too much quota-system in indian team selection

[amits]

rohit sharma does have a godfather in vengsarkar. when 2 mumbai players ramesh powar & jaffer were dropped due to poor form, the selectors needed to have a mumbai player before looking at anything else, so rohit sharma got in it should be noted that apart from tendulkar, no other mumbai player can get into the indian team purely on merit. they all need a type of a quota-system to make it into the indian team and besides that 2-year old parthiv, we have some decent wicket-keepers in pinal shah, shreevats goswami & wridhiman saha

[Holysmoke]

rohit sharma does have a godfather in vengsarkar. when 2 mumbai players ramesh powar & jaffer were dropped due to poor form, the selectors needed to have a mumbai player before looking at anything else, so rohit sharma got in it should be noted that apart from tendulkar, no other mumbai player can get into the indian team purely on merit. they all need a type of a quota-system to make it into the indian team

If they badly wanted to select a mumbai player, they would have selected Ajinkya Rahane. Third on the list of best ranji batsmen last year. (Only behind Aakash Chopra and Parthiv Patel)

and besides that 2-year old parthiv, we have some decent wicket-keepers in pinal shah, shreevats goswami & wridhiman saha

Yes, and if Pinal Shah was selected, you would've cried about West Zone quota system.

[amits]

If they badly wanted to select a mumbai player, they would have selected Ajinkya Rahane. Third on the list of best ranji batsmen last year. (Only behind Aakash Chopra and Parthiv Patel) Yes, and if Pinal Shah was selected, you would've cried about West Zone quota system.

with ajinkya rahanes and pinal shahs selection, i wouldnt have cried about anything after looking at their statistics. as for parthiv, although he has the stats, but we cant forget that he cost india chaces to win 2 test series against aus in 2003-2004. we lost both the away & home test series to aus, just bcoz of that 2-year old retard and ajinkya rahane was a opener, but the selectors were looking at a middle-order batsman, so the selectors chose a mumbai-ite for the middle-order instead of looking at players like kaif, badrinath, dhawan, raina & others

[Holysmoke]

with ajinkya rahanes and pinal shahs selection, i wouldnt have cried about anything after looking at their statistics. as for parthiv, although he has the stats, but we cant forget that he cost india chaces to win 2 test series against aus in 2003-2004. we lost both the away & home test series to aus, just bcoz of that 2-year old retard and ajinkya rahane was a opener, but the selectors were looking at a middle-order batsman, so the selectors chose a mumbai-ite for the middle-order instead of looking at players like kaif, badrinath, dhawan, raina & others

I agree Parthiv was BAD during the previous series. But that was 5 years ago mate. I guess its fair enough to give him another chance. He's been playing well for his state team, and being a keeper as well as the second highest scorer is not easy.

[Guest Hiten.]

Rohit Sharma is a 100% quota selection, no matter how one tries to spin it. And those lauding him for ODIs/T20s, you guys are talking as if he some kind of a world beater in those formats. Even calling him mediocre would be stretching it.

I got to agree with this post. All the talks of Rohit Sharma has talents and what not are just going to be fallacy, unless until he proves it on consistent basis (don't you remind me of Cb series final, he failed to perform in the very next final match). Players representing Mumbai have an unfair advantage over others when it comes to making it to the Indian side. Being from Mumbai, I can see this and I am not at all convinced with this BS.

[Tapioca]

You'll find many people with strong domestic records dudding in international cricket but the chances of someone who can't even score in domestic cricket to hit it big at the international level are close to zero and I am yet to see a real exception to it. Rohit Sharma is a 100% quota selection, no matter how one tries to spin it. And those lauding him for ODIs/T20s, you guys are talking as if he some kind of a world beater in those formats. Even calling him mediocre would be stretching it.

Don't entirely agree with that. Some of the selections are always based on impressions and perceived potential rather than statistics. There is an amount of subjectivity (as well as some prejudice and partiality) involved in this, but the assumption is that the selectors are more knowledgeable and perceptive than the aam janta and can spot the talent quickly and accurately. Which is why we have people with ex-players as selectors, and not some computer programs for analysing statistics. Harbhajan, Yuvraj and possibly Sreesanth (I think Sreesanth was a quota selection though) were all originally selected on potential with little first class stats to back them up. The Indian selectors have always had certain prejudices : "good-looking" or stylish players over hardworkers is one, young players are picked over old for no reason other than that they are young is another. Because of these, a Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina or Piyush Chawla are always likely to be selected over an Akash Chopra, Badrinath, Kaif or Amit Mishra. This is not really fair, but at times it has produced results too. Sharma, IMHO, was about the most elegant, composed and pragmatic Indian batsman in the IPL. And he did *look* good in the CUB series too, though did not always make runs. So it is possible that the usual criteria worked in his favour and superceded the recent lack of runs.

[The Outsider]

Don't entirely agree with that. Some of the selections are always based on impressions and perceived potential rather than statistics. There is an amount of subjectivity (as well as some prejudice and partiality) involved in this, but the assumption is that the selectors are more knowledgeable and perceptive than the aam janta and can spot the talent quickly and accurately. Which is why we have people with ex-players as selectors, and not some computer programs for analysing statistics. Harbhajan, Yuvraj and possibly Sreesanth (I think Sreesanth was a quota selection though) were all originally selected on potential with little first class stats to back them up.

I am not saying statistics should be the be all and end all of selection - heck we could have a software program do that. But a weak FC background shows a weak pedigree. A strong FC record might not always show a strong pedigree, specially in the context of Indian FC structure but for poor FC performers to shine through is very difficult. Regarding your examples above, Yuvraj has still proved to be a failure in tests, IIRC Harbhajan had a very successful FC season before being picked in 2001 - he sucked in 1998. Not sure what Sreesanth's numbers were before he was picked though. But surely a batting average of 25 and just 1 50 in the domestic season as for Rohit does not deserve a call for the test team no matter how "good looking" and "young" one is.

[amits]

if looks were everything, then shikhar dhawan, who is 10 times better looking than yuvraj singh should have made it into the indian team in 2005 itself & been a regular in odis. but shikhar dhawan despite avging 46 in list-a & 41 in fc isnt getting into the indian odi team rohit sharma is a 100% quota selection. i have to agree with shwetabh. rohit sharma was in poor form in odis & does not deserve a place in the odi squad even. here he got into the test team as the mumbai quota player after jaffer & powar were dropped. even if selectors wanted to keep the mumbai quota, they could have selected ajinkya rahane instead who was in smashing form in domestic cricket this season. in the last 10 years, apart from sachin tendulkar, there has been no merit-based mumbai player playing for india. tendulkar & vinod kambli were the last merit-based mumbai players to play for india. agarkar, powar, rohit sharma r all quota-based players & wont make it into even the india a team based on merit

[fineleg]

^ All part of Vengcircus Bombay quota

[Tapioca]

if looks were everything, then shikhar dhawan, who is 10 times better looking than yuvraj singh should have made it into the

Don't interpret "good-looking" too literally there. I meant it more in the sense that Raina is more stylish than someone like Kaif.

[flamy]

Shikhar Dhawan is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDASSSSSSSSSSSS! He has tattoos all over his body and fields bald without a cap and KOs Pakis on the field to take a catch. He MUST be an automatic selection in the playing 11 in all 3 formats of the game!