India need better opposition

[Laaloo]

1 minute ago, express bowling said:

 

The only thing achieved in the WI ODI series was Kuldeep getting 5 games.

 

Nothing else of interest on that tour really as no other youngsters were tried.

 

 

The SL tour is different 

 

We have tried Shardul, Chahal, Pandey, Rahul at 4, Axar and Kuldeep.

 

 

How many games Pant got? 0?

[goose]

2 hours ago, sandeep said:

I think the problem is that you are approaching the issue from a pre-determined position - You clearly believe that international cricket needs reforms that introduce financial consequences for losing, and everything else flows from there.   I don't necessarily disagree with you on your theory,  but in my opinion, that's tertiary or lower.   The larger issue for Cricket is the fact that at any given time, there are only 5 or fewer countries who are really able to field teams that can compete at a top-class level.   Its more important for the game to figure out a strategy that increases that number, rather than think in punitive terms.    Especially in the coming years, when international cricket fixtures outside of World Cup tournaments are bound to shrink.   

 

Of course, no person or organization should continue to collect rewards for poor performance, and accountability is important.  But the odds of sports teams and organizations getting better by reducing the resources they have, are not high.  

 

 

i want to increase the number of top flight teams too but the current status quo isn't exactly working either. fans are turning away from the test cricket because the outcomes have no consequence. you can make tiddlywinks exciting if you have consequences. more people will tune in. more sponsors. more TV ratings etc. 

[Gollum]

1 hour ago, Iconoclast said:

I would rather we play in England.

 

Better crowds, better pitches.

 

 

Nah desert is fine. For an Indo-Pak match crowds will fill even if held in the Brazilian Snake Island. Point is Pak have never been defeated there and India has crushed every side bar Pak in the SC the last few years. A 5 test series in UAE will be epic, a classic case of unstoppable force vs immovable object. Pakistan is the only side that can beat India in Asia, India is the only side that can beat Pakistan in Asia...mouth watering contest for the ages....Alas we can only dream about it. 

[express bowling]

1 hour ago, Laaloo said:

How many games Pant got? 0?

One of  biggest reasons why the WI ODI series was a disappointment.

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, goose said:

i want to increase the number of top flight teams too but the current status quo isn't exactly working either. fans are turning away from the test cricket because the outcomes have no consequence. you can make tiddlywinks exciting if you have consequences. more people will tune in. more sponsors. more TV ratings etc. 

Agree with you that contests need context, and consequences.   The whole bilateral setup in cricket is a vestigial dinosaur.   But I don't think Cricket can blindly go the tiering and relegation route like Club Football, where poor performances can quickly be addressed with a checkbook and renting better talent, regardless of national origin.  

 

I would suggest its better to reward those at the top, incentivizing improvement, rather than punish those at the bottom.  

Instead of threatening lower ranked teams with "relegation", reward the top 4 test teams with a special set of test matches, which would result in a team being ranked the best in the world.   And make that financially rewarding as well.  

Make the ranking system more meaningful for instance - start giving 'byes' to the top ranked teams in global tournaments.   

 

Change is required, context and consequences are necessary.  But things are unlikely to get better by making the poor, poorer.  Yes, there is a moral hazard issue that doesn't punish the incompetent, but different carrots and sticks have to be fashioned to address that.   

 

In my view, You need to have 4+ top-class batsmen and at least 3+ top class bowlers to be competitive in test cricket.   Historically, Cricket only has had 5 or fewer teams at this level.  Realistically, its very possible to get this number higher.   But only countries with healthy and competitive domestic systems can forge and polish the required test-calibre talent.  If the individual boards keep failing to create a competitive "minor league" feeder system for test cricket, then the ICC should be pro-active on this front.  ICC has enough money to create a tiered system at the Associate level and establish a schedule that gives the top 10 associates a chance to play close to 35-40 matches a year.  Allow lower-ranked 'test' teams to send 'A' teams to participate if necessary.   

 

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by sandeep

[Laaloo]

46 minutes ago, express bowling said:

One of  biggest reasons why the WI ODI series was a disappointment.

Dhoni: when will the torture end???

[sandeep]

^ why are you trying to derail this thread?

[Laaloo]

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

^ why are you trying to derail this thread?

I'm not. Perfect opportunity to get the joke in ;)

[Sean Bradley]

6 hours ago, Vilander said:

it was never to this extent, they merely competed in India and beat in SL. SL never won a test in India. telling stat. India now totally dominates SL, last i remember is Zim

Merely Compete includes a loss in the World Cup Semi Final at eden gardens, where our players cried and crowd threw bottles, career demolition of Venky Prasad, humiliating 53 all out, so on and so forth.. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Sean Bradley

[Rasgulla]

2 hours ago, sandeep said:

^ why are you trying to derail this thread?

Need to bring his garbage truck everywhere 

[Vilander]

8 hours ago, Sean Bradley said:

Merely Compete includes a loss in the World Cup Semi Final at eden gardens, where our players cried and crowd threw bottles, career demolition of Venky Prasad, humiliating 53 all out, so on and so forth.. 

Pak just beat us in a high profile game does not mean they dominated us in 7 back to back bilaterals. There is a difference. Rivalry is when both sides compete right now there is none with sl.

[Kerberos]

   ..

Edited September 2, 2017 by Kerberos

[Lannister]

Or we could've used this series more smartly, by picking a team full of youngsters. 

[Rasgulla]

1 hour ago, Lannister said:

Or we could've used this series more smartly, by picking a team full of youngsters. 

Agreed 

 

Aravind 

Mandeep

Sachin baby

Binny 

 

Those 4 youngsters needs to be given a chance

 

[goose]

16 hours ago, sandeep said:

Agree with you that contests need context, and consequences.   The whole bilateral setup in cricket is a vestigial dinosaur.   But I don't think Cricket can blindly go the tiering and relegation route like Club Football, where poor performances can quickly be addressed with a checkbook and renting better talent, regardless of national origin.  

 

I would suggest its better to reward those at the top, incentivizing improvement, rather than punish those at the bottom.  

Instead of threatening lower ranked teams with "relegation", reward the top 4 test teams with a special set of test matches, which would result in a team being ranked the best in the world.   And make that financially rewarding as well.  

Make the ranking system more meaningful for instance - start giving 'byes' to the top ranked teams in global tournaments.   

 

Change is required, context and consequences are necessary.  But things are unlikely to get better by making the poor, poorer.  Yes, there is a moral hazard issue that doesn't punish the incompetent, but different carrots and sticks have to be fashioned to address that.   

 

In my view, You need to have 4+ top-class batsmen and at least 3+ top class bowlers to be competitive in test cricket.   Historically, Cricket only has had 5 or fewer teams at this level.  Realistically, its very possible to get this number higher.   But only countries with healthy and competitive domestic systems can forge and polish the required test-calibre talent.  If the individual boards keep failing to create a competitive "minor league" feeder system for test cricket, then the ICC should be pro-active on this front.  ICC has enough money to create a tiered system at the Associate level and establish a schedule that gives the top 10 associates a chance to play close to 35-40 matches a year.  Allow lower-ranked 'test' teams to send 'A' teams to participate if necessary.   

 

 

That's all fine but you seem to assume unearthing talent is a question of throwing more money at the problem. Which of these two scenarios is more likely to get a 10yr old to take up the sport - A). Sri Lankan father of said 15yr old glued to his TV coz his team already 2-0 down needs to avoid losing the third to avoid relegation B). the 15yr old goes to a school with excellent cricket facilities. 

 

[goose]

5 hours ago, sarchasm said:

The status quo you speak of was at work when India used to get their customary thrashing from one and all till very recently. Didn't stop sponsorship or viewer interest. Come up with a better theory.

being thrashed provided it own context. 

[Vilander]

6 hours ago, sarchasm said:

The status quo you speak of was at work when India used to get their customary thrashing from one and all till very recently. Didn't stop sponsorship or viewer interest. Come up with a better theory.

They will probably get trashed in aus and sa still nothing in my opinion has changed till india tours there.