I think they're probably doing a quick fire trying out of each player in different roles so in case the need arises in the world cup, they know who's best to send in certain specific situations. I'm all for that as long as they don't forget some basics like not sending Rao after the 35th over (or not sending him to bat at all if possible).Sanz said:
Right on. They're trying out all of the potential options to try to get the best possible side out there rather than stick to what we've got. That's why you've suddenly seen bowlers like Munaf and VRV brought into the side solely based on potential and extra pace. That's why you've suddenly seen explosive young openers like Uthappa and Dhawan brought into the spotlight after years of stale reserves like Bahutule and Mongia.pug said:
Exactly. Why take a risk on an unproven 19 year old when you have someone who has performed for two-three years in domestic cricket? If you're 19 year old is so great, then he'll perform in domestic cricket, and he'll still be there in two years.adharcric said:
And the team suffers while they're learing how to play at the test level.adharcric said:
He played 8 FC matches. Unless he took 8 five wicket hauls, I hardly think he has shown enough to be considered for test level.adharcric said:
If they are ready now, they'll still be there in two years when we can actually judge their talents and see how they fit in.adharic said:
Hah, NBA just proves my point, not yours. For every Kobe, there are tens of kids who don't do anything. Do you know the average length of a career of a player drafted out of high school? Two years. And do you know what happens to them after that? Nothing. If they had been allowed to goto college and develop some basic skills outside of just raw talents, who knows how many might have made it? For every Lebron, there are hundreds of Taj McDavid, Leon Smith and Korleone Young's. Who are they? People who were taken too early and ended up complete busts. Not only did they hurt the team, they hurt their own careers and destroyed their futures.adharic said:
That's right man. Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Kevin Garnette are such failures.silentstriker said:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not wrong) but Chanderpaul failed in the first two ODIs and India struggled to win one and lost the other. I don't see how Chanderpaul is the difference between these two sides...honestbharani said:No Chanderpaul? India should win the next two ODIs.
Sanz said:
Show me where I called those players failures. I said that for every success, there are a lot more people whose careers are ruined because of early induction into the NBA.Sanz said:That's right man. Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Kevin Garnette are such failures.
You don't pick players purely on talent. You pick them on an ability to apply that talent as well. The West Indies picked the likes of Fidel Edwards and Jerome Taylor too early and had to wait 3 years to see them mature to a level approaching world class. Edwards learned how to play cricket at international level, and only got smashed about because of it. That sort of learning curve should be done largely at domestic level.adharcric said:
Where is all this pace though? I've seen Munaf Patel bowl in the first two ODIs and he never touched 90mph and Ajit Agarkar was consistently quicker than he was. What pace?adharcric said:
Thank you. Thats exactly what I've been saying.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
Why dont you take a hard look at playoffs this year and tell us about the ratings. Who cares about the Lakers now ?silentstriker said:
You call NBA a mess because it allows players from High School whereas NFL is successful because it has min 3 years limit. This is ridiculous because NFL is a lot more physical than NBA and hence the 3 years period is justified. Just because X,Y, Z failed in NBA doesn't mean the High schoolers always end up failiging. Anyone can fail(Sam Bowie, Grant Hill, VanHorn etc.) , but when High Schoolers fail, you blame it on NBA's policy of drafting them.
.Sanz said:
That's a lot more convincing. Ideally, I'd like players like VRV Singh and Piyush Chawla to be groomed in the A team, which is finally happening now. Domestic cricket is a great place to groom them as well, but how are we supposed to do that when the season is already over and all we have to wait for is the Challenger Trophy late in the year? We didn't see VRV or Piyush get any meaningful roles in the matches they got at the international level, perhaps to minimize the risk factor. I think the Indian selectors are a little desperate for instant success. Whilst I understand what you're saying about the negatives of exposing players too early, I don't think it's such a sin if you're keeping them as reserves and slowly getting them accustomed to international standard and responsibility.Mr Mxyzptlk said:
I agree. Especially, when the squad has enough options for pace (or whatever we call it for Indian seamers), spin and batting to come in during injuries or any change the team management would like. What I mean is, if you have about 14-15 players who can make the team to cover all contingencies, then grooming a youngster is a good idea in my opinion. I would personally think touring Piyush Chawla with the Indian test team containing Kumble would be a good idea. I think it would make a world of difference by seeing a great player in your field perform, how he adapts to different situations and actually "see" his experience rather than just hear verbally about all these. Same with VRV, except there's no Kumble-like figure for him, which is one reason why I favoured Agarkar over him.adharcric said:
The lack of Yuvraj makes a big hole in the Indian side, as was evident in the last match. The top order is good, the lower is unpredictable. Rao just aggravates the problem. A team without Dravid and Kaif could do with Rao (I would still prefer Laxman and Ganguly, sorry to say, cuz twice now, Rao has just seemed to me to not care about the team's progress as much as his own score tally).alternative said:
