500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Roshan Diwak » Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:57:14


The problem with most Indian cricket fans in that they think all
problems can be explained away by blaming the selectors or government
or BCCI. Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we
somehow think that if X was selected over Y than we would have won the
series/tournament/World cup. Remember we are talking about fringe
players not even the top seven or eight.
      Remember if X and Y are considered among equals and if X
crapped, there is a significant possibility that Y would have crapped
too. I mean, 70 years of our cricketing history and we still havn't
realised that we produce at most one or two brilliant cricketers per
decade. As far as X vs Y is considered they usually dont matter to the
end result whether we pick X or Y
    And please, isn't it the same Panicker or Whatever who ***ed and
moaned about how selecters shouldn't select a test team based on ODI
performances or performances based on Indian pitches?

Bottomline, even Sehwag looked like Marshall yesterday in that pitch

Roshan

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Shripathi Kamat » Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:16:14


Quote:
> The problem with most Indian cricket fans in that they think all
> problems can be explained away by blaming the selectors or government
> or BCCI. Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we
> somehow think that if X was selected over Y than we would have won the
> series/tournament/World cup. Remember we are talking about fringe
> players not even the top seven or eight.
>       Remember if X and Y are considered among equals and if X
> crapped, there is a significant possibility that Y would have crapped
> too. I mean, 70 years of our cricketing history and we still havn't
> realised that we produce at most one or two brilliant cricketers per
> decade. As far as X vs Y is considered they usually dont matter to the
> end result whether we pick X or Y
>     And please, isn't it the same Panicker or Whatever who ***ed and
> moaned about how selecters shouldn't select a test team based on ODI
> performances or performances based on Indian pitches?

Thank you, for presenting yet another logical perspective on the issue.

Quote:
> Bottomline, even Sehwag looked like Marshall yesterday in that pitch

> Roshan

--
Shripathi Kamath

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Gami » Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:35:15

<snip>

Quote:
>Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we

We finished 2nd in the World Cup. I know that does not mean we are the 2nd best
OD team in the World, but  it's a bit too harsh to say that we are a nation of
untalented sportsmen. The problem here is that for now the divide between the
Aussies and the rest of the cricketing nations is too wide. India is in the
same boat as are all the other countries...way behind and trying hard to catch
up. Doesn't mean that we or anyone else are untalented.

Agree with the rest of your post. Kartik or anyone else is not going to make
much of a difference for now.

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Samarth Sh » Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:47:01

Quote:


> <snip>

> >Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we

> We finished 2nd in the World Cup. I know that does not mean we are the 2nd best
> OD team in the World, but  it's a bit too harsh to say that we are a nation of
> untalented sportsmen. The problem here is that for now the divide between the
> Aussies and the rest of the cricketing nations is too wide. India is in the
> same boat as are all the other countries...way behind and trying hard to catch
> up. Doesn't mean that we or anyone else are untalented.

> Agree with the rest of your post. Kartik or anyone else is not going to make
> much of a difference for now.

Are you guys of the opinion that it wouldn't have mattered one way or
another whether we had picked Sarandeep (the incumbent) or Harbhajan
for the 2001 Aus series?

-Samarth.

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Shripathi Kamat » Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:56:31



Quote:

> > <snip>

> > >Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we

> > We finished 2nd in the World Cup. I know that does not mean we are the
2nd best
> > OD team in the World, but  it's a bit too harsh to say that we are a
nation of
> > untalented sportsmen. The problem here is that for now the divide
between the
> > Aussies and the rest of the cricketing nations is too wide. India is in
the
> > same boat as are all the other countries...way behind and trying hard to
catch
> > up. Doesn't mean that we or anyone else are untalented.

> > Agree with the rest of your post. Kartik or anyone else is not going to
make
> > much of a difference for now.

> Are you guys of the opinion that it wouldn't have mattered one way or
> another whether we had picked Sarandeep (the incumbent) or Harbhajan
> for the 2001 Aus series?

Speaking only for myself, pretty much.

Are you of the opinion that not picking Karthik now is the key reason they
could lose in Australia?

--
Shripathi Kamath

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Roshan Diwak » Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:56:35

Quote:



> > <snip>

> > >Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we

> > We finished 2nd in the World Cup. I know that does not mean we are the 2nd best
> > OD team in the World, but  it's a bit too harsh to say that we are a nation of
> > untalented sportsmen. The problem here is that for now the divide between the
> > Aussies and the rest of the cricketing nations is too wide. India is in the
> > same boat as are all the other countries...way behind and trying hard to catch
> > up. Doesn't mean that we or anyone else are untalented.

> > Agree with the rest of your post. Kartik or anyone else is not going to make
> > much of a difference for now.

> Are you guys of the opinion that it wouldn't have mattered one way or
> another whether we had picked Sarandeep (the incumbent) or Harbhajan
> for the 2001 Aus series?

May be we would have won 3-0 against Aussies if Sarandeep was there.
In fact, if we had Sarandeep playing the World Cup finals may be we
would have won that too. If Ponting had called 'tails' instead of
'heads' we would have won the TVS cup too. We'll never know shall we?
and thats the whole point.

If Sarandeep and Harbhajan are perceived to be equals than there is a
good possibility that he would have done well against Aussies just
like Bhajji and equally crapped like Bhajji in the WC finals

If suddenly Australian pitches start turning liked Indian pitches than
we would need both Kumble and Karthik. But if Australian pitches will
stay just like it is it doesn't matter who we pick.

Roshan

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> -Samarth.

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Roshan Diwak » Sat, 22 Nov 2003 01:33:53

Quote:


> <snip>

> >Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we

> We finished 2nd in the World Cup. I know that does not mean we are the 2nd best
> OD team in the World, but  it's a bit too harsh to say that we are a nation of
> untalented sportsmen.

Maybe we are just a bunch of over-achievers. Just look at the lack of
professionalism, lack fielding talent, lack of bowling talent, lack of
common sense batting talent, lack of Wicket keeping talent, lack of
leadership talent and yet we have produced some memorable results in
the past years

Roshan

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Samarth Sh » Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:04:07


Quote:





> > > <snip>

> > > >Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we

> > > We finished 2nd in the World Cup. I know that does not mean we are the
>  2nd best
> > > OD team in the World, but  it's a bit too harsh to say that we are a
>  nation of
> > > untalented sportsmen. The problem here is that for now the divide
>  between the
> > > Aussies and the rest of the cricketing nations is too wide. India is in
>  the
> > > same boat as are all the other countries...way behind and trying hard to
>  catch
> > > up. Doesn't mean that we or anyone else are untalented.

> > > Agree with the rest of your post. Kartik or anyone else is not going to
>  make
> > > much of a difference for now.

> > Are you guys of the opinion that it wouldn't have mattered one way or
> > another whether we had picked Sarandeep (the incumbent) or Harbhajan
> > for the 2001 Aus series?

> Speaking only for myself, pretty much.

So you think Sarandeep would've also bagged a 32-wicket haul in a 3
test series, had he been picked?

Quote:
> Are you of the opinion that not picking Karthik now is the key reason they
> could lose in Australia?

Not having seen Kartik/Balaji/Salvi/Pathan, I don't have any opinion
on the selection. I didn't have any opinion on the Sarandeep/Harbhajan
selection at the time, either. I felt sorry for Sarandeep then. He had
done nothing wrong. But in retrospect, it was obviously quite a
terrific decision to select Harby.

My argument is against the "X or Y, it doesn't matter" theory. IMO,
this was one clear example where it didn't work. X = Sarandeep, Y =
Harby. While they were both fringe players at the time, I doubt that
picking X instead of Y would NOT have made a significant difference.

If the "X or Y, it doesn't matter" theory is in fact correct, then we
don't need selectors. Anyone can pick Tendulkar and Dravid for the
national team. And the selection of the fringe players can be done
using a random number generator.

-Samarth.

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Samarth Sh » Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:31:51

Quote:




> > > <snip>

> > > >Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we

> > > We finished 2nd in the World Cup. I know that does not mean we are the 2nd best
> > > OD team in the World, but  it's a bit too harsh to say that we are a nation of
> > > untalented sportsmen. The problem here is that for now the divide between the
> > > Aussies and the rest of the cricketing nations is too wide. India is in the
> > > same boat as are all the other countries...way behind and trying hard to catch
> > > up. Doesn't mean that we or anyone else are untalented.

> > > Agree with the rest of your post. Kartik or anyone else is not going to make
> > > much of a difference for now.

> > Are you guys of the opinion that it wouldn't have mattered one way or
> > another whether we had picked Sarandeep (the incumbent) or Harbhajan
> > for the 2001 Aus series?

You didn't answer my question.

Quote:
> May be we would have won 3-0 against Aussies if Sarandeep was there.

In which case, it *would* have made a difference whether X was picked
or Y. Y could only take us to a 2-1 win, but if X could have taken us
to 3-0, then he should definitely have been picked, probably along
with Y.

Quote:
> In fact, if we had Sarandeep playing the World Cup finals may be we
> would have won that too. If Ponting had called 'tails' instead of
> 'heads' we would have won the TVS cup too. We'll never know shall we?
> and thats the whole point.

Obviously, we don't know who is going to make and who is not. But two
players who are equal in stature right now may not have the same
"ceiling" (to borrow a phrase from Sadiq) or indeed be in the same
sort of form.

Obviously, if we know who is going to well and who is not, then we
know whom to select. The idea is to *predict* this and that's why we
hire selectors.

"Both are fringe players, both are equal in stature right now, just
pick any one" is a recipe for disaster, because the prediction for the
two may not be the same.

<snip>

-Samarth.

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Shripathi Kamat » Sat, 22 Nov 2003 04:43:01



Quote:





> > > > <snip>

> > > > >Bottomline, is we are a nation of untalented sportsmen and we

> > > > We finished 2nd in the World Cup. I know that does not mean we are
the
> >  2nd best
> > > > OD team in the World, but  it's a bit too harsh to say that we are a
> >  nation of
> > > > untalented sportsmen. The problem here is that for now the divide
> >  between the
> > > > Aussies and the rest of the cricketing nations is too wide. India is
in
> >  the
> > > > same boat as are all the other countries...way behind and trying
hard to
> >  catch
> > > > up. Doesn't mean that we or anyone else are untalented.

> > > > Agree with the rest of your post. Kartik or anyone else is not going
to
> >  make
> > > > much of a difference for now.

> > > Are you guys of the opinion that it wouldn't have mattered one way or
> > > another whether we had picked Sarandeep (the incumbent) or Harbhajan
> > > for the 2001 Aus series?

> > Speaking only for myself, pretty much.

> So you think Sarandeep would've also bagged a 32-wicket haul in a 3
> test series, had he been picked?

Pretty much, yes.

If you want a non-facetious answer: I don't know.  I also don't know if
Bhaji will ever take a 32 wicket haul in a 3 test series, either.

He did then, more power to him.   Even the most ardent fans of the
decision-makers (whoever picked Bhaji) were not anticipating a 32 wicket
haul back then.

Quote:
> > Are you of the opinion that not picking Karthik now is the key reason
they
> > could lose in Australia?

> Not having seen Kartik/Balaji/Salvi/Pathan, I don't have any opinion
> on the selection. I didn't have any opinion on the Sarandeep/Harbhajan
> selection at the time, either. I felt sorry for Sarandeep then. He had
> done nothing wrong.

It is one thing to feel sorry, and another to go PP!

Quote:
> But in retrospect, it was obviously quite a
> terrific decision to select Harby.

Surely you don't mean to tell us that the ones who selected Bhaji knew that
it was that clear cut a decision, and that he was going to be wildly
successful.

Quote:
> My argument is against the "X or Y, it doesn't matter" theory.

Dude, he was emphasizing a point, that's all.  To comment on PP going nuts
over a marginal selection call.  Take it in that spirit, geez!

Quote:
> IMO,
> this was one clear example where it didn't work. X = Sarandeep, Y =
> Harby.

Nope, it does not mean it didn't work.  It only means that Bhaji succeeded
far beyond anyone's imagination, and we do not know about Sarandeep because
he did not play.  It is not as if Bhaji has been collecting 30 wickets each
3 test series since.

Unless of course there was evidence that Bhaji was clearly a better choice
over Sarandeep or vice-versa.  IIRC there wasn't.

Quote:
> While they were both fringe players at the time, I doubt that
> picking X instead of Y would NOT have made a significant difference.

We all have our doubts, they do not amount to proof.

In the England WC match, there was a choice to be made (I think) between
Aggy and Nehra.  Marginal one, imo.  Nehra took  7-fer or something.  It is
easy to say that it was not a marginal choice *now* because Aggy would not
have done as well.

Before the match though, it was a marginal call.

Quote:
> If the "X or Y, it doesn't matter" theory is in fact correct, then we
> don't need selectors. Anyone can pick Tendulkar and Dravid for the
> national team. And the selection of the fringe players can be done
> using a random number generator.

Strawman.

Roshan's point was on the impact of perceived clearcut choices in fringe
selections, and that is what I thought you were addressing when you brought
up Sarandeep and Harbhajan.  Two people are close enough (or are seen to be
close enough), and one gets picked.  Probably because the selectors see that
one little bit (correctly or incorrectly) that they believe may make it
wiser to pick one and not the other.

A random number generator won't do that.

The issue currently raised by PP is of Karthik over Kumble or Karthik not
over Kumble.  You and I may have strong opinions one way or the other, but I
think both of us would agree that playing in Australia, the (non)choice of
Karthik is a fringe issue.  There is no basis to suggest that he is a clear
cut choice over Kumble or Bhaji.  In the same manner that there was no clear
cut evidence to select Bhaji over Sarandeep if your account of the
prevailing conditions is accurate, and I'll assume it is.

What happens after the fact is a little different.  If Kumble gets a couple
of 5fers on this tour, someone (maybe me) will jump and claim "See I told ya
so!"

And if Karthik gets sent in as a replacement midway, and ends up taking a
10fer in a match, someone else will jump and claim a similar thing.

Neither of that makes the decision on Karthik *today* anything more than a
fringe selection.

I am not saying that the selectors always get it right, but PP seems to have
concluded that it was totally a disastrous choice, and has attached some
huge amount of importance to that call.

Roshan's point (I think) is focused on that aspect alone:  "If only we had
Karthik", "If only we had Laxman in the WC", "If only our run chase strategy
against Australia in the WC was different"

Put each of those against

"We are facing these Aussies, possible the greatest side ever, in Australia,
where we currently appear outmatched"
"Aussies put up 369!"
"Aussies put up 369!"   (This last one did get somewhat tested in the match
against Australia before the finals, BTW)

--
Shripathi Kamath

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Gami » Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:27:01

Quote:

>Maybe we are just a bunch of >over-achievers. Just look at the lack of
>professionalism, lack fielding talent, lack >of bowling talent, lack of
>common sense batting talent, lack of >Wicket keeping talent, lack of
>leadership talent and yet we have >produced some memorable results in
>the past years

>Roshan

This team definitely does not overachieve. How I wish that we had a bunch of
untalented overachievers. At least you wouldn't be left frustrated.

For someone to win without being talented, and to overachieve, would mean
they're hustling and working their tails off. As you aptly put it, Indian team
leaves a lot to be desired in the hustle department. IMO that proves that the
sole thing that is keeping them in these games (except most of the ones against
Aus :)) is their talent.

Coming to the hustle thing, one thing I noticed when India fields is for 2
fielders to be pointing their arm and indicating to the fielder in the deep as
to where the ball was  going. Can't the fielder in the deep see where the ball
was going without the assistance of those 2? Can't one of them dive and at
least try to make a play, rather than just point lazily and assume that someone
else is going to make the play. I never saw the Aussie fielders do that. They
were diving all over the place and making plays. This is the most shameful
part. We can blame our homegrown pitches for not preparing us adequately for
foreign conditions. Where is the excuse though when fielders from another
country come to our soil and throw themselves to save runs while we drop
catches, and hardly dive to stop the ball?  Again none of this would probably
make a difference, but their attitude is definitely not that of overachievers.

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Roshan Diwak » Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:57:02

Quote:
> This team definitely does not overachieve. How I wish that we had a bunch of
> untalented overachievers. At least you wouldn't be left frustrated.

> For someone to win without being talented, and to overachieve, would mean
> they're hustling and working their tails off. As you aptly put it, Indian team
> leaves a lot to be desired in the hustle department. IMO that proves that the
> sole thing that is keeping them in these games (except most of the ones against
> Aus :)) is their talent.

> Coming to the hustle thing, one thing I noticed when India fields is for 2
> fielders to be pointing their arm and indicating to the fielder in the deep as
> to where the ball was  going. Can't the fielder in the deep see where the ball
> was going without the assistance of those 2? Can't one of them dive and at
> least try to make a play, rather than just point lazily and assume that someone
> else is going to make the play. I never saw the Aussie fielders do that. They
> were diving all over the place and making plays. This is the most shameful
> part. We can blame our homegrown pitches for not preparing us adequately for
> foreign conditions. Where is the excuse though when fielders from another
> country come to our soil and throw themselves to save runs while we drop
> catches, and hardly dive to stop the ball?  Again none of this would probably
> make a difference, but their attitude is definitely not that of overachievers.

But how do you say professionalism is not part of the talent?. Isn't
it the same brain which controls all these things? The point I was
trying to say is there is no such thing is over & uder achieving. If
something is yielding X for some period of time, then X is its
potential.

As far as Indians diving, it is not the International picthes which
gets them in the habit of diving. It is the place where they learn
cricket. So if you are playing on a tarmac road or a field full of
stones, it is damn difficult to dive. If you havn't learned to dive in
your formative years, it will always look awkward when you start at 25

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Ramakrishnan » Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:56:38


Quote:

>  no selector can promote
> Sujith Somasunder

Ha! That's what you think.

Cheers,
Bonda Basher

Quote:

> Roshan

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by DiiVolu » Sun, 23 Nov 2003 05:35:51

Quote:

> You can't suppress true talent or promote useless players at this
> level. No selector will suppress Tendulkar and no selector can promote
> Sujith Somasunder

> Roshan

Sir,

A person of chandu borde 's experience and calibre dropped Sunil
Gavaskar and picked lalchand rajput instead. Only Captain Kapil came
to rescue..

The whole selection committee voted 5-0 5 to drop Vishwanath and
replace him with Pranob Roy... captain Gavaskar to rescue..

The selection committee dropped Vengsarkar for shivarmakrishnan. Only
Captain insisted on taking 17th player saved vengsarkar..

all cases are equivalent of replacing Tendulkar with Somsundar..

regards
Pranshu B Saxena

 
 
 

500 Million blind men: India's cricket tragedy

Post by Andrew Dunfor » Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:21:04


Quote:

> > "Both are fringe players, both are equal in stature right now, just
> > pick any one" is a recipe for disaster, because the prediction for the
> > two may not be the same.

> Lets look at Pointing's Dilemma before the final. He had to select
> either 'Tails' or 'Heads' before the match. Now we all know Heads and
> Tails are equally talented. He chose 'heads' and ultimately that
> proved to be a match winner.

> How did he know that 'Heads' would perform better than 'Tails'? He did
> not. And the prediction for the two was not the same as 'Heads'
> performed significantly better than 'Tails'. But, I dont see
> Australian media going ga-ga over Ponting's selection

> OTOH, I dont see New Zealand media throwing flak at Fleming for making
> the wrong selection in the semi-final

The NZ media -  being a compassionate lot - decided it would be harsh to
criticise Fleming for losing the toss, on the grounds that he didn't play in
the match in question.

<snip>

Andrew