How can Vihari cement his place in indian team

[zen]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

Tiering accomplishes exactly that, while allowing for 'newer' regions to still have competitive access.  Saurasthra used to languish in plate divisions, but with players like Pujara, Jaddu was able to contest the Ranji Finals.  Gujarat often was in the same boat, but won it under Parthiv's captaincy.

 

A team doing well does not mean that the overall standards of the competition have improved. A team can win based on 2-3 players esp. when the standards are not high. Every domestic tourney of every country would have a winner but the quality of the competition varies 

 

Even in IPL, a shorter format where it is relatively easier to be competitive, it is hard to field 8 quality teams full of Indian players (need to bank on international players to improve overall quality)

[zen]

5 minutes ago, sandeep said:

You don't make the Ranji finals by 'beating up' plate level teams.  Ultimately, you have to beat the Mumbai, Delhi, Karnataka, TNs of the Ranji world.  But you want the Gujarat, Goa, Saurasthras, Vidarbha, even Railways, to have their outside shot to make it to the top.  That keeps the top teams from getting complacent and allows for talents like Dhoni, Jadeja, Pujara to emerge.  

 

I think you are simply not up to speed on the tiering structure of Indian FC cricket.

 

You are assuming Mumbai, Delhi, Karnataka, TN's to be "quality" based on them being better than more weaker teams .... The goal is to eventually have teams with 7-8 high quality players 

 

Below is Mumbai squad

 

Suryakumar Yadav (Captain), Aditya Tare (Vice Captain), Ajinkya Rahane, Prithvi Shaw, Jay Bista, Shubham Ranjane, Akash Parkar, Siddhesh Lad, Shams Mulani, Vinayak Bhoir, Shashank Attarde, Shardul Thakur, Tushar Deshpande, Deepak Shetty and Eknath Kerkar.

 

Not even one player from it would make it to an ideal test team .... and that is what needs to be improved 

 

[maniac]

23 minutes ago, zen said:

 

The idea is to raise the standard of FC cricket "as a whole" by making the key FC tourney more competitive 

 

 

how does it matter though? A guy who scored tons of runs or takes tons of wickets are not directly given entry into Indian cricket.

 

They are given an opportunity in Zonal tournaments, then they are given opportunities in A tours and maybe for Limited overs audition they get a shot in the IPL. There are various filters that happen anyways.

 

In fact the whole world is praising the talent that is coming through in India in all formats which means the current system is not only working just fine but it has made tremendous progress.

 

I am not sure why there is a need to fix something that is not only not broken but is working like a million bucks.

Edited December 13, 2020 by maniac

[zen]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

how does it matter though? A guy who scored tons of runs or takes tons of wickets are not directly given entry into Indian cricket.

 

They are given an opportunity in Zonal tournaments, then they are given opportunities in A tours and maybe for Limited overs audition they get a shot in the IPL. There are various filters that happen anyways.

 

 

Again the idea is to improve FC cricket as highlighted in my last two posts 

 

Quote

 

In fact the whole world is praising the talent that is coming through in India in all formats which means the current system is not only working just fine but it has made tremendous progress.

 

I am not sure why there is a need to fix something that is not only broken but is working like a million bucks.

 

 

Whatever talent that is coming through is through its hard work .... Right now, it is not even possible to have a highly competitive test squad of 16 once you make the conditions sporting 

[maniac]

9 minutes ago, zen said:

 

You are assuming Mumbai, Delhi, Karnataka, TN's to be "quality" based on them being better than more weaker teams .... The goal is to eventually have teams with 7-8 high quality players 

 

Below is Mumbai squad

 

Suryakumar Yadav (Captain), Aditya Tare (Vice Captain), Ajinkya Rahane, Prithvi Shaw, Jay Bista, Shubham Ranjane, Akash Parkar, Siddhesh Lad, Shams Mulani, Vinayak Bhoir, Shashank Attarde, Shardul Thakur, Tushar Deshpande, Deepak Shetty and Eknath Kerkar.

 

Not even one player from it would make it to an ideal test team .... and that is what needs to be improved 

 

I can give you 3-4 international cricketers in that list and 3-4 who have played IPL and are solid supporting acts for their teams.

 

You have some high standards if you think every player in every Ranji squad  should be good enough to play all 3 formats for the country. It doesn’t work that way ever.

 

I happen to catch a BbL game the other day, my first match since 4-5 years, some of the Aussie domestic players were so Mediocre that the internationals clearly looked a cut above them. Happens in IPL as well and the gulf between the real good ones and the mediocre ones will always exist. It is just that the standards of what you consider good or mediocre will change.

 

For example Thakur,Shaw,Rahane- that’s 3 international cricketers 

 

Sky already has a foot in the door

 

Tare,Lad,Deshpande are always good utility cricketers who get IpL contracts, so again not sure the point you are making.

[zen]

4 minutes ago, maniac said:

I can give you 3-4 international cricketers in that list and 3-4 who have played IPL and are solid supporting acts for their teams.

 

You have some high standards if you think every player in every Ranji squad  should be good enough to play all 3 formats for the country. It doesn’t work that way ever.

 

Again you are back to creating "strawman" .... Test cricket is being discussed here (I can see that the squad has some decent T20 players) 

 

Clearly mentioned in the post you quoted - "Not even one player from it would make it to an ideal test team .... and that is what needs to be improved " 

 

 

Quote

For example Thakur,Shaw,Rahane- that’s 3 international cricketers 

 

FYI, being an international cricketer means zilch .... every country that plays international sports has international players 

Edited December 14, 2020 by zen

[maniac]

2 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

 

Clearly mentioned "Not even one player from it would make it to an ideal test team .... and that is what needs to be improved " 

 

 

Ok I should have asked this first, what exactly is an ideal test team? Also how does Rahane a guy who has 100’s in all SENA countries + Sc not an ideal test player . Sure on current form he may not be good enough but if he retires today, he would still have had a pretty decent body of work.

[zen]

17 minutes ago, maniac said:

Ok I should have asked this first, what exactly is an ideal test team? Also how does Rahane a guy who has 100’s in all SENA countries + Sc not an ideal test player . Sure on current form he may not be good enough but if he retires today, he would still have had a pretty decent body of work.

 

An ideal test team would be one which has 11 of the 22 best cricketers (including those who can be close alternatives to those in the 22) .... I do not think that you understand that even BD team can argue that it has international cricketers. Playing for a country, which may lack quality options, does not make a player ideal 

 

It is not good that a top FC side like Mumbai from a top cricketing country like Ind has NONE (from the squad listed)

 

PS

 

Suryakumar Yadav (Captain), Aditya Tare (Vice Captain), Ajinkya Rahane, Prithvi Shaw, Jay Bista, Shubham Ranjane, Akash Parkar, Siddhesh Lad, Shams Mulani, Vinayak Bhoir, Shashank Attarde, Shardul Thakur, Tushar Deshpande, Deepak Shetty and Eknath Kerkar.

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by zen

[Forever Indian]

A 70 million population country England has 18 county teams. So a country with almost 20 times that population (1.3 billion) can't have twice that number of teams?

 

The lesser the teams the lesser the players who can earn a livelihood from Cricket. This will result in even lesser parents and children aiming for Cricket as a profession. Also the lesser teams will be based in the bigger cities which will mean that rural talent will be even more harder to find and ones like Dhonis, Natarajans will be even harder to find.

 

The current setup is working especially with Zonal teams and India A setup which further filter candidates before they are played in senior team

Edited December 14, 2020 by Forever Indian

[zen]

23 minutes ago, Forever Indian said:

A 70 million population country England has 18 county teams. So a country with almost 20 times that population (1.3 billion) can't have twice that number of teams?

 

The lesser the teams the lesser the players who can earn a livelihood from Cricket. This will result in even lesser parents and children aiming for Cricket as a profession. Also the lesser teams will be based in the bigger cities which will mean that rural talent will be even more harder to find and ones like Dhonis, Natarajans will be even harder to find.

 

 

Those cricketers would play at the state level to be selected for the region's main domestic test team .... In fact, adding an additional tier would not only create a competitive environment at the state level to move up but also generate additional income for 120 cricketers (assuming 8 teams with a squad of 15) 

 

 

Quote

The current setup is working especially with Zonal teams and India A setup which further filter candidates before they are played in senior team

 

You can find 11 cricketers to develop and play for a country in any type of domestic set up .... the idea here is to strengthen the domestic structure 

[zen]

To tentatively draw it out with an example: 

 

Team A: Gujarat + Baroda + Saurashtra 

 

Guj, Baroda & Sau play v each other at their group level, and develop and feed players for the group team. Team A consists of the best players from the group + provision for 2 international players in the 11 if required (say a squad of 16 + 4 internationals of which 2 can play in the 11)

 

Team B: Mumbai + Maharashtra + Vidarbha  

Team C: X + Y + Z 

 

Team D: A + B + C + D 

 

Team E: ....

.... 

 

Eventually, the quality will improve as to get into the group team, the players in the sub teams will have to continuously improve their game too (while those in the group team would need to play well to hold their spots)

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by zen

[zen]

There is no way there is high quality cricket in Ranji with 38 teams. No matter how you divide these teams to play v each other, the top talent will always be spread across 38 teams (one team could have 2-3 good players, the other zero) .... The team with 2-3 good players can lift the title but that is about it .... No wonder Ind cricket has not reached the heights it can considering the resources at its disposal ($ + players + ....)

 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

By playing well

[Suhaan]

12 hours ago, zen said:

To tentatively draw it out with an example: 

 

Team A: Gujarat + Baroda + Saurashtra 

 

Guj, Baroda & Sau play v each other at their group level, and develop and feed players for the group team. Team A consists of the best players from the group + provision for 2 international players in the 11 if required (say a squad of 16 + 4 internationals of which 2 can play in the 11)

 

Team B: Mumbai + Maharashtra + Vidarbha  

Team C: X + Y + Z 

 

Team D: A + B + C + D 

 

Team E: ....

.... 

 

Eventually, the quality will improve as to get into the group team, the players in the sub teams will have to continuously improve their game too (while those in the group team would need to play well to hold their spots)

 

 

Yes,that is good point always felt 2-3 teams from same state is little unfair,where Bihar has none but Jharkhand had one

Bihar+Jharkhand,Mp+Chattisgarh etc can be done

[sandeep]

13 hours ago, zen said:

. In fact, adding an additional tier would

So now you are explicitly moving goal posts from - reducing number of teams (quantity > quality etc) to 'adding a tier'.  

 

That's good.  Shows that your position can evolve when more facts are hammered back at you

 

 

Btw, with the cricket calendar constantly under scheduling pressure, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain the Ranji and FC schedule as it exists - i.e. protecting the Zonal tiers, Duleep trophy, Irani Trophy, India Red, Blue, Green etc.  The feasibility of 'adding' tiers is farther than remote.

Edited December 14, 2020 by sandeep

[maniac]

13 hours ago, zen said:

There is no way there is high quality cricket in Ranji with 38 teams. No matter how you divide these teams to play v each other, the top talent will always be spread across 38 teams (one team could have 2-3 good players, the other zero) .... The team with 2-3 good players can lift the title but that is about it .... No wonder Ind cricket has not reached the heights it can considering the resources at its disposal ($ + players + ....)

 

 

 

India has in fact not changed its domestic structure since 1947. They may have added new tournaments and formats but the basic structure has always been constant.

 

All our ATG’s have been produced  by this system. All our issues like not having fast bowlers etc have been resolved by domestic cricket. 
 

I am not saying things should never evolve, of course they should. There is a proof of concept that we have a wonderful system, the work should be done on enhancing it, not tearing it down and rebuilding a new system.

 

Also it is easy for you and me to say, even with rich BCCI and cricket being spread all over India , there are cricketers from small towns whose families have to make sacrifices and move to bigger cities for proper training facilities. Shaw’s father, Vihari’s mother, Pandya brother’s parents have made a lot of sacrifices to move to bigger cricket centers.

 

Now if kids in Jharkand start picking cricket watching Dhoni, you want to reduce the player pool by combining Jharkand and Bihar and May be with some other region? 
 

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

So now you are explicitly moving goal posts from - reducing number of teams (quantity > quality etc) to 'adding a tier'.  

 

That's good.  Shows that your position can evolve when more facts are hammered back at you

 

 

I am reducing the # of teams for the main domestic FC competition. Earlier, I assumed that people would understand that there would be a 2nd tier to feed and develop player for the main group team. The 2nd tier is not a domestic national level event but a state/regional one (though played with the same competitive intensity as current Ranji)

 

Tier 1 (National Level): Ranji (8 teams if not less with 2 international players)

Tier 2 (State/Regional Level): Where teams forming the group teams plays with each other w/ the same competitive intensity as the current structure 

 

 

Quote

Btw, with the cricket calendar constantly under scheduling pressure, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain the Ranji and FC schedule as it exists - i.e. protecting the Zonal tiers, Duleep trophy, Irani Trophy, India Red, Blue, Green etc.  The feasibility of 'adding' tiers is farther than remote.

 

The discussing is on revamping the FC structure so based on cost-benefit analysis, what is redundant/overlapping would be removed. To develop the domestic FC structure (and players), the group level would need to be more involved, which also means having more focused matches among these "quality" sides (rather than more random competitions) 

Edited December 14, 2020 by zen

[zen]

10 minutes ago, maniac said:

India has in fact not changed its domestic structure since 1947. They may have added new tournaments and formats but the basic structure has always been constant.

 

All our ATG’s have been produced  by this system. All our issues like not having fast bowlers etc have been resolved by domestic cricket. 
 

 

Buddy, note this :

 

• Every country that plays international events has international players
• Every country has its ATG (Andy Flower is a Zim ATG, Sakib is BD one, ....) 
• Any system can produce these 

 

Quote

 

I am not saying things should never evolve, of course they should. There is a proof of concept that we have a wonderful system, the work should be done on enhancing it, not tearing it down and rebuilding a new system.

 

Also it is easy for you and me to say, even with rich BCCI and cricket being spread all over India , there are cricketers from small towns whose families have to make sacrifices and move to bigger cities for proper training facilities. Shaw’s father, Vihari’s mother, Pandya brother’s parents have made a lot of sacrifices to move to bigger cricket centers.

 

Now if kids in Jharkand start picking cricket watching Dhoni, you want to reduce the player pool by combining Jharkand and Bihar and May be with some other region? 

 

 

I do not think you have understood what is being discussed .... nothing like the above is an issue 

[sandeep]

39 minutes ago, zen said:

 

I am reducing the # of teams for the main domestic FC competition. Earlier, I assumed that people would understand that there would be a 2nd tier to feed and develop player for the main group team. The 2nd tier is not a domestic national level event but a state/regional one (though played with the same competitive intensity as current Ranji)

 

Tier 1 (National Level): Ranji (8 teams if not less with 2 international players)

Tier 2 (State/Regional Level): Where teams forming the group teams plays within each other w/ the same competitive intensity as the current structure 

 

 

 

The discussing is on revamping the FC structure so based on cost-benefit analysis, what is redundant/overlapping would be removed/ To develop the domestic FC structure (and players), the group level would need to be more involved, which also means having more matches among "quality" sides (rather than more random competitions) 

So you want to institutionalize a caste system for Ranji teams and reduce the existing ones which have a rich history of 70+ years to club-level teams?  

 

Basic rule applies when one wants to 'propose' radical structural changes to complex organizations.  As a pre-requisite, one must be intimately familiar with the details of the existing structure.  Do you know how many games a "top" Ranji team plays against a 'plate' team on an annual basis?  What number of games? What is the percentage?  

 

why not take the existing 'zonal' competition and enhance it?  Is there a meaningful benefit to be gained from junking the historical value that the teams like Mumbai, Tamil Nadu, etc carry with them? The value of this may not be evident to arm-chair experts but talk to any FC cricketer, and you will see the pride that comes from wearing the Ranji shield of their association on their chest.  

 

What are the "cost/benefits" of creating a proposed "all-star" team from the different regions, and making those teams the centerpiece of the competition? How is that significantly different from the zonal competition that is already scheduled as part of the current structure?  Have you considered the fact that once you reduce the existing 'state' teams to a sub-national level, that you will, in fact, reduce the level of competition there from a team perspective? What is the incentive for a budding player to give his 100% effort and risk injury playing for his 'state' team, in a 'sub-tier' competition?  

 

Arguably, there is a track record already available that shows that such "all-star" style arbitrary teams drawn up from zones, or top players, does not lead to high quality games and competition, because the players do not 'vest' as much value and personal competition to the games when the format and the team they play for lacks the history and pedigree.  Look at the India 'blue/red/green' ODI games that have been held for more than a decade now.  Its not really a structure that inspires confidence.  

 

Of course, there are valid arguments to be made to increase competitiveness in FC cricket.  And to stay relevant, a structure must continue to evolve. But change for the  sake of it, and poorly-thought out change, is not a panacea.  Quite the opposite.

 

 

[zen]

48 minutes ago, sandeep said:

So you want to institutionalize a caste system for Ranji teams and reduce the existing ones which have a rich history of 70+ years to club-level teams?  

 

 

It is Ranji trophy but more competitive and meaningful .... Players forming current Ranji trophy teams come from somewhere too (so that is a caste system too if you want to see it that way) 

 

 

Quote

Basic rule applies when one wants to 'propose' radical structural changes to complex organizations.  As a pre-requisite, one must be intimately familiar with the details of the existing structure.  Do you know how many games a "top" Ranji team plays against a 'plate' team on an annual basis?  What number of games? What is the percentage?  

 

Irrelevant as the quality is lacking. No matter how you slice or dice 38 teams, quality players get spread out. There is a reason why the national team is stronger than a Ranji one. Why players develop more when they play for national team v Ranji team

 

 

Quote

why not take the existing 'zonal' competition and enhance it?  Is there a meaningful benefit to be gained from junking the historical value that the teams like Mumbai, Tamil Nadu, etc carry with them? The value of this may not be evident to arm-chair experts but talk to any FC cricketer, and you will see the pride that comes from wearing the Ranji shield of their association on their chest.  

 

Ranji is being enhanced by improving quality, increasing the number of matches b/w quality sides, and removing redundancies

 

 

Quote

What are the "cost/benefits" of creating a proposed "all-star" team from the different regions, and making those teams the centerpiece of the competition? How is that significantly different from the zonal competition that is already scheduled as part of the current structure?  Have you considered the fact that once you reduce the existing 'state' teams to a sub-national level, that you will, in fact, reduce the level of competition there from a team perspective? What is the incentive for a budding player to give his 100% effort and risk injury playing for his 'state' team, in a 'sub-tier' competition?  

 

a) Under current system, zonal teams can be randomly selected, b) the number of quality games are fewer (as the players also waste time on less competitive competitions including the current Ranji), c) the team building and continuous player development associated with "group" teams is lacking (which the new system will bring in)

 

PS one of the banes of Duleep Trophy (an example of randomly created teams)

 

"Duleep Trophy is an individualistic tournament, because – whether players accept it or not - everybody focuses on his own runs and wickets, being so close to selection. Playing for a state side comes with a sense of togetherness, with a lot of success and disappointment shared over a period of time. That bonding is missing in the zonal sides.

 

There is hardly any pride involved in representing your zone. There are different people from different states, some selfish, some hard to get along with.

 

Link"

 

 

 

Quote

Arguably, there is a track record already available that shows that such "all-star" style arbitrary teams drawn up from zones, or top players, does not lead to high quality games and competition, because the players do not 'vest' as much value and personal competition to the games when the format and the team they play for lacks the history and pedigree.  Look at the India 'blue/red/green' ODI games that have been held for more than a decade now.  Its not really a structure that inspires confidence.  

 

That is one of the reasons why the current zonal system is redundant. The group teams would not be arbitrary as explained 

 

 

Quote

 

Of course, there are valid arguments to be made to increase competitiveness in FC cricket.  And to stay relevant, a structure must continue to evolve. But change for the  sake of it, and poorly-thought out change, is not a panacea.  Quite the opposite.

 

 

It is not change for the sake of change. Also resisting for the sake of resisting hinders progress 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by zen