Jump to content

sandeep

Members L2
  • Content count

    8,542
  • Runs

    255,230 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26
  • Time Online

    123d 16h 34m 2s

Everything posted by sandeep

  1. Shreyas Iyer. Sanju Samson. Rishabh Pant. Karun Nair. Sarfraz Khan. And the latest addition to the mix, chota packet promising to be the next big dhamaka - Prithvi Shaw. All of these guys seem to have that 'it' factor when it comes to their batting. That certain something that jumps out when you watch them bat - plenty of timing, a plethora of strokes, and a willingness to take the attack to the bowlers. But take a bit of a closer look, and you can start to see telltale signs of inconsistency - a tendency to "live hard or die trying". Given the way the economic and 'popularity' incentives are stacked in favor of "modern" bats who are capable of exciting stroke-play, its not hard to see why the teenyboppers of Indian batting are all out to emulate the ABDVs and Rohit Sharmas of the world, as opposed to the Gavaskars and dare I say, even the great Sachin Tendulkar. Gone are the days where the domestic circuit prioritized, taught and honed the ability of a young batsman's ability to put a premium price on his wicket. These days, all you hear in terms of "cutting edge conventional wisdom" is the tiresome cliche of "expressing yourself" and "playing your natural game". So widespread is the epidemic in India's young ranks,, that even the normally reticent Rahul Dravid felt compelled to publicly call out some of his wards. An annoyed Dravid was quoted as dismissing all this emphasis on "natural game" as "frustrating". Dravid chose to make his point with an unusually strong choice of words. Strong words they might be, but I feel that it will be inevitably swamped by the tsunami of $$$$ that has flooded cricket since the inception of the IPL. After all, what will a young Indian cricketer aspire to be, considering the cricket circuit today - Why should he devote his energies to building his skills like say, a Murali Vijay, Che Pujara, or even an Ajinkya Rahane? When a test cricket 'failure' like Rohit Sharma is a multi-millionaire superstar IPL team captain, and gets to be a glory hogging ODI opener for the national team because of his ability to hit sixes? To some extent, this evolution of incentives and the corresponding evolution in batting is not restricted to India alone. One look at the young batsmen coming through the ranks in England and Australia will show you a markedly 'same-ness' in the ranks. James Vince. Marcus Stoinis. Chris Lynn. Glenn Maxwell. I wonder where the next Rahul Dravid will come from. Or if he will show up at all. Cricket will be poorer for it, if he doesn't.
  2. Shreyas Iyer. Sanju Samson. Rishabh Pant. Karun Nair. Sarfraz Khan. And the latest addition to the mix, chota packet promising to be the next big dhamaka - Prithvi Shaw. All of these guys seem to have that 'it' factor when it comes to their batting. That certain something that jumps out when you watch them bat - plenty of timing, a plethora of strokes, and a willingness to take the attack to the bowlers. But take a bit of a closer look, and you can start to see telltale signs of inconsistency - a tendency to "live hard or die trying". Given the way the economic and 'popularity' incentives are stacked in favor of "modern" bats who are capable of exciting stroke-play, its not hard to see why the teenyboppers of Indian batting are all out to emulate the ABDVs and Rohit Sharmas of the world, as opposed to the Gavaskars and dare I say, even the great Sachin Tendulkar. Gone are the days where the domestic circuit prioritized, taught and honed the ability of a young batsman's ability to put a premium price on his wicket. These days, all you hear in terms of "cutting edge conventional wisdom" is the tiresome cliche of "expressing yourself" and "playing your natural game". So widespread is the epidemic in India's young ranks,, that even the normally reticent Rahul Dravid felt compelled to publicly call out some of his wards. An annoyed Dravid was quoted as dismissing all this emphasis on "natural game" as "frustrating". Dravid chose to make his point with an unusually strong choice of words. Strong words they might be, but I feel that it will be inevitably swamped by the tsunami of $$$$ that has flooded cricket since the inception of the IPL. After all, what will a young Indian cricketer aspire to be, considering the cricket circuit today - Why should he devote his energies to building his skills like say, a Murali Vijay, Che Pujara, or even an Ajinkya Rahane? When a test cricket 'failure' like Rohit Sharma is a multi-millionaire superstar IPL team captain, and gets to be a glory hogging ODI opener for the national team because of his ability to hit sixes? To some extent, this evolution of incentives and the corresponding evolution in batting is not restricted to India alone. One look at the young batsmen coming through the ranks in England and Australia will show you a markedly 'same-ness' in the ranks. James Vince. Marcus Stoinis. Chris Lynn. Glenn Maxwell. I wonder where the next Rahul Dravid will come from. Or if he will show up at all. Cricket will be poorer for it, if he doesn't.
  3. Banjo froggy you are the master of continually missing the point.
  4. I think Shreyas Iyer for one, definitely needs to learn to put a price on his wicket in certain situations, and not just go for his shots all the time. He's too good a player to not do that.
  5. Respect is mutual EB! And I don't think that the likes of Iyer, Samson, Nair can claim inexperience for much longer. Pant and Shaw, of course can. Personally I have high hopes for Iyer and Samson, and I feel like they haven't done justice to their talent and skillsets at this point. Indian cricket is a brutally competitive arena, especially for batsmen. With a bit of bad luck, even the best of prospects can spend an entire career waiting for opportunities that never materialize. I don't want to see potential talents "miss the bus" and turn into the next Manoj Tiwary. Although that's a bit harsh - But I'm sure you get what I'm saying.
  6. Bhau, we are on the same page on this - See this in my first post on this subject:
  7. +1. One of my favorite Veeru innings is his away hundred in the 2007-08 series in Australia. It wasn't his usual slam-bang stuff. It was a "You shall not Pass" effort. And one of his finest. Veeru had an under-rated defensive game. And he drew the right lessons from his 195 at Melbourne. He was quoted after getting caught off fulltoss, saying that he was satisfied with the runs he scored. And a few years later, he was quoted as saying that he later realized that his dismissal ended up causing India to lose that match - he had the Aussies on the mat before he went for that hoick, and it would have been a very different game, if he had batted on for even another 30-40 minutes or so. Even Warner is not a guy who throws it away. He is a Sehwag shishya in the truest sense of the word. Especially in test cricket.
  8. Of course younger players should be given a long rope to learn to adapt etc. I have no qualms if a Rishabh Pant fails a few times. But like you said, a Manish Pandey getting himself out in a crucial situation, trying to run the ball to third-man is atrocious shot selection from a guy who's been "around" for a bit. I mean, even experienced players can have brain-farts once in a while, but Manish got himself out playing that stupid dab twice in the handful of games against Australia. Shreyas Iyer is a guy that I will expect to show improvement on this front - again, no issues if he fails a few times. That's cricket. But if he keeps throwing away his wicket with poor shot selection, in this silly quest to maintain his self-image as a batsman who "dominates" bowlers, then its a problem that needs to be addressed. In any event, I posted my thoughts in this thread not to single out an Iyer or a Pandey. Just more of a general observation of a fan on the developing trends in Indian cricket. I don't know much about Shubham Gill apart from the fact that he did well on the u19 series against England, home and away. And saw a nice little 2 min promotional video made by Cricinfo. Armaan Jaffer is one young kid, who is supposedly old school in his batting approach, and is considered to have potential. And I'm sure there are others out there.
  9. I wasn't talking about you. And I agree that Pant should not be written off. That was kindof my point. But there are plenty here who will move on to the next "name".
  10. And yet, its the Delhi IPL team, that on Dravid's advice, has shelled out big $$$ to all of these young guns - Iyer, Karun, Samson. Dravid has his limitations as an LOI bat, even as a test bat. But I don't think anyone can honestly cast aspersions on his motives, or his insights on Indian cricket or the young batsmen whose development he's currently overseeing.
  11. So you started with a theory, that may not apply to me (and fyi, it really doesn't). Accused me of it, without any basis, just because its a pet peeve of yours. Lahori logic. You can do better than that.
  12. Overall numbers can still be maintained at a high level, even if a batsman is unwilling to buckle down when needed. For me, I have been following Shreyas Iyer a bit, since he burst onto the scene in his first Ranji season. He is a prime example of a talent that is at risk of not maxmizing his potential. I still want to see him in the Indian team sooner rather than later, but I want to see him 'finish' games more often than he has. He has a troubling pattern of scoring attractive 40s, 50s. But getting out instead of finishing the job. Because he wants to "dominate" the bowlers, as his "natural game". He's clearly a capable bat, but to me, is underachieving. And Dravid's words on him have the unmistakeable ring of truth.
  13. He's a quality bowler. Only risk for him is durability. Seems to be a bit on the shorter side, and doesn't look to be super-strong. Hope he stays fit and keeps performing at the high level he has so far. He's a quintessential 110 percenter. I always like guys who put in genuine effort in the game. Don't like his silly celebrations though.
  14. This is a thoroughly incorrect reading of my post. I didn't say they lack grit, I'm asking whether they care enough about being gritty. My point is that the economic incentives and the current "fashion" of natural game etc is changing the definition of what a successful batsman should be. And guess what? I'm agreeing with Rahul Dravid - a giant of the game, in deed as well as thought. Forget my words. Scroll back up and read the direct quote of what Dravid said, in the first post. By the way, asking to prioritize grit, and placing a value on your wicket, doesn't automatically mean I want them to stonewall away at a scoring rate of 1960s cricket. That's an extrapolation you made without any basis. And please, get your head out of your ass while you are on a hiding to nothing in terms of just being contrarian for the sake of it. I mean, in one post you claim that Gavaskar had all the shots and was forced to play defensive, while in another you claim there is no place for a Gavaskar in the modern era? Which one is it? Sachin may have been aggressive in his scoring approach, but you could never, ever accuse him of being flashy at the cost of giving his wicket away. Especially while he was coming through the ranks in domestic cricket. IIRC he scored hundreds on debut in Ranji, Duleep and Irani trophy. And he would never say something like what Shreyas Iyer said after getting out for 80-odd in a crucial game - "Oh I have scored enough runs this season, with my 'natural game', I got out. Its ok". Tendy is a batsman from the Ramakant Achrekar school of batting. Apocryphal story of the one rupee coin and all. Repeating nonsense x number of times doesn't really convert it into sense. You keep missing the forest for the trees in this thread. I guess the fact that I mentioned tailunt's failure as a test player probably got your panties all twisted up into knots.
  15. Banjo why is common sense so uncommon.
  16. Debunked? How so? And yes, you have completely misinterpreted my words. How you came to the conclusion that this post is somehow a justification for selecting Nehra or Yuvi etc only a psychiatrist can decipher, maybe after a few sessions of electro-shock therapy.
  17. ummeed pe dunya qaayam hai, mere dost. Plus he's the new shiny toy. And a big chunk of ICF is tired of Dhoni's old greybeard face. Kuch nayaa lao. In the NFL, its a touchstone aphorism that there is no player more popular on the 50 man roster, than the 2nd choice quarterback. Especially if he's a young player yet to get a proper chance. He's widely viewed with a halo - almost a sure-shot to "make the team great again". Given Pant's skill-set - he's, at a minimum, a decent keeper, and possesses the ability to thwack the ball - he's sure to get plenty of chances. He's still barely in his twenties. Time is on his side. At least in the real world. In the ICF world, wait for the FanBois to dump him and start jizzing on the next u-19 Keeper who smacks a few sixes.
  18. As usual. Reading comprehension fail. Ek kaam kar. Thodi coffee pee le. Phir shaant ho jaa. Phir dheere se read kar. A couple of times if you need to. Slowly. Then you might start to understand the point being made.
  19. +1. Its not just a lack of coaching - its an exposure to high level competitive cricket that provides the fire needed to forge int'l class talent. This is why Pakistan is down in the dumps struggling for the #6 rank with the likes of SL etc. The PSL is a step in the right direction, and will help them improve on the LOI front, but the lack of test class batting talent in the Pak squad is a direct result of their shoddy FC cricket. I think there' s a journalist who tweeted a damning list of issues with domestic cricket, Abbasi something - it was a bunch of serialized tweets, documenting how the PCB has randomly chopped and changed their domestic structure around, year after year, and none of the changes make any sense. This is not rocket science. A few minor tweaks could result in Pakistan having a decent FC circuit in a very short amount of time. But I guess there are a lot of vested interests who wouldn't really allow the needed changes to occur without a fight.
  20. Brotherhood of millenia cannot be wiped off just from a few decades of misguided hostility. 80 years is nothing. Give it another 30-40 years, and things can and will get better between India-Pakistan. I'm an eternal optimist.
  21. If you are looking for "good debates" then you need to bring a bit of intellectual honesty to the table. Agree that hatred is useless. But pointing out facts, especially those are relevant, even critical to the question and subject at hand, cannot be dismissed as "fingerpointing". That's just a self-serving attempt at superficially claiming the "high road" while taking the low one in actuality. You presented a perspective that claims that Cricket should be played between India & Pakistan. When presented with opposing opinions, you choose to dismiss them as hatred, instead of arguing against the logic. And threw out strawman arguments claiming that posters are calling Pakistanis as terrorists - when overwhelming majority, if not all the posts on this thead, simply don't do that. That doesn't reflect someone "looking for a good debate", it reflects a close-minded person unable to stomach reality checks from differing perspectives. Colloquially known as Kuwey ka mendhak in the sub-continent. I.e. Frog in the well syndrome.
  22. K Gowtham for senior team

    Probably will get a contract in the upcoming auction. LOI FC numbers certainly show promise on the batting front. I really hope that IPL expands to 10 teams sooner rather than later.
  23. Not sure where I got "personal". And while I agree that ICF certainly has a lot of improvement in terms of discussion quality, on this particular subject, and in this thread, sorry I have to disagree with you. You seem to be dismissive of perspectives that don't mirror your own. Your loss IMO.

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×