Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ankit_sharma03

The series that exposed Kambli's weakness against short balls.

Recommended Posts

 

 

Since i started watching cricket post 96, never had the real answer to what led to downfall of kambli and well this seams like a good one. People who followed his career can they tell what happened post this ? Was it a total regression or it grew on and started affecting his whole batting like in case of raina. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ankit_sharma03 said:

 

 

Since i started watching cricket post 96, never had the real answer to what led to downfall of kambli and well this seams like a good one. People who followed his career can they tell what happened post this ? Was it a total regression or it grew on and started affecting his whole batting like in case of raina. 

 

Yes, this was the beginning of the end for his test career. He had actually played okay in the ODIs preceding the test series against the WI but couldn't withstand the short ball barrage in the tests. Actually, the entire batting line up crumbled in the final test as the WI bowlers bowled fast and furious to help their team come back from a 0-1 series deficit to make it 1-1. Other batters also flopped but Kambli was the most brutally exposed for his failure. He featured in a test series against NZ in 1995 but didn't do much. After this came the 96 world cup with that disaster of a semifinal against SL. After the WC, he was dropped from the ODI squad even though his numbers weren't too shabby. It seems he had off field issues like drunken meltdowns at team hotel which led to his ouster. Just months later, Ganguly and Dravid made impresive debuts on the England tour. This meant Kambli and Manjrekar were both out of contention for middle order spots, at-least for a while. Manjrekar retired in 97. Kambli made sporadic comebacks to ODIs as late as 2000 but he had put on weight and didnt seem to have the earlier spark. He played first class cricket in South Africa around 2002-2003 but by then the ship had already sailed. 

Share this post


Link to post

Kambli, who was a MO batsmen, was asked to open the batting iirc, then the short ball stuff used to drop him. 
 

There are not too many Indian batsmen good against hostile short bowling. Afterwards, the team was bundled out for nothing chasing 120 odd in a test in WI (pitch also got tougher in that game) 
 

 

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post

His issues were not technical but more off field issues. 
 

Kohli looked poor against WI in his first series vs short pitch bowling.

 

Ganguly who ironically replaced him was poor against short pitch throughout his career.

 

Raina will be  considered an Indian LOI legend, looks like a tailender against short pitch.

 

Also remember he did have enough backing from Sachin and powerful Mumbai board behind him.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

There are many who defend Kambli on cricketing grounds, but this guy takes it far down the caste debate and says Laxman was given too many chances because of his Upper caste. Aise bhi hote hain.

 

 

Laxman was shunted up and down the order until he proved with 167 in Sydney

While clearly ignoring Kambli’s off field shenanigans and the fact that Laxman is one of the most disciplined and nicest guys around.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

There are many who defend Kambli on cricketing grounds, but this guy takes it far down the caste debate and says Laxman was given too many chances because of his Upper caste. Aise bhi hote hain.

 

 

Laxman was shunted up and down the order until he proved with 167 in Sydney

Looks like after polluting movies, Varun Gobar/Nirodh Kashyap gang have now set their eyes on kirkut. 

 

Vinod Kambli was reduced to his assumed (‘lowest’) caste identity

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

There are many who defend Kambli on cricketing grounds, but this guy takes it far down the caste debate and says Laxman was given too many chances because of his Upper caste. Aise bhi hote hain.

 

 

Laxman was shunted up and down the order until he proved with 167 in Sydney

Varun Grover might be wrong, but it's a fact that cricket is too much upper caste dominated game (or at least used to be).

 

You can say that cricket is merit based, but somehow larger sections of society have missed out. How is it possible that cricketers come from smaller section of society mostly. Either those section are somehow toot talented and have some sort for genetic advantage or Indian cricket somehow has failed to be inclusive.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/why-no-dalit-cricketers-in-india-20180531-p4zim6.html

 

There was a time when Indian cricket had 7 Brahmin players - Brahmins who constitute 4-5% of Indian population.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/a-class-act-opinions-differ-20080105-gdrvmw.html

 

Quote

The Brahmin caste, which forms only a tiny fraction of India's population, has always dominated the national cricket side.

Even today, with the game reaching further and further into the countryside, and the so-called lower orders, the Indian team has a decided flavour with Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, R.P. Singh and Ishant Sharma all Brahmins.

 

 

Ravi Shastri thinks it's just a coinicidence 

 

Quote

Similarly, Ravi Shastri, a former Indian Test captain and now the chairman of the national cricket academy. The preponderance of Brahmin players, especially batsmen, "is just coincidence". 

 

Quote

Not all agree. Siriyavan Anand, a Dalit (the caste formerly called untouchables), has written provocatively and critically of the Brahmin domination, suggesting it was easy to "infer that cricket is a game that best suits Brahmanical tastes and bodies, and that there has been a preponderance of Brahman cricket players at the national level".

 

"Why do their fielders not chase the ball to the boundary? Why do Indian batsmen rarely run for singles, apparently preferring to hit the ball to the fence or amble through for two runs in no obvious haste?" Anand wrote. "Having too many Brahmans means that you play the game a little too softly, and mostly for yourself."

 
 
Quote

Despite his talents, Kambli was always booed and mocked at his home ground, Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. Observers believed it was because of the dark colour of his skin. Not so, says Kambli. "I think it's because of my caste."

Quote

Siddhartha can see caste as a possible explanation for the Brahmin dominance, particularly in batting. "Traditionally, cricket has been an elitist sport, and in terms of the physique and what you need as a batsman, it's more skill, wrist and angles than what you need as a fast bowler or fielder," he says. "That probably explains it in a way. If you look at the body structure of the higher castes, you would find they aren't as athletic as they are deft."

 
 

 

 

https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-retreat-of-the-brahmin/218913

 

Quote

In a nation that has produced eight Brahmin prime ministers out of 13 (with non-Brahmins accounting for six years of rule in 55 years of Independence), a nation where despite decades of affirmative action and Mandalisation the top echelons of bureaucracy continue to be dominated by Brahmins, it should perhaps not be surprising that cricket, another national obsession, should also suffer from a similar statistical truth.

Quote

There's no escaping the facts (see box). Through the 1960s till the 1990s, Test-playing Indian teams have averaged at least six Brahmins, sometimes even nine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Varun Grover might be wrong, but it's a fact that cricket is too much upper caste dominated game (or at least used to be).

 

You can say that cricket is merit based, but somehow larger sections of society have missed out. How is it possible that cricketers come from smaller section of society mostly. Either those section are somehow toot talented and have some sort for genetic advantage or Indian cricket somehow has failed to be inclusive.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/why-no-dalit-cricketers-in-india-20180531-p4zim6.html

 

There was a time when Indian cricket had 7 Brahmin players - Brahmins who constitute 4-5% of Indian population.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/a-class-act-opinions-differ-20080105-gdrvmw.html

 

 

 

Ravi Shastri thinks it's just a coinicidence 

 

 

 

 

https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-retreat-of-the-brahmin/218913

 

 

I rest my case, if you want to debate casteism on kirkut, and not about class, nepotism, regionalistic groupism, you are welcome. But casteism in kirkut selection is political witch-hunt which I will oppose. How do you think Binny, Kirti Azad. Amarnaths got prioritized selections over others? There is no casteism, but nepotism or favoritisms. Don’t equate the two and add to the political debates 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

You can say that cricket is merit based, but somehow larger sections of society have missed out. How is it possible that cricketers come from smaller section of society mostly. Either those section are somehow toot talented and have some sort for genetic advantage or Indian cricket somehow has failed to be inclusive.

It shouldn't be too hard then to list examples of deserving cricketers who couldn't make the national side because of their caste/religion/ethnicity etc. How many such cricketers can you come up with? 

Edited by Jimmy Cliff

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

I rest my case, if you want to debate casteism on kirkut, and not about class, nepotism, regionalistic groupism, you are welcome. But casteism in kirkut selection is political witch-hunt which I will oppose. How do you think Binny, Kirti Azad. Amarnaths got prioritized selections over others? There is no casteism, but nepotism or favoritisms. Don’t equate the two and add to the political debates 

I think you didn't read my post completely. Adding part of it again.

 

Quote

You can say that cricket is merit based, but somehow larger sections of society have missed out. How is it possible that cricketers come from smaller section of society mostly. Either those section are somehow toot talented and have some sort for genetic advantage or Indian cricket somehow has failed to be inclusive.

How do you explain Brahmins who constitute 5% of Indian population had 6 players on average in Indian test team from 1960-1990s. Sometimes this number could go as high as 9? 

 

There has to be some reason. It's not a small difference which can't be explained.

 

It's a fact and opposing it won't change the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

It shouldn't be too hard then to list examples of deserving cricketers who couldn't make the national side because of their caste/religion/ethnicity etc. How many such cricketers can you come up with? 

System didn't discriminate at higher levels. For lower levels, I have no clue. 

 

If you already have to pick among a pool of 100 players out which 70% are already Brahmins at say FC level, then how will find discrimination at test level. Test cricket has been mostly merit based apart from regional and personal preferences.

 

I just pointed that if 4% of population has 60-70% of cricketers then there has to be a reason, right?

 

Blacks dominate athletics - there is a reason for that - it's not discrimination, rather genetics.

 

What's the reason for Brahmin's dominance in this case? It may not be discrimination, but there would be something. This ia cricket forum where probably we should into all aspects/factors - political, social, economical, historical, techonological, environment.

 

Like I said, it's a fact in Indian cricket and ignoring it or pretending that this statistical fact doesn't exist, doesn't mean it will cease to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

I think you didn't read my post completely. Adding part of it again.

 

How do you explain Brahmins who constitute 5% of Indian population had 6 players on average in Indian test team from 1960-1990s. Sometimes this number could go as high as 9? 

 

There has to be some reason. It's not a small difference which can't be explained.

 

It's a fact and opposing it won't change the fact.

I have already answered - it is cricketing performance, nepotism, classism and regionilistic favoritisms. Nobody in the team was promoting casteism, if you are indicating with those stats. Look at how the team was comprised of urban and semi-urban cities in the teams of 60s- 90s. It was about cricketing culture that Urbans were good rather than casteism 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

I have already answered - it is cricketing performance, nepotism, classism and regionilistic favoritisms. Nobody in the team was promoting casteism, if you are indicating with those stats. Look at how the team was comprised of urban and semi-urban cities in the teams of 60s- 90s. It was about cricketing culture that Urbans were good rather than casteism 

Because cricket facilities were limited outside big centers. Not because they were equally equipped and cricketers were simply better. But now cricket has expanded and we have cricketers are coming from smaller centers.

 

Geographical limitations are understandable. Most of the changes start from bigger centers and then spread to smaller centers slowly. 

 

Still there is no explanation or reason for 4% of population forming 60% of cricketing population.

 

Are you saying that Brahmins are simply better cricketers than other people from other caste? And gulf of quality is massively deep? If yes, then what's the reason for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Trichromatic said:

System didn't discriminate at higher levels. For lower levels, I have no clue. 

 

If you already have to pick among a pool of 100 players out which 70% are already Brahmins at say FC level, then how will find discrimination at test level. Test cricket has been mostly merit based apart from regional and personal preferences.

 

I just pointed that if 4% of population has 60-70% of cricketers then there has to be a reason, right?

 

Blacks dominate athletics - there is a reason for that - it's not discrimination, rather genetics.

 

What's the reason for Brahmin's dominance in this case? It may not be discrimination, but there would be something.

I can only guess too. With cricket being a relatively expensive sport and the dominant format of the game (FC/Tests) taking 4/5 days perhaps it was only the relatively well-off folks who could think of it as a career option in the first few decades. Which is why it was dominated by players from the metros (with quite a few off them being Brahmins) up until the 90s. With more money coming into the game (and India in general post "liberalization") it gradually became more "decentralized". I'd be open to other non-inane ideas too.

 

However, the likes of Gobar are suggesting something far more institutionalized and sinister at work (his own countrymen rooted for Kambli to fail? WTF?) and must be called out for their BS. You're going down an extremely slippery slope if you import US-style identity politics crap in India especially when it comes to cricket which is something that still unites the country.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Because cricket facilities were limited outside big centers. Not because they were equally equipped and cricketers were simply better. But now cricket has expanded and we have cricketers are coming from smaller centers.

 

Geographical limitations are understandable. Most of the changes start from bigger centers and then spread to smaller centers slowly. 

 

Still there is no explanation or reason for 4% of population forming 60% of cricketing population.

 

Are you saying that Brahmins are simply better cricketers than other people from other caste? And gulf of quality is massively deep? If yes, then what's the reason for that?

Are you thick? It is about class privilege than casteism as you and other Ambedkarites are insinuating. It is about who had access to facilities and not caste discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Are you thick? It is about class privilege than casteism as you and other Ambedkarites are insinuating. It is about who had access to facilities and not caste discrimination.

Forget discrimination.

 

If possible don't bring discrimination in discussion. There is no discrimination.

 

Question is very simple and nothing to do with discrimination - How Brahmins are so good cricketers that despite being 4% of population they formed over 50% of Indian test cricketers most of the time? (It's already given that they are better cricketer, hence higher numbers).

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

Forget discrimination.

 

If possible don't bring discrimination in discussion. There is no discrimination.

 

Question is very simple and nothing to do with discrimination - How Brahmins are so good cricketers that despite being 4% of population they formed over 50% of Indian test cricketers most of the time? (It's already given that they are better cricketer, hence higher numbers).

I think jimmy cliff makes a valid argument. Post liberalization, cricket decentralised to more remote parts of the country. Prior to that, accessibility to cricket infra was probably easier for people in urban and sub-urban parts. Don't think there is genetics angle. 

 

So most likely reason is probably earlier access to better infrastructure for urban/sub-urban class, which is mostly upper caste.

 

Not sure if institutional discrimination is too rampant anymore because end of the day professional sport is about winning. It could have been an issue early on, but now I think it's mostly just sifarshi/nepotism at worst.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

Forget discrimination.

 

If possible don't bring discrimination in discussion. There is no discrimination.

 

Question is very simple and nothing to do with discrimination - How Brahmins are so good cricketers that despite being 4% of population they formed over 50% of Indian test cricketers most of the time? (It's already given that they are better cricketer, hence higher numbers).

Kambli got a lot of opportunities till early 2000s. In fact his last match was that infamous 54 allout game vs Srilanka at Sharjah.

 

He debuted before the 92 WC, so he was in the scheme of things for 10 years.

 

Also Kambli’s problem with performance was a relatively smaller issue than his drunken behavior. 
 

I would argue that Kambli got a more  opportunities despite his behavior because he was from Mumbai a strong influencer in Indian cricket and also his friendship with Sachin.

 

Do you think say someone like Dhoni from Ranchi would have been given the same feee ride early on if he behaved like Kambli ?

 

On the other hand Ganguly came from a rich family, I am assuming he is Brahmin or some high caste Bengali. There was a lot of criticism on his selection. Grabbed his opportunity, became One of  India’s greatest captain and played a role in changing Indian cricket.

 

Do you think Kumble or Dravid were never dropped because they were Brahmins or because they never put a foot down since debut?

 

Laxman was dropped multiple times. In fact he was sidelined for Dinesh Mongia of all people. He had to play the greatest knock of all time to become a regular and even then people tried to replace him with Yuvraj. Despite that he is one of India’s greatest match winners in tests and Yuvi was in LOIs.

 

Not sure how casteism played a role here.

 

Indian cricket has issues with regionalism, not as much as they used to be pre-80s but there isn’t casteism. 
 

Show me one guy in the team who is there because of his high class and is picked over more deserving lower caste players?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

I think jimmy cliff makes a valid argument. Post liberalization, cricket decentralised to more remote parts of the country. Prior to that, accessibility to cricket infra was probably easier for people in urban and sub-urban parts. Don't think there is genetics angle. 

 

So most likely reason is probably earlier access to better infrastructure for urban/sub-urban class, which is mostly upper caste.

 

Not sure if institutional discrimination is too rampant anymore because end of the day professional sport is about winning. It could have been an issue early on, but now I think it's mostly just sifarshi/nepotism at worst.

That explains why cricket was limited to urban centers, but doesn't answer my question.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, maniac said:

Not sure how casteism played a role here.

 

Indian cricket has issues with regionalism, not as much as they used to be pre-80s but there isn’t casteism. 
 

Show me one guy in the team who is there because of his high class and is picked over more deserving lower caste players?

 

 

Question isn't about any problem. Assume there is no problem. Question is about why and how one caste dominates cricket this much. How do they become so much better cricketer?

 

It's one thing to question whether Murali was great bowler or not, and another thing to analyse how he could spin ball this much.

 

It's one thing to debate how good Kohli in in swinging conditions, another thing to analyse factors/changes which allowed him to be successful as batsman in 2nd England tour.

 

Which factors allows one caste to dominate cricket this much that despite being 4% they constituted 60% of test team most of the time?

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Looks like after polluting movies, Varun Gobar/Nirodh Kashyap gang have now set their eyes on kirkut. 

 

Vinod Kambli was reduced to his assumed (‘lowest’) caste identity

Also are you claiming that what he mentions here is false and didn't happen?

 

Quote

Vinod Kambli took a rising ball on his right arm and had to be retired hurt because of a suspected fracture. As he walked back to the pavilion, in pain and frustration after scoring a fluent 61, a section of the crowd erupted in a volley of abuses directed at him. They called him lazy and useless followed by caste-names (chamber) used as slurs. The most-promising player of the most-elite club of our own country was reduced to his assumed (‘lowest’) caste identity by a crowd of ordinary men who derived this power from the accident of their birth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Also are you claiming that what he mentions here is false and didn't happen?

 

 

No. But I wouldn't put it past Gobar to cook up false anecdotes. What I will say with certainty is that the idea that Kambli's own countrymen rooted for his failure is retarded. And that the fact he couldn't make it big had anything to do with an inherent caste bias in Indian cricket.

 

Kambli and Manjrekar both had great starts to their careers and were in the mix in both formats till the mid-90s. What hurt them (and the likes of Sidhu and Amre for that matter) is the emergence of Ganguly and Dravid on the England tour of 1996. These two settled in very quickly and were first choice almost immediately with Azhar and Sachin being the other certainties in the middle order. Manjrekar saw the writing on the wall and retired in 97-98, Sidhu retired a year later whereas Kambli was still around in ODIs until 2000 when a combination of injuries and Yuvraj making it to the senior side got him dropped for good.

 

The likes of Gobar (and that Yesplease guy quoted by @coffee_rules) ignore all the cricketing context and instead try to construct an "atrocity literature" kinda narrative around Kambli while painting Indian cricket (along with Indian society) as a casteist hell-hole. 

Share this post


Link to post

Why don't we see Brahmins in hockey team or track events? Why do Yadavs dominate wrestling? Why are there more Muslims (disproportionate) among fast bowling ranks? People can always counterquestion. Maybe Brahmins take more liking to certain sports, while others are less ambitious. Times are changing, first cricket broke the metro vs rural/small town barrier and now spreading to a larger pie of the population. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Gollum said:

Why don't we see Brahmins in hockey team or track events? Why do Yadavs dominate wrestling? Why are there more Muslims (disproportionate) among fast bowling ranks? People can always counterquestion. Maybe Brahmins take more liking to certain sports, while others are less ambitious. Times are changing, first cricket broke the metro vs rural/small town barrier and now spreading to a larger pie of the population. 

Cunning Brahmins only play the sport that brings in the moolah :money:.

Share this post


Link to post

Nearly all our chess GMs are Brahmins, majority being TamBrahms. Chess rating is very fair, no selection dhandha, you play, you earn rating points, you move up the ladder and get invitations to strong tournaments. Resources are same, books/engines/database, online learning material, and almost all our players are from middle class. I have seen sarcastic remarks from some fellow Indians about the caste of our top chess stars, hinting at discrimination and all that usual nonsense. Some slurs as well directed towards far greater men than them, men who have actually taken the initiative to spread their knowledge for free in slums and remote villages instead of whining and vomiting BS in some rag. Where do I even begin? There is a certain group in the country which wants to play caste-caste every time, divide the dharmic society (they never talk about caste in Islam/Christianity), spread fake narratives imported from West, they don't wanna solve problems but break the unity of Indians. Sorry for the digression, just wanted to say that Varun Grover is one such nuisance figure, I am all for having honest conversation about this but I have reservation about intention/neeyat of the writer of that article.

Share this post


Link to post

Why do Christians dominate Indian tennis? Amritraj family, Paes, Bhupathi all from a 2% community, how? Does it matter, really? Did anyone here know that Vijay Amritraj and Bhupathi are Christians? They represented India, gave their heart and soul in Davis Cup matches, wore Indian flag with pride, and that is the bottomline. 'Breaking India' forces can try their luck elsewhere. I would like to believe that sports unites Indians, not to the extent of IA but close. 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
×
×
  • Create New...