Thank You Kumble

[maniac]

3 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

You don't get the point because your agenda / opinion is pre set so I'll try simplify it for you because whatever is being said it quite large for your comprehension.

You are undermining the importance of coach in cricket and aren't giving the coach the credit for how the team does.

Thus , in a point form for you

When team does bad =  Coach was blamed = Chappell

When team does well  = Coach should get the credit = Kumble 

Comprende ?

Take 2 non controversial coaches for eg, Kirsten and Fletcher...one was successful and the other had a disastrous run but still they served their full tenure hell even got extensions.

 

The fans too hailed and blamed Dhoni for the wins and losses and praised or criticized Kirsten and Fletcher only after him.

 

Which meant Captain rules in India period.

 

Now look at Fletcher for eg, the guy was a big proponent of 150+ bowlers,allrounders and he also believed that only reason a spinner should play is if he can bat...did any of those ideologies get implemented in his stint in the Indian team?

 

 

[bleaf27]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

first up learn how to disgree, what agenda can i possibly have ? Kumble got credit for his good work as coach ok, now players do not want him as coach, players got more of the credit for their good work so their decision stands, pretty simple. Coach goes not the players.

You are quite openly disagreeing to give the coach any credit for how the team does.  You are saying the team did well and Kumble had no role in that ?

Secondly - We only know for Kohli certainly who do not want him as a coach - I doubt if Pandya or Mishra had a issue with Kumble and it would cause this big of an issue.

I find that system flawed - that is my point - you may disgaree to it fair enough , I just find that player's acceptance /approval / views on a coach shouldn't be given this much importance and their approval shouldn't be required.  They are professionals and their job is to play - not to approve who the coach should be 

[bleaf27]

4 minutes ago, maniac said:

Take 2 non controversial coaches for eg, Kirsten and Fletcher...one was successful and the other had a disastrous run but still they served their full tenure hell even got extensions.

 

The fans too hailed and blamed Dhoni for the wins and losses and praised or criticized Kirsten and Fletcher only after him.

 

Which meant Captain rules in India period.

 

Now look at Fletcher for eg, the guy was a big proponent of 150+ bowlers,allrounders and he also believed that only reason a spinner should play is if he can bat...did any of those ideologies get implemented in his stint in the Indian team?

 

 

I am not denying how the Indian system is and how its run  - It shouldn't be that way.  How the Indian system has been moulded and caters to only superstars and the captain is flawed.  Why would anyone would want to be captain apart from financial reasons to just come and be a second fiddle to all the superstars in this team 

Edited June 21, 2017 by bleaf27

[maniac]

1 minute ago, bleaf27 said:

You are quite openly disagreeing to give the coach any credit for how the team does.  You are saying the team did well and Kumble had no role in that ?

Secondly - We only know for Kohli certainly who do not want him as a coach - I doubt if Pandya or Mishra had a issue with Kumble and it would cause this big of an issue.

I find that system flawed - that is my point - you may disgaree to it fair enough , I just find that player's acceptance /approval / views on a coach shouldn't be given this much importance and their approval shouldn't be required.  They are professionals and their job is to play - not to approve who the coach should be 

I personally give Chappell a lot of credit for bringing in some new and fresh talent in his tenure. Even though he also gets blamed for the Irfan Pathan debacle and tinkering with Sachin's batting position.

 

He was a poor man manager though which was what 2007 was blamed for. All the dressing room problems. 

 

 

[Vilander]

5 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

You are quite openly disagreeing to give the coach any credit for how the team does.  You are saying the team did well and Kumble had no role in that ?

Secondly - We only know for Kohli certainly who do not want him as a coach - I doubt if Pandya or Mishra had a issue with Kumble and it would cause this big of an issue.

I find that system flawed - that is my point - you may disgaree to it fair enough , I just find that player's acceptance /approval / views on a coach shouldn't be given this much importance and their approval shouldn't be required.  They are professionals and their job is to play - not to approve who the coach should be 

well players views should be given utmost importance, a coaches role is to enable players play better. if the players feel as a group that a coach is not helping the teams cause, then the coach has to go, its a very effective system its called democracy. so yeah whats the big deal in openly disagreeing to this lol.

[maniac]

3 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

I am not denying how the Indian system is and how its run  - It shouldn't be that way.  How the Indian system has been moulded and caters to only superstars and the captain is flawed.  Why would anyone would want to be captain apart from financial reasons to just come and be a second fiddle to all the superstars in this team 

Again going back to what I said if Anil Kumble couldn't survive than no way any player Indian or foreign coach of smaller stature can get by without being a Yes Man.

 

also Cricket itself is a game where the captain is the king.

 

Bob Woolmer and Andy Flower were the only guys apart from Chappell who had a lot of say as coaches because they were  almost like selectors and upper management. They had nothing to do with on field strategies.

 

Which shows unless a specific Definition is created what a cricket coach does,that role won't work in cricket leave alone Indian cricket

[bleaf27]

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

I personally give Chappell a lot of credit for bringing in some new and fresh talent in his tenure. Even though he also gets blamed for the Irfan Pathan debacle and tinkering with Sachin's batting position.

 

He was a poor man manager though which was what 2007 was blamed for. All the dressing room problems. 

 

 

It's pathetic that when a coach disagrees with the player or points out a flaw in his game or give advice - that's not a big news or that's the coaches job and never gets out in the media but the minute players gang up on a coach or start dislking him - **** hits the fan and coach's days become numbered all of a sudden . Might as well put a tape on your mouth and fold your hands and stand on the door -  Like that Maharaja - Air India logo 

[bleaf27]

2 minutes ago, Vilander said:

well players views should be given utmost importance, a coaches role is to enable players play better. if the players feel as a group that a coach is not helping the teams cause, then the coach has to go, its a very effective system its called democracy. so yeah whats the big deal in openly disagreeing to this lol.

1. First bolded part - Disagree - players views should not be given utmost importance . This is how you create a one sided system which is totally tilted in the players favor
2. Second bolded part -   This is certainly not a democracy .  Coach's vote is 1 and team always stick together and there are 11 players so those are 11 votes.   That isn't a fair ballot.    If Kumble and Kohli had a fight and players had to choose a side - ofcourse they will have to forcefully and even unwillingly have to side with Kohli because of this flawed system .  Do not confuse that with democracy. 

[Vilander]

2 minutes ago, maniac said:

Again going back to what I said if Anil Kumble couldn't survive than no way any player Indian or foreign coach of smaller stature can get by without being a Yes Man.

 

also Cricket itself is a game where the captain is the king.

 

Bob Woolmer and Andy Flower were the only guys apart from Chappell who had a lot of say as coaches because they were  almost like selectors and upper management. They had nothing to do with on field strategies.

 

Which shows unless a specific Definition is created what a cricket coach does,that role won't work in cricket leave alone Indian cricket

its inherently disposable the coach's role, he is not the selector, he is not the on filed tactician, what the * is he agony aunt, house wife ?( no offence meant to the sweet housewives who are actually more irreplaceable here).

[bleaf27]

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

Again going back to what I said if Anil Kumble couldn't survive than no way any player Indian or foreign coach of smaller stature can get by without being a Yes Man.

 

also Cricket itself is a game where the captain is the king.

 

Bob Woolmer and Andy Flower were the only guys apart from Chappell who had a lot of say as coaches because they were  almost like selectors and upper management. They had nothing to do with on field strategies.

 

Which shows unless a specific Definition is created what a cricket coach does,that role won't work in cricket leave alone Indian cricket

My point here isn't to give suggestion of who would survive.

The king culture is primarily in Indian and Pakistan subcontinent - certainly not in SA/NZ/ENG teams to say the least. 

I think a cricket's coaches role is well defined and a coach plays multiple roles in any sport -  his importance is being seriously undermined in subcontinent cricket .  and with how cricketers are treated in India - there isn't any surprise why that is 

[Vilander]

1 minute ago, bleaf27 said:

1. First bolded part - Disagree - players views should not be given utmost importance . This is how you create a one sided system which is totally tilted in the players favor
2. Second bolded part -   This is certainly not a democracy .  Coach's vote is 1 and team always stick together and there are 11 players so those are 11 votes.   That isn't a fair ballot.    If Kumble and Kohli had a fight and players had to choose a side - ofcourse they will have to forcefully and even unwillingly have to side with Kohli because of this flawed system .  Do not confuse that with democracy. 

well seems to me BCCI and power of Indian cricket seem to agree with my point of view, so yeah i dont mind your disagreement since it is utterly inconsequential.

[Vilander]

3 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

My point here isn't to give suggestion of who would survive.

The king culture is primarily in Indian and Pakistan subcontinent - certainly not in SA/NZ/ENG teams to say the least. 

I think a cricket's coaches role is well defined and a coach plays multiple roles in any sport -  his importance is being seriously undermined in subcontinent cricket .  and with how cricketers are treated in India - there isn't any surprise why that is 

India and pakistan are not the same. Nope, sorry.

[bleaf27]

3 minutes ago, Vilander said:

well seems to me BCCI and power of Indian cricket seem to agree with my point of view, so yeah i dont mind your disagreement since it is utterly inconsequential.

Haha , they do not agree to your point of view mate , you are agreeing to their way of functioning - big difference

Never said your acceptance of my disagreement is worthwhile - another sheep in the herd wouldn't change much for me would it ?

[bleaf27]

2 minutes ago, Vilander said:

India and pakistan are not the same. Nope, sorry.

In certain aspects , they certainly are 

[CG]

Kumble made sure kuldeep yadav played even though Kohli did not want him and he won the series.Same with pujara sometimes you need somebody with diff opinions.

[Vilander]

7 minutes ago, bleaf27 said:

Haha , they do not agree to your point of view mate , you are agreeing to their way of functioning - big difference

Never said your acceptance of my disagreement is worthwhile - another sheep in the herd wouldn't change much for me would it ?

see you are calling me a sheep , lacking in comprehension etc, i have been very civil with you. The reason is i do not have an agenda,and am in peace with what is happening. Players call the shots, kumble needs to go home and its happening which is right. And why would you think that anything you say here qualifies me, lol you seem to be hurting hehe no one gives a * as to what your opinion is dude, live with it, we are ranting in a forum and you think your verbal abuses mean anything hehe.

[BeautifulGame]

Guys can we stick to discussing Kohli Kumble BCCI teachers etc .

 

India Pakistan difference has no relevance in this thread

[bleaf27]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

see you are calling me a sheep , lacking in comprehension etc, i have been very civil with you. The reason is i do not have an agenda,and am in peace with what is happening. Players call the shots, kumble needs to go home and its happening which is right. And why would you think that anything you say here qualifies me, lol you seem to be hurting hehe no one gives a * as to what your opinion is dude, live with it, we are ranting in a forum and you think your verbal abuses mean anything hehe.

I am not sure how sheep is offensive in any sense ?   Certainly did not cross any civility for calling you out in agreeing to the corrupted BCCI mentality - I'm sure you've heard of the sheep mentality.  Players certainly should not be calling the shots and Kohli should have been stripped of the captaincy instead of Kumble being let go.  Kohli as a player is important to the team and he can play but as a captain he is horrible and negative for the team and to lose a positive influence like Kumble for him is a horrible mistake.

Mate,  you can analyze or assess my sentiments , that's great for you - I simply stated I find this system wrong -  You are bent on proving that ir is correct.  Like I said , you are open to disagree , my goal isn't to have your approval on it. 

If no gives an ass about my opinion , they do to yours ?  Your or my opinion or anyone for that matter carries the same value. 

[beetle]

1 hour ago, bleaf27 said:

Certainly not , that's your opinion . you do not speak for the sport nor can you draw conclusions . It might be the sad reality of Indian cricket but hopefully that changes soon .   Opinions aren't facts

That is the way it works in cricket.

Captain leads the team to victory or defeat. The captain gets the bouquets and bricbats.

The coachs job is to prepare the team for the games.

 

Cricket is not soccer.

[Vilander]

Just now, bleaf27 said:

I am not sure how sheep is offensive in any sense ?   Certainly did not cross any civility for calling you out in agreeing to the corrupted BCCI mentality - I'm sure you've heard of the sheep mentality.  Players certainly should not be calling the shots and Kohli should have been stripped of the captaincy instead of Kumble being let go.  Kohli as a player is important to the team and he can play but as a captain he is horrible and negative for the team and to lose a positive influence like Kumble for him is a horrible mistake.

Mate,  you can analyze or assess my sentiments , that's great for you - I simply stated I find this system wrong -  You are bent on proving that ir is correct.  Like I said , you are open to disagree , my goal isn't to have your approval on it. 

If no gives an ass about my opinion , they do to yours ?  Your or my opinion or anyone for that matter carries the same value. 

first up i am not your mate, you are not an aussie you dont use that term naturally, comes out pretty wannabe. anyways i am not the one proving anything here, all i am saying is players who play the game are supported by a coach. if the players want a different support staff then they will get them, they are called support staff for a reason, they dont go and hoist anything in the middle of the ground they sit in the side and support those who do it.  heck its not even my opinion, its common prudence, that support staff are replaceable lol and you are here flaming  about it.