Vinod kambli - A faded legend

[Lurker]

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.

You should probably do more homework than accuse BCCI based on some random videos. Vinod Kambli was a good talent. But the ONLY reason he got to play for India was because he was a Mumbaikar. All these nonsense of scoring high in domestic cricket holds little water when you had folks like Bhaskar Pillai who in 80s was almost always the highest run getter in domestic cricket but never got picked. Of course there was Ajay Sharma as well. The reason Kambli was kicked off was three-fold. a) He was not exactly a disciplined cricketer. There is this incident that Sachin tendulkar always mentions how during one of their big partnership during league cricket Kambli got uninterested in the game and started flying a kite. That incident sums up the two cricketers - Sachin concentrated and worked hard at his game, Kambli was more fun loving. Nothing wrong in being fun loving so long as one can seperate his game and personal life which Kambli clearly could not. b) He had poor series towards the end of his career. Specially he was sorted out by class fast bowlers like Walsh and Ambrose. To the point that it was embarassing. When a player gets down from a 100 plus series to a 15 and 25 you know this is much more than sheer lack of form, its a matter of lack of class. c) He played in era when Indian batting was fairly decent, if not spectacular. When he arrived India had Sidhu, Manjrekar, Azhar and of course Sachin..and when he played his last Test everyone except Majrekar was there and in place were two good bats - Ganguly and Dravid- were knocking at the door and there was no way Kambli should have been selected ahead of someone like Dravid..or even Ganguly for that matter considering Ganguly was a better option(he could bowl and formed the best opening partnership with Sachin). So Kambli dwindled but not before he played 100 LOI. Had the man worked as hard at his game as fellow Mumbaikar Praveen Amre did, Kambli would have played more. xxx

[CC1981]

Lurker, another thing about Ganguly is we cannot use Ganguly TODAY as the benchmark...remember, Ganguly started like a race-horse straight outta the door....century on debut- in England no less where Indian batsmen have traditionally struggled in previous eras, averaging 50+ for the first few years of his career...he was EASILY a better choice than a guy who scored tons of runs against two very weak and pisspoor attacks and then got owned by one decent (but third-strength) attack he faced.

[Lurker]

Lurker' date=' another thing about Ganguly is we cannot use Ganguly TODAY as the benchmark...remember, Ganguly started like a race-horse straight outta the door....century on debut- in England no less where Indian batsmen have traditionally struggled in previous eras, averaging 50+ for the first few years of his career...he was EASILY a better choice than a guy who scored tons of runs against two very weak and pisspoor attacks and then got owned by one decent (but third-strength) attack he faced.[/quote'] Of course he was. After 17 Tests(number of Test played by Kambli) Ganguly has more runs, better average. This included two away series(England and Sri Lanka) where his performance was second to none. Also by the time Kambli hung up his boots Ganguly had outscored him greatly in LOI, formed a champion partnership with SRT and manage to pick some wickets to boot. Kambli is gloried more as a "what-if". The lad had talent no doubt but he was hardly a shoe-in when it came to being picked for India as some might be suggesting.

[swami1984]

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.

Haydos - seemingly only Aussies do that

[THX_1138]

I think Lurker is correct in his assessment or statement, whichever it is, that Kambli was indeed not as disciplined as his illustruous friend. He was often impunctual for team practice, his level of fitness often was wanting etc etc. However, he was talented enough to be in the team at almost every junction of his career, and though he was given a few opportunities later on, those opportunities were often in the form of 1 or 2 ODIs at a stretch, a dire shame if you ask me. I think when faced with an undisciplined player, who has talent worth the effort, the board should seek counselling and maybe even an intervention for the player rather than punishment in the form of team exclusion. The Board should not act like an elitist university that you must struggle to join, it must instead be a nurturing school where students of unequal talents must all have access to certain fascilities. While i am not suggesting that we must tend for every tom, dick and harry, a player with a certain amount of achievement at the domestic level must receive a piece of the cake. the board is rich enough to afford it, so why not? Take the case of former zimbabwian player: Vern... (i cant quite spell it) who was convicted of arson and had a history of mental illness. He was talented and had he received some attention, he might have shaped out in a different manner. Every time i am reminded of him, my heart goes out to him and i am distrissed at the future that awaits that poor bloke.

[THX_1138]

I think Kambli was india's Greg Blewett... a world of promise but eventually a loss to the ether.

[Lurker]

Haydos - seemingly only Aussies do that

not really. In current Indian team Irfan Pathan was clearly shown the door and is back in the game now. The same goes for Zaheer Khan who made a comeback after good performances. VVS and Ganguly shall fall in this category as well. Now if you specifically mean during Kambli's team even then there were other players who seized the chances, Navjot Singh Sidhu for example. Sidhu retired in 1999 after playing only 51 tests in 16 odd years(just for argument sake Sachin tendulkar had played 70 odd tests by this time even though he started playing cricket 6-7 years after Sidhu). Point being Indian players have been given chances, atleast those who were thought of as good enough.

[Lurker]

Take the case of former zimbabwian player: Vern... (i cant quite spell it) who was convicted of arson and had a history of mental illness.

Mark Vermulean??

I think when faced with an undisciplined player, who has talent worth the effort, the board should seek counselling and maybe even an intervention for the player rather than punishment in the form of team exclusion.

You raise an interesting point there THX. I dont have a straight forward answer to how a Board should deal with a maverick or a character but I do think that it is quite fair to say that over the years characters have slowly but surely vanished from cricket fields. This is because cricket today is professional and well-oiled machine and if you dont show complete dedication you are out. Case in point how Frank Worrell would handle Gary Sobers. When Frank Worrell was West Indies skipper there was a late night curfew(about 1 am) by which time the players should be in bed on the eve of a match. However Worrell had no problems with Sobers drinking till wee hours as he could "hold his liquor". One time Sobers walked in at 7 am after partying then proceeded to score a century. Compare this with the hungama that happened when Freddie Flintoff was caught drinking on the eve of a World Cup game last year. Point being the rules are more strict for current cricketers. And I can see why. You have coach, manager, physiotherapist etc etc and odd as it may sound none of them would take responsibility if a player walked in at 7 am all drunk and then wanted to play. Today's cricket is lot more boring(dont quite see it as more competitive) and a player has to make most of his chances. Kambli couldnt and so he is history.