NO LONGER NUMBER ONE - BCCI must look into Bharat's poor performance

NO LONGER NUMBER ONE - BCCI must look into Bharat's poor performance

Post by Dr. Jai Mahar » Sat, 27 Aug 2011 02:22:08

No longer number one

The Pioneer
Thursday, August 25, 2011

BCCI must look into India's poor performance

The Indian cricket team's dismal loss against England in the Test
series has exposed its weakness in the longer format and clearly it
is now time that both players and their selectors gave equal
attention to all three forms of the game. On Monday at the Oval India
suffered its worst series-defeat in England since 1959 after it lost
the fourth and final Test by eight runs. Being the ODI world champion
and the number one Test team as well, few had expected that India
would surrender so easily to the English team without even putting up
a semblance of a fight. There are of course many reasons the pundits
have attributed to India's below par performance. Chief among them is
the absence of pace spearhead Zaheer Khan who was injured during the
first Test and had to return home. Zaheer Khan's presence was key to
the Indian bowling offensive as he could have reverse swung the old
ball with ease and picked up some crucial wickets on the way.
Additionally, Virendra Sehwag's absence from the first and second
Test matches also served as a body blow to India. Even when he
returned to the field, he had not fully recovered from his crippling
shoulder injury. As a result, his characteristic blitzkrieg-like
attack was missing. His partner Gautam Gambhir also performed
miserably. And then, of course, had to miss the second Test on
grounds of injury. To make matters worse, India's middle order,
comprising VVS Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar, MS Dhoni and Suresh Raina,
failed to put up good show. Not one of them hit a single hundred.
Even Sachin Tendulkar got just two fifties, which is below his
standard. Captain MS Dhoni failed to lead from the front during the
crisis period. His own batting performance was dismal and he
continued to blame his batsmen for the debacle. Amidst this ruin,
Rahul Dravid was the only one who remained firm and scored 488 runs
which included three centuries.

India's bowling was sub-standard with Praveen Kumar getting in some
late swing but his pace was too slow to trouble the English batsmen.
The pace duo of Ishant Sharma and Sreeshanth floundered in their line
and length. This allowed England's batsmen to pile up runs at will.
Star bowler Harbhajan Singh did not live up to his reputation and
failed to leave his mark. Overall, India's bowlers performed just as
poorly as their counterparts in the batting line-up. The team was
horribly under-prepared and unfit for English conditions. It has been
rightly pointed out that the seeds of destruction were sown by the
BCCI which had drawn up a monetarily lucrative schedule that
nonetheless left players with little time to recover from previous
games or recoup from their injuries. Hopefully, BCCI will ponder over
what went wrong on this tour, and so will the team.


 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anna rattles BCCI

By vedam on 8/25/2011 7:01:05 AM

BCCI fat cat is sucking *** because the ruling Muammar Quotaffis to
deflect public attention from their nefarious deeds have been
propping up this fat cat with unstinted support. It is surprising
that despite the bogus game of cricket ruining the sanity of Indians
they managed to wake up in support of Anna!!!

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

incorrect title 1

By Vijay on 8/25/2011 4:15:45 AM

I think, it is not BCCI which needs to look into India's
performance,but India which needs to scrutinize what the BCCI does. I
do not think that players are that responsible,the schedule for the
team with scant regard for player health indicates something.
Possibly the BCCI profiteers,arranged things, and felt that India
would lose by narrow margins, sadly India lost by dramatic margins.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More at:

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

     o  Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
     o  If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
     o  Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to:
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.