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

Author Topic: Balance of power needed.  (Read 18689 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #80 on: March 01, 2006, 08:58:07 PM »

Coverpoint, thanks for adding. excellent post.
Logged

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #81 on: March 01, 2006, 09:39:37 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.


Cover and Senthil,

I actually agree with quite a lot of what you say. Anyway, a couple more clarifications:

1. I did not say that the Indian cricket team was not a professional one. I just said that since it is a national team with unique regionalist dynamics (unfortunately), it is different from the professional set up in the US. The scales, the stakes, the nature of pride and passion involved is different. So are the rules (the gag rule for players being one of them). The NBA players for instance may migrate to different teams if conditions do not suit them. Not so for cricketers playing for their country etc.

2. I feel that it is because of this that power should not be concentrated in the hands of any one individual. It is not good if all players feel deep down that ultimately it is GC's fondness or despication for them that will settle the issue when it comes to getting out of bad form. Players are always vulnerable when they hit bad form (as they inevitably will) and as they grow older. It does not, in the long run, promote a climate of confidence if a person known for personal vindictiveness, meanness, and lying is given such a lot of power. See, I realize that there are a lot of cricketing grounds to put SG under the scanner and take away his captaincy. But when it came to giving him a fair chance, like all others, to prove his renewed form and fitness, it was a single minded campaign launched by GC and More that settled the issue. Do you really think he is being given a level playing field like the others (Kaif, Gambhir, Kartik, Agarkar, even SRt early on)? Now please don't bring up the Pak and Aus series of 2004 (SG was in abysmal form then) or the so called 2 year form slump. I am talking about the new, improved SG relieved of captaining responsibilities. Now everybody knows what Chappel can do when he launches a personal vendetta campaign. How do you think it affects the confidence of someone like Harbhajan or even VVS? Is it fair that tried and tested cricketers should play in an atmosphere of fear and misery? The message seems to be clear; if GC likes you (as he himself said, as a 'good' person), you will be given a long rope when you hit bad times. If he does not, your first mistake will be your last. For people like HS and VVS, it could mean that the next time a form slump arrives, they will not be given a second look before being dumped.

3. Of course nothing succeeds like success. Look at the beginning of the thread again. I did not say that India is bound to fail under GC. On the contrary I said that there is a good chance that in the long run we will go from strength to strength. I just said one needs to check autocratic power -- anyone's. Do you disagree with that?
Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #82 on: March 01, 2006, 10:09:54 PM »

CLR,

1. Actually, in Indian cricket too migration is possible. For example, SG can play for East Zone. Then for Bengal. Etc. Simply its the equivalent of say getting benched first in ur NBA team, say the Lakers. Then going to warm the bench for the Clippers. Then moving to Europe to ply ur trade there.
In any case, you keep saying stakes,scales,passion,pride etc are differnt... I see no difference. I see many rabid Madrid fans or ManU fans or Lakers fans. I myself was a fan like that at one point. And I also am a Indian cricket fan. So I'm curious what ur difference is. If you can say it briefly, do it.

2. Its not a question of vendtta here. SG had in the course of his 2 yr slump pretty much played out his chances (not realising it at the time). His saving grace might have been if he had quite captaincy when Chappel took over and tried to use whatever chances he got to cement his place. You seem to keep thinking, he went back to domestic, got fit etc... doesn't really matter does it after you are fired? I mean there are many other younger players too who are fit, doing the same thing. In essence he abused his previliged chances he got when he was captain. Paid the price.

3. Why would I disagree with that? Since when did we start debating the truth of 'unchecked power is harmful/corrupts'?!!!!! I think you had a corollary point saying we need Gavaskars, Pataudis in place of More to TAKE ON Chappel. That was the point. And I say you dont need that.. you need competent selectors, which can be anybody including More.
In any case, I disagree that there is sufficient grounds on which to call Chappel a authoritative, autocratic dictator. Or More a mere pushover.
Logged

CLR James

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3,007
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #83 on: March 01, 2006, 11:20:48 PM »

CLR,

1. Actually, in Indian cricket too migration is possible. For example, SG can play for East Zone. Then for Bengal. Etc. Simply its the equivalent of say getting benched first in ur NBA team, say the Lakers. Then going to warm the bench for the Clippers. Then moving to Europe to ply ur trade there.
In any case, you keep saying stakes,scales,passion,pride etc are differnt... I see no difference. I see many rabid Madrid fans or ManU fans or Lakers fans. I myself was a fan like that at one point. And I also am a Indian cricket fan. So I'm curious what ur difference is. If you can say it briefly, do it.

2. Its not a question of vendtta here. SG had in the course of his 2 yr slump pretty much played out his chances (not realising it at the time). His saving grace might have been if he had quite captaincy when Chappel took over and tried to use whatever chances he got to cement his place. You seem to keep thinking, he went back to domestic, got fit etc... doesn't really matter does it after you are fired? I mean there are many other younger players too who are fit, doing the same thing. In essence he abused his previliged chances he got when he was captain. Paid the price.

3. Why would I disagree with that? Since when did we start debating the truth of 'unchecked power is harmful/corrupts'?!!!!! I think you had a corollary point saying we need Gavaskars, Pataudis in place of More to TAKE ON Chappel. That was the point. And I say you dont need that.. you need competent selectors, which can be anybody including More.
In any case, I disagree that there is sufficient grounds on which to call Chappel a authoritative, autocratic dictator. Or More a mere pushover.

1. I don't agree with you on this Senthil. The bottomline is, tommorow if a cricketer is dropped from the Indian team, he cannot sign up for any other country and play there. Pride would come in the way. Of course, there are ocassions like Riaz Poonawala turning out for UAE, but that is different. The stakes of honor are one way and irreversible. You either play for your country or you don't play test cricket at all. The point is, someone like GC can threaten to finish a cricketer's career, or a cricketer might have to suck up to GC (if he is all powerful) to get into or stay in the team. This is not true of the NBA. Phil Jackson cannot finish Kobe Bryant's career out of pure spite, even if the latter loses form temporarily. This is because Kobe can in this case simply turn out for another team and prove his worth.

2. I totally agree with you that SG went through a form slump during the Pak and Aus series for faults largely of his own making. He deseserved to be dropped and deserved to be stripped of captaincy. Today, if sensible people support him at all, it is because they think if he works hard (which he has been), he has the talent to make a good come back if he is backed like any other player. Given his record and pedigree, it is fair to believe that he deserves a fair chance, just like any other player. the point of vendetta comes in because for the last few months, there has been a single point obsession (sorry can't give the benefit of doubt to the great man on this account) to undermine SG's confidence, break him down mentally. In all fairness, in the current circumstances with YS's injury, do you think it is fair to field the three duck in a row Kaif in lieu of SG? In ODIs, have the younger, fitter players done anything indivisually spectacular compared to SG's overall record to completely efface him from the team? I mean this was not the case of SG himself scoring two hundreds in his first two tests and effectively ending Kambli's career? YS indeed has come good, but does not SG, like a contracted professional, deserve to be in the side ahead of Kaif or Raina?

3. The bullish nature of the Chappels is too well documented down the decades to broach here. Even pro Chappel reports in recent times make no bones about the fact that he has a single minded, mean, authoritative steak. This is coupled with a steely determination and a will to win that in itself is legendary. Quite a heady combination for the tough grounds of international cricket, but potentially disastrous if left unchecked. And More and pushover? What can you say about a man who has not made a single set of consistent statements so far? A few days ago he said that options were wide open. SG, Kumble, VVS would be considered for ODIs if needed. About 72 hours later he says that the doors to the not so young have closed forever. In between GC made a preposterous remark about the ideal average age for an ODI being 23-24 years. Who does the thinking for Mr. More? My case rests.
Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #84 on: March 01, 2006, 11:50:39 PM »

1. As I said, whether its just one team playing for India or 25 teams in the NBA, a player needs to make a cut. When he doesn't he's over. Alright, we will agree to disagree.

2. This whole business needs a wider persepective. My take is that we had too much age in the middle order. We need to ease one out now. Another in a year's time. Another in 2-3 years time. The last in 4 years will pretty much be done. Of the four SRT,VVS,RD,SG one has to go in my books now. This is essential if I as a fan dont want a weak transition period. No compromises here. Who would you pick? I picked SG.
so the whole business of SG proving form/fitness etc etc is really irrelevant.

3. Again you are leaving aside what ur initial posting stance was. That we needed strong personalities to check GC. My point - More MAY OR MAY NOT be strong. I'll reserve judgement on that as I dont have sufficient info to draw conclusions. Be that as it may, getting strong peronalities to set up a ego-battle is not the solution. Bring in professional, competent selectors. If More qualifies, fine, if he doesn't fine. I dont care.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #85 on: March 02, 2006, 01:57:49 AM »

CLR:

Your contrast between a professional league such as the NBA or NFL vis-a-vis Indian Cricket team makes sense. The professional leagues in the US operate on a contract system with free movement of human capital  --trades, free agency, releasing players, expiration of contracts. This is hardly the case with a player representing Indian cricket or for that matter any national team.

Because if you do not get a chance to represent the national team, there are very few opportunities for you as a player to play international cricket at the highest level (which by structure consists of national teams competing against each other). The only way you can actually do it is to immigrate to another country (provided you qualify under the immigration rules), then wait a certain period, gain ctiizenship and finally play. Unless you have favorable circumstances (conditions for immigration) and age on your side (the wait period prior to grant of citizenship), there is no way you can represent another nation. And very few qualify on both those counts.

I remember Iven lendl of Czechoslovakia wanting to represent the US in Davis Cup. he was a green card holder, had decided to immigrate and was trying desperately through Congressmen and Senators to expedite his citizenship. All of those efforts came to naught -- he was 25 when he first expressed this wish, time came and went --by the time he was eligible, he was aspent force, and never really got to play for the US. I know tennis is an individual sport, but the example is valid because he wanted to represent the US in a competition which is played between nations.

As far as your original post about the effect a strong personality has on other people --makes perfect sense too. I notice it way too often in professional and sometime personal settings where the force of someone's personality forces others to retract or suppress their opinions. these others often say in private that it is so difficult to get a word in edgewise because of the other person and his / her persona imposition.

When you combine a strong personality with a person who is highly respected in his own domain by virtue of performance / track record / reputation, the effect is magnified, especially when the immediate company surrounding this individual carries neither the persona nor the aura of achievement (on a comparable scale).

As a simple example, a post graduate degree holder in economics (even though competent in his / her own field) is likely to feel tongue tied or in awe if he / she meets Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen in a conference where both the former and the latter are members of a discussion group. In this case the argument presented by a Nobel laureate and the aura associated with Mr. Sen and his long list of achievements is often enough to discourage a dissenting voice from the economics graduate.

Most human dynamics and interactions are based on a hierarchical note especially in professional settings (even in personal settings, where the hierarchical ambience is present in subtler shades). And when I say heirarchical, i do not imply hierarchy of position or post --the interaction is defined by hierarchy of knowledge, experience, and reputation (actual or perceived). whenever such a hierarchy exists (actual or perceived), conversations and reactions to such conversation are structured on a step down - step up basis.

Which is exactly why, most free and frank discussions happen between contemporaries (not determined by age or rank but as determined by knowledge and reputation). Unless specified by the hierachically superior person as a free exchange of ideas (and sometimes even not so then), free and frank discussions on an equal plane do not happen between non contemporaneous (as far as knowledge / skill / reputation / experience are concerned) people.

This is almost always true in human interactions. Given this, it is not inconceivable to imagine how an all time great player like GC with his experience, acumen, and achievements to back him has ground ceded to him by individuals like More, Jagdale, Biswal, Chandrasekhar, and Bhupinder Singh. On a hierarchical level (as defined earlier) four of the five are infants compared to an adult while the fifth (More the most experienced of the group) is probably barely approaching adolesecence.

Whether GC has misused his implicit power (bestowed through the dynamics of hierarchical interaction that humans exhibit) is a topic for another day (the only reason I will not delve into it here is to avoid sidetracking the discussion), the fact remains that the potential for a power imbalance is too great to ignore. Its a lop sided equation under the current structure and therefore it makes a lot of sense to suggest a restructuring on professional lines using contemporaries to man the selector's seat in the future rather than manning them with honorary members who are rewarded for currying favor to the powers in BCCI.
Logged

colonel

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 693
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #86 on: March 02, 2006, 02:30:35 AM »

Excellently put. Additionally,  the efficient performance of an organization often requires the existence of an alternative point of view. In other words, the organization may often need a vocal minority who stands in denial of the majority stand and who can and will make themselves heard. Purely on such grounds, that is grounds of minority influence,as industrial psychologists call it, one needs people - either in the board of selectors or as a power outside it - who will do more than rubber stamp any proposal the coach puts in front of the board.
Logged

atticus

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #87 on: March 02, 2006, 03:18:26 AM »

I've read the whole thread and the latest post by kban. I don't get it. Making the selectoral setup more professional is a great idea. Instead of the honor system, get professional (paid) people who are great talent scouts - like the professional sports in USA and who are also held accountable. But what I don't get is this insistence of an alternate voice, someone who is contemperory etc. Since GC is coach today, we need some one like Gavaskar in the selectoral board to be the so called alternate voice. Then tomorrow if someone like T.A. Sekar (already a bowling coach) becomes India's coach (assume, for argument sake), will you replace Gavaskar from the selectoral board with a mediocre Ranji player from the yesteryear? What sort of idea is that? After all Gavaskar being the Amartya Sen in this scenario, you don't want T.A. Sekar to not get the players he wants in as the coach, do you? I, for one, like to give the coach the team he wants. Especially in a system like ours where the selectors are not accountable. Only the coach and captain are accountable in our current system. So I would rather give them the free hand and if they fail, we can always drop them. Unless, the selection system is changed and the selectors are held accountable, I would rather them being rubber stamps and hopefully give some inputs about the new Ranji players to the coach and the captain. This is the reason why I supported Ganguly getting the team he wanted and now support GC getting the team he wants.

I also feel that this thread had nothing to do with improving the selectoral system. I mean, if one really wants to improve the selectoral system, Gavaskar's name will not even be thought of. For all his brilliance, he is the most political of all players who have played for India. He has single handedly destroyed many a career when he was just a player.  I shudder to think what he will do if he actually has power to decide who will play for India.

Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #88 on: March 02, 2006, 03:30:04 AM »

I've read the whole thread and the latest post by kban. I don't get it. Making the selectoral setup more professional is a great idea. Instead of the honor system, get professional (paid) people who are great talent scouts - like the professional sports in USA and who are also held accountable. But what I don't get is this insistence of an alternate voice, someone who is contemperory etc. Since GC is coach today, we need some one like Gavaskar in the selectoral board to be the so called alternate voice. Then tomorrow if someone like T.A. Sekar (already a bowling coach) becomes India's coach (assume, for argument sake), will you replace Gavaskar from the selectoral board with a mediocre Ranji player from the yesteryear? What sort of idea is that? After all Gavaskar being the Amartya Sen in this scenario, you don't want T.A. Sekar to not get the players he wants in as the coach, do you? I, for one, like to give the coach the team he wants. Especially in a system like ours where the selectors are not accountable. Only the coach and captain are accountable in our current system. So I would rather give them the free hand and if they fail, we can always drop them. Unless, the selection system is changed and the selectors are held accountable, I would rather them being rubber stamps and hopefully give some inputs about the new Ranji players to the coach and the captain. This is the reason why I supported Ganguly getting the team he wanted and now support GC getting the team he wants.

I also feel that this thread had nothing to do with improving the selectoral system. I mean, if one really wants to improve the selectoral system, Gavaskar's name will not even be thought of. For all his brilliance, he is the most political of all players who have played for India. He has single handedly destroyed many a career when he was just a player.  I shudder to think what he will do if he actually has power to decide who will play for India.


Man, excellent post.Great job spotting the 'alternate voice' thing. Cos I'm sure the rest of it -- having a more capable, professional selection setup -- everyone on this forum will agree with. As I clearly did in my posts to CLR too. And a very nice point too about giving power to the coach/captain as, in our current system, we can hold them more accountable than the selectors (though i must say under the last captain we hit a real nadir after a high and look how hard its been to make him accountable!)  ;D

I can't find the applause thingy people talk about...otherwise would have used it :)


Logged

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,029
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #89 on: March 02, 2006, 03:32:43 AM »


I can't find the applause thingy people talk about...otherwise would have used it :)



Senthil,  Directly under your name or ones names in their post you see a Applause/Smite.  Click the applause if you want.
Logged

atticus

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #90 on: March 02, 2006, 03:37:47 AM »

I've read the whole thread and the latest post by kban. I don't get it. Making the selectoral setup more professional is a great idea. Instead of the honor system, get professional (paid) people who are great talent scouts - like the professional sports in USA and who are also held accountable. But what I don't get is this insistence of an alternate voice, someone who is contemperory etc. Since GC is coach today, we need some one like Gavaskar in the selectoral board to be the so called alternate voice. Then tomorrow if someone like T.A. Sekar (already a bowling coach) becomes India's coach (assume, for argument sake), will you replace Gavaskar from the selectoral board with a mediocre Ranji player from the yesteryear? What sort of idea is that? After all Gavaskar being the Amartya Sen in this scenario, you don't want T.A. Sekar to not get the players he wants in as the coach, do you? I, for one, like to give the coach the team he wants. Especially in a system like ours where the selectors are not accountable. Only the coach and captain are accountable in our current system. So I would rather give them the free hand and if they fail, we can always drop them. Unless, the selection system is changed and the selectors are held accountable, I would rather them being rubber stamps and hopefully give some inputs about the new Ranji players to the coach and the captain. This is the reason why I supported Ganguly getting the team he wanted and now support GC getting the team he wants.

I also feel that this thread had nothing to do with improving the selectoral system. I mean, if one really wants to improve the selectoral system, Gavaskar's name will not even be thought of. For all his brilliance, he is the most political of all players who have played for India. He has single handedly destroyed many a career when he was just a player.  I shudder to think what he will do if he actually has power to decide who will play for India.


Man, excellent post.Great job spotting the 'alternate voice' thing. Cos I'm sure the rest of it -- having a more capable, professional selection setup -- everyone on this forum will agree with. As I clearly did in my posts to CLR too. And a very nice point too about giving power to the coach/captain as, in our current system, we can hold them more accountable than the selectors (though i must say under the last captain we hit a real nadir after a high and look how hard its been to make him accountable!)  ;D

I can't find the applause thingy people talk about...otherwise would have used it :)




Thanks for the compliments. Yes, we did hit a nadir after 2-3 years of high under SG. But ultimately, he wouldn't have lasted long if India's results continued. Also, he had a powerful backer in JD. GC or any other coach will probably not have such backing and it will be easy to get rid of him if he fails. Especially, if he is a foreigner like GC. After all, one can call him a Hitler, white gora, colonial racist and boot him out  :)
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #91 on: March 02, 2006, 03:43:13 AM »

atticus:

Firstly,
the coach does not have power to vote does he ? there is a reason his powers have been limited to an advisory capacity. So from that perspective the balance of power as originally intended is maintained when a few of the 5 selectors are more experienced / hold higher status than him as in your hypothetical example. the prevention of abuse by the powerful selector in this case is checked by the institution of the professional selectorial post whereby selectors can be dumped if they perform poorly. And even with a selector more powerful than the coah in terms of experience / reputation / stature, the intended balance of power vis-avis selectorial issues is maintained --the very reason the coach does not have  a vote is to ensure that the power balance is tilted in favor of the selectors.

Secondly,
your response to me is predicated on there being only one selector where as there are actually five. So the question of upgrading or down grading selectors based on the experience or stature of coach does not matter provided the selectors picked are a judicious mix of experienced / reputed players and those who are not as reputed.

As far as SMG s concerned, CLR mentioned his name in conjunction with several other experienced players. I did not mention him at all. Using a name mooted as an example to strike at the basis of the argument does not achieve the desired effect in this case.

the pros and cons of SMG as selector and his alleged politicking is of course a different topic for a different day.
Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #92 on: March 02, 2006, 03:43:41 AM »

Agreed Atticus. Without Wooly really failing, on the other side of the border, the perennial squabblers have drawn out knives. Out here it will only need a bit of actual failure by GC. He's done and dusted.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2006, 03:51:29 AM by senthilpeter »
Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #93 on: March 02, 2006, 03:52:08 AM »

I agree with atticus that one cant keep building a framework for selection, or anything for that matter, on the basis of personalities - it is too ad hoc and makes a lot of assumptions ... And then there is no reason to assume that the other big wig, whoever he may be, would necessarily disagree with chappel / any other coach.

And, to my mind, there is nothing wrong with anyone being able to put through his point forcefully and authoritatively. I mean, GC here may have the best track record, but at the end of the day he does not have a vote. What is the problem if he is able to convince the selectors on what he wants?? Do we need someone out there just to play Devil's advocate? Imagine someone like gavaskar going out there and playing that role - can he not have his own agenda as well?? And worse, he has a vote too!!! Which GC does not. So the equation just gets skewed the other way - gavaskar with his persona and vote can hold pretty much every issue at ransom. Moreover, he does not have any accountability - this is obviously not his full time job and he can walk away anytime he wants to.

I am in favour of the coach/captain being given a lot of leeway in picking the team they want, since it is their head on the line. The selectors, to my mind, should be more in the form of a support system that throws up names of new and exciting players before the coach and captain. The system works brilliantly in football; why not in cricket?
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

ramshorns

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13,029
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #94 on: March 02, 2006, 03:57:24 AM »

I think with the new regime in place they will do away with this present Zonal selection system and transition out to a more professional setup.  Wait and watch.  With Nimbus and $612M deal the stakes are getting high.  The change is inevitable IMO and that is good.
Logged

senthilpeter

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #95 on: March 02, 2006, 04:02:37 AM »

atticus:

Firstly,
the coach does not have power to vote does he ? there is a reason his powers have been limited to an advisory capacity. So from that perspective the balance of power as originally intended is maintained when a few of the 5 selectors are more experienced / hold higher status than him as in your hypothetical example. the prevention of abuse by the powerful selector in this case is checked by the institution of the professional selectorial post whereby selectors can be dumped if they perform poorly. And even with a selector more powerful than the coah in terms of experience / reputation / stature, the intended balance of power vis-avis selectorial issues is maintained --the very reason the coach does not have  a vote is to ensure that the power balance is tilted in favor of the selectors.

Secondly,
your response to me is predicated on there being only one selector where as there are actually five. So the question of upgrading or down grading selectors based on the experience or stature of coach does not matter provided the selectors picked are a judicious mix of experienced / reputed players and those who are not as reputed.

As far as SMG s concerned, CLR mentioned his name in conjunction with several other experienced players. I did not mention him at all. Using a name mooted as an example to strike at the basis of the argument does not achieve the desired effect in this case.

the pros and cons of SMG as selector and his alleged politicking is of course a different topic for a different day.

Man, this is all rather lame. I mean you want systems to account for the few forceful personalities we account in any professional walk of life? Well, then, in the case of multiple selectors with a 'judicious mix' how about the Gavaskar among them bullying the rest??? Yeah, if its a professional setup, you can dump him you'll say. But who's to say you can pinpoint it was Gavaskar only that caused the mess.

In any case, we can do the same with Chappel if the results dont show up. And as of now, his happens to be the onlly real 'professional setup' in our cricketing structure.
Lets worry about the merits of the best relationship btwn the coach and selectoral board, when the BCCI gets around to professionalising the latter.

Ramshorns, I think you have  a point. I'm anticipating too that we'll take atleast incremental steps in that direction. With lots of money comes the need to do the job well  ;D  ;D
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #96 on: March 02, 2006, 04:08:23 AM »

senthilpeter:

You are trivializing a specific argument by simplifying and generalizing it to every professional set up. Please re read my post.

And again, I did not bring up gavaskar.
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #97 on: March 02, 2006, 04:17:27 AM »

And I hate to repeat a point but as I had said that no one was complaining when Ganguly had this same or even more power. In his day he was getting credit for fighting for his players and giving them chances. How did he do that without having the power.

Actually GC has less power than SG had in his days. GC had to "endure" SG through the Lanka and the Pak tour. If he had such absolute power then how come he wasnt able to get what he wanted in Pak? Or do u really think he really wanted Ganguly there?

It is funny that the biggest complainers of the GC alleged power are the known Ganguly supporters, the same people who never said a peep when SG had the same or even more absolute power.

Something to think about ... no?
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #98 on: March 02, 2006, 04:38:31 AM »

CP:

For the record, i am one of those who has always criticised the honorary zonal based selection system --even before SG made his debut as a player.

SG had a lot of power sure, but disagree with him having more power than GC has now.

But the key difference is that the failures in a system are more acutely noticed when the system fails.

Some of us feel that the system has failed -- Specifically wrt GC and his agenda against SG.
Logged

squarecut

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 764
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #99 on: March 02, 2006, 04:46:02 AM »

CP:

For the record, i am one of those who has always criticised the honorary zonal based selection system --even before SG made his debut as a player.

SG had a lot of power sure, but disagree with him having more power than GC has now.

But the key difference is that the failures in a system are more acutely noticed when the system fails.

Some of us feel that the system has failed -- Specifically wrt GC and his agenda against SG.

how can you be so certain that GC has more power than SG has when he was the captain
Logged

jaat69

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #100 on: March 02, 2006, 05:26:36 AM »

And I hate to repeat a point but as I had said that no one was complaining when Ganguly had this same or even more power. In his day he was getting credit for fighting for his players and giving them chances. How did he do that without having the power.

Actually GC has less power than SG had in his days. GC had to "endure" SG through the Lanka and the Pak tour. If he had such absolute power then how come he wasnt able to get what he wanted in Pak? Or do u really think he really wanted Ganguly there?

It is funny that the biggest complainers of the GC alleged power are the known Ganguly supporters, the same people who never said a peep when SG had the same or even more absolute power.

Something to think about ... no?

I wonder, which planet are you living in!
GC had to endure SG!....this must be one of the worst kind of trash that unfortunately we have to live with.
Did you mean GC endured SG just like we endure your zilch? :)
SG or any other Indian player to our knowledge has never mis-utilized power so obviously for personal agenda the way GC is going about.
GC is the worst megalomaniac of its kind.
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #101 on: March 02, 2006, 05:34:35 AM »

But the key difference is that the failures in a system are more acutely noticed when the system fails.

Some of us feel that the system has failed -- Specifically wrt GC and his agenda against SG.


And thats the problem. You are so focussed on just SG and his ouster that you are willing to ignore everything else and condemn an entire system.

If you get out of that closed loop of just thinking of SG then you may actually realize that Indian cricket has indeed gotten better and the power you allege isnt as absolute. The fact that GC does have a say in the selection (sympathetic ear of the selection committee is how I would put it) is a good thing. How we used to bemoan the time when SRT was the captain and got Noel David in Australia when he asked for a spinner? We hold the captain/coach responsible for the teams performance and it is only fair that we give them some say (maybe a lot of say) in team selection.

The reality is that GC doesnt have as much of a control as SG did. The current administration could be called neutral towards him (as in they dont have any thng specifically vested in him) SG and Dalmiya formed a potent combination in their days.

I am sorry to say more I hear this argument more it appears immersed in bitterness about just one player. I think by focussing on only one player and ignoring the rest of the teams success you are giving credence to the definition of that hated term (No as promised will not use it).
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #102 on: March 02, 2006, 05:38:50 AM »

squarecut:

i never said I was certain, that is my opinion.

PS: Just curious that you never found the original argument by CP that SG had more power than GC deserving of the same question !!
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #103 on: March 02, 2006, 05:41:40 AM »

I wonder, which planet are you living in!

Obviously not yours ...since you are the lowly inhabitant of the planet of the apes!

Quote
GC had to endure SG!....this must be one of the worst kind of trash that unfortunately we have to live with.

Feel free to kill yourself. No one is forcing you to live.

Quote
SG or any other Indian player to our knowledge has never mis-utilized power so obviously for personal agenda the way GC is going about.
GC is the worst megalomaniac of its kind.

Now that you have gotten past the personal attacks you come up with an unsubstantiated opinion. I can respond to say SG is ................... but what would be the point! Kuch fact ho to bolo nahin to apni safai pe jao!
Logged

squarecut

  • World XI Star
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 764
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #104 on: March 02, 2006, 05:47:47 AM »

squarecut:

i never said I was certain, that is my opinion.

PS: Just curious that you never found the original argument by CP that SG had more power than GC deserving of the same question !!
In my opinion both have power and both might be over utilizing it a bit
Logged

jaat69

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #105 on: March 02, 2006, 06:04:30 AM »

Cover and Senthil,

I actually agree with quite a lot of what you say. Anyway, a couple more clarifications:

1. I did not say that the Indian cricket team was not a professional one. I just said that since it is a national team with unique regionalist dynamics (unfortunately), it is different from the professional set up in the US. The scales, the stakes, the nature of pride and passion involved is different. So are the rules (the gag rule for players being one of them). The NBA players for instance may migrate to different teams if conditions do not suit them. Not so for cricketers playing for their country etc.

2. I feel that it is because of this that power should not be concentrated in the hands of any one individual. It is not good if all players feel deep down that ultimately it is GC's fondness or despication for them that will settle the issue when it comes to getting out of bad form. Players are always vulnerable when they hit bad form (as they inevitably will) and as they grow older. It does not, in the long run, promote a climate of confidence if a person known for personal vindictiveness, meanness, and lying is given such a lot of power. See, I realize that there are a lot of cricketing grounds to put SG under the scanner and take away his captaincy. But when it came to giving him a fair chance, like all others, to prove his renewed form and fitness, it was a single minded campaign launched by GC and More that settled the issue. Do you really think he is being given a level playing field like the others (Kaif, Gambhir, Kartik, Agarkar, even SRt early on)? Now please don't bring up the Pak and Aus series of 2004 (SG was in abysmal form then) or the so called 2 year form slump. I am talking about the new, improved SG relieved of captaining responsibilities. Now everybody knows what Chappel can do when he launches a personal vendetta campaign. How do you think it affects the confidence of someone like Harbhajan or even VVS? Is it fair that tried and tested cricketers should play in an atmosphere of fear and misery? The message seems to be clear; if GC likes you (as he himself said, as a 'good' person), you will be given a long rope when you hit bad times. If he does not, your first mistake will be your last. For people like HS and VVS, it could mean that the next time a form slump arrives, they will not be given a second look before being dumped.

3. Of course nothing succeeds like success. Look at the beginning of the thread again. I did not say that India is bound to fail under GC. On the contrary I said that there is a good chance that in the long run we will go from strength to strength. I just said one needs to check autocratic power -- anyone's. Do you disagree with that?

Excellent post CLR!
I feel an extremely obstinate person wiil venture to overlook the problem afflicting our Indian cricket nowadays.
GC seems to be suffering from some colonial hangover, thinking that Indians are at his beck and call. I have a feeling that this GC actually believes that he is good enough to take Indian cricket for a ride.
He is just not bothered about the repurcussions thinking possibly that, if all hell break loose, he will simply pack his bag and go, without even bothering to clear the mess he has created.
This is the typical Raj like hangover..that you mess around in the third world and keep your own house clean!
The third world citizens are easy prey anyway..to be at your beck and call, to do your dirty jobs, to do your dirty thinking......and GC can afford to live the charmed life of a megalomaniac.
They say History repeats itself.
Nowadays guys try to justify all his crimes from an efficient management point of view. As if they are appreciating a crisis management problem. And to tell you frankly...GC is spreading it all over.
I wish the Indians knew abt crisis management during the colonial days. They might have sided with the British rather than emotionally aligning themselves with *hiji and other leaders, to oust the Britishers.
They were aware of national pride and not crisis management. Now, even national pride is not an issue according to some of the GC lackeys here. The Indian players it seems have no right to national pride also. It is either you fall in line with the megalomaniac or ship out.
As you have rightly pointed out that we desperately need to counter-balance this evil force with heavy-weights. And I am sure, just one is not going to be sufficient. As besides *hiji we had a plethora of luminaries like Sardar Patel, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, etc, just to name a few to take on the mighty Brits.
Even if you go by the results...the only life-line that GC may have...just have a look...what he is trying to claim.......he has to take into account his victories against a minnow like England, now at his disposal. His luck is on his side for the time being. After all who will remember that India won at home against a half-strength England after 2 years?
We don't require GC's kinseology and bio-mechanics to beat this england side anyway!

Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #106 on: March 02, 2006, 06:14:24 AM »

..he has to take into account his victories against a minnow like England, now at his disposal.

ha. I just started responding to this post then came to this gem. Jaat you have built GREAT credibility. Seeing your mental ability I will refrain from even janitor jokes against you!
Logged

jaat69

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #107 on: March 02, 2006, 06:15:36 AM »

CLR,

1. Actually, in Indian cricket too migration is possible. For example, SG can play for East Zone. Then for Bengal. Etc. Simply its the equivalent of say getting benched first in ur NBA team, say the Lakers. Then going to warm the bench for the Clippers. Then moving to Europe to ply ur trade there.
In any case, you keep saying stakes,scales,passion,pride etc are differnt... I see no difference. I see many rabid Madrid fans or ManU fans or Lakers fans. I myself was a fan like that at one point. And I also am a Indian cricket fan. So I'm curious what ur difference is. If you can say it briefly, do it.

2. Its not a question of vendtta here. SG had in the course of his 2 yr slump pretty much played out his chances (not realising it at the time). His saving grace might have been if he had quite captaincy when Chappel took over and tried to use whatever chances he got to cement his place. You seem to keep thinking, he went back to domestic, got fit etc... doesn't really matter does it after you are fired? I mean there are many other younger players too who are fit, doing the same thing. In essence he abused his previliged chances he got when he was captain. Paid the price.

3. Why would I disagree with that? Since when did we start debating the truth of 'unchecked power is harmful/corrupts'?!!!!! I think you had a corollary point saying we need Gavaskars, Pataudis in place of More to TAKE ON Chappel. That was the point. And I say you dont need that.. you need competent selectors, which can be anybody including More.
In any case, I disagree that there is sufficient grounds on which to call Chappel a authoritative, autocratic dictator. Or More a mere pushover.


Mr.Peter, are you talking out of your head? I feel this is a deliberate, agenda-driven, attempt to mental-disintegration of a national captain, whose contribution towards the glory of Indian cricket is of paramount importance. How can we allow a megalomaniac like GC to high-jack this achievement and call it his own...where in reality he has hardly much to show?
Where is the much-vaunted professionalism, by which your ilk is trying to swear by?
Where is genuine talent/ performance getting due appreciation?
Is this the way, you expect your company is run?
It is high time GC is taken to task...either by chucking him outright or, by placing some impartial review committee.
Indians have shown enough hospitality to this imposter by giving him a long rope.
It goes without saying this' under-armed, middle-fingered yobbo' does not deserve the respect!
Logged

jaat69

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #108 on: March 02, 2006, 06:18:39 AM »

..he has to take into account his victories against a minnow like England, now at his disposal.

ha. I just started responding to this post then came to this gem. Jaat you have built GREAT credibility. Seeing your mental ability I will refrain from even janitor jokes against you!

Don't worry abt my credibility...it is time you worry abt your God, GC's credibilty. England luckily for you is worse than a minnow. Even Bangladesh will have a field day against this collection of merry-men!
Logged

jaat69

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #109 on: March 02, 2006, 06:22:14 AM »

I wonder, which planet are you living in!

Obviously not yours ...since you are the lowly inhabitant of the planet of the apes!

Quote
GC had to endure SG!....this must be one of the worst kind of trash that unfortunately we have to live with.

Feel free to kill yourself. No one is forcing you to live.

Quote
SG or any other Indian player to our knowledge has never mis-utilized power so obviously for personal agenda the way GC is going about.
GC is the worst megalomaniac of its kind.

Now that you have gotten past the personal attacks you come up with an unsubstantiated opinion. I can respond to say SG is ................... but what would be the point! Kuch fact ho to bolo nahin to apni safai pe jao!

What have you got to do with facts anyway? Your only posts are basically mean-minded personal attacks on fellow members or players. So you  will get what you diss out.
Logged

Cover Point

  • Member
  • Team of the Century
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5,649
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #110 on: March 02, 2006, 06:26:02 AM »

What have you got to do with facts anyway? Your only posts are basically mean-minded personal attacks on fellow members or players. So you  will get what you diss out.

Pot Kettle black?

SO you did not kill yourself did you?
Logged

jaat69

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #111 on: March 02, 2006, 06:27:12 AM »

But the key difference is that the failures in a system are more acutely noticed when the system fails.

Some of us feel that the system has failed -- Specifically wrt GC and his agenda against SG.


And thats the problem. You are so focussed on just SG and his ouster that you are willing to ignore everything else and condemn an entire system.

If you get out of that closed loop of just thinking of SG then you may actually realize that Indian cricket has indeed gotten better and the power you allege isnt as absolute. The fact that GC does have a say in the selection (sympathetic ear of the selection committee is how I would put it) is a good thing. How we used to bemoan the time when SRT was the captain and got Noel David in Australia when he asked for a spinner? We hold the captain/coach responsible for the teams performance and it is only fair that we give them some say (maybe a lot of say) in team selection.

The reality is that GC doesnt have as much of a control as SG did. The current administration could be called neutral towards him (as in they dont have any thng specifically vested in him) SG and Dalmiya formed a potent combination in their days.

I am sorry to say more I hear this argument more it appears immersed in bitterness about just one player. I think by focussing on only one player and ignoring the rest of the teams success you are giving credence to the definition of that hated term (No as promised will not use it).

Who is ignoring the rest of the team here?
They stand selected anyway, what else do you want for them.
Don't you think it necessary to voice your opinion against biased, unjust treatment against any one player, be it SG or anybody, worthwhile?
And in this case this player happens to be no ordinary player. He is India's all time successful captain and a champion batsman on his own right.
Is this the way we treat a personality like him?
Then you expect someone to show you due respect?
Logged

jaat69

  • Guest
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #112 on: March 02, 2006, 06:28:11 AM »

What have you got to do with facts anyway? Your only posts are basically mean-minded personal attacks on fellow members or players. So you  will get what you diss out.

Pot Kettle black?

SO you did not kill yourself did you?

They say, poison is killed only by poison, and that explains my presence here!
Logged

atticus

  • Test Match Star
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 496
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #113 on: March 02, 2006, 06:32:10 AM »

kban,

Thanks for responding. I think senthil and cover point have already made the points in reply better than I could. Anyway, I'm going back to silent mode. The only reason I posted was because, I felt both your post and CLR posts were not really aiming to improve the system. In fact, I feel that if we implement the system you guys suggest, it would worsen the system. Yes Gavaskar was just an example. I didn't say the point was bad because of Gavaskar. Just like CLR used Gavaskar as an example, I also used the same to prove that just having a great cricket player in the setup is not the solution (if he also turns out to be political) to the so-called problem you are having with the current system. My first post was not aimed just at you, although I did mention only you by name. So, I'm sorry if you thought I was attributing the SMG reference to you.

You made my point by pointing out that the coach/captain does not have the vote. So he really needs to convince 5 people about his viewpoint. Also, he doesn't have any bargaining chip vs the selectors(especially a foreign coach. At least the captain can have some connection with the higher powers and can exert some external pressure on the selection committee). He has no power over the 5 selectors. What more, the 5 selectors generally have their own agenda. Under these conditions, if he can convince these 5 people and make them vote the way he wants them to, then he deserves to get the team he wants. I don't need separate convincing except for the results. If the results are bad, the coach is out. You also talk about the intended balance of power with the current system. I thought we were all in agreement that the current system is bad and it needs to be made into a professional setup. Apparently, I was mistaken. 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. Yes, even if it is ego-driven as you allege. Ego-driven decisions will never come good and as soon as  it fails, then the coach goes out.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #114 on: March 02, 2006, 06:46:06 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.
Logged

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #115 on: March 02, 2006, 07:01:29 AM »

CP:

Quote
And thats the problem. You are so focussed on just SG and his ouster that you are willing to ignore everything else and condemn an entire system.

If you get out of that closed loop of just thinking of SG then you may actually realize that Indian cricket has indeed gotten better and the power you allege isnt as absolute. The fact that GC does have a say in the selection (sympathetic ear of the selection committee is how I would put it) is a good thing. How we used to bemoan the time when SRT was the captain and got Noel David in Australia when he asked for a spinner? We hold the captain/coach responsible for the teams performance and it is only fair that we give them some say (maybe a lot of say) in team selection.

The reality is that GC doesnt have as much of a control as SG did. The current administration could be called neutral towards him (as in they dont have any thng specifically vested in him) SG and Dalmiya formed a potent combination in their days.

I am sorry to say more I hear this argument more it appears immersed in bitterness about just one player. I think by focussing on only one player and ignoring the rest of the teams success you are giving credence to the definition of that hated term (No as promised will not use it).


Sorry, I am not focused on one player to the exclusion of others. As I mentioned to atticus, I have never been a fan of the Indian selection policy –non professional, semi qualified selectors appointed on a honorary basis. And this goes back to before SG ever arrived on the international arena.

No body has denied that there have been some improvements in Indian cricket. But for some of us, its not just the results but also the means used to achieve the end. It is here where I disagree with the treatment meted out to SG.

Yes SG was hanging on to captaincy, was out of form, so and so. I am not arguing that phase.

But he was stripped of captaincy, he went back to work on his game, and after there were indications he was back in form, he just was not given the chance to prove himself.

The reason he was denied these chances was the personal battle between coach and player, and the coach using his powers to deny him that shot -- That’s the crux of the problem.

Irrespective of who had more power –GC or SG, the issue becomes more pertinent now because SG did not use that power malevolently. He favored players – in the wake of that some players may not have been selected, but this was never driven by an agenda of vendetta – that’s what’s happening now.

So the system’s flaws are showing up again because it is allowing the continuance of this agenda.

If you realize what I am saying, you will realize it is not bitterness over one player’s exclusion, it is a bid to improve a system, which has been traditionally flawed, and now even more exposed because it is allowing a motivated agenda to pass through unchecked.

The last time something like this happened was when RSD finished Mohinder Amarnath’s career and yes, I protested the abuse of the system back then too (pity there was no Internet or DG back then)

Logged

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #116 on: March 02, 2006, 07:44:30 AM »

kban,

I think a lot of this debate revolves around the assumption that GC has a single minded personal vendetta against SG and intends to keep him out of the team unfairly at all cost. He may indeed!!! But I believe it is too early to arrive at this conclusion beyond all doubt. I am sure there will be a lot of folks out there who will rag me on this, but I still believe that SG has not done enough to come back into the team.

Has SG has gone back to the domestic circuit and improved from where he was before his sacking as captain? Sure, he has!! That does not say much, does it? I mean if he cannot improve over that pathetic phase, we are wasting too much time on him anyways. But the key question is, has he done enough to get back into the team. Is the bar that we are setting for SG to make a comeback high enough? Are scores of 30-40 odd in tests enough for SG to make his way back? Sould we judge MK, SR etc by the same yardstick? Here, my answer is NO.

This is how I see it:
- We need two regular openers - VS, WJ, GG are the names being considered and I believe chopra was also in the loop. I would not want to add any other option out here, other than any other exciting regular opener candidate that may come up
- That leaves us with the middle order. We need four MO batsmen (three in case we play with five bowlers) in the XI and five in the fifteen. My view is that RD, SRT, YS are certainties, assuming full fitness for everyone. The others in the fray include VVS, SG, MK, SR and Rao at the moment plus a whole host of other players such as badani, mongia etc.
- For the last spot (assuming everyone is fit), my view is that VVS should be ahead of SG and the others.
- So, on a regular basis, there is no room for SG in the playing XI; he would have to be one of the reserves. Now here is where the complications begin.
a) would you want to keep this slot for SG or for one of the younger players that we need to try out? Especially when our middle order is getting on in age and could all retire / go down in form at the same time. Remember, on a regular basis, the batsman at this position is likely to play only when one of the first four is unavailable. So, even if SG is in, he is unlikely to play much in the near future. Would it not be better to use any opportunity that does come about due to injury or other reasons to groom a younger player for tougher times ahead? YS did take some time to find his feet in the international arena. Should we not anticipate that this could happen to anyone else who comes in as well? Any such opportunity (injury to YS in this instance) should be an opportunity to try youngsters who may have potential - MK in this match, maybe SR, maybe the others. That way, we will be able to test these guys on our terms rather than being forced to do so when two or three players go off at the same time. So, if MK or SR fails in this test and maybe two or three more opportunities, we still have time to look at other options without running the risk of putting our entire middle order at risk simultaneously.
b) coming from that, I believe that SG, if he has to come into the side, should be in the playing XI at the expense of SRT, VVS, RD and not one of the youngsters. Unless YS is proved to be just a flash in the pan. The trade off is just not favourable otherwise. There is no upside in keeping him in the reserves - tough luck, but that's how it goes in a competitive world
c) then there are the other factors - I think the furore over SG's exclusion has been unprecendented, at least in recent times. I mean, we have had VVS, AK sitting in the reserves ... even RD in the ODIs earlier ... without any of the attendant pressures on the captain and coach to find a way to include them. But here the pressure (at least sitting outside) seems to be immense with the board president and secretary and manager and everyone else even remotely connected having a say - SG's presence in the team in pakistan was probably the only reason why we did not play either GG or WJ in any of the tests. When a captain and coach is under so much pressure to include a player in the XI, is it difficult to imagine why they would rather do without him even in the squad of 15?

Which is why, GC/ RD's moves on this front do not seem that far fetched or difficult to comprehend for me. There seems to be a logic to which I agree. It is just incidental that SG is at the receiving end. It could have been VVS or any other senior player who does not pull his weight enough.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2006, 08:02:27 AM by keep-it-cool »
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!

kban1

  • Administrator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9,966
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #117 on: March 02, 2006, 08:47:36 AM »

keep it cool:

the youth argument when it comes to batting reserves deserves consideration.

But let me put the alternate to you --how long did it take for Yuvi to come good ?  Did he play any tests during that time ? No, he was in the ODI's, played there, and then when he got a chance, he cemented his spot in the test team.

So its not necessary for MK or Raina to be in the squad as a reserve to come good when the chance comes along. Both of them are in the ODI squad and they are playing regularly.

The logic that we have to start grooming players for when VVS, SRT, RD retire makes sense, but it makes sense in the context of when there is a slot available in the playing XI. This argument does not hold water when the youth brigade who are the next in line are going to be reserves in the test squad.

In many teams including Australia, they groom the youth by giving them chances in the ODI's till a test slot opens up. They do not carry the person in the test 15 / 16 as a reserve. As a matter of fact for Australia, they do not even carry reserves (these guys are released to play domestic cricket).

My argument here is that the next generation can gain experience playing ODIs which they are. getting into the test team as reserves does solve anything  because there is not a regular slot open. And it especially does not help India if in these one off chances that come up, we play youngsters for the sake of youth when there is a player who is in better form. When a regular slot opens up temporarily due to injury, you go by the pecking order as determined by current form. Current form dictates SG over Kaif and Raina. When there is a role reversal in terms of form, then you reverse the order and put MK or Raina ahead in the pecking order for the reserves.

The concern over replacing the middle order would have been justified if the reserves do not get a shot at any such of international exposure at all. Currently, YS is an established member. MK and Raina will continue to get exposure int he ODI's. So the talent is there, the opp for ODI exposure is there, why the scare over what will happen when SRT, RD, and VVS retire ? Its not as if bringing these guys in the squad will give them a batting slot --they will still be reserves unless someone is injured.

And when some one is injured, you already know thats a stop gap measure, not a measure for the future. So for a stop gap solution you choose the person in the best form. Today, it is SG and he deserves a chance to show what he can do after having worked on his batting and regained form (true he only scored 30s and 1 40 in the 4 chances he got, but can you honestly deny that he looked confident and fluent during those stints ?).

Tomorrow, kaif or Raina's form may be better. When that happens, they will be the first reserves ahead of SG.

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.

now for why the impression about Gc blocking SG's spot out of ego

Go back over the variety of reasons that were given to keep SG out of the team  since Zimbabwe and I think you will notice that the goal is to keep the person out, the reason can be manufactured based on the prevailing rage --

regaining form and fitness, not changing winning composition, cant take him in 15 becos then we have to play him in the 11, he is a disruptive presence in the dressing room, we lost the Karachi test becos of him which necessitated specialist openers being left out etc --the list goes on and on and on. A different reason every time, whatever is the flavor of the moment.

And finally, it is the youth movement. many of the reasons seem plausible on the surface, till you start scratching the surface and examining closely. then it begins to fall apart --either due to lack of logic or due to inconsistency of action, or due to misstatements and lies.

Maybe some will still feel that it is not conclusive. To my mind, it is.

Logged

achutank

  • Marketing Moderator
  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4,565
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #118 on: March 02, 2006, 09:44:27 AM »

i agree with kban, the australian method is quite logical, ours seems a bit haywire.
Logged
there is more than meets the i

keep-it-cool

  • Team of the Century
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18,238
  • Thanda Thanda Kool Kool
Re: Balance of power needed.
« Reply #119 on: March 02, 2006, 09:57:57 AM »

kban

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

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.
- 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.

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.
Logged
Sachin Tendulkar gave the muhurat clap for 'Awwal Number' - that apart, he hasn't done much wrong in the last 20 yrs!
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up