CricketVoice.com | The Cricket Forum

Archive => CV Classics - The Best of... => Topic started by: CLR James on February 26, 2006, 05:56:36 PM

Title: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James on February 26, 2006, 05:56:36 PM
I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: tombaan on February 26, 2006, 06:12:09 PM
i think there was a hue an cry about selection committee in past and look at the threa posted by teddy of committee members from the time saurav was selected....sambharan banerjee .....kiran more has a better track record than mr.banarjee anyday...he has the second best credentials after kirmani....pranov roy ....brijesh patel....s.chandreshekar...if this guys can be selectors dungurpur .....oh gawd....he of the famous "miya captain banoge" epitaph...surely kiran more can too.
as for gavaskar less said the better....he makes more money and wouldnot give it up unless compensated....which is very fair enough...we pay selectors nothing....he was chairman for our training centre in bangalore and his contribution there is well documented
there is a flaw in the argument only ex test cricketers can be good selectors....jagdale even wright has acknowledged as very good selector....look at selectors from world over including our neighbors it is not necessary they are all roy dias imran khan and ranatunga...even aussies selectors chairman didnot play test and he is the guy who asked waugh to go....and they are doing ok....a good cricketer neccessarily is not a good selector....
what we need is an unbiased board ...and that has not happened be it dalmiya or powar now. i think muttiah had the right intentions but the power brokers like rungta and dalmiya didnot want that....people hate modi but look what he has done to rajasthan cricket after coup against rungta and his family which was running it like their fiefdom....
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Blwe_torch on February 26, 2006, 06:15:03 PM
Good article CLR!.....GC is playing a dangerous game, only time will tell..what will India gain or lose by this great gamble.
He is demanding stunning sacrifices, all in the name of 'great future of Indian cricket'...'WC'07'. etc.
Is it unfair to expect some stunning results from Chappel's team?
It is standing on the hopes and emotions of numerous cricket lovers of India.
They better get a move on, we can't bear the weight of their boots!
I hope, it is not too late by the time BCCI and India's cricket aficionados realize their folly! :)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: dextrous on February 26, 2006, 06:28:42 PM
CLR can't agree with you more. Everytime the issue is brought up it is said that it has always been this way--and as tombaan said, the Aussie chief selector is brought up. Well, a lot of people have been asking for this change. We need well informed selectors. We need selectors who don't just go by name, but who are armed with stats and videos. Some fo these selectors are the ones that cast the vote for Pawar (not saying it hasn't happend before, probably has) for the election and were promptly rewarded with a spot. Now, coming back to Australia -- they do have a selector who didn't have a distinguished career but he's not there because of his political connections but because he's well-respected. ALSO, let's not forget the other Aussie selectors include the likes of Merv Hughes (250+ test wickets). And why even look to Aussies for this? Do the Aussies pick people from their u-19 squad and throw them into test matches? Do the Aussies let their former captain know of axing through the media? No, I think not. We need an Indian model, suited for India. Gavaskar, don't care how much he makes, is a well-informed guy. Pataudi, another one. Vegasarkar, a third one. Almost everyone agrees that Chappell is bullying the committee. Should that be the case? But how can it not when you have FOUR cricketers that were average Ranji players?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James on February 26, 2006, 06:33:48 PM

Absolutely. I am not saying that GC is bound to fail. Just that this imbalance of power, in what is a battle of subjective perceptions (whether SG is good enough or not, whether ZK deserved to be thrown out), is not good in the long run. Frankly, the Chappels are known for their bullying tactics. You cannot expect anything different from them. It is both their strength as well as weakness. We need checks and balances.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: sudzz on February 26, 2006, 07:49:32 PM
CLR as usual one more good post and very pertinent points raised, I agree with you that the selection committee needs to have more BoP vis-a-vis one person controlling a bunch of performing monkies.

But lets look at slightly differently, for all his faults and biases (I dont like this guy mind you) KM and his team have actually blooded a few raw youngsters, they have done what no other selection panel has done in the history of Indian cricket almost single handedly killed the culture of primma donna's in the playing squad (albeit replaced by a more petulant one at the coaching level).

I guess at some level it augurs well for Indian cricket that we will finally be rid of players who think they are bigger than the game they play. (Again not be construed as a harangue against SG).

What we need is some more investment in the ability of coaches to select the right team. I feel this needs to be completely professional set up with a contracted employment linked to measurable results. Then it does not matter whether it is ex cricketers or you and me doing the job when we know our back side is on the line each time the team messes up the best will automatically and always get selected.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James on February 26, 2006, 08:25:25 PM
CLR as usual one more good post and very pertinent points raised, I agree with you that the selection committee needs to have more BoP vis-a-vis one person controlling a bunch of performing monkies.

But lets look at slightly differently, for all his faults and biases (I dont like this guy mind you) KM and his team have actually blooded a few raw youngsters, they have done what no other selection panel has done in the history of Indian cricket almost single handedly killed the culture of primma donna's in the playing squad (albeit replaced by a more petulant one at the coaching level).

I guess at some level it augurs well for Indian cricket that we will finally be rid of players who think they are bigger than the game they play. (Again not be construed as a harangue against SG).

What we need is some more investment in the ability of coaches to select the right team. I feel this needs to be completely professional set up with a contracted employment linked to measurable results. Then it does not matter whether it is ex cricketers or you and me doing the job when we know our back side is on the line each time the team messes up the best will automatically and always get selected.


Well Frankly, SG did indeed turn into a prima donna and deserved to be hauled up. He needed to work on his batting, play domestics, and return to prime form. Most importantly, he needed to be relieved of captaincy. That much is something I would vociferously agree with. But the point is, he did do all these things! This is one issue and should not be confused with the second one that follows below. Professional rap on the wrists of SG, dropping him to regain form, is OK!!


It is also true that today increasingly one gets the feeling that a fair plane of evaluation no longer exists for you if you are not in the good books of GC (remember the sinister comment about being "good people"?). This is where the new improved SG lost out, in terms of getting just a fair run of opportunities like anyone else (like Kaif, like Gambhir, like Agarkar). It is clear as daylight that today, no matter how good a form SG displays, GC will maliciously and visciously try to undermine him under any pretext whatsoever. It is also true that the latter reasons are personal and driven by megalomania. Come on, is Kaif a better bat than SG? Is Kaif even a worthy test batting prospect for the future? For a man whose talents (determination and hardwork notwithstanding) do not permit him to time the ball sweetly and regularly even when he is batting on 70, there is simply no place for him in any future Indian batting line up. In the larger scheme of things, in the long run, this does not bode well for player security and confidence in general. Hence, dropping SG on purely personal grounds, to satisfy the personal vendetta of an egomaniac, is not OK!!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Teddy on February 26, 2006, 08:41:59 PM
I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More.

More is a ex Test cricketer with great credentials. Check his record.  What do you mean by second rate wicket keeper?  Anyone who plays Tesr cricket is not second rate.

Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi.

These are unverified second hand speculations.  Where is the truth to it?  23-24 sounds BS.  These are grown up mature men with autonomous powers. They can't be bullied.  Even the speaker of the house, Bengal CM could not do much - Chappell can only give his viewpoints.
Majority of cricket fans agree with what the selection panel has done.  Why blame Chappell?  Tonnes of people have been asking Ganguly to go even before Chappell took over. Just check RSC(rec.sports.cricket).
What exactly SG done in WC2003?  Not a single score of 50 against non-minnows in WC2003.

I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

This is again BS.   VRV has been ahead in the pecking order for sometime now based on what many experts have seen.  Patel's chance will come.
Just one BPX1 game can't decide everything.  It is inconceivable that VRV will bowl with full steam after getting selected - there is nothing to gain by bowling great in a glorified net practice for English batsmen.


If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things.  Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell.
More has been one of the best selectors.  The only problem I see Parthiv Patel  - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman.  Others have been good selections.

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: dextrous on February 26, 2006, 08:55:22 PM
Quote
More is a ex Test cricketer with great credentials. Check his record.  What do you mean by second rate wicket keeper?  Anyone who plays Tesr cricket is not second rate.
Yeah, I've checked his record multiple times. He averaged 12 with the bat in one dayers and went on to play about 100 of them. He was a man with contacts. It was a time when Pandit and Karim were averaging 40 and 60 in domestic cricket. Look through the record books, Indian history is filled with undeserving men getting test caps.

Quote
These are unverified second hand speculations.  Where is the truth to it?  23-24 sounds BS.  These are grown up mature men with autonomous powers. They can't be bullied.  Even the speaker of the house, Bengal CM could not do much - Chappell can only give his viewpoints.
Majority of cricket fans agree with what the selection panel has done.  Why blame Chappell?  Tonnes of people have been asking Ganguly to go even before Chappell took over. Just check RSC(rec.sports.cricket).
What exactly SG done in WC2003?  Not a single score of 50 against non-minnows in WC2003.

The 22-23 is a VERIFIED report. So everyone is lying about Chappell? There are no bullies in this world?
What did he do? He assured we actually got through the finals. What did Kapil Dev do in 1983? Just score a century against a minnow, right?

Quote
This is again BS.   VRV has been ahead in the pecking order for sometime now based on what many experts have seen.  Patel's chance will come.
Just one BPX1 game can't decide everything.  It is inconceivable that VRV will bowl with full steam after getting selected - there is nothing to gain by bowling great in a glorified net practice for English batsmen.
VRV was injured, barely in match-fit condition.

Quote
You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things.  Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell.
More has been one of the best selectors.  The only problem I see Parthiv Patel  - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman.  Others have been good selections.
Yeah, and you're showing your intelligence by declaring him the best selector.

To even a neutral observor, his illogical idiotic statements would raise a red flag. Then again, you're no neutral observer when it coems to Chappell.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: bouncer on February 26, 2006, 08:57:24 PM

You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things.  Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell.
More has been one of the best selectors.  The only problem I see Parthiv Patel  - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman.  Others have been good selections.


A good playing record gives you confidence enough to stand up and question/challenge GC's statements. A Gavaskar or Amarnath can go toe to toe with him because they have played and seen as much.  A More or Jagdale can not...

More has been one of the best selectors? why? care to explain?

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: dextrous on February 26, 2006, 09:02:51 PM
...notwithstanding his involvement with Kale either.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Jai on February 26, 2006, 09:10:56 PM
I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More.

More is a ex Test cricketer with great credentials. Check his record.  What do you mean by second rate wicket keeper?  Anyone who plays Tesr cricket is not second rate.

Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi.

These are unverified second hand speculations.  Where is the truth to it?  23-24 sounds BS.  These are grown up mature men with autonomous powers. They can't be bullied.  Even the speaker of the house, Bengal CM could not do much - Chappell can only give his viewpoints.
Majority of cricket fans agree with what the selection panel has done.  Why blame Chappell?  Tonnes of people have been asking Ganguly to go even before Chappell took over. Just check RSC(rec.sports.cricket).
What exactly SG done in WC2003?  Not a single score of 50 against non-minnows in WC2003.

I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

This is again BS.   VRV has been ahead in the pecking order for sometime now based on what many experts have seen.  Patel's chance will come.
Just one BPX1 game can't decide everything.  It is inconceivable that VRV will bowl with full steam after getting selected - there is nothing to gain by bowling great in a glorified net practice for English batsmen.


If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things.  Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell.
More has been one of the best selectors.  The only problem I see Parthiv Patel  - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman.  Others have been good selections.




Dex and Bouncer have taken care of most of the questions. I just have one for you. You said that 'Majority of the fans agree with what the selection panel has done'. Really? Where from you got that stats? Even on this DG, quite a few of the hardcore anti-SG people have said that SG should have been included. So not sure where exactly you are coming from. If you want to give your personal opinion, then it's fine. Just say 'I think' or 'in my opinion'. Don't speak for everyone or the majority.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James on February 26, 2006, 09:17:02 PM
I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More.

More is a ex Test cricketer with great credentials. Check his record.  What do you mean by second rate wicket keeper?  Anyone who plays Tesr cricket is not second rate.

Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi.

These are unverified second hand speculations.  Where is the truth to it?  23-24 sounds BS.  These are grown up mature men with autonomous powers. They can't be bullied.  Even the speaker of the house, Bengal CM could not do much - Chappell can only give his viewpoints.
Majority of cricket fans agree with what the selection panel has done.  Why blame Chappell?  Tonnes of people have been asking Ganguly to go even before Chappell took over. Just check RSC(rec.sports.cricket).
What exactly SG done in WC2003?  Not a single score of 50 against non-minnows in WC2003.

I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

This is again BS.   VRV has been ahead in the pecking order for sometime now based on what many experts have seen.  Patel's chance will come.
Just one BPX1 game can't decide everything.  It is inconceivable that VRV will bowl with full steam after getting selected - there is nothing to gain by bowling great in a glorified net practice for English batsmen.


If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things.  Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell.
More has been one of the best selectors.  The only problem I see Parthiv Patel  - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman.  Others have been good selections.



Dear Teddy,

Since Dex and Bouncer seem to have taken care of the rest, let me limit myself to two clarifications.

1. I am not confusing cricketing intelligence and raw cricketing experience here. I am just suggesting that if this has become a battle of personalities and egoes, we need a personality imposing enough to counter-balance GC's. More simply does not match up to him. And yes, I know More's record very well thank you. He replaced Kirmani as the permanent WK of India when Pandit, Karim and Kiri himself (who played fc cricket till the mid 90s, but was definitely good enough to play international cricket till 1990 at least given that wicketkeepers last very well till their late thirties) were better choices.

2. Secondly, my primary point pertained to the fact that More does not have a backbone. Now this has been established through the many pro and anti SG newsreports that have abounded. If you choose not to believe it, it is entirely your problem.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: justforkix on February 26, 2006, 11:57:40 PM
Dex and Bouncer have taken care of most of the questions. I just have one for you. You said that 'Majority of the fans agree with what the selection panel has done'. Really? Where from you got that stats? Even on this DG, quite a few of the hardcore anti-SG people have said that SG should have been included. So not sure where exactly you are coming from. If you want to give your personal opinion, then it's fine. Just say 'I think' or 'in my opinion'. Don't speak for everyone or the majority.

Oh. Jai, the majority of fans who agree with the selection don't post on the DG or other websites. They are silent observers. However Teddy has the uncanny ability to know what these silent folks think about the selection  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on February 27, 2006, 12:30:21 AM
Look I was one who was for selecting SG over Kaif and Raina. However I do not think that the decision is ridiculous. It is a decision I do not agree with but one I can understand. And Im not too unhappy about it either.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James on February 27, 2006, 05:28:05 AM
Look I was one who was for selecting SG over Kaif and Raina. However I do not think that the decision is ridiculous. It is a decision I do not agree with but one I can understand. And Im not too unhappy about it either.

Frankly Gourav, I understand the Raina part, but not the Kaif part (I know you have a weakness for Kaif; actually I do too). Can you elaborate? He scored two zeroes in his last two international outings. I saw your post defending his poor run of scores, but can't you say the same about SG? He was going great guns till that pull shot etc.?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: justforkix on February 27, 2006, 08:07:49 AM
Frankly Gourav, I understand the Raina part, but not the Kaif part (I know you have a weakness for Kaif; actually I do too). Can you elaborate? He scored two zeroes in his last two international outings. I saw your post defending his poor run of scores, but can't you say the same about SG? He was going great guns till that pull shot etc.?

CLR :

SG, Kaif and Raina all had great domestic seasons. It is a wash. Nothing much to choose between them if you just take this season into consideration.

Coming to performances in the international arena, SG should have been selected for the same reason as why Kaif should not be omitted. 2 reasonably good innings in Karachi for SG. 2 0s in ODIs for Kaif. Too small a sample size to judge anything. Rains too played one good strokeful innings, nothing that should have made him a certainty in the test squad. Now, only 2 of the 3 can be selected. So, 2 options :
(1) SG and Kaif is the safe option. SG replacing Yuvi and Kaif backing up in case of injury. Both reasonably experienced.
(2) Kaif and Raina is the "looking into the future" option which is a little risky. Because there is a chance of RD, VVS, SRT getting injured and then the lineup will be WJ, VS, RD, SRT, Kaif, Raina if VVS gets injured for example.

Of course, I'm ignoring all BCCI politics, GC, More etc.... The selection makes some sense otherwise too.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Vick on February 27, 2006, 03:41:25 PM
I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

The kind of selection we have had in recent past i think we should just have couple of selectors who watch our under - 19 guys and pick the team. In recent past only guy who has been picked from out side under 19 is Dhoni. Rest from Veeru to Parthiv to Ratra to RP Singh to Raina all have come up from Under 19. This has also meant that if you have never played for India U-19 your chances of being picked for test side are very low. Since these kids spend a lot more time in lime light from early stage and spend time at NCA, plays their own WC they are in limelight.  And folks who miss this age group bus are not even talked about. This year in Ranji we had the Haryana All Rounder Sachin Rana doing really well but he isnt even picked for North Zone Devdhar Trophy.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Vick on February 27, 2006, 03:48:36 PM
Look I was one who was for selecting SG over Kaif and Raina. However I do not think that the decision is ridiculous. It is a decision I do not agree with but one I can understand. And Im not too unhappy about it either.

Frankly Gourav, I understand the Raina part, but not the Kaif part (I know you have a weakness for Kaif; actually I do too). Can you elaborate? He scored two zeroes in his last two international outings. I saw your post defending his poor run of scores, but can't you say the same about SG? He was going great guns till that pull shot etc.?

Can you explain why you understand the raina part but not Kaif one? Just because he scored two Zeros in last two games you think he is no good? Because other than that he has been in decent form in Domestic Season. Played quite well for UP leading from front. And what Raina has done so far to confirm that he is really good? He hasnt even played one big inning in his first class career yet.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Teddy on February 27, 2006, 04:07:34 PM

SG, Kaif and Raina all had great domestic seasons. It is a wash. Nothing much to choose between them if you just take this season into consideration.

Coming to performances in the international arena, SG should have been selected for the same reason as why Kaif should not be omitted. 2 reasonably good innings in Karachi for SG. 2 0s in ODIs for Kaif. Too small a sample size to judge anything. Rains too played one good strokeful innings, nothing that should have made him a certainty in the test squad. Now, only 2 of the 3 can be selected. So, 2 options :
(1) SG and Kaif is the safe option. SG replacing Yuvi and Kaif backing up in case of injury. Both reasonably experienced.
(2) Kaif and Raina is the "looking into the future" option which is a little risky. Because there is a chance of RD, VVS, SRT getting injured and then the lineup will be WJ, VS, RD, SRT, Kaif, Raina if VVS gets injured for example.

Of course, I'm ignoring all BCCI politics, GC, More etc.... The selection makes some sense otherwise too.

It is a home series - this where the experimentation should begin. The whole of middle order can't be 33+ in age. VVSL is almost 32?   The regeneration has to begin now. Unless the whole middle order lacks experience, the backup has to be one for the future. Give experience as much as possible when others are around.  A senior batsman could be a backup if the majority of the first choice is raw.
When 4 out of 6 are very experienced, why do you need an equally experienced guy as the backup.  It is an ideal opportunity to blood new players. We need to grab it as fast as we can.

I do not agree with Kaif's selection.  As I have said before Gambhir should have been retained in his place. An opener can double up as a backup middle order batsman. Gambhir will serve  dual purpose - injury backup and one of 3 openers in the team. Raina as the other backup batsman.
A lot of people would question Gambhir's retention - SG's fans would have raised a hue and cry over that.   That is the main reason I think Gambhir was dropped.  His poor form did not warrant his axing at this stage.  He is a very good player and
need to keep faith in rare talent.


The batting side is well settled and there are questions on the bowling dept.  Yuvraj's injury was an opportunity to try out 5 bowlers - with Dhoni and Pathan it was a practical solution to Yuvraj's absence.  VRV,Sreesanth,Pathan and 2 spinners is my first choice for the first Test.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Teddy on February 27, 2006, 04:28:19 PM
Can you explain why you understand the raina part but not Kaif one? Just because he scored two Zeros in last two games you think he is no good? Because other than that he has been in decent form in Domestic Season. Played quite well for UP leading from front. And what Raina has done so far to confirm that he is really good? He hasnt even played one big inning in his first class career yet.

Not because of two zeros - because of the talent he has. Kaif is not talented - has few strokes.  His talent is backed up by his below avg record in the domestics.  Just compare his FC accomplishments with anyone else - you see the glaring deficiency.
Number of 100s, strike rate, highest runs - take a few parameters that evaluate batsmen and see for yourself.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 on February 27, 2006, 04:34:42 PM
Woof, what is this eagerness to put down GC with words like 'megalomania, ego etc.? Com'n guys, if you put your emotion about SG aside, I think More has been doing a fine job. Our test team looks great with many new faces getting a look in.

As for SG, again, I see this tendency to attack everyone who is not 'VOCALLY & vociferously' in support of SG.
Take More
1. He is accused of bias against SG
2. Also he is not able to stand up to GC
Why can't it be that More simply thinks SG is over the hill. He said as much when he said after one of the selections 'we were not happy with his performance for the last 2 yrs'. Its pretty clear More thinks SG is done and he merely happens to agree with GC. There is nothing to indicate that GC is influencing the issue unless we are into rumour mongering or inventing conspiracy.

Take GC
1. He's been pretty consistent with his likes and dislikes all along. He thinks SG has an attitude , fitness and  form problems. He is entitled to his opinion and we cannot simply attribute it to his 'ego' etc. There are enough cricketing reasons  to drop SG. Yes, there can be some second opinions but More & GC happen to believe otherwise.

Lets leave it at that and strengthen the hands of GC & RD. Lets hope for Indian team victory.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Teddy on February 27, 2006, 04:52:08 PM
Woof, what is this eagerness to put down GC with words like 'megalomania, ego etc.? Com'n guys, if you put your emotion about SG aside, I think More has been doing a fine job. Our test team looks great with many new faces getting a look in.

As for SG, again, I see this tendency to attack everyone who is not 'VOCALLY & vociferously' in support of SG.
Take More
1. He is accused of bias against SG
2. Also he is not able to stand up to GC
Why can't it be that More simply thinks SG is over the hill. He said as much when he said after one of the selections 'we were not happy with his performance for the last 2 yrs'. Its pretty clear More thinks SG is done and he merely happens to agree with GC. There is nothing to indicate that GC is influencing the issue unless we are into rumour mongering or inventing conspiracy.

Take GC
1. He's been pretty consistent with his likes and dislikes all along. He thinks SG has an attitude , fitness and  form problems. He is entitled to his opinion and we cannot simply attribute it to his 'ego' etc. There are enough cricketing reasons  to drop SG. Yes, there can be some second opinions but More & GC happen to believe otherwise.

Lets leave it at that and strengthen the hands of GC & RD. Lets hope for Indian team victory.




Very well put, flute.

I think SG fans are so frustrated with his own peformance (or lack of it), they take it out on anyone who does not cry for SG.  It is like if you are not with us, you are  against us!   Anyone who sees value elsewhere is accused of bad things - I'm finding that out myself the  hard way.


Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Vick on February 27, 2006, 06:28:43 PM
Can you explain why you understand the raina part but not Kaif one? Just because he scored two Zeros in last two games you think he is no good? Because other than that he has been in decent form in Domestic Season. Played quite well for UP leading from front. And what Raina has done so far to confirm that he is really good? He hasnt even played one big inning in his first class career yet.

Not because of two zeros - because of the talent he has. Kaif is not talented - has few strokes.  His talent is backed up by his below avg record in the domestics.  Just compare his FC accomplishments with anyone else - you see the glaring deficiency.
Number of 100s, strike rate, highest runs - take a few parameters that evaluate batsmen and see for yourself.


If you check current domestic season you will find him among top scorer. We are not picking the team for ODI where ever everyone is needed to score at 100+ these days. And how do you know that raina has better chance of succeeding? He hasnt even played that much cricket. He hasnt played one single knock of significance in ODI while Kaif has several.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on February 27, 2006, 08:05:04 PM
Bottomline: Kaif is a grossly abused player. He has a fair range of strokes. He is excellent with the drives - cover drive, straight drive flick, it is only with the horizontal bat shots - esp the pull and the hook that he has problems - but hey one of the greatest batsmen ever - steve wauugh never pulled or hooked, nor did mark waugh in the later part of his career. So if kaif plays within his limitations there is no reason he cant succeed. In fact he has succeeded at the ODI level.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: justforkix on February 27, 2006, 08:40:02 PM
A lot of people would question Gambhir's retention - SG's fans would have raised a hue and cry over that.   That is the main reason I think Gambhir was dropped.  His poor form did not warrant his axing at this stage.  He is a very good player and
need to keep faith in rare talent.

Why does everything have to be associated with SG - These Chapelix  ::) ::) ::)

Gambhir - rare talent - ROTFL  ;D ;D

I have already rested my case for Kaif and against Gambhir. Nothing more to add. QED.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: justforkix on February 27, 2006, 08:42:57 PM
Bottomline: Kaif is a grossly abused player. He has a fair range of strokes. He is excellent with the drives - cover drive, straight drive flick, it is only with the horizontal bat shots - esp the pull and the hook that he has problems - but hey one of the greatest batsmen ever - steve wauugh never pulled or hooked, nor did mark waugh in the later part of his career. So if kaif plays within his limitations there is no reason he cant succeed. In fact he has succeeded at the ODI level.

gourav - this just shows that you have purchased teddy's book on Statistics for Dummies yet, otherwise you would have realized by now that Kaif is just useless  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: achutank on February 28, 2006, 10:38:28 AM
Bottomline: Kaif is a grossly abused player. He has a fair range of strokes. He is excellent with the drives - cover drive, straight drive flick, it is only with the horizontal bat shots - esp the pull and the hook that he has problems - but hey one of the greatest batsmen ever - steve wauugh never pulled or hooked, nor did mark waugh in the later part of his career. So if kaif plays within his limitations there is no reason he cant succeed. In fact he has succeeded at the ODI level.

just when we had thought that the horror of ravi shastri was gone with the twentieth century we have the resurrection of the ghost in the form of kaif. welcome to the murder of strokeplay.  thank god he does not play the pull or else even that shot would have died of suffocation if he was playing it.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: sudzz on February 28, 2006, 11:08:37 AM
Yaar Achu not fair yaar...Shastri is a Mumbai cricketer and also from your alma mater if Iam not wrong..Usko gaali mat de.... ;D

On a more serious note...Kaif is a abused player and his confidence has been systematically dented. He has shown glimpses of his abilities but has not translated them to consistent results.

While will he fill in SG's shoes or make the middle order slot his own remains to be seen and his crucible is clearly this English series and if at all the oncoming Windies tour.

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: reverse sweep on February 28, 2006, 03:42:57 PM
I am commenting purely on More the player. India has always been blessed with very good wicketkeepers (till we hit Parthiv Patel. However Dhoni seems to be  correcting that anomaly). I remember watching Farokh Engineer (before him was Budhi Kundaran, brilliant. Never got to see him though. He is fighting Cancer in Scotland right now. Hope he is doing well)  Kirmani, Sadanand Vishwanath (who sadly fell away after shining briefly but very brightly) after whom More came along. I have seen him play and remember him to be a competent wicket keeper and somebody who would not shy away from putting up a fight with the bat. His stats in the tests and ODIs are not bad at all. And they anyway don’t reveal everything about the person. Somebody below has mentioned about his batting record in the ODIs. What this person forgets is More's prime job was to keep wickets, which he did very well. He came quite low down the order and more often than not, had to fight a lone battle.

Some of you may have your own axe to grind against More the selector, which is fine. However in a hurry to run him down, don’t call him a second rate wicketkeeper. He was first rate and did his job well
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: j on February 28, 2006, 04:06:14 PM
I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.
On the contrary, More is our one of the most gutsy selector and certainly was a decent wicketkeeper batsman. I say he is gutsy because he chucked Ganguly ( and rightly so) even when Daalu was at the helm. Your naming More and Jagdale itself speaks volume of your partisan thinking and icing on cake is suggesting gavaskar ( as an instance), quickly forgetting that he never accepted an official position with board. Infact name a cricketer who was properly coached by him? Certainly we expected someone like him who was technically so correct, would contribute to Indian cricket by churning technically correct batsmen then warm his ass on commentry box all the while. And as for your arguement about cricketers with more stature, look what happened with "enjoy your game" coach Kapil dev!

Unfortunately CLR, despite senile reasons like Yuvi's form making SG redundant, SG's lack off, SG's fielding, building future etc, you keep posting trash like this along with support of " couldn't agree with you more" like moronic posters. You probably need a shock treatment to realize the facts of Indian Cricket today.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on February 28, 2006, 05:11:17 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James on February 28, 2006, 07:19:39 PM
I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.
On the contrary, More is our one of the most gutsy selector and certainly was a decent wicketkeeper batsman. I say he is gutsy because he chucked Ganguly ( and rightly so) even when Daalu was at the helm. Your naming More and Jagdale itself speaks volume of your partisan thinking and icing on cake is suggesting gavaskar ( as an instance), quickly forgetting that he never accepted an official position with board. Infact name a cricketer who was properly coached by him? Certainly we expected someone like him who was technically so correct, would contribute to Indian cricket by churning technically correct batsmen then warm his ass on commentry box all the while. And as for your arguement about cricketers with more stature, look what happened with "enjoy your game" coach Kapil dev!

Unfortunately CLR, despite senile reasons like Yuvi's form making SG redundant, SG's lack off, SG's fielding, building future etc, you keep posting trash like this along with support of " couldn't agree with you more" like moronic posters. You probably need a shock treatment to realize the facts of Indian Cricket today.


J and Reverse,

Calling More a second rate wicketkeeper was an unfortunate hyperbole on my part. He was, as you say, gutsy, efficient, and combative. My point however was not just about More himself. It was about the selection committee at large, which is today largely made up of cricketers with little or no international stature (note, I used stature, not experience). So a few things can be said here:

1. Remember we hired GC not based on his coaching credentials (which, for South Australia, were abysmal). We hired him for his Great Cricketer aura and his undeniable knowledge of the game.

2. Now COMPARED to GC, one of the game's greats, More himself is indeed almost a non-entity.

3. Given point number 2, I am disturbed by selection meeting 'insider' reports that say the GC bullied and lectured the bunch of selectors. Yashpal Sharma (no mean cricketer himself) said as much, using very strong words (dictatorship) and fielding disturbing signals (Sehwag is the next target). Pranob Roy said nothing different. The evidence is too much to ignore. After Kotla for instance GC apparently started the meeting by aggressively demanding to know what could be the 'agenda' of people who want SG in the team (I doubt there was a single man in the room who could reverse the question and present it to GC himself). Before the Eng series he apparently gave them an hour long lecture (I stress the hour long part, not the fact that the coach was speaking his mind) to make South's Chandrashekhar change his mind about the GC issue. And all this while, please let us not pretend that selection has been fair (AA, Murali Kartik, Kaif).

4. This situation is further complicated by the fact that More himself has been displaying a complete lack of backbone. His explanations for his selectorial decisions waver between the pathetic and the ludicrous. This too has been documented well and I won't comment on it further.

5. My point therefore pertains to an imbalance of power in selection, not to whether More and Jagdale have good track records as selectors (they have, just as SG has as cricketer and captain), or how good they were as cricketers. The imbalance of power is a worrying thing despite the fact that many of GC's decisions might turn out to be correct.

6. It is in this spirit that I broached the name of Gavaskar, but only as an example of someone who can ask GC to go take a walk if necessary. This would not have been a problem for instance if Amarnath or Viswanath were in charge.

Lastly, j, may I ask you who will administer my 'brain washing' shock therapy? Does GC have a chamber where he takes appointments? How was your experience? What about the fees?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha on February 28, 2006, 07:38:43 PM
CLR

That is the sense of humour. May be you didn't understand that sense of humour. Calling some posters moronic & suggesting the need for you to go for brain washing & Shock treatment is all part of humour.

He has lot of sense in not realizing that People can have different opinions & they have every right to air their opinions (as long as it doesn't hurt anybody).
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James on February 28, 2006, 07:46:46 PM
CLR

That is the sense of humour. May be you didn't understand that sense of humour. Calling some posters moronic & asking you to go for brain washing & Shock treatment is all part of humour.

He has lot of sense in not realizing that People can have different opinions & they have every right to air their opinions.

True. Such humor is difficult to fathom.

Anyway, while we are at it, GC repeatedly stated that SG was proving to be a divisive force in the dressing room to keep him out of ODIs and test matches. This is an outright lie and has been countered by a host of people beginning with SRT and ending with Dungarpur. In all the reports I read, there is not a single mention of a selection committee member challanging that obvious piece of mendacity. Has RD himself issued a statement to clear SG of these charges at least?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: feverpitch on February 28, 2006, 07:50:45 PM
Take More
1. He is accused of bias against SG
2. Also he is not able to stand up to GC
Why can't it be that More simply thinks SG is over the hill. He said as much when he said after one of the selections 'we were not happy with his performance for the last 2 yrs'. Its pretty clear More thinks SG is done and he merely happens to agree with GC. There is nothing to indicate that GC is influencing the issue unless we are into rumour mongering or inventing conspiracy.

ANOTHER INSTANCE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY!

DEAR FLUTE. I HOPE YOU REMEMBER MORE'S FLIP-FLOPS ABOUT SOURAV AND THE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN FOR EITHER RETAINING HIM, OR CHUCKING HIM OUT OF THE SIDE AT DIFFERENT INSTANCES.

I HOPE YOU ALSO REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID WHEN ASKED IF HE OR ANY OF THE SELECTORS HAD, OR WERE GOING TO INFORM SG OF HIS OUSTER FROM THE TEAM FOR THE ENGLAND SERIES. SHOWS TONS OF DIPLOMACY, MATURITY AND DECENCY, NOT TO MENTION COURAGE, DOESN'T IT?



Quote
Take GC
1. He's been pretty consistent with his likes and dislikes all along. He thinks SG has an attitude , fitness and  form problems. He is entitled to his opinion and we cannot simply attribute it to his 'ego' etc. There are enough cricketing reasons  to drop SG. Yes, there can be some second opinions but More & GC happen to believe otherwise.

A. REGARDING 'EGO': HE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY BAD MOUTHING SG ABOUT HIS -VE INFLUENCE IN THE DRESSING ROOM. AND ALL GC HIMSELF HAS DONE SO FAR IS TO CREATE A VITIATED ATMOSPHERE FOR SG [AS LONG AS HE WAS AROUND], AND MOST OF HIS FAITHFUL OTHERWISE, RIGHT? WHILE EVEN SG'S DETRACTORS HAVE GRUDGINGLY ACCEPTED THAT HE IS AT WORST A DECENT CHAP! SO WHO IS SHOWING VINDICTIVENESS, EGO AND MEGALOMANIA HERE?

B. REGARDING 'CRICKETING REASONS': BUT THERE ARE CRICKETING REASONS TO RETAIN KAIF IN THE TEST TEAM, I'M SURE, BASED ON THE SAME SAMPLE [RECENT PERFORMANCES IN TESTS]. AND DON'T GIVE ME THE BULL ABOUT AGE AND FITNESS. JUST BCOZ SG IS A POOR FIELDER, DOESNOT PROVE HE IS UNFIT. IF SO, SO WOULD BE ANOTHER MATCHWINNER ANIL KUMBLE!

C. MORE AND GC'S 'OPINION': OK, GC DOESNOT HAVE A VOTE. MORE HAS ONE. THE SELECTORS FROM SOUTH, NORTH AND EAST HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE ALL INITIALLY SUPPORTED SG'S SELECTION. AND YET THEY WERE OVERRULED. SO WHO IS DOING THE SELECTION HERE? IT WOULD BE A SAD DAY IF IT TRANSPIRES LATER ON THAT THE REASON PP WAS CHOSEN FOR PAKISTAN AS A PASSENGER WAS THE 50 LAKH CHECK HE EARNED FOR DOING NOTHING AND MORE GOT A CUT FROM IT! THIS IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART, BUT AFTER THE ABHIJIT KALE INCIDENT, AND THE SUBSEQUENT POLITICAL MANUEVRING BY MORE FROM ONE CAMP TO ANOTHER, I CANT BELIEVE MORE IS NOT INVOLVED IN PAYOFFS!



Quote
Lets leave it at that and strengthen the hands of GC & RD. Lets hope for Indian team victory.

R U HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN MANAGER? ARE THEY, OR SPECIFICALLY GC, RUNNING FOR PM-SHIP NEXT ELECTIONS? PERSONALLY I WOULDNT BE SURPRISED, GIVEN THE SORT OF POWER HE SEEMS TO HAVE ON THE LIKES OF YOU THESE DAYS. WOULD BE A PERFECT DEJA VU FOR THE 'SEPARATED AT BIRTH' COLUMN ON THIS DG, WHERE SG'S [SONIA *HI]  PHOTO IS DISPLAYED NEXT TO GC'S  ;D
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on February 28, 2006, 07:56:09 PM
Bottomline is we are better off without SG in the side  ;)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 on February 28, 2006, 07:56:33 PM
I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.
On the contrary, More is our one of the most gutsy selector and certainly was a decent wicketkeeper batsman. I say he is gutsy because he chucked Ganguly ( and rightly so) even when Daalu was at the helm. Your naming More and Jagdale itself speaks volume of your partisan thinking and icing on cake is suggesting gavaskar ( as an instance), quickly forgetting that he never accepted an official position with board. Infact name a cricketer who was properly coached by him? Certainly we expected someone like him who was technically so correct, would contribute to Indian cricket by churning technically correct batsmen then warm his ass on commentry box all the while. And as for your arguement about cricketers with more stature, look what happened with "enjoy your game" coach Kapil dev!

Unfortunately CLR, despite senile reasons like Yuvi's form making SG redundant, SG's lack off, SG's fielding, building future etc, you keep posting trash like this along with support of " couldn't agree with you more" like moronic posters. You probably need a shock treatment to realize the facts of Indian Cricket today.


J and Reverse,

Calling More a second rate wicketkeeper was an unfortunate hyperbole on my part. He was, as you say, gutsy, efficient, and combative. My point however was not just about More himself. It was about the selection committee at large, which is today largely made up of cricketers with little or no international stature (note, I used stature, not experience). So a few things can be said here:

1. Remember we hired GC not based on his coaching credentials (which, for South Australia, were abysmal). We hired him for his Great Cricketer aura and his undeniable knowledge of the game.

2. Now COMPARED to GC, one of the game's greats, More himself is indeed almost a non-entity.

3. Given point number 2, I am disturbed by selection meeting 'insider' reports that say the GC bullied and lectured the bunch of selectors. Yashpal Sharma (no mean cricketer himself) said as much, using very strong words (dictatorship) and fielding disturbing signals (Sehwag is the next target). Pranob Roy said nothing different. The evidence is too much to ignore. After Kotla for instance GC apparently started the meeting by aggressively demanding to know what could be the 'agenda' of people who want SG in the team (I doubt there was a single man in the room who could reverse the question and present it to GC himself). Before the Eng series he apparently gave them an hour long lecture (I stress the hour long part, not the fact that the coach was speaking his mind) to make South's Chandrashekhar change his mind about the GC issue. And all this while, please let us not pretend that selection has been fair (AA, Murali Kartik, Kaif).

4. This situation is further complicated by the fact that More himself has been displaying a complete lack of backbone. His explanations for his selectorial decisions waver between the pathetic and the ludicrous. This too has been documented well and I won't comment on it further.

5. My point therefore pertains to an imbalance of power in selection, not to whether More and Jagdale have good track records as selectors (they have, just as SG has as cricketer and captain), or how good they were as cricketers. The imbalance of power is a worrying thing despite the fact that many of GC's decisions might turn out to be correct.

6. It is in this spirit that I broached the name of Gavaskar, but only as an example of someone who can ask GC to go take a walk if necessary. This would not have been a problem for instance if Amarnath or Viswanath were in charge.

Lastly, j, may I ask you who will administer my 'brain washing' shock therapy? Does GC have a chamber where he takes appointments? How was your experience? What about the fees?

CLR, I think your original post & the latest seem to have decided that the selections are unfair and then you are essentially going on to construct the possible reasons for it. Why are you discounting the possibility that More indeed believes that SG is over the hill, why are you assuming that More wants SG in the team and hence he lacks backbone?

Again, your characterization of 'hour long lecture' is simply flowing from your perceived injustice to your fav palyer SG and I don't think there is any evidence to characterise it that way. GC is one with stature and insight on cricket and he is expected to use all his cricketing brains to make his point. If you agree with the eventual decision, you probably would have been happy that GC is making his point forcefully.

Over the last few months , I had come to expect atleast a balanced elucidation of the point from you, even though the attitude is one of supporting SG. But recently you seem to have lost patience and you seem to be  making 'accusations' on everyone not supporting SG, without much basis.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 on February 28, 2006, 07:59:20 PM
Take More
1. He is accused of bias against SG
2. Also he is not able to stand up to GC
Why can't it be that More simply thinks SG is over the hill. He said as much when he said after one of the selections 'we were not happy with his performance for the last 2 yrs'. Its pretty clear More thinks SG is done and he merely happens to agree with GC. There is nothing to indicate that GC is influencing the issue unless we are into rumour mongering or inventing conspiracy.

ANOTHER INSTANCE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY!

DEAR FLUTE. I HOPE YOU REMEMBER MORE'S FLIP-FLOPS ABOUT SOURAV AND THE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN FOR EITHER RETAINING HIM, OR CHUCKING HIM OUT OF THE SIDE AT DIFFERENT INSTANCES.

I HOPE YOU ALSO REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID WHEN ASKED IF HE OR ANY OF THE SELECTORS HAD, OR WERE GOING TO INFORM SG OF HIS OUSTER FROM THE TEAM FOR THE ENGLAND SERIES. SHOWS TONS OF DIPLOMACY, MATURITY AND DECENCY, NOT TO MENTION COURAGE, DOESN'T IT?



Quote
Take GC
1. He's been pretty consistent with his likes and dislikes all along. He thinks SG has an attitude , fitness and  form problems. He is entitled to his opinion and we cannot simply attribute it to his 'ego' etc. There are enough cricketing reasons  to drop SG. Yes, there can be some second opinions but More & GC happen to believe otherwise.

A. REGARDING 'EGO': HE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY BAD MOUTHING SG ABOUT HIS -VE INFLUENCE IN THE DRESSING ROOM. AND ALL GC HIMSELF HAS DONE SO FAR IS TO CREATE A VITIATED ATMOSPHERE FOR SG [AS LONG AS HE WAS AROUND], AND MOST OF HIS FAITHFUL OTHERWISE, RIGHT? WHILE EVEN SG'S DETRACTORS HAVE GRUDGINGLY ACCEPTED THAT HE IS AT WORST A DECENT CHAP! SO WHO IS SHOWING VINDICTIVENESS, EGO AND MEGALOMANIA HERE?

B. REGARDING 'CRICKETING REASONS': BUT THERE ARE CRICKETING REASONS TO RETAIN KAIF IN THE TEST TEAM, I'M SURE, BASED ON THE SAME SAMPLE [RECENT PERFORMANCES IN TESTS]. AND DON'T GIVE ME THE BULL ABOUT AGE AND FITNESS. JUST BCOZ SG IS A POOR FIELDER, DOESNOT PROVE HE IS UNFIT. IF SO, SO WOULD BE ANOTHER MATCHWINNER ANIL KUMBLE!

C. MORE AND GC'S 'OPINION': OK, GC DOESNOT HAVE A VOTE. MORE HAS ONE. THE SELECTORS FROM SOUTH, NORTH AND EAST HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE ALL INITIALLY SUPPORTED SG'S SELECTION. AND YET THEY WERE OVERRULED. SO WHO IS DOING THE SELECTION HERE? IT WOULD BE A SAD DAY IF IT TRANSPIRES LATER ON THAT THE REASON PP WAS CHOSEN FOR PAKISTAN AS A PASSENGER WAS THE 50 LAKH CHECK HE EARNED FOR DOING NOTHING AND MORE GOT A CUT FROM IT! THIS IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART, BUT AFTER THE ABHIJIT KALE INCIDENT, AND THE SUBSEQUENT POLITICAL MANUEVRING BY MORE FROM ONE CAMP TO ANOTHER, I CANT BELIEVE MORE IS NOT INVOLVED IN PAYOFFS!



Quote
Lets leave it at that and strengthen the hands of GC & RD. Lets hope for Indian team victory.

R U HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN MANAGER? ARE THEY, OR SPECIFICALLY GC, RUNNING FOR PM-SHIP NEXT ELECTIONS? PERSONALLY I WOULDNT BE SURPRISED, GIVEN THE SORT OF POWER HE SEEMS TO HAVE ON THE LIKES OF YOU THESE DAYS. WOULD BE A PERFECT DEJA VU FOR THE 'SEPARATED AT BIRTH' COLUMN ON THIS DG, WHERE SG'S [SONIA *HI]  PHOTO IS DISPLAYED NEXT TO GC'S  ;D

fever, usually in DG parlance, all caps indicate yelling. hope you are not yelling at me. Also, I am finding it very difficult to go thru your whole post and respond. Can you please repost it in small case?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James on February 28, 2006, 08:00:53 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: justforkix 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  ;)  ;)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: feverpitch 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!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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.  :)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James 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.


Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point 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?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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. :)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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.
:)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: dhruvdeepak 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
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: ramshorns 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: flute202020 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James 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? 
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: devatha 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?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on March 01, 2006, 03:36:07 AM
sure ... im all for it .. bring it on.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point 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!

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: keep-it-cool 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 ...
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: keep-it-cool 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter on March 01, 2006, 08:58:07 PM
Coverpoint, thanks for adding. excellent post.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James 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?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: colonel 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: atticus 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.

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter 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 :)


Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: ramshorns 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: atticus 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  :)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: keep-it-cool 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?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: ramshorns 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter 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
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point 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?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: squarecut 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
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: jaat69 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point 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).
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 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 !!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point 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!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: squarecut 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
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: jaat69 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!

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point 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!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: jaat69 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!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: jaat69 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!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: jaat69 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point 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?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: jaat69 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?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: jaat69 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!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: atticus 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 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)

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: keep-it-cool 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 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.

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: achutank on March 02, 2006, 09:44:27 AM
i agree with kban, the australian method is quite logical, ours seems a bit haywire.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: keep-it-cool 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.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: atticus on March 02, 2006, 10:41:04 AM
atticus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. I don't care about the means. That doesn't make my point wrong or bad. Why should I care about the means? It is cricket - entertainment. I watch cricket to be entertained. I get the most pleasure if India wins or at least the boys give their best even in a losing cause (as an aside, one of the best RD innings in my memory is not any of his centuries or his fifties. It was not even 30. It was his 27* against SA in SA. In a match in which we scored 100 and 66 in 2 innings, he played brilliantly. I may have blocked out some of his misses, but as far as I can remember he wasn't event beaten once). I don't care if the winning runs were hit by SG or some rookie. I also don't get what great injustice has been done to SG. If he retires today, he is going to retire as the best captain (at least w.r.t results) India ever had, the 4th highest ODI scorer and a more than average test batsman. He also made a lot of money out of it. 20 years from now, people are going to remember the positives more than the negatives. He could still force his way back - just like VVS, hit 9 centuries in a row. No one will be able to ignore that. I would feel more for some one like S Ramesh. He neither made a name for himself nor got a lot of money out of it. Now he is not even in the T.N. team. As to your last point, I don't think anyone is victimised. I will want to change the system, if the system does not produce the results. PERIOD.  Anyway, I don't think we can agree about this. So we will agree to disagree. This will be my last post on this subject.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: keep-it-cool on March 02, 2006, 12:10:25 PM
i agree with kban, the australian method is quite logical, ours seems a bit haywire.

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

Lets take Australia as a case in point ... they dropped Damien Martyn after the Ashes. Did he retire? NO. Is he still playing? YES. Did they recall him when Micheal Clarke failed? No, they plumped for Brad Hodge - a newcomer, not proven, but still worth investing in. Did they recall Matthew Hayden to the ODI squad when a stop gap opportunity presented itself? NO. They opted for Jaques, and sent him back to the domestic arena when Katich came back. So, what is so different from our "haywire" method?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter on March 02, 2006, 12:19:56 PM
keep it cool:

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


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

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

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


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

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


Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter on March 02, 2006, 12:23:48 PM
i agree with kban, the australian method is quite logical, ours seems a bit haywire.

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

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

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

And yeah, dont we alll know their domestic and ours dont compare?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: achutank on March 02, 2006, 01:48:50 PM
SP

kban is responding to the concept of taking young players in your reserve. where does SG really figure in this i don't understand. maybe you do. but i agree with kban on the fact that the aussie system of blooding young players (unless of exceptional talent like Lee) is through the one day mode and they are not passengers on series. they are asked to play for their first class teams if they have no real work to do in the national side.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 on March 02, 2006, 04:49:55 PM
Senthilpeter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This IMO, is unfair. I am pretty sure than an intelligent person like you can discuss the logic of the points without resorting to aspersions about my emotional attachment to an individual.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 on March 02, 2006, 05:59:40 PM
keep it cool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again you may agree or disagree with this part. I respect your right to disagree, so I shall not prolong this discussion further.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 on March 02, 2006, 06:15:21 PM
atticus:

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

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

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

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

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

But like you said, only results matter and we shall agree to disagree on that note.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: j on March 02, 2006, 06:21:25 PM
atticus:

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

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

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

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

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

But like you said, only results matter and we shall agree to disagree on that note.
Kirmani was unceremoniously exited when he had 198 scalps. Our best wicketkeeper-bat was not even given a chance to get to 200 when he was at his best. As for Amarnath, the less said the better.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: atticus on March 02, 2006, 07:30:18 PM
atticus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: atticus on March 02, 2006, 07:37:39 PM
Just a small addition,

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

<quoute> You want the selectors holding the balance of power instead of the coach/captain. I want the reverse purely because the selectors currently are not accountable. Make them accountable and I will agree with you. Until then, I would rather have the team a coach wants. </quote>
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point on March 02, 2006, 08:59:21 PM
And in anycase when you are picking 11 (or 15 ) out of a billion people power will come in play. Point is the head of BCCI is a VERY powerfull man in India. The selectors ARE very powerful. It is only recently that the coach and captain (who were always held accountable) are seeing some (even if it is indirect) power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 on March 02, 2006, 09:46:51 PM
atticus:

a few points:

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

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

2) Which also brings me to the following:

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

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

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

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

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


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

Quote
atticus:

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

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

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

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

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

If my comment sounded like a personal dig at you, then I hope this clarifies.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: CLR James on March 02, 2006, 10:03:24 PM
And in anycase when you are picking 11 (or 15 ) out of a billion people power will come in play. Point is the head of BCCI is a VERY powerfull man in India. The selectors ARE very powerful. It is only recently that the coach and captain (who were always held accountable) are seeing some (even if it is indirect) power.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

4. It is precisely because of More's failure that the cricketing judgments pertaining to SG's inclusion or non-inclusion in the team cannot be separated from the personal animosity between SG and GC.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on March 02, 2006, 10:16:18 PM
To a large extent it depends upon how much true independence selectors have. Just as you claim that More is a stooge of GC I can claim that he and others have been stooges of JD for long.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter on March 02, 2006, 10:23:09 PM
kban,   i give up.

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

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

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

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 on March 02, 2006, 10:33:05 PM
sp:

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

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

Let us agree to disagree here.

A suggestion though --  when you get a chance, go through my posts carefully. You might find lot of your concerns already covered in my posts. Reading your responses on this thread has given me the distinct impression that you have skimmed through my posts instead of giving it a thorough read.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: senthilpeter on March 03, 2006, 12:14:50 AM
Peace.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: keep-it-cool on March 03, 2006, 04:02:33 AM
keep it cool

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kban,

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

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

Thirdly, when you talk of leaks and take them at face value, you would also appreciate that there have been leaks about how there was pressure on the team management to include SG first in the team to Pakistan and then in the playing XI in Pakistan - when in fact, they did not want the same. Given this history, do you blame any coach/captain for believing that they are better off without SG even if they have to give up a bit in terms of near term upside due to the exclusion; at least it will leave them free of the said pressures and allow them to focus on selecting the team that they want. I, for one, do not blame them.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point on March 03, 2006, 04:25:21 AM
CLR, I think I may have written too long a para on Gavaskar (Kban has been inspiring us :) ) . I understand that he isnt central to this issue.

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

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

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

Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: kban1 on March 03, 2006, 05:48:39 AM
k-i-c:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in all, thank you for a healthy and stimulating debate.  ;D
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: keep-it-cool on March 03, 2006, 06:22:05 AM
kban,

thanx to u too .. the debate was indeed healthy and stimulating .. just that I do not now remember where it all started ... nevertheless, back to work now!!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Blwe_torch on March 03, 2006, 06:38:43 AM
I can add all players in the Indian team in the pre-GC era have forced their way into the team, by way of their superlative performances n the limited chances that they got.
Be it SRT,SG, RD, YS, Kaif, Harbhajan, AK, ZK, AN, IP, or MSD. All these players without exception, and there are more whom I haven't named cemented their position in the side by their superlative performances. These are the players who form the back-bone of the Indian team, either in the past or currently.
None of them were carried as passengers in the name of a vague 'future vision'. Players who are carried in the name of latent potential, IMO will drop of certainly in the near future, if their indifferent performances carry on.
Nowadays, the coach and captain try to justify carrying potential stars, by exemplifying Yuvraj Singh, how he was persevered with and how he has flowered now!
But people tend to forget that Yuvraj in his maiden appearance won India the match against a rampant Australia, when the chips were down. You cannot deny such players a place in the side. They just automatically qualify.
But GC's agenda is to persevere with players at all positions, just so as to block SG's entry into the team.
He is keeping no option open for him. You ask for openning, even there he would prefer WJ and GG ahead of SG.
I don't want to run down players. But my opinion is SG merits a place in the current 11, in both formats of the game, all this hog-wash about vague future visions notwithstanding.
Vision is important for a successful organisation not short-sighted future vision. More so, when it is driven by malice and narrow personal agenda.
With this kind of a mean mentality, GC can be a great player himself but he cannot build a successful team.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on March 03, 2006, 07:04:28 AM
But blwe
Surely you agree that SG is not an opener ?? Do you actually think he can do a good job there ??
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Blwe_torch on March 03, 2006, 07:12:46 AM
no..I think he can do a better job at no 4, 5 or 6.
And I believe he is no mug at openning as well, just in case there are far superior players in those positions already ( which I am not ready to believe).
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on March 03, 2006, 09:30:40 AM
He can do a better job at 4 than tendulkar ? at 5 than VVS ? at 6 than Yuvi ?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: justforkix on March 03, 2006, 09:33:39 AM
As of now, perhaps better at 5 than VVS  ;D. But then Yuvi at 5 and Kaif at 6 seems perfect as of now ;)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Blwe_torch on March 03, 2006, 10:12:21 AM
He can do a better job at 4 than tendulkar ? at 5 than VVS ? at 6 than Yuvi ?
what tendulkar?..what vvs?
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: justforkix on March 03, 2006, 10:13:14 AM
maybe he means Endulkar ;) (j/k)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on March 03, 2006, 10:14:06 AM
no i dont
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Blwe_torch on March 03, 2006, 10:21:44 AM
He can do a better job at 4 than tendulkar ? at 5 than VVS ? at 6 than Yuvi ?

Can't u imagine an indian team without tendulkar or vvs?...strange!
on one hand you endorse chappel's vision of future and again, you don't want to forget the past?!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: achutank on March 03, 2006, 10:28:38 AM
some day these guys have to retire why not make them mentally prepared from no by dropping them once in a while? :)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Blwe_torch on March 03, 2006, 10:32:04 AM
i am totally for gc's idea of a new indian team..all youngsters....no oldies!
but plz make no distinctions....drop one oldy...drop all oldies.
don't bother abt their past contributions.
set yourself free from all emotional baggage!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: justforkix on March 03, 2006, 10:37:48 AM
No. artists (read VVS) has no such thing as age. So, can't bring in eungsters instead of an artist)again read VVS)  ;D
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Cover Point on March 03, 2006, 02:23:42 PM
GC's vision isnt to drop ALL oldies. ONLY crap ones who subvert the team!
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on March 03, 2006, 05:12:43 PM
Really other than SG which oldie has been dropped ? None.
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: Blwe_torch on March 04, 2006, 05:21:46 AM
actually coaches too need to be young, say for example like, Sandeep Patil or Tom Moody. Otherwise there is an unhealthy generation gap between players and coaches. Players tend to deal with the coaches as if they are like an uncle. This has its own good and bad effects. I was just reading one article in the Other Sports section on Indian football....on similar sentiments expressed by a star Indian footballer, Baichung Bhutia.
http://www.votegupta.com/cricketf2orum/index.php?topic=1203.0 (http://www.votegupta.com/cricketf2orum/index.php?topic=1203.0)
Title: Re: Balance of power needed.
Post by: gouravk on March 05, 2006, 08:37:31 AM
blwe, you actually make a good point. Applause.