'Fab five' told to plan for retirement

[Prince EWS]

I made a comment on it purely because it'd be so very unlikely for the owner of a site - any site - to troll it. Making such an accusation just seemed illogical to me. I wasn't saying James's cricketing opinion should be treated differently to anyone else's; I just don't think anyone would troll their own site.

 

[Indipper]

 

[Richard]

Nah, no way. There's no chance that the help that these players can give the kids wouldn't be far superior if they were in the same team attending every training session together and spending hours in the dressing room with one another as opposed to a chat or session here or there.

You can spend as long as you want regardless of the circumstances. If you care (as the majority of players do) about keeping-up your team's fortunes once you've stopped playing, you'll spend as long as you think you can help by spending on improving a newer player.

Much as Ian Botham's criticised for some things rightly, one thing he for example is excellent at is whenever anyone (from whatever team) comes and asks him for some technical help, he's more than happy to spend a while giving it.

 

[Sanz]

On the thread topic. It is just annoying to consistently hear the BCCI officials talk about planning retirement for our cricketers, while they continue to suck the life out of Indian Cricket. If they think these players are not good enough, show some balls and drop them.

They are trying to hide their own incompetency by publicly humiliating those that bring glory to Indian Cricket which is our cricketers.

 

[pasag]

@pasag
a. It is not trollish in your opinion, but it is possible someone else might believe otherwise, still I am with you and support you, if you disagree with him on that.

b. Not everyone here knows that James is the owner, especially the newer members. Not that it should matter

c. James puts in so much time and effort for this site is well acknowledged on this forum, but at the end of the day it is his choice to put up this website on Internet. You must not forget that this site does so well because of the members of this forum. There are 100s of internet forums but they dont have members like CW. CW is so good more because of its members and because the place allows its members to speak their minds. If we are all to bow down to the masters that work hard for this site then I am sorry, you are in the wrong business. This is not an appreciation society.

d. Lastly, You could have disagreed with Pnottath and argued why this post was not a troll. you are totally over-reacting, a lot more than pnottath, If James felt that way, he is more than capable of defending himself. But you defending him mainly because he is the owner of this site and what not and that is a very discouraging sign.

I don't think it's overreacting at all. It's a comment that annoyed me and I responded to it, like I'll do most comments which annoy me. Obviously the site and its members go hand in hand, what I'm saying is if a guy can't post a perfectly ok thread on his own forum without being called a troll you know something's wrong. Look not really interested in continuing this especially as Pnottath responded and it's all over as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Richard]

Well, recently retired/forced out players tend to take time off from the game entirely for a fair while.

Not neccessarily at all. Plenty go straight into other roles.

Besides, stalking the retired players and sucking out their brains isn't the same as a young batsman facing a situation where the opposition bowlers have your team at 10/3 and him desperately looking around the dressing room for any sort of advice and finding no one there to offer it.

Advice in these sorts of extreme circumstances isn't often of much use. It's all down to you here.

And "stalking", honestly. Do you know how common it is for young and young-ish players to talk to retired stars? It happens more often than you could possibly name numbers of - and quite rightly too.

That is true, but the Aussies still have Ponting and Hayden to turn to. Rohit Sharma would have.....Sehwag. With all due respect to him, an instinctive batsman isn't the best person to turn to for technical advice and the sort.

Not entirely sure how Ponting is much different really, but that isn't the point. You can't keep picking someone simply because slightly younger but still experienced players wouldn't be of the right type to offer advice.

Coaches are there for a reason.

 

[pasag]

You can spend as long as you want regardless of the circumstances. If you care (as the majority of players do) about keeping-up your team's fortunes once you've stopped playing, you'll spend as long as you think you can help by spending on improving a newer player.

Much as Ian Botham's criticised for some things rightly, one thing he for example is excellent at is whenever anyone (from whatever team) comes and asks him for some technical help, he's more than happy to spend a while giving it.

Not the same at all. See one of GI Joes posts above (#34 and 35) for a good explanation of why.

 

[Sanz]

I made a comment on it purely because it'd be so very unlikely for the owner of a site - any site - to troll it. Making such an accusation just seemed illogical to me. I wasn't saying James's cricketing opinion should be treated differently to anyone else's; I just don't think anyone would troll their own site.

Have you considered the possibility that the member in question probably didn't know that 'James' was the owner of the site.

 

[Prince EWS]

Have you considered the possibility that the member in question probably didn't know that 'James' was the owner of the site.

And I reminded him of it.

I was basically arguing with his inference of trolling by providing evidence. The fact that James owns the site is evidence against his accusation as it'd be illogical for one to troll one's own forum..

 

[silentstriker]

I don't have a problem with this in theory, but you should never make it public, and it's ridiculous to have all of them go at the same time. Probably should be Ganguly -> Laxman -> Kumble -> Dravid -> Tendulkar in that order over a span of a year or two years. One every 3-4 months or so.

 

[fredfertang]

I was mesmerised as a kid by Bedi, Chandra, Prasanna and Farokh Engineer and have been a fan of Indian cricket ever since – these five have had a similar effect on their generation of non-Indian cricket fans – it might prove to be a classic example of mismanagement if they all bow out together after a poor series but if they do so on the back of a series win against the Aus then their cricketing immortality is guaranteed

 

[Richard]

I don't have a problem with this in theory, but you should never make it public, and it's ridiculous to have all of them go at the same time. Probably should be Ganguly -> Laxman -> Kumble -> Dravid -> Tendulkar in that order over a span of a year or two years. One every 3-4 months or so.

What about if they'd all prefer to go together as they have so often played together?

I think if they'd like to do this they should be allowed to. And (as Martin says in the post direct above this) if they could do it after a series against Australia, well, there is no better way possible to go for mine.

 

[sledger]

Lol @ Sanz crying a river.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Not neccessarily at all. Plenty go straight into other roles.

They do it out of personal choice. How many have done so immediately after being forced into retirement by their selectors?

And "stalking", honestly. Do you know how common it is for young and young-ish players to talk to retired stars? It happens more often than you could possibly name numbers of - and quite rightly too.

All well and dandy that it happens regularly. Until you realise there is a better option available here - that of seeking their advice while involved in a series with those very same players. Given the choice , it would be sheer folly to pick the inferior solution over the superior one.

 

[Richard]

They do it out of personal choice. How many have done so immediately after being forced into retirement by their selectors?

I wouldn't have a clue. I've said, though, have I not, that I deplore the idea of these Indian players in this particular question being forced into retirement?

All well and dandy that it happens regularly. Until you realise there is a better option available here - that of seeking their advice while involved in a series with those very same players. Given the choice , it would be sheer folly to pick the inferior solution over the superior one.

No, it wouldn't. You should never pick a team with the passing-on of advice in mind. Under each and every circumstance you should pick the best players who have made themselves available.

Advice-seeking can be done by anyone, any time. Playing can be done by just 11 players per game. And you cannot be allowing advice-seeking - important though it is - to impact upon your picks - it should be done on who are the most deserving players of playing, and this alone.

As long as Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, VVS Laxman, Sourav Ganguly and Anil Kumble are deserving of a place in the Indian Test team, they should play. The moment they aren't, or don't want to, they should not. If they wish to bow-out together, which I could quite understand it if they did and would love to see them do, no-one should try to stop them because they believe their knowledge won't be passed-on if that happens. If the BCCI were to want their knowledge to be passed-on, it'd be their responsibility to ensure the players stayed involved after retirement.

 

[Manee]

VVS Laxman is 33 going on 34; he should not be thinking of retirement for another few years, especially since he doesn't play ODI cricket.

 

[Richard]

I don't know about that. 34 isn't terribly old, but most non-exceptional players (and much as he is indeed Very Very Special in the attractiveness of his strokeplay, he's never been anything other than good in terms of his actual scoring) are beginning to think of retirement at such an age. A few examples being David Boon, Gary Kirsten, Mark Taylor, Stephen Fleming, Nasser Hussain, Damien Martyn, Graham Thorpe and Nathan Astle. All good, though not exceptional, Test batsmen who managed long careers, retired at about the right time, and around the age of 35.

If Laxman were to retire (of his own volition) within the next year I'd not be thinking it was extraordinarily premature. Perhaps a little unexpected, but no more than that.

 

[Manee]

You're not old when there are four people in your team older than you. All about context my friend.

 

[Goughy]

I don't know about that. 34 isn't terribly old, but most non-exceptional players (and much as he is indeed Very Very Special in the attractiveness of his strokeplay, he's never been anything other than good in terms of his actual scoring) are beginning to think of retirement at such an age. A few examples being David Boon, Gary Kirsten, Mark Taylor, Stephen Fleming, Nasser Hussain, Damien Martyn, Graham Thorpe and Nathan Astle. All good, though not exceptional, Test batsmen who managed long careers, retired at about the right time, and around the age of 35.

If Laxman were to retire (of his own volition) within the next year I'd not be thinking it was extraordinarily premature. Perhaps a little unexpected, but no more than that.

Gooch? Almost defined good but non-exceptional until after the age you note.

 

[Sanz]

Lol @ Sanz crying a river.

Latch tight on that nipple else you will drown in that river.