The cyclical nature of cricket . How does Australia avoid it

[mani sha]

I have been following cricket since 1996 regularly . My memories are that of the Aussie team and how over the years they keep on winning. 
 

India has improved vastly but a few key differences are very notable . 
 

A- superstars retire in Australia in their prime. 
 

Gillchrist , pointing are prime examples of people who quit almost at their peak . 
 

compare - kapil , sachin , kohli - india has had a long list of players who are held on , not questioned about their place even though they are past their prime . 

B - media treatment 

 

our media treats players like gods and demons based on performances . Words like king kohli are thrown left right and centre but pauper kohli was never coined when his returns have been marginal . 
 

Note lack of any major media outlet asking for kohli and sharma to sit out of the Aussie series .

 

c - stagnation of talent 

 

jurel is a good case that comes to mind recently . 
 

Clearly he is one of the best players of spin etc but note rahul being brought back at his cost even though jurel is clearly in form . Samson is another case . Ideally , kohli , rahul should not have been selected and I am pretty sure we could have had better results 

 

4 pitch doctoring 

 

I think we tend to make too much Toss dependent results . Not seem australia try to make it harder or easier . Their pitches are consistent . 
 

 

[R!TTER]

2 hours ago, mani sha said:

My memories are that of the Aussie team and how over the years they keep on winning. 
 

They win the big moments; literally speaking, even the best players like Djoker, Nadal, or Fedex don't win every point, but they win the bigger ones most often! In a team sport, this obviously has a compounding effect, which basically means they're likely doing better than the sum of their parts. If you take out the best Oz side from 99-07, they really haven't been that dominant as a whole, but they keep hanging on for longer and, of course, win the big moments, like that Maxi double (after Afghans dropped two dollies) in Mumbai or RGS throwing his wicket away in the finale 

Edited November 3, 2024 by R!TTER

[mani sha]

2 minutes ago, R!TTER said:

They win the big momemts, genrally speaking even the best players like Djoker, Nadal or Fedex don't win every poiunt but they win the bigger ones most often! In a team sport this obviously has a compounding effect which basically means they're likely doing better then sum of their parts. If you take out the best Oz side from 99-07 they really haven't been that dominant as a whole, but they keep hanging on for longer & of course win the big moments - like that Maxi double (after Afghans dropped two dollies) in Mumbai or RGS throwing his wicket away in the finale 

Winning big moments- 

 

I look back at how they select teams . Go a few years back and remember tom moody selection for World Cup . Many were surprised . But he turned out to be the most imp player imo . 
 

Australia always has consistent selection policies , is able to put players to retire or move out once past their prime . In a way , it’s a great style of management . 
 

Once team is right , they are more likely to win key moments . 
 

Did anyone expect nri kohli to win any key moment in this test cycle . Samson , jurel and many younger players deserve to be playing . I do think that our sifarishi - seniority culture is one causing us to not tell people to quit . 
 

I feel IPL teams are better managed . Rahul being fired from Lucknow is a good example . 

[Number]

Because the sport is seriously played by only the biggest dumpyard of the world called Indian subcontinent. 

 

[Nikhil_cric]

It's their ODI domination that is really remarkable. 5 out of last 7 World Cups is ridiculous .

 

Reading Steve Waugh's autobiography is very instructive. 

 

Bob Simpson and Border started a revolution in 86 or so that has had long lasting effects. 

.

Whether it's nutrition, biomechanics, workload management, analytics - they have been  far ahead of the rest from the late 80's onwards.

 

The process never stops for them and only ever gets ever more refined and nuanced. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zen]

In India, commercial considerations appear to be the key, along with the desire to win by hook or crook esp. for $$$. Therefore, long term aspects are usually sidelined. 

Indian cricket is about “creating” superstars and then milking them for $$$, therefore the power also tends to shift to superstars.

Even for a coach it can be difficult as many would ask how can you coach player X, who has a better record than you and so on. 

Edited November 3, 2024 by zen

[Throwaib_Chuckter]

3 hours ago, mani sha said:

A- superstars retire in Australia in their prime. 
 

Gillchrist , pointing are prime examples of people who quit almost at their peak . 
 

compare - kapil , sachin , kohli - india has had a long list of players who are held on , not questioned about their place even though they are past their prime .

 

Personality cults reign supreme, no wonder players are elevated to god-like levels by the powers that be to rake in the moolah via media houses/ad revenue. It takes years to build up a fan following and the same powers steer clear or denounce any calling out of their cash cows. They want to keep churning away for as long and as much as possible. In most cases as you correctly stated, the washed up superstars linger way beyond their use by dates. Rinse and repeat.

 

3 hours ago, mani sha said:

c - stagnation of talent

jurel is a good case that comes to mind recently .

Clearly he is one of the best players of spin etc but note rahul being brought back at his cost even though jurel is clearly in form . Samson is another case . Ideally , kohli , rahul should not have been selected and I am pretty sure we could have had better results 

 

4 pitch doctoring

I think we tend to make too much Toss dependent results . Not seem australia try to make it harder or easier . Their pitches are consistent . 
 

Many potentially good players get ignored in favour of the shoopershtars consistently (even if the shoopershtars are deadweight) across decades. It is a thoroughly unfair system, the status quo continues. Add to this recipe, some pitch doctoring and we have the perfect dish which just got served to us cold.

 

[neel roy]

4 hours ago, mani sha said:

I have been following cricket since 1996 regularly . My memories are that of the Aussie team and how over the years they keep on winning. 
 

India has improved vastly but a few key differences are very notable . 
 

A- superstars retire in Australia in their prime. 
 

Gillchrist , pointing are prime examples of people who quit almost at their peak . 
 

compare - kapil , sachin , kohli - india has had a long list of players who are held on , not questioned about their place even though they are past their prime . 

B - media treatment 

 

our media treats players like gods and demons based on performances . Words like king kohli are thrown left right and centre but pauper kohli was never coined when his returns have been marginal . 
 

Note lack of any major media outlet asking for kohli and sharma to sit out of the Aussie series .

 

c - stagnation of talent 

 

jurel is a good case that comes to mind recently . 
 

Clearly he is one of the best players of spin etc but note rahul being brought back at his cost even though jurel is clearly in form . Samson is another case . Ideally , kohli , rahul should not have been selected and I am pretty sure we could have had better results 

 

4 pitch doctoring 

 

I think we tend to make too much Toss dependent results . Not seem australia try to make it harder or easier . Their pitches are consistent . 
 

 

What are you talking about. Aus got thrashed 3-1 at home against England in 2011. Next year they got thrashed 3-0 away at india. So they went through their troubles. Heck they lost to india at home twice and drew a series at home against windies this year. But yes they consistently win icc trophies. 

[nevada]

2 minutes ago, neel roy said:

What are you talking about. Aus got thrashed 3-1 at home against England in 2011. Next year they got thrashed 3-0 away at india. So they went through their troubles. Heck they lost to india at home twice and drew a series at home against windies this year. But yes they consistently win icc trophies. 

Plus their oldies drag on for far too long as well. Warner finally retired after a torturous last few years and has the audacity to claim that he will come out of retirement for the India series if the selectors ask him! Ponting was in a deep slump before helping himself to buffet bowling by India and getting an extended leash. 

[mani sha]

13 minutes ago, neel roy said:

What are you talking about. Aus got thrashed 3-1 at home against England in 2011. Next year they got thrashed 3-0 away at india. So they went through their troubles. Heck they lost to india at home twice and drew a series at home against windies this year. But yes they consistently win icc trophies. 

Yes they loose a few series . Their pitches are consistent . Player selection is consistent and those series that they loose are followed by ones they win . They don’t loose in dramatic fashion . They don’t doctor their pitches . The matches played there are always top notch fun to watch . 
 

You are missing the point . If u haven’t seen how India lost in 2011-2012 due to ageing batsmen, u ain’t understanding the point . It was clear in 2010 that sachin is dragging also , dravid is nearly out but we didn’t show them the door.  

 

It was v clear last 3 years kohli is a dud . Dont think aussie selectors would have continued with a player like that . Esp with such poor performance .