Post Mortem: India

[pup11]

I think Indian cricket can never flourish untill and unless good administrators aren't appointed, who rather than treating the Indian team as a cash-cow can look to improve the infrastructure at the grass-root level of the game and remodel the Indian domestic structure which is mess atm with 20 odd teams in it.

So rather than blaming the coach and the captain blame the administrators and sack them and bring somebody else instead of them.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, first of all, we need to figure out our back up batting options. It is amazing that Sachin, Rahul and Sourav almost always play these games against Bangladesh. It is not like these guys have to prove themselves anymore, at least as batsmen.


Much prefer if those guys prolong their break and play some FC games to help out our FC cricketers in their development, while the back ups go to take on Bangladesh. I would like to see Karthik get a whole series in as the specialist keeper, just to make sure he doesn't forget it, basically.


India's bowling attack is genuinely lacking in the wicket taking department. And alarmingly so in ODIs, where Kumble doesn't have the same potency anymore. Hope that Sreesanth gets a few games in and can figure out his stuff in ODIs. The thing about playing Sree is the risk of him being taken apart. I guess we could back him up by playing Pathan or Joginder Sharma in the side at 7. Risky it is, but if you wont take risks against BD, then when?

And it will be a BIG risk to play AA and Sree in the same side. Munaf needs to be told that it is ok to attack in ODIs at times, as a bowler. And hopefully, he will attack when he plays tests, and gets rid of this Larsen mentality.


And hopefully one or two good bowlers will emerge over the next season. One can always hope.

 

[ColdSnow]

Fitness should be made a pre-requisite whether its a batter or a bowler, no matter how good they are. So run 3 miles everyday or you are out!

 

[Goughy]

Given an adequate knowledge of the game, you can judge someone's technique and temperament rather than merely looking at his stats.

IMO, the biggest mistake in evaluation is to take eyeball evidence without combining it with statistical evidence.

Guys with technical faults that look ugly can be in complete understanding of their games and succeed despite them.

Guys with poor records invarably dont do well despite looking good.

How someone looks can be seductive and can lead to players destined to fail being selected even though they have poor records.

 

[adharcric]

IMO, the biggest mistake in evaluation is to take eyeball evidence without combining it with statistical evidence.

Guys with technical faults that look ugly can be in complete understanding of their games and succeed despite them.

Guys with poor records invarably dont do well despite looking good.

How someone looks can be seductive and can lead to players destined to fail being selected even though they have poor records.

I agree. In Karthik's case, though, he hasn't even played that much domestic cricket so his stats should not be given too much weight. As you said, there should be a balance between statistical and visual evaluation. Karthik's poor domestic record becomes irrelevant the moment he scores crucial runs for India.

 

[Goughy]

I agree. In Karthik's case, though, he hasn't even played that much domestic cricket so his stats should not be given too much weight. As you said, there should be a balance between statistical and visual evaluation.

Yeah, there needs to be a decent sized body of work to analyse for the data to be valid. However, if he hasn't played that much, has a very average record and isnt a genuine once-a-generation genius then as a rule of thumb I would wait a short while until he has proven himself one way or another.

 

[adharcric]

Yeah, there needs to be a decent sized body of work to analyse for the data to be valid. However, if he hasn't played that much, has a very average record and isnt a genuine once-a-generation genius then as a rule of thumb I would wait a short while until he has proven himself one way or another.

Does the average record and lack of experience hold any relevance if (upon being selected on the basis of potential) Karthik scores important runs for India? Not IMO.

 

[Goughy]

Does the average record and lack of experience hold any relevance if (upon being selected on the basis of potential) Karthik scores important runs for India? Not IMO.

The argument would be that the selecting on the potential mentioned is a gamble as little has been done to show the potential is anywhere apart from in the selectors mind.

If they score important runs, then great but the chances of them doing so is less when there is no historical background of them doing so.

Karthik has not shown he can play at the top level and his limited experience in Internationals bares this out currently.

The question that should always be raised, is what has he (or someone with a similar record) done to deserve to be selected?

Another season or 2 of scoring FC and List A runs may make him ready.

 

[adharcric]

Fair enough. The selection process should be based upon not only "spotting" talent but also a player's overall performance (runs and wickets). In my opinion, you should back a player when you see something really special, but I can understand the concept that the player should prove his credentials before he gets a call-up.

 

[RhyZa]

well, anyway...

go West Indies.

 

[silentstriker]

Fair enough. The selection process should be based upon not only "spotting" talent but also a player's overall performance (runs and wickets). In my opinion, you should back a player when you see something really special, but I can understand the concept that the player should prove his credentials before he gets a call-up.

That should be the ONLY concept. If you see something special, let him play domestic cricket for two years and prove that he in fact has something special. And in the mean time he'll be learning how to manage cricket full time instead of being thrown head first into international cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

In fact, and I know this won't be popular, I would advocate a rule that a player must have played at least three full years of First Class cricket before being eligible for national selection.

I'm tired of these young players being ruined. You don't need 16 year olds playing tests.

 

[Goughy]

I have no issue with a young inexperienced player being picked if they are classed as a once-a-decade talent.

The problem is when the 'cult of youth' takes over and being young is seen as a massive advantage over proven talent.

Currently (across many sports and nations) young players are thrown in with little chance to succeed based purely on the fact they are good for their age. Too many young players are classed as 'special' when in reality they will only ever pan out to be average players.

Keep young talent in a development arena unless they are the most special of the special. The trouble is that we throw the accolades at young kids that have done nothing to deserve it.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Manan, would you have picked Tendyu as early as they did?

 

[silentstriker]

Nope, no way. For every one that makes it, so many others don't. If it meant that we didn't have to suffer Parthiv Patel, Piyush Chawla, Laxman Sivraramakhrisnan and that whole bunch, I'd have gladly waited a couple years.

I still haven't heard of a compelling reason as to why it was such a big deal for Tendulkar to come out at age of 16, instead of after a couple years at the age of 18 in 1991 (instead of 1989). It doesn't make sense to me. If he's so good as you think he is, let him prove it internally.

I expand on that here.

 

[adharcric]

I have no issue with a young inexperienced player being picked if they are classed as a once-a-decade talent.

The problem is when the 'cult of youth' takes over and being young is seen as a massive advantage over proven talent.

Currently (across many sports and nations) young players are thrown in with little chance to succeed based purely on the fact they are good for their age. Too many young players are classed as 'special' when in reality they will only ever pan out to be average players.

Keep young talent in a development arena unless they are the most special of the special. The trouble is that we throw the accolades at young kids that have done nothing to deserve it.

Top post.

 

[silentstriker]

Top post.

But didn't you support Chawla and Raina? They clearly weren't 'once in a decade'.

 

[adharcric]

But didn't you support Chawla and Raina? They clearly weren't 'once in a decade'.

Raina is a special talent IMO but his selection was somewhat justified because he already had first-class experience (two solid seasons IIRC). Talent isn't always enough and Raina clearly wasn't ready for the big stage - don't fall under the impression that I no longer support him. Raina should look to play county cricket or at the very least join the A team in foreign tours. As for Chawla, I never called for his selection because he is even younger than Raina and has only just finished his second FC season (not a very good one at that). Expect me to support his selection if he takes big wickets when the next season of Ranji Trophy rolls around.

 

[sirdj]

Why all the calls for Tendulkar to go? I can understand the point in Test matches (although I don't agree with it), but in ODIs, there's no reason at all for him to be dropped.

How many times has he been a MOM in a match of consequence in the last 7 years??

 

[marc71178]

Define a match of consequence.