Vinod kambli - A faded legend

[Chaos]

What a player! just gone through some video's of him. Great footwork but thanks to bcci stupidity one of the greatest talents gone wasted.

[CC1981]

Great footwork but thanks to bcci stupidity one of the greatest talents gone wasted.

Not *JUST* BCCI stupidity....Kambli is HIMSELF to blame for the most part. He had talent, but he made the BULK of his runs against an extremely weak England/Zimbabwe....he got thoroughly exposed by Walsh for having a very weak technique against the short ball..... Not to mention, Kambli got SEVERAL chances in ODIs to showcase his ability but he did NOT show ANY improement in his technique against the short ball in ODIs.... Plus the rise of Dravid-Laxman-Ganguly meant that Kambli had to be shunted out of international cricket... So no, Kambli is not BCCI's fault.

[Temujin Khaghan]

Yeah right! BCCI is responsible for his late night partying and not showing up to the team bus on time.

[Gambit]

Ganpat babu was most definitely shortchanged by the BCCI when it came to test cricket. 99% of cricketers have lean series' early on in their career but are backed by their captains and boards to come good. BCCI should have reposed more faith in Kambli and not just dumped him on the basis of one bad series v WI. All Kambli ever got after that series was a rain affected series v NZ and no other chances since then. And his play against the short ball did get better. I still can't forget his massive hooked six off Amby in the '96 WC match at Gwalior.

[CC1981]

99% of cricketers have lean series' early on in their career but are backed by their captains and boards to come good. BCCI should have reposed more faith in Kambli and not just dumped him on the basis of one bad series v WI.

Gambo, there is a difference- HUGE difference- between backing someone when they hit a rough spot and having your weakness clinically exposed and exploited. Kambli was brutally exposed by Walsh for being extremely weak against the short ball- not just the short ball into the body but short ball on the OFFSTUMP line. And i would like to mention that in that series, there was no Ambrose and Walsh in the early 90s was an above average/good pacer, not great- the way Kambli was exposed by Walsh, i wouldn't have been surprised if Kambli would end up dead against more hostile and deadlier pacers like Ambrose,Walsh,Waqar,Donald,etc. And yes, Kambli hooked Ambrose...whopeee ding...Phil Tufnell has hooked Ambrose too and that too in a test match for a six over cow corner.... Yes, his game against the short ball improved somewhat, but with Dravid and Ganguly rising fast and impressing massively in their debuts, there wasnt a place left for Kambli and rightly so i feel,. And Kambli got a lot of chances in ODIs that he didnt capitalize on...his performance was scratchy at best in the last several ODIs he played.

[The Outsider]

^ Ponting has been repeatedly and brutally exposed against good spin on tracks with a bit of invariable bounce -time and again. Aussies didn't dump him.

[Mr. Wicket]

CC - what about the fact that you can pick a player, drop him for perceived weaknesses and pick him some time later to see if he has developed/is able to develop his game further as he matures to counter those weaknesses? Otherwise Steve Waugh would never have been reselected in the late 80s, nor would Martyn after he was dropped in 93 for being considered mentally weak and unable to handle pressure.

[Gambit]

If we theoretically extrapolate success or failure in one form to another, then Bevan would have been a test great and Sehwag a test failure. Bottomline is that you stick with a talent like Kambli and give him time to work on his weaknesses. But to give him just 1 more rain affected series v NZ was shortsighted thinking from the BCCI.

[CC1981]

^ Ponting has been repeatedly and brutally exposed against good spin on tracks with a bit of invariable bounce -time and again. Aussies didn't dump him.

Because being exposed on tracks with uneven bounce and crumblers ( NOT just tracks with good spin-he did well in SL, he has done well in Sydney) are very specific scenarios...akin to not doing well on a ground with a slope- but when you get owned by short pitched bowling on body or on offstump repeatedly, that is a weakness that can be exploited by ANY good/great pacer on ANY surface....and Kambli was schooled by the windies in INDIA...not on WACA or Sabina park...where he probably would've died.

[The Outsider]

^ And one poor series is good enough to dump someone for good? Brilliant!! Waugh and Ganguly to name a couple have had good test careers despite being poor against short pitch bowling.

[CC1981]

CC - what about the fact that you can pick a player, drop him for perceived weaknesses and pick him some time later to see if he has developed/is able to develop his game further as he matures to counter those weaknesses?

That is a good point, but consider this: 1. Kambli was picked for a very long period AFTER he was dumped in tests for ODIs...and nowhere in ODIs did he suggest that his form is back to top notch or that he can deal effectively with the short bowling.... so the way i see it, why would you pick a guy for tests when his exposed weakness keeps getting exposed in the far less attacking ODI arena 2. considering point #1, why would you show patience for a party-going slacker ??? Tugga had tons of work ethic..Kambli had none 3. Given an opportunity is also a matter of scope....Dravid and Ganguly rose meteorically - Ganguly scored a ton on debut in England on seaming pitches, Dravid fell just short of a ton on debut on the same tour...Gangoo proceeded to average 50+ in his first two years against a LOT MORE variety of opponents than just Zimboks,English and Windies at home. Dravid started ratcheting it up incrementally. So where is now a spot for Kambli ? Remember Azhar was very much present back then and he proceeded to resurrect his career in the late 90s with stirring performances against Donald-Pollock. Tendy was God. After Azhar 'retired' in 99, Kambli's window of opportunity had passed....now you have Laxman and Sehwag knocking on the doors and Kambli didnt set the Ranji scene on fire either. So based on what did Kambli deserve another shot ?!? Only scenario i can see is in the 96-99 period, where Kambli is picked at the expense of Dravid or Ganguly..but given their extremely strong starts and far more credible record (remember, Kambli's record is only against Zimboks, English at home and WI at home- SCG and RSD had scored against far more varied attacks, home and away in that period), if anything, it made more sense to give Dravid or Ganguly extra rope for failing in the occasional series than resurrecting an undisciplined former star with very little 'recent' accomplishments at domestics either...

[CC1981]

^ And one poor series is good enough to dump someone for good? Brilliant!! Waugh and Ganguly to name a couple have had good test careers despite being poor against short pitch bowling.

Waugh was poor against short pitched bowling ?!? Is that how he literally won the cup on his own in west indies, scoring a double ton against the most fearsome pace attack of his day in the fortress of barbados ?!? Thats laughable! Tugga knew how to DEAL with short pitched bowling...something Kambli didnt. Sure, Tugga didnt go around hooking and pulling ala Ponting, but he didnt curl up and look like a rabbit in headlights when faced with short pitched bowling either!

[The Outsider]

^ Yes he was, even Waugh himself has admitted in his autobiography he did not have the percentage play to play the hook and pull so he cut out the shots. Was Kambli offered that opportunity? NO!

[Mr. Wicket]

Sure' date=' Tugga didnt go around hooking and pulling ala Ponting, but he didnt curl up and look like a rabbit in headlights when faced with short pitched bowling either![/quote'] How much of Waugh vintage 1986/87 have you actually seen? And for that matter, do you recollect his dismissal in the first test of the 2003-04 Border-Gavaskar series in Brisbane, where he was out hit wicket to Zaheer Khan unable to handle a short ball?

[CC1981]

Yes he was, even Waugh himself has admitted in his autobiography he did not have the percentage play to play the hook and pull so he cut out the shots.

He admitted he couldnt dominate short pitched bowling...but did you see Waugh getting out repeatedly popping a catch to the slips or gulley when peppered with short-pitched bowling ? NO! He knew how to DEAL with it, even when he wasnt going to dominate it. THAT is the difference between Waugh and Kambli.

Was Kambli offered that opportunity? NO!

And there is no reason why he should've been offered the opportunity. He was brutally exposed on the featherbeds of India against a decent pace attack(just Walsh and bunch of nobodies- no bishop,no Ambrose) to be hopeless...he got umpteen chances in ODIs where he failed to dominate/rectify his weakness... And as i asked, based on WHAT would Kambli be given another chance and over WHOM ? Bench Dravid/Gangs- two players averaging 50 after SEVERAL series against stronger opposition than Zimboks+England in India(minus Gough,Caddick,etc who were stronger bowlers than what they brought to India in 93/94) to play a slacker who hasnt been lighting up the scene even at domestic cricket ? Sorry, doesnt compute...your argument reeks of simply looking at the average and going 'he deserved more!' without these very valid considerations : has he showed improvement ? has he dominated domestic scene ? who to bench ?

[CC1981]

How much of Waugh vintage 1986/87 have you actually seen?

How much of Waugh in 92/94 vs Ambrose-Walsh have YOU seen ? That alone should make your comparisons of Waugh and Kambli re: short pitched bowling look foolish. Like i said, the difference between Waugh and Kambli was Waugh knew how to survive against the BEST OF THE BEST short pitched bowling...Kambli got out easily against just Walsh on flat wickets...

[The Outsider]

LOL! Comparing someone 6 seasons into his international career with someone who was never given a chance after his first 2!!!!

[CC1981]

LOL! Comparing someone 6 seasons into his international career with someone who was never given a chance after his first 2!!!!

Change the word 'given' to 'deserved' and you got it spot on. Despite your clamours, you havnt exactly answered my questions....you are simply going by Kambli's rather inflated average against some extremely ordinary bowling and trying to make a case for him. I ask you again these questions which you should answer if you want a further comment from me towards your posts on this thread: 1. If you turned the clock back and went to 96-2000 period, WHO would you drop to fit Kambli in the middle ? Sachin ? Azhar (cappo) ? Dravid/Gangs who had grabbed their chances post Kambli-Manjrekar with both hands and did mindbogglingly well in their early years ? 2. On WHAT BASIS did Kambli deserve a recall ? Did he set the scene alight in Ranjis ? Did he demonstrate his coping with the short ball in the numerous ODIs he played since being dumped in tests ? Or is it just a case of 'he had 55+ average..cant drop a player with that average even if he made it against Zimbabwe and Morocco only' ??? 3. Once that 'window' is passed, HOW can you recall a mediocre performer in domestic cricket, out of test cricket for 5-6 yrs, at the expense of newcommers like Laxman and Sehwag ??? 4. Did Kambli give ANY indication that his indiscipline problems were behind him ? (the answer to this is most emphatic NO!). Sorry, but i am firmly with BCCI on this- Kambli did NOTHING to deserve a recall and neither was the opportunity present, for fitting Kambli would mean benching far more illustrious performers in Dravid and Ganguly for a '2-3 yrs outta cricket' Kambli with mountain of runs against schoolboy level teams.

[The Outsider]

All your above points except 2 are fairly decent but Kambli was never even in the squad forget about the playing 11. Not to forget the likes of Jadeja and Gandhi were played in the test 11 during that period, so Kambli could well have been given a chance. Regarding point 2, Kambli ALWAYS scored heavily in the domestics.

[CC1981]

Regarding point 2, Kambli ALWAYS scored heavily in the domestics.

Err...Kambli was NOT amongst the highest scorers in Ranji in the period i am talking about ( 96-2000). He was outbatted by members of his OWN TEAM, nevermind overall in India. Whether he did better before 96 or after 2000 is irrelevant, for that is far past his sell-by date or when he was in the test consideration already.

Not to forget the likes of Jadeja and Gandhi were played in the test 11 during that period, so Kambli could well have been given a chance.

Jadeja was tried as an opener, no ? Plus, Jadeja made it to the Indian test team on the back of some very strong ODI performances....as i said, Kambli had extensive chances in ODIs sans his test drop and he hardly did anything of note to suggest he desrved a recall.