point forcefully. My boss lot of times, made his point forcefully and asked me to oblige, even if I didn't like it.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #53 on: February 28, 2006, 08:30:59 PM »

Flute

I have been a professional for 8 years and participated in lot of design discussions and came across various situations where I have to make a strong point in those discussions. But it is not same as making a point forcefully. My boss lot of times, made his point forcefully and asked me to oblige, even if I didn't like it.
:)
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #54 on: February 28, 2006, 08:33:55 PM »

Flute

I have been a professional for 8 years and participated in lot of design discussions and came across various situations where I have to make a strong point in those discussions. But it is not same as making a point forcefully. My boss lot of times, made his point forcefully and asked me to oblige, even if I didn't like it.
Devatha, I don't want to get into English language nuances but only thing I can say is, look up the phrase you are talking about and you will know.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2006, 08:39:47 PM by flute202020 »
Logged

devatha

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #55 on: February 28, 2006, 08:46:56 PM »

Flute

I don't remember when I called you "GC lover" or "GC hater". I remember calling you "SG hater". At that time only, I realized how it hurts attributing intentions for people and since then stopped it till 10 minutes back. Can you tell me the instances when I used these words regarding GC.  I said you have a blind support for GC, nothing more.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #56 on: February 28, 2006, 08:49:41 PM »

Flute,

What you are saying is correct to a certain extent. I am indeed impatient with the likes of More. See, if one is a selector, one does have to use gut feelings to a certain extent. But one has to, at every step, execute that decision in line with the obvious facts. This is balance, and fairness. Hence, if there is a feeling that SG might not cut it anymore, what you do is the following:

1. Put him under the scanner (which was done) because you cannot drop him outright after that hundred in Zim. Take away his captaincy.

2. Give chances galore to youngsters in rotation so that they come up with good performances. This happened partly, because YS has emerged. But SG did show signs of good form and resilience in Kotla and Faisalabad. Four century stands under pressure each time. So in order to be fair, you can drop SG from the playing eleven (and hope he retires) but not from the squad. Especially if, in order to do the latter, you have to pick Kaif, who has been given ample opportunities to prove himself in the test level (just take a look at the annals of Indian cricket; apart from Dilip Vengsarkar, no one else has been given so many opportunities to prove himself), but has not delivered. Moreoever, Kaif has been going through horrible form lately, even in ODIs.

3. Drop him from the ODI team (this has been done) which has been his forte all these years. But IMO, if none of the youngsters who play in lieu of him (GG, YPY, VGR, SR) have not made a very very strong case (one fifty collectively from this youth brigade so far in six months), in order to be fair, you have to give SG a couple of chances here and there in rotation (and hope that he fails), especially if he has done what you originally asked him to do -- "prove form and fitness."

You see, all these questions would not have arisen if SG, in his last four test innings, had hopped around in front of fast bowling, scored in single digits and made an ass out of yourself. Or if Kaif, in the opportunity he got in Ahmedabad, had come up with a decent score, or even in the ODIs after that. You are a selector, and not a god, so if you have to close one door, you have to, in the form of a youngster, open a window at least, that shows clear light coming in. Bottomline, Kaif, with a test batting average of 21, and Raina, with a highest international score of 38 so far, will play instead of SG. That, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is not fair.



CLR, persuasive points indeed and I can only retort them if I believed that SG should not have been selected. Personally I would have selected him in test team. But, I also see enough cricketing reasons for not taking him, the most convincing one being, Yuvi's return effectively means SG's slot is no longer available and will be in the team as a back up. Considering the need to replace RD, SRT, VVS & SG around the same time, I think it is a good idea to try out new talent as and when possible. Raina's case cannot put down just because his highest international score is 38, coach, selectors & captain will also have to make a judgement call.

Having said that I would have taken SG in the test team, I am not quite so willing to attribute motives to people who made that decision with which I don't agree. Calling RD timid or not making his stand clear etc. I think is simply nitpicking. RD's job is not to make his stand clear, rather his main priority is to try and get team he wants, avoid all distraction, lead his team. He seems to be doing it quite effectively.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #57 on: February 28, 2006, 08:54:56 PM »

Flute

I don't remember when I called you "GC lover" or "GC hater". I remember calling you "SG hater". At that time only, I realized how it hurts attributing intentions for people and since then stopped it till 10 minutes back. Can you tell me the instances when I used these words regarding GC.  I said you have a blind support for GC, nothing more.
Devatha, you seem to be a very sensitive guy, as far as I am concerned, I tell it to the guy if I think he is loosing sight of things because he is upset with a selection. Of course I do my best to read the posts clearly and due diligence before I say anything. Even when I do, I do it in a non combative way without room for ugly scenes. But, mention it, I will.

As for you suggesting 'GC lover, hater' etc., I don't remember, but I been called various things at various times and I always merely ask for clarification and it gets backtracked..so no problems with you per se.
Logged

devatha

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2006, 09:04:59 PM »

O.K. Leave it.

But this guy GC seems to be forcing decisions, rather than making his points. Atleast that is what I could see in 2 instances,
1) Karachi Test - SG's inclusion. Everybody in the team mgmt wanted SG in the final XI, except for GC. When he lost his argument, he made a sarcastic comment. It he indeed was only making a point forcefully, there is no need to make a sarcastic comment.
2) VRV vs Munaf.

I think SG's exclusion in the last selection meeting is pre-thought decision between RD, GC & More after the loss in Karachi test. So, there was no need to force it this time.

Because of the respect on GC/importance or whatever, More seems to merely agree to what he says. Atleast, that is how it looks. These are only 2 occassions. Lot others may come up in future. There is a line where this making a point forcefully should stop. But GC goes on to make his point forcefully, till the point is agreed on. That is what I meant by forcing. I indeed think that he is forcing his points over selectors.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2006, 09:07:02 PM by devatha »
Logged

dhruvdeepak

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14,561
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2006, 09:07:15 PM »

wow devatha, you really take this VRV vs Munaf thing seriously.
Considering Munaf is going to be in the next match, I dont see the problem. But it is also important to think of VRV's selection in this way:
the selectors and GC were NOT taking performances in the BP XI vs England game into account in their selection. The selections were based on prior information
Logged
In the attitude of silence the soul finds the path in a clearer light, and what is elusive and deceptive resolves itself into crystal clearness. Our life is a long and arduous quest after Truth.
-- Mohandas K *hi

devatha

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #60 on: February 28, 2006, 09:14:36 PM »

wow devatha, you really take this VRV vs Munaf thing seriously.
Considering Munaf is going to be in the next match, I dont see the problem. But it is also important to think of VRV's selection in this way:
the selectors and GC were NOT taking performances in the BP XI vs England game into account in their selection. The selections were based on prior information

No. I am not taking it seriously. After all, I don't have any relation with Munaf. He is not from my zone even. I am from Andhra, he is from Gujarat, Mumbai, Maharastra. This is one example, I use.

There was no point of scheduling the selection meeting on 23rd Feb, if they didn't want to take that game into account. They wanted to see how it goes on the first day. They asked Venu to opt for bowling, if he won the toss and asked the curator to prepare a green track. In this scenario, they thought they could see both the bowlers in action on the first day. Even if England wins the toss, normally they opt for batting, because they want more practise for their batsmen rather than their bowlers on a green track. Their bowlers are very experienced on how to bowl on a green track.

Even if it was based on prior information, VRV didn't play any matches in this domestic matches. So, I wonder what that prior information would be. His performance in challengers? How long ago that was? 4 moths? 4 months is a long enough lay-off.
Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,029
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #61 on: February 28, 2006, 09:18:53 PM »

wow devatha, you really take this VRV vs Munaf thing seriously.
Considering Munaf is going to be in the next match, I dont see the problem. But it is also important to think of VRV's selection in this way:
the selectors and GC were NOT taking performances in the BP XI vs England game into account in their selection. The selections were based on prior information

No. I am not taking it seriously. After all, I don't have any relation with Munaf. He is not from my zone even. I am from Andhra, he is from Gujarat, Mumbai, Maharastra. This is one example, I use.

There was no point of scheduling the selection meeting on 23rd Feb, if they didn't want to take that game into account. They wanted to see how it goes on the first day. They asked Venu to opt for bowling, if he won the toss and asked the curator to prepare a green track. In this scenario, they thought they could see both the bowlers in action on the first day. Even if England wins the toss, normally they opt for batting, because they want more practise for their batsmen rather than their bowlers on a green track. Their bowlers are very experienced on how to bowl on a green track.

Even if it was based on prior information, VRV didn't play any matches in this domestic matches. So, I wonder what that prior information would be. His performance in challengers? How long ago that was? 4 moths? 4 months is a long enough lay-off.

Dev, Did'nt we go over this in the other DG.  More and others said Munaf will get chances a plenty in the next year.  Also this is for the first test.  Not that they have declared the team for the entire series.  He has a very good chance in the test series and if not I will bet he will be there for the ODI's against ENG.
Logged

flute202020

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #62 on: February 28, 2006, 09:19:28 PM »

O.K. Leave it.

But this guy GC seems to be forcing decisions, rather than making his points. Atleast that is what I could see in 2 instances,
1) Karachi Test - SG's inclusion. Everybody in the team mgmt wanted SG in the final XI, except for GC. When he lost his argument, he made a sarcastic comment. It he indeed was only making a point forcefully, there is no need to make a sarcastic comment.
2) VRV vs Munaf.

I think SG's exclusion in the last selection meeting is pre-thought decision between RD, GC & More after the loss in Karachi test. So, there was no need to force it this time.

Because of the respect on GC/importance or whatever, More seems to merely agree to what he says. Atleast, that is how it looks. These are only 2 occassions. Lot others may come up in future. There is a line where this making a point forcefully should stop. But GC goes on to make his point forcefully, till the point is agreed on. That is what I meant by forcing. I indeed think that he is forcing his points over selectors.
Devatha, what sarcastic comment are you referring to?
VRV Vs Munaf, I think RD,GC & selectors having seen VRV earlier and also having selected him earlier wanted to give him chance this time. what's wrong with it?

Regarding making a point forcefully, what exactly do you have GC do? use only minimal force and not back up his point strongly? or make a point in such a way so that it is not accepted by the selectors? As long as GC is not bringing outside plitical pressures into the selection meetings to get his way, he will and he is supposed to make all the points he deems correct. If More & selectors agree with him, it is not GC's fault. I think it is just nit picking.
Logged

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #63 on: February 28, 2006, 09:20:25 PM »

Bottomline is we are better off without SG in the side  ;)

Another one from the Prophet! Please save us these homilies if you cannot provide adequate reasons to support your view. That is what we are trying to do.

ODI's atleast
The score line of 6-1 India against SL
2-2 against SA
4-1 against Pak

Reason enough?

Nope, we are talking about individual performances here. Fielding, what is beyond doubt, the best set of cricketers (this, the youngsters have not put beyond the pale of doubt). In other words, if I am GC, and I love Kaif, even if we win 25 ODIs in a row, do you think it is justified to keep him in the side if he scores 25 ducks in a row? 
Logged

devatha

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2006, 09:23:03 PM »

Rams

It doesn't make a difference, if VRV doesn't play in 1st Test & Munaf plays 2nd Test. The point was they would have preferred Munaf. Whether VRV plays 1st Test or Munaf plays 2nd Test doesn't matter. I didn't respond to those suggestions in the other DG as well, because it doesn't make any difference to an already made decision.
Logged

devatha

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2006, 09:28:32 PM »

I want GC to make his points, back them up strongly etc. But I am questioning his attitude of forcing it. Only when you force, you will get totally disappointed to an extent that you will make a saracastic comment, if the others don't agree.

There were lot of points in favour of Munaf over VRV. How many times did you see a guy being selected 4 months before, didn't play a single ODI/test for Indian team (so no performances), had an injury lay-off for 4 months, didn't play any game after coming back from injury and straight away being selected into Indian team. When proven players like SRT & Kaif had to play domestic games before making into the squad, how is VRV exempted?

In most circumstances, a player loses form & struggles in matches after coming back from injury. Without him getting back to form, he won't make into the squad. This concession was only given to proven players like SRT & kaif, but not to rookies.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2006, 09:30:58 PM by devatha »
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #66 on: February 28, 2006, 10:31:43 PM »

In other words, if I am GC, and I love Kaif, even if we win 25 ODIs in a row, do you think it is justified to keep him in the side if he scores 25 ducks in a row? 

If that happens Kaif would be dumped.

But the point is that you cant argue with success. Chappel has been successful in his vision so far. ODI's have shown good results and it is precisely the things that he has pushed that are showing results.

We have become MUCH better chasers  (mental strength)
We have become on of the best fielding sides (fielding ) when was the last time you could say that.
We have disciplined bowlers
We are pushing for quality quicks (and suddenly we start seeing quite a few on the horizon).

CLR, when you guys knock GC with the single minded passion it seems that you have considered just Ganguly in the team and nothing else. Give credit where it is due.

If this thing blows up or India goes in a slump then we can criticize GC and rightly so.

And talking about coaches power etc. Have you noticed in most professional sports in the US the coach actually drives a lot of the team vision. The Selectors (General Managers) consuilt the coaches thoroughly before drafting or trading for a player.

Coach takes the credit for a win (Phil Jackson, Lombardi) and take fall for the team failing (usually get fired).

So give the same leeway here. Let him fail first and then we can attack him.
Logged

devatha

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 795
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #67 on: February 28, 2006, 10:40:41 PM »

Cover Point:

Till now, SG was the guy whom people wanted out. That led to great discussions and timepass. If you just discuss on the matches & strategies etc, you will soon get bored. Now that SG is out, don't you need to pick on some other guy, to keep these interesting discussions going on.

Let that guy be GC and let the people take turns. SG fans were on receiving side, defending SG all the time. Now, it is time for GC fans to defend GC. Let us see this fun for some time. What is wrong?
Logged

gouravk

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,199
  • Which way will this ball swing ?
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #68 on: March 01, 2006, 03:36:07 AM »

sure ... im all for it .. bring it on.
Logged
...Tvameva Vidya Dravidam Tvameva ... Tvameva Sarvam Mama Deva Deva !!

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #69 on: March 01, 2006, 04:15:38 AM »

Devatha or we can decide to discuss the price of Bhindi in the local Desi store? If you are picking topics out of thin air how about discussin the chances of Yankees winning the world series. Steinbrennar has guarnteed it!

Logged

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #70 on: March 01, 2006, 05:51:07 AM »

In other words, if I am GC, and I love Kaif, even if we win 25 ODIs in a row, do you think it is justified to keep him in the side if he scores 25 ducks in a row? 

If that happens Kaif would be dumped.

But the point is that you cant argue with success. Chappel has been successful in his vision so far. ODI's have shown good results and it is precisely the things that he has pushed that are showing results.

We have become MUCH better chasers  (mental strength)
We have become on of the best fielding sides (fielding ) when was the last time you could say that.
We have disciplined bowlers
We are pushing for quality quicks (and suddenly we start seeing quite a few on the horizon).

CLR, when you guys knock GC with the single minded passion it seems that you have considered just Ganguly in the team and nothing else. Give credit where it is due.

If this thing blows up or India goes in a slump then we can criticize GC and rightly so.

And talking about coaches power etc. Have you noticed in most professional sports in the US the coach actually drives a lot of the team vision. The Selectors (General Managers) consuilt the coaches thoroughly before drafting or trading for a player.

Coach takes the credit for a win (Phil Jackson, Lombardi) and take fall for the team failing (usually get fired).

So give the same leeway here. Let him fail first and then we can attack him.

Cover,

Point understood. A few thiings to be said:

1. I am no fool. I am what people here call a 'Gangulian', but not a blind one. Unlike some SG supporters, I realize that SG deserved a good part of what he got, and had he failed completely in the last two tests he played, I would have heaved a sigh of relief when he was shown the door. Similarly, I am critical of GC, but not a blind one. Look at my original post carefully. I am ready to consider that GC's present policies might actually turn out to be good. Things (as far as goals like the WC are concerned) might actually improve for the better. But this thread pertained to what I call 'balance of power'. I am uncomfortable with situations where one person has too much concentration of power in his hands. In my opinion, like in all other avenues of life, it leads to a monocular vision and ultimately, disaster. I have said repeatedly that I do not doubt GC's greatness as a cricketer or a thinker of cricket. However, it is also well known that he is petty, mean, and an egomaniac. For proof, one does not have to travel far. He is almost universally hated and despised  in Australian cricketing circles, beginning with Steve Waugh (look atr last year's India Today report on this). In the long run, unless checked, this could prove fatal for team confidence.

2. Secondly, the Indian cricket team is a national side, not a professional outfit like the Chicago Bulls. I think the entire analogy with American professional sport is misplaced, in terms of man management, pride, security, belonging, the stakes etc. A person like SG for instance, if this were something like the NBA, could just sign another contract with some other country. Emotions, both for players and viewers alike, are not pitched that high. Matters like regionalism, favoritism etc. that are endemic to the history of Indian cricket are not central to American professional sport. Also, in that case, why support gag orders on players? When the Shaque-Kobe war was in full swing, both of them took pot shots at each other and still continued to play and win for the LA Lakers. Can you imagine RD-SG doing the same for India? It is a different sport, different set up, different context, different world.
Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #71 on: March 01, 2006, 11:59:58 AM »

I would say More as a selector has been a mixed bag. Some good and some bad, like most others. However the net result might just be positive thanks to the influx of great young talent in recent months.

Yo, any examples of the bad calls? I'm just wondering if one can make a call on him as a selector as yet, cos he's only just making his moves.

I will point out one bad call myself. At the end of the Aus home series, or latest end of the Pak home series, he should have replaced Sourav as captain. Would have given sourav the chance he needed to prove himself at batting again.
Logged

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #72 on: March 01, 2006, 12:24:55 PM »

I would say More as a selector has been a mixed bag. Some good and some bad, like most others. However the net result might just be positive thanks to the influx of great young talent in recent months.

Yo, any examples of the bad calls? I'm just wondering if one can make a call on him as a selector as yet, cos he's only just making his moves.

I will point out one bad call myself. At the end of the Aus home series, or latest end of the Pak home series, he should have replaced Sourav as captain. Would have given sourav the chance he needed to prove himself at batting again.

I actually agree with Senthil on this one.
Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #73 on: March 01, 2006, 12:28:52 PM »

wow...  Indian cricket is not a professoional outfit?!!!! since when?

CLR, whats this business of 'balance of power'? You seem to be suggesting that balance of power happens via uncompromising or aggressive personalities! If your goal is to have someone who pushes GC onto the backfoot the way to do that (as in any other walk of life) would we to arm yourself with greater abilities. As a selector show up with the greatest scouting reports you can on players... a nice little presentation, backed up with all relevant info, on various players. Then base your choices/recommendations on that information. Challenge GC or whoever to find problems with that or add to that. That is how you achieve a balance of power. Not by pitching one uncompromising egomaniac versus who you consider to be one. That will at best lead to your 'strong personality' out-shouting GC and then what are we left with? Dealing with another strong personality. A complete waste.

Hmmm..the NBA --  if you are the 388th player or something there you may find urself in the same situation as you do if you are the 17th in Indian cricket. The number maybe different, you still have to make the cut. If anything, its all the more reason why SG needed to never take his place for granted.... just too much competition.
And emotions are not high in the american sports? Really? I've spent days in severe depression whenever the Bulls lost an important playoff game (thankfully it wasn't too often) and the worst was when Portland lost Game7 to the Lakers back in 2000 or something. I can tell you there was sufficient emotion invested... I needed 3 full days of devious self-distraction to keep my spirits up. And I dint even grow up here.

Finally, your bringing up emotions itself is wierd. I dont think this ought to be any consideration. If it is, the amount of emotion invested ought only to be about a team and that our board should take note and make sure the fans dont suffer from a losing team. Simple, give me a winning team and I'm happy. I dont give a s... about a player or any emotions associated with that.
Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #74 on: March 01, 2006, 12:35:40 PM »

I want GC to make his points, back them up strongly etc. But I am questioning his attitude of forcing it. Only when you force, you will get totally disappointed to an extent that you will make a saracastic comment, if the others don't agree.

There were lot of points in favour of Munaf over VRV. How many times did you see a guy being selected 4 months before, didn't play a single ODI/test for Indian team (so no performances), had an injury lay-off for 4 months, didn't play any game after coming back from injury and straight away being selected into Indian team. When proven players like SRT & Kaif had to play domestic games before making into the squad, how is VRV exempted?

In most circumstances, a player loses form & struggles in matches after coming back from injury. Without him getting back to form, he won't make into the squad. This concession was only given to proven players like SRT & kaif, but not to rookies.

Devatha, the VRV v/s Munaf issue is not very straightforward ... as in munaf got 10 wickets and VRV got none, so munaf is better. You dont really take calls that way. In fact, I had posted the commentary on cricinfo on the first day of the BP XI match (not sure if it was on this DG or the other one, and shall try to dig it out). The writer clearly felt that VRV was the most impressive of all the bowlers at that stage (and this was around tea time) although he got hit in one over and patel got more wickets. So, probably, the call was made on the basis of how the two seemed to be bowling on the ground at that time ... When we go just by scores, we often miss out on what actually went on ... we've all seen several test innings in which stuart macgill has taken more wickets than shane warne - does that automatically mean the former is better.

In the end, Munaf may prove to be a better bowler that VRV, but ascribing the latter's selection purely to GC's forceful nature seems a bit far fetched to me ...
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #75 on: March 01, 2006, 12:40:25 PM »

devatha ... this is what I referred to ... maybe it was on this evidence (and not just wickets taken) that VRV was ultimately picked

while munaf got 2 wickets, it seems like paul and VRV impressed most ...

The Indian Board President's XI pace trio of Vikram Singh, Shib Paul and Munaf Patel repaid their captain's decision to bowl first on a green wicket, restricting the England XI to 78 for 4 by lunch on the first day at the IPCL Cricket Stadium in Vadodara.

Vikram, bowling with control and good pace, put pressure on Marcus Trescothick (18) to attempt an unnecessary third run and run himself out, Paul was rewarded for a tight line with the wicket of Ian Bell (17), edging to second slip, while Andrew Strauss (23) - who cut a poor figure of himself during 51 painful minutes at the crease - chopped a full delivery from Munaf right onto his stumps to signal a dreadful start for the tourists. And just when England needed their biggest star to see off the fast bowlers and produce a thriller, Andrew Flintoff (1) prodded the tamest of drives straight to mid-off off Patel.

While the batsmen can be charged with imprudence, the tone for the morning, and ultimately England's indiscretion, was laid down by two fine spells from Vikram and Paul. Vikram, bowling from the Pavilion end, gained good bounce in his first over, hustling Strauss onto the back foot and repeatedly cramping him for room. Trescothick was watchful against him too - he was beaten his late movement on two occasions - while Strauss was content on nudging off his hips and running the odd single. Trescothick began proceedings with a push through covers off Munaf for four, and a firm cut off Vikram for three in the fourth over signaled his intent to push the field and run the doubles. It was this eagerness, however, that saw his demise in the fifth over. Getting a thick outside edge down towards third man, Trescothick harried through for two but attempting an ambitious third run was caught short of this crease by a good pick-and-throw from Dheeraj Jadhav.

From here on Strauss went further into his shell. There were plenty of leaves outside the off stump, and with the fielders alive and moving the doubles were scant. Paul, brought on in the eighth over, began with a maiden and denied Strauss any room whatsoever. After five overs for 24, Munaf made way for Vikram who continued the good work by consistently asking questions of Strauss' back-foot play. Ian Bell, who followed his senior partner by going on the defensive, brought up the 50 for England in the 14th over but fell to Paul soon after. Fending at a short, rising delivery on off stump, Bell could only look on as the ball carried to Wasim Jaffer at second slip. It was just reward for the bowler, who maintained a fine line and was the best of the Indians on show. Strauss, pressured by the good work done by Vikram and Paul, tried to cut the fifth ball of Munaf's second spell but succeeded in chopping the ball onto his stumps.

The fielders rejoiced, the captain clapped his bowlers on, and Flintoff walked to the crease with plenty on his shoulders. But there were no booming drives, no cracking cuts, and the couple hundred spectators at the ground could be forgiven for thinking they were watching a different six-foot batsman at the crease. Unable to provide and fluency to England's innings, Flintoff scratched just a solitary run from 11 deliveries before chipping Munaf to Vikram at mid-off, and England were in disarray.

The lasting impression of the first session will undoubtedly be the manner in which Vikram and Paul combined to deny the batsman the room to play their shots. Credit must be given to the fielding. Cuts were intercepted at point, cover was sharp and mid-off and mid-on proved apt placements to the duo's attacking line. England are in trouble, and somewhere in the smattering of a crowd, the gathered selectors will be enjoying their lunch, content in seeing that India's fast bowling brigade may have gotten a little deeper.
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #76 on: March 01, 2006, 12:45:07 PM »

wow...  Indian cricket is not a professoional outfit?!!!! since when?

CLR, whats this business of 'balance of power'? You seem to be suggesting that balance of power happens via uncompromising or aggressive personalities! If your goal is to have someone who pushes GC onto the backfoot the way to do that (as in any other walk of life) would we to arm yourself with greater abilities. As a selector show up with the greatest scouting reports you can on players... a nice little presentation, backed up with all relevant info, on various players. Then base your choices/recommendations on that information. Challenge GC or whoever to find problems with that or add to that. That is how you achieve a balance of power. Not by pitching one uncompromising egomaniac versus who you consider to be one. That will at best lead to your 'strong personality' out-shouting GC and then what are we left with? Dealing with another strong personality. A complete waste.

Hmmm..the NBA --  if you are the 388th player or something there you may find urself in the same situation as you do if you are the 17th in Indian cricket. The number maybe different, you still have to make the cut. If anything, its all the more reason why SG needed to never take his place for granted.... just too much competition.
And emotions are not high in the american sports? Really? I've spent days in severe depression whenever the Bulls lost an important playoff game (thankfully it wasn't too often) and the worst was when Portland lost Game7 to the Lakers back in 2000 or something. I can tell you there was sufficient emotion invested... I needed 3 full days of devious self-distraction to keep my spirits up. And I dint even grow up here.

Finally, your bringing up emotions itself is wierd. I dont think this ought to be any consideration. If it is, the amount of emotion invested ought only to be about a team and that our board should take note and make sure the fans dont suffer from a losing team. Simple, give me a winning team and I'm happy. I dont give a s... about a player or any emotions associated with that.


Senthil,

Once again you have difficulty understanding what I was trying to say.

1. I said "not a professional outfit LIKE the Chicago Bulls."

2. I did not say that emotions are not attached to American sports. I said that they were DIFFERENT.

3. Look sharp again. I brought up emotions only as a part of something larger -- to say that Indian cricket, in my opinion, has a different history and different context. It cannot be run like a professional American sports club like the Lakers or Bulls. And yes, this thread was not about a particular player.
Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #77 on: March 01, 2006, 01:00:59 PM »

CLR, please, u are getting a bit too cryptic...

1. Okay, so they are not a professional outfit 'like chicago bulls'... so lets say they are a 'professional outfit like none other'. happy? I dont see the point, both are professional outfits at the end of the day. One can potentially argue that making money is more of an issue for those clubs. But even to do that they have to win. Which is not very different from our professional unit is it?

2. DIFFERENT? Would you care to explain? (I'm a simultaneous fan of both sides we speak of, so kinda curious what the difference is)

3. okay, differnt history. and yeah set in a diferent context lets say. But whats the darn point?
  At the end of the day , whether its the Lakers or the Gunners, what really matters to the fans is ONLY whether the team is winning or not. I suspect we can agree on that?
 IF we agree on that, how exactly is the different history/context whatever supposed to influence the running of the side???? Please explain.
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #78 on: March 01, 2006, 08:36:23 PM »

CLR, to add to Senthil's points

On your first point, I think GC would only have the powers until he delivers. Its no different than SG's powers in the heyday. He used to demand the team he wanted and get it. To the point that he made some great careers (Veeru, Yuvraj, Kaif ) and ignored some other promising players. But during his reign he used to get more than what GC gets (since the administration was Dalmiya).

That isnt a bad thing. The analogy with the professional teams isnt far fetched. In the end we expect our players and board to show professionalism. We talk about accountability. Well I want accountability right on the coach/captain to deliver results. To hold them accountable you need to give em some power too. The absolute nature of that power can be debated. You think it is too much I dont. Senthil made an excellent point about others having the ability to make presentations or cases of other players.

But in the end we need to allow a coach/captain to succeed fail with his team. His likeabilty has nothing to do with it. I hate Phil Jackson (knicks fan) ....but if I wanted to have a BBall coach he would be my man!

My point about measuring the man on results stands. Dont go after him based on what MIGHT happen. Let him fail first and then attack. I will join you if he fails. So far I am seeing his philosophy/approach show good results.
Logged

gouravk

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,199
  • Which way will this ball swing ?
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #79 on: March 01, 2006, 08:39:07 PM »

yes power and respect are earned by performance and to some degree by reputation which is again based on past performance. GC scores in all areas.
Logged
...Tvameva Vidya Dravidam Tvameva ... Tvameva Sarvam Mama Deva Deva !!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up