Hayden calls subcontinental batsmen 'selfish'

[Dasa]

^Interesting theory, I wouldn't disagree.

Meanwhile, CricInfo has, in their regular feature 'The Numbers Game', provided some stats on Hayden's comment.
CricInfo - The Numbers Game

Interestingly, Gilchrist actually slows down when going from 70 to 100, and Hayden speeds up only slightly. The Indians have the greatest increase in S/R from 70 to 100.

 

[Son Of Coco]

this is what Harsha Bhogle had to say about Hayden's comment



HARSHA BHOGLE


Posted online: Friday, August 27, 2004 at 0012 hours IST



It would be tempting, and egotistical, to ignore Mathew Hayden’s remark about players from the sub-continent being selfish. You could call it gamesmanship, and there will be a substantial element of that, but if it hurts there is probably some truth to it.

If he had said all Indian batsmen are bandits, we wouldn’t have read it a second time, we would have called it whimsical, even wild, it wouldn’t have hurt. This one does, and so it merits examination. Sometimes it helps to look beyond initial feelings of outrage!



It is my hypothesis that in over-populated, and therefore insecure, countries the self will always dominate. Feelings of comradeship, of surrendering the self to the wider cause, can only arise in either a highly spiritual phase or where the performer has ascended to a level of personal calm about his achievements.

Where you are in a mob, and we are in a mob, self-preservation will always prevail; whether it is catching a bus, or getting out of a movie hall or getting admission to a professional college.

So too with Indian cricket, where unless you are selfish you cannot make a mark. We have 27 first-class teams and it is impossible for anyone to monitor individual players. At one level lower, it is even worse. Young players learn very quickly that it is their score, and not the manner in which it was scored, or indeed the situation that warranted it, that counts more than anything else.

A 17-year-old is bound to feel tempted to stay 66 not out even if his team loses the match than try to blast a quick 35 which won’t look as impressive when the selectors compare scores. If there were fewer players to look at, a selector could make his own assessment but with the numbers in India that is often impossible. That is why I would go so far as to say that unless you are selfish you have no chance of making it in Indian cricket.

And it is not easy to change, leopards in every profession are stuck with their spots. Actors from folk theatre will remain loud even in serious cinema, batsmen growing up on bouncy tracks will instinctively play the horizontal bat shots, people from gloomy lands will look unhappy even in bright sunshine. Players from our part of the world cannot suddenly become team players when they have survived by protecting their interests fiercely. In times of crisis, you go back to your instincts.

When a team is performing, and therefore settled, and where individuals are secure, they can rise above the self and play for the cause. Indeed, playing for the cause then becomes a greater virtue and we have seen that aspect too in Indian cricket. In Australia they learn that early because there are fewer people playing the game; the difference between being in a side and not being in it is not nearly as pronounced as it is in India.

If Australia had 500 million people, let alone a billion, they would play like a nation of 500 million, they would guard the self before aspiring to enrich the team.

The way out is to have fewer teams playing at the highest level. Apart from intensifying competition, it means only the best can play and with that comfort behind them players can get noticed for putting the team first. 27 first class teams is a recipe for selfishness and poor quality. If we can still put out a fairly good international team, imagine what you could do with only 15 teams. Concentrated solutions are always more potent than diluted ones.

As a result we tend to applaud individual efforts even if the team has collectively been let down. The batting average is a batsman’s badge of honour, the number of centuries his entry to the hall of fame. Even his advertising contracts have bonuses linked to the number of runs he has scored, not whether his team wins.

We dance alone, not in an ensemble, we pray alone, not in a community. We cannot suddenly expect young, insecure sportsmen to become team players when most of us aren’t.

Small, focussed groups can be different if they breathe a different air. In India’s cricket team there are many who are willing to go beyond the self. Now it needs to become addictive, it needs to spread to selectors and administrators. October might be a good time to prove to Matthew Hayden that it can happen.

Very interesting article that.

 

[Arjun]

Perhaps the selection committee can look at the teams playing in the Elite league to pick a team, since there are just 14 or 15 teams there- the 15 best teams. Even then, if there are players making bold statements in the lower league, in terms of performance, they should be watched.

Individual performances don't matter much, unless they can change matches. A double hundred can have a hand in winning a match, and so can taking 10 wickets. A wicket haul of 6 or more wickets, for less than 100 runs, can dominate a match. The faster a double hundred, the more effective it is. A good performance with bat and ball will help that player's team a lot. Just plain hundreds don't count. Nor do plain 50's. Except if they happen regularly. Consistency and match impact have to be considered.

 

[masterblaster]

Well, look at what happens to players who play for their team specifically.

Akash Chopra, did such a wonderful job for the team, then what happens next?

He gets told by everybody that he will not be selected in the playing eleven.

I can see why this culture does exist in Indian Cricket. You will always have players averaging 45+ in this lineup, but a guy who averages 27-30 odd like Chopra, but contributes in the victory of the team will always get discarded.

 

[masterblaster]

23 Yards Column, from CricInfo by Amit Varma.

Friday, August 27, 2004

8.45pm IST – Mental disintegration? Go on, disintegrate

Matthew Hayden's statement that subcontinental batsmen are selfish and prioritise personal landmarks over team goals has attracted a lot of comment in India over the last couple of days. In The Numbers Game, our Friday column, Rahul Bhatia displays statistics (provided by Arun Gopalakrishnan in our Chennai office) that show that the strike rates of the top Indian batsmen between the scores of 71 and 100 are actually marginally better than that of the top Australian batsmen. (A counterpoint to that, of course, is the fact that Indian batsmen have more centuries than Australian ones, though India win much less.)

Harsha Bhogle, with characteristic honesty, writes in his latest column that there is some truth to what Hayden says. His hypothesis is that "in over-populated, and therefore insecure, countries the self will always dominate ... Where you are in a mob, and we are in a mob, self-preservation will always prevail; whether it is catching a bus, or getting out of a movie hall, or getting admission to a professional college."

Bhogle explains how it is impossible for a cricketer in India to rise to the top without playing for personal landmarks, and how "it is not easy to change; leopards in every profession are stuck with their spots."

Hayden, if he reads all this, must find it extremely funny. When Australians say bad things about their opponents, they do not always mean it, and are often just playing a game of mental disintegration, as Steve Waugh famously put it. Hayden doesn't care if Indian batsmen are selfish or not – but he would love to have their minds fret about things other than the game at hand during an encounter. The next time India play Australia and an Indian batsman crosses 80, you can bet that the Aussies will sledge him about his selfishness, trying to induce him into a rash shot.

With Australia due to tour India shortly, expect more such statements from the Australians. Glenn McGrath, famously for targeting an opposition batsman before a series, will probably pick Virender Sehwag. And many more snide comments will be made about the Indians, to put demons in their minds. Here are a few (untrue) statements that the Australians might well already have short-listed.


1. Sehwag's batting is too aggressive, and we'll just wait for him to throw his wicket away.
2. Sourav Ganguly would not be in the Indian side if he wasn't the captain. OR Ganguly can't play the short ball.
3. VVS Laxman can't run between the wickets in one-dayers. We plan to keep him at the crease so the scoring-rate slows down.
4. Sachin Tendulkar is no longer the same player he once was. Warnie's got his number.
5. Yuvraj Singh can't play spin. Warnie's got his number too.
6. Harbhajan Singh's doosra is suspect. OR Harbhajan's success in the last series was a fluke.
7. Parthiv Patel's a kid. He can't concentrate through an entire day of Test cricket.
8. Anil Kumble is past his best. We're not worried about him.

Now, none of these are true. But imagine you're Yuvraj, and Ricky Ponting lets out statement No. 5, and then you're playing Shane Warne in a Test – isn't it just possible that the allegations could be playing on your mind, and you might be over-aggressive or over-cautious as a result? And over-anything is a victory for the Australians.

So how do you counter such mental disintegration? Oh, Sourav knows how. He'll just keep Ponting waiting at the toss.

lol!

Brilliant!

 

[Waughney]

Ah, I love these mind games

 

[honestbharani]

i think its just another over-reaction to be honest by supporters of India (I dont think anyone else has moaned about it)...but I am glad it has been acknowledged that its just mind games.

Does it even matter what a player says...but if it is something that has been observed by the Australian players then it is a valid point to make...in the same way if it was Brian Lara saying it, or Ntini or Oram..it doesnt matter..the point is its because an Aussie has said it that there is this reaction.

some people just need to let go!!!!!

Excuse me, but wasn't this the same guy who said that Laxman was AFRAID of fast bowling? Sure, he said it because he wants the sub continental teams to improve...

 

[luckyeddie]

Ah, I love these mind games

Cricket would be far duller without them - supporters would sometimes have to talk about the games.

 

[Tim]

Australia won't need to do any planning for their Indian tour. Amit Varma has done it all for them!

 

[Swervy]

Excuse me, but wasn't this the same guy who said that Laxman was AFRAID of fast bowling? Sure, he said it because he wants the sub continental teams to improve...

I have said all I want to on the subject

 

[a10khan]

23 Yards Column, from CricInfo by Amit Varma.

Friday, August 27, 2004

8.45pm IST – Mental disintegration? Go on, disintegrate

Matthew Hayden's statement that subcontinental batsmen are selfish and prioritise personal landmarks over team goals has attracted a lot of comment in India over the last couple of days. In The Numbers Game, our Friday column, Rahul Bhatia displays statistics (provided by Arun Gopalakrishnan in our Chennai office) that show that the strike rates of the top Indian batsmen between the scores of 71 and 100 are actually marginally better than that of the top Australian batsmen. (A counterpoint to that, of course, is the fact that Indian batsmen have more centuries than Australian ones, though India win much less.)

Harsha Bhogle, with characteristic honesty, writes in his latest column that there is some truth to what Hayden says. His hypothesis is that "in over-populated, and therefore insecure, countries the self will always dominate ... Where you are in a mob, and we are in a mob, self-preservation will always prevail; whether it is catching a bus, or getting out of a movie hall, or getting admission to a professional college."

Bhogle explains how it is impossible for a cricketer in India to rise to the top without playing for personal landmarks, and how "it is not easy to change; leopards in every profession are stuck with their spots."

Hayden, if he reads all this, must find it extremely funny. When Australians say bad things about their opponents, they do not always mean it, and are often just playing a game of mental disintegration, as Steve Waugh famously put it. Hayden doesn't care if Indian batsmen are selfish or not – but he would love to have their minds fret about things other than the game at hand during an encounter. The next time India play Australia and an Indian batsman crosses 80, you can bet that the Aussies will sledge him about his selfishness, trying to induce him into a rash shot.

With Australia due to tour India shortly, expect more such statements from the Australians. Glenn McGrath, famously for targeting an opposition batsman before a series, will probably pick Virender Sehwag. And many more snide comments will be made about the Indians, to put demons in their minds. Here are a few (untrue) statements that the Australians might well already have short-listed.


1. Sehwag's batting is too aggressive, and we'll just wait for him to throw his wicket away.
2. Sourav Ganguly would not be in the Indian side if he wasn't the captain. OR Ganguly can't play the short ball.
3. VVS Laxman can't run between the wickets in one-dayers. We plan to keep him at the crease so the scoring-rate slows down.
4. Sachin Tendulkar is no longer the same player he once was. Warnie's got his number.
5. Yuvraj Singh can't play spin. Warnie's got his number too.
6. Harbhajan Singh's doosra is suspect. OR Harbhajan's success in the last series was a fluke.
7. Parthiv Patel's a kid. He can't concentrate through an entire day of Test cricket.
8. Anil Kumble is past his best. We're not worried about him.

Now, none of these are true. But imagine you're Yuvraj, and Ricky Ponting lets out statement No. 5, and then you're playing Shane Warne in a Test – isn't it just possible that the allegations could be playing on your mind, and you might be over-aggressive or over-cautious as a result? And over-anything is a victory for the Australians.

So how do you counter such mental disintegration? Oh, Sourav knows how. He'll just keep Ponting waiting at the toss.

lol!

Brilliant!

lolz gd stuff!

 

[Arjun]

If any batsman is not scoring too quickly in ODI's and is slowing down, he might be trying to bat through the innings or build a partnership, and there is not much wrong with that.
'
Every player in the team should have a role. Two of them should build an innings, two should attack relentlessly, and at least one should just rotate the strike.

 

[Arjun]

Akash Chopra, did such a wonderful job for the team, then what happens next? He gets told by everybody that he will not be selected in the playing eleven.

Not to mention a mere tailender or an opening misfit opens the innings.

If only the local anti-Chopra block would think about it, without trying to think of reasons running in four pages for him not being good enough for Tests.

 

[biased indian]

i think Hayden does browse CRICINFO

he should have seen the stats provided by the site on his recent comments
which shows that he is actually slower than 4 india batsmen when they near hunderd

so he has found a new way to make his sta loook good he will score the first few runs very slowly and will try to increase his SR

he has scored only 12 from 46 balls aganist pakistan

 

[marc71178]

Australia won't need to do any planning for their Indian tour. Amit Varma has done it all for them!

It reads a bit like those leaked sheets from a couple of years back.

 

[marc71178]

he has scored only 12 from 46 balls aganist pakistan

And of course that has absolutely nothing to do with the state of the pitch does it?

 

[honestbharani]

I would wager the average score in ODI's over that time is more than 245...

Would you wager that the avg. ODI score Vs Australia would be more than 245 over that period of time?

 

[biased indian]

And of course that has absolutely nothing to do with the state of the pitch does it?

all other Aus batsmen had better SR than him

 

[Jnr.]

No they didn't - Haddin, the opener, was striking at 33 (10 off 30) - which goes to show how difficult the new ball was.

 

[marc71178]

Don't let the facts ruin yet another attack on the Aussies though.

Jealousy I think it's called.