Trichromatic

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

Last time India won in 4th innings while chasing 100+ in an away test was in 2010 https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/13229/scorecard/456671/sri-lanka-vs-india-3rd-test-india-tour-of-sri-lanka-2010

Match results Team Result Margin Toss Bat Opposition Ground Start Date India lost 146 runs lost 2nd v Australia Perth 14 Dec 2018 India lost 118 runs lost 2nd v England The Oval 7 Sep 2018 India lost 60 runs lost 2nd v England Southampton 30 Aug 2018 India lost 31 runs lost 2nd v England Birmingham 1 Aug 2018 India lost 135 runs lost 2nd v South Africa Centurion 13 Jan 2018 India lost 72 runs lost 2nd v South Africa Cape Town 5 Jan 2018 India lost 63 runs lost 2nd v Sri Lanka Galle 12 Aug 2015 India lost 48 runs lost 2nd v Australia Adelaide 9 Dec 2014 India lost 266 runs lost 2nd v England Southampton 27 Jul 2014 India lost 40 runs won 2nd v New Zealand Auckland 6 Feb 2014

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?

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

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).

Sure they can't do it regularly because of that. But kabhi to galti se tukka bhi kyu nahi lagta ki just kisi din aaye aur lage ki bas din tha, luck tha, bas.

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?

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.

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.

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

Not calling WI performances fluke, asking our player to fluke.

It would be fluke for our stars if they do it.

Just for once? During a chase or crucial 2nd innings overseas?

Dhoni is not just leader, he is messiah.