Is there a case of format specific selectors and coaching staff

[vayuu1]

Sounds outrageous,but tell me honestly how much do you think is guy like Chetan Sharma no disrespect to person is aware of necessities of limited over cricket,abey kuruvilla too,so don't you think guys like irfan pathan, raina ,dk sehwag,Agarkar,bhajji,zak,rp and Yuvi who knows the requirements of t20 and loi be involved with future set-up ,what do you think guys

[vvvslaxman]

Some of the guys in the com box has great insight.  Agarkar, Parthiv, Irfan.

[vayuu1]

My suggestion is dravid for test and gauti for limited over cricket,gauti has a very sharp eye for talent what do you think.

[Try_Ball]

Well India is playing a ODI team in a T20

 

1)  India are top Heavy - the main batting is Top 3  -  However imo,  The Indian top 3 are not T20 batsman - they are "Accumulators"  .  If you look at Rohit - He is well known to take first 4-8 overs to settle in and then play a long innings in ODI - He is a slow starter - He needs 4-6 overs to even get settled to get going - You cannot do that in a T20   .  A t20 batsman needs to have the ability to go from 1st over.    Kohli also focuses on rotating strike and boundaries but that doesn't necessarily puts the opposition under pressure or take the game away  .  Look at  Guptill / Warner / Butler / Rizwan / Moeen  etc  - They can start hitting sixes from the 1st over .

2)  No big Hitters in Number 4 to 6  -   Poor poor middle order -  These guys neither can rotate strike and maintain momentum if the top order collapses and Neither can they score 60-80 runs in 4-5 overs in the end.  Pant plays a very high number of dot balls and then tends to lost patience and play horrible , very high risk shots and more often than not gets out.   Pandya - the lesser said , the better - Needs to be taken out  as soon as possible.  SKY can be an accelerator but needs time to build

3)  No Genuine all rounders

 

[Khota]

Any two different coaches will be fine. David is just a step up and nothing more.

[zen]

The issue with Indian cricketers is that they are fixed on a formula of Tuk Tuk batsmen and spinners, with 1-2 rare high strike rate batsman and pace bowlers thrown into the mix.

 

They think that much like how Tuk Tuk batsmen achieve consistency by minimizing risks, high strike batsmen play with similar consistency by taking even more risks. Logically not possible. 
 

Imagine a Buttler coming in at 6-7 with Ind 100 odd at 15-16 overs mark. He will have to play a magical inning every single time by taking a disproportionate amount of risks, resulting in an ordinary success ratio.   Then the selectors will replace a Buttler with a Roy, who would face similar challenges, while keeping the Tuk Tuk section intact. 
 

Eng has worked with this problem by playing 5-6 high strike batsmen where consistency comes from the whole group where a random combination of 2-3 batsmen make an impact in the game. Player A does not necessarily need to score 500 runs in a competition but just play a couple of impactful knocks to bat the opposition out.  If most of those in the top 7 do that in a tournament, along with others contributing here and there, Eng can win on batting alone. 
 

Indian mind is not ideally suited to sports, where being positive and risky pays dividend. Indian mind is more safety focused. It seeks security first (playing on rank turners is another example where you need more things to go your way to feel confident. Toss is another example where losing it makes many less confident). When the team selections are done, Tuk Tuk batsmen rule the roost and look for safety first to even remain in the team. Fans cheer stats padding initiatives and equate that with being the best batsman. A high strike batsman is expected to achieve similar consistency despite taking more risks for the team. A lose-lose scenario.

 

It is not just in sports but in most fields. India can compete but will not be a dominant force in most fields in the near future. 
 

 

Edited November 7, 2021 by zen