maniac Posted April 16 Posted April 16 Chahar was very useful with the new ball. He could run through the top order in helpful conditions. Started of as a trundler, never improved his pace and remained one. However his batting was super impressive. He was not just a guy who could use the long handle or hold one end up, he could actually play match winning knocks. he always had fitness issues and was mediocre in the field. Thakur is another guy. Used to touch 140s but now is a mega trundler. Had batting ability to be as good as Pandya in Lois and definitely better than Jadeja but now is a tailender who can slog a few at best. He played some breathtaking innings in tests. Should have had at least 2 test 100s. I would pay to watch him bat. However now looks like a guy who looks out of shape, demotivated, and just screams mediocrity . with all the facilities in the world and having allround ability which is rare in Indian cricket, how come these guys haven’t improved an inch since they started?
tapandrun Posted April 16 Posted April 16 Like for Like replacements a model of downgrades :: The problem feels systemic. And it’s not limited to one or two players; you can see it across a long list: Khaleel, Avesh, Mukesh, Bishnoi, and others. The core issue seems to be the “like-for-like replacement” model. On paper, it sounds logical, but in practice it becomes a downgrade cycle. Instead of producing players who can challenge or surpass the incumbent, the system ends up creating replicas — and usually inferior ones — of the established core. That has a psychological effect too. These players often know they’re not competing to become first-choice; they’re backups, filling in when the main player is rested or unavailable. So the incentive structure is weak — they’re not really pushing for a spot, just maintaining their place in the rotation. Bilateral series selections almost become predictable, which further reduces competitive pressure. As a result, the team stagnates. You don’t get genuine competition for places, and more importantly, you don’t develop replacements who are actually better than the incumbents. And the bigger issue is that the “originals” themselves aren’t necessarily miles ahead of the rest of the world — so building a system around replicating them limits the team’s ceiling rather than raising it. New guy, maniac, Bigg Brother and 6 others 6 3
express bowling Posted April 17 Posted April 17 10 hours ago, tapandrun said: Like for Like replacements a model of downgrades :: The problem feels systemic. And it’s not limited to one or two players; you can see it across a long list: Khaleel, Avesh, Mukesh, Bishnoi, and others. The core issue seems to be the “like-for-like replacement” model. On paper, it sounds logical, but in practice it becomes a downgrade cycle. Instead of producing players who can challenge or surpass the incumbent, the system ends up creating replicas — and usually inferior ones — of the established core. That has a psychological effect too. These players often know they’re not competing to become first-choice; they’re backups, filling in when the main player is rested or unavailable. So the incentive structure is weak — they’re not really pushing for a spot, just maintaining their place in the rotation. Bilateral series selections almost become predictable, which further reduces competitive pressure. As a result, the team stagnates. You don’t get genuine competition for places, and more importantly, you don’t develop replacements who are actually better than the incumbents. And the bigger issue is that the “originals” themselves aren’t necessarily miles ahead of the rest of the world — so building a system around replicating them limits the team’s ceiling rather than raising it. Very interesting perspective. tapandrun 1
Vk1 Posted April 17 Posted April 17 12 hours ago, tapandrun said: Like for Like replacements a model of downgrades :: The problem feels systemic. And it’s not limited to one or two players; you can see it across a long list: Khaleel, Avesh, Mukesh, Bishnoi, and others. The core issue seems to be the “like-for-like replacement” model. On paper, it sounds logical, but in practice it becomes a downgrade cycle. Instead of producing players who can challenge or surpass the incumbent, the system ends up creating replicas — and usually inferior ones — of the established core. That has a psychological effect too. These players often know they’re not competing to become first-choice; they’re backups, filling in when the main player is rested or unavailable. So the incentive structure is weak — they’re not really pushing for a spot, just maintaining their place in the rotation. Bilateral series selections almost become predictable, which further reduces competitive pressure. As a result, the team stagnates. You don’t get genuine competition for places, and more importantly, you don’t develop replacements who are actually better than the incumbents. And the bigger issue is that the “originals” themselves aren’t necessarily miles ahead of the rest of the world — so building a system around replicating them limits the team’s ceiling rather than raising it. great point.. similar thing happened in WK till Gilchrist arrived or MSD for us almost a decade later. We need 3/4 successful fast bowlers who hit 145+ regularly and a steady pipeline of intl cricket ready crop to keep this culture going. Virat did his bit but things can downgrade quickly and we will end up with Mukesh, Unadkat etc tapandrun 1
maniac Posted April 17 Author Posted April 17 @tapandrun good post. However one thing though, Chahar and Thakur both had a lot more upside because of their allround abilities. They were not stop gap players like Vijay Shankar etc and at one point they seemed to have a lot more upside than Dube. They both played high quality batting innings and were not just stop gap but proper wicket taking bowlers. With Pandya being so fragile and that slot always being in demand, they could have upped their game: their bowling at some point was definitely better than Hardik’s but were behind in fielding and batting but had the promise. They failed to grab their chances and showed no improvement at all. They got enough run. Khaleel, Avesh, Bishnoi, Mukesh you mentioned have a lot more competition and when someone better came along- Arshdeep, Rana, Akashdeep etc they moved back in the pecking order. These guys failed to realize their own utility and are happy with the IPL pay Cheque looks like.
JazzyB Posted April 17 Posted April 17 These two were only ever good under thala captaincy shows you how food a captain thala was winning ipl titles with this sorry bunch
Lord Posted April 17 Posted April 17 16 hours ago, tapandrun said: Like for Like replacements a model of downgrades :: The problem feels systemic. And it’s not limited to one or two players; you can see it across a long list: Khaleel, Avesh, Mukesh, Bishnoi, and others. The core issue seems to be the “like-for-like replacement” model. On paper, it sounds logical, but in practice it becomes a downgrade cycle. Instead of producing players who can challenge or surpass the incumbent, the system ends up creating replicas — and usually inferior ones — of the established core. That has a psychological effect too. These players often know they’re not competing to become first-choice; they’re backups, filling in when the main player is rested or unavailable. So the incentive structure is weak — they’re not really pushing for a spot, just maintaining their place in the rotation. Bilateral series selections almost become predictable, which further reduces competitive pressure. As a result, the team stagnates. You don’t get genuine competition for places, and more importantly, you don’t develop replacements who are actually better than the incumbents. And the bigger issue is that the “originals” themselves aren’t necessarily miles ahead of the rest of the world — so building a system around replicating them limits the team’s ceiling rather than raising it. Good chatgpt post However it is upto the player to make sure that once he gets chance he solidifies his place. Most players start as backups only. For instance Abhishek started as backup for Jaiswal but made the spot his own.
Gollum Posted April 17 Posted April 17 16 hours ago, tapandrun said: Like for Like replacements a model of downgrades :: The problem feels systemic. And it’s not limited to one or two players; you can see it across a long list: Khaleel, Avesh, Mukesh, Bishnoi, and others. The core issue seems to be the “like-for-like replacement” model. On paper, it sounds logical, but in practice it becomes a downgrade cycle. Instead of producing players who can challenge or surpass the incumbent, the system ends up creating replicas — and usually inferior ones — of the established core. That has a psychological effect too. These players often know they’re not competing to become first-choice; they’re backups, filling in when the main player is rested or unavailable. So the incentive structure is weak — they’re not really pushing for a spot, just maintaining their place in the rotation. Bilateral series selections almost become predictable, which further reduces competitive pressure. As a result, the team stagnates. You don’t get genuine competition for places, and more importantly, you don’t develop replacements who are actually better than the incumbents. And the bigger issue is that the “originals” themselves aren’t necessarily miles ahead of the rest of the world — so building a system around replicating them limits the team’s ceiling rather than raising it. Top post. tapandrun 1
tapandrun Posted April 17 Posted April 17 20 minutes ago, Lord said: Good chatgpt post However it is upto the player to make sure that once he gets chance he solidifies his place. Most players start as backups only. For instance Abhishek started as backup for Jaiswal but made the spot his own. Chain of thought was original , asked ai to refine the wordings.Have been posting about the like-for-like replacement as downgrade model for sometime. Abhishek was not a back-up he got the chances because stars retired , he was no1s back-up. It was not jaiswal's spot he was not even regular jaiswal was back-up not the main guy. Its similar if Asok gets into the side he will not be bhumrah's back-up . Ind has created versions of incumbent players -- Hardik and versions,Jadu and versions, Bhuvi and versions, Chahal and versions
Lord Posted April 17 Posted April 17 3 hours ago, tapandrun said: Chain of thought was original , asked ai to refine the wordings.Have been posting about the like-for-like replacement as downgrade model for sometime. Abhishek was not a back-up he got the chances because stars retired , he was no1s back-up. It was not jaiswal's spot he was not even regular jaiswal was back-up not the main guy. Its similar if Asok gets into the side he will not be bhumrah's back-up . Ind has created versions of incumbent players -- Hardik and versions,Jadu and versions, Bhuvi and versions, Chahal and versions I was just joking about that Abhishek was definitely backup of Jaiswal in his debut series who was part of 2024 WT20 squad. Jaiswal joined later but by then Abhishek announced himself Similarily Axar was considered backup of Jadeja but made his own place with his performances. tapandrun 1
tapandrun Posted April 17 Posted April 17 (edited) 11 hours ago, maniac said: @tapandrun good post. However one thing though, Chahar and Thakur both had a lot more upside because of their allround abilities. They were not stop gap players like Vijay Shankar etc and at one point they seemed to have a lot more upside than Dube. They both played high quality batting innings and were not just stop gap but proper wicket taking bowlers. With Pandya being so fragile and that slot always being in demand, they could have upped their game: their bowling at some point was definitely better than Hardik’s but were behind in fielding and batting but had the promise. They failed to grab their chances and showed no improvement at all. They got enough run. Khaleel, Avesh, Bishnoi, Mukesh you mentioned have a lot more competition and when someone better came along- Arshdeep, Rana, Akashdeep etc they moved back in the pecking order. These guys failed to realize their own utility and are happy with the IPL pay Cheque looks like. Chahar was the version/like-for-like of Bhuvi and Thakur was for Pandaya. They were just the the versions, once the original loses the value versions also loses the value. Thats why its a downgrading model, version is perceived good as long as original is good. Vijay shankar was also a version. Stop gaps are ppl who are just there at right time at right place, when there is a spot created due to multiple reason and there is some1 who can take it up but there is not longterms plans for such players, they are supposed to be able to plug in to playing 11 and perform, Nair and Unadkat were stop-gaps. They had all the exp.of domestic Ind needed some1 who can directly come into 11 and perform and you donot worry about developing that player, if it works it works else you move-on as a team. Edited April 18 by tapandrun maniac 1
tapandrun Posted April 17 Posted April 17 4 hours ago, Lord said: I was just joking about that Abhishek was definitely backup of Jaiswal in his debut series who was part of 2024 WT20 squad. Jaiswal joined later but by then Abhishek announced himself Similarily Axar was considered backup of Jadeja but made his own place with his performances. Yes axar was a version of jaddu, but he out-performed himself and improved and developed alot , jaddu faded and he raised his hand. If there was a wrist spinner who could have batted then axar would have been out as well. Just check who did they got when axar was not there -shabaz who is also a version of jaddu were they looking to get an improvement or a version ?? badhoni was called for sundar
Lord Posted April 17 Posted April 17 10 minutes ago, tapandrun said: Yes axar was a version of jaddu, but he out-performed himself and improved and developed alot , jaddu faded and he raised his hand. If there was a wrist spinner who could have batted then axar would have been out as well. Just check who did they got when axar was not there -shabaz who is also a version of jaddu were they looking to get an improvement or a version ?? badhoni was called for sundar I am not denying the similarity in these categories, but like Axar everyone has opportunity to make the spot his. Thakur and Chahar not doing it is their fault only
Texy Posted April 18 Posted April 18 (edited) They reached their earning potential, no desire to go further, set for life... Thakur had that fluke Australia test performance, never looked back from there. with IPL money coming no more hard work needed Edited April 18 by Texy Lord 1
singhvivek141 Posted April 18 Posted April 18 1. They didnt want to put in hard yards, not saying they are lazy, but they didnt had very high aspiration to improve on their skills massively and become a top tier. For ex. Shardul has been a consistent player for Tests for years, neither worked on his batting nor improved his bowling. 2. They are content with whatever they have achieved, IPL contracts, decent amount of wealth and most of these cricketers open up 2nd or 3rd chain of income in parallel and gradually shift their focus there. Hasnt happened for the first time, wont be last. Cricket is as much of a skill game as its of a will game. These bowlers had skills but they didnt had will to sustain beyond. maniac 1
singhvivek141 Posted April 18 Posted April 18 On 4/17/2026 at 3:58 AM, tapandrun said: Like for Like replacements a model of downgrades :: The problem feels systemic. And it’s not limited to one or two players; you can see it across a long list: Khaleel, Avesh, Mukesh, Bishnoi, and others. The core issue seems to be the “like-for-like replacement” model. On paper, it sounds logical, but in practice it becomes a downgrade cycle. Instead of producing players who can challenge or surpass the incumbent, the system ends up creating replicas — and usually inferior ones — of the established core. That has a psychological effect too. These players often know they’re not competing to become first-choice; they’re backups, filling in when the main player is rested or unavailable. So the incentive structure is weak — they’re not really pushing for a spot, just maintaining their place in the rotation. Bilateral series selections almost become predictable, which further reduces competitive pressure. As a result, the team stagnates. You don’t get genuine competition for places, and more importantly, you don’t develop replacements who are actually better than the incumbents. And the bigger issue is that the “originals” themselves aren’t necessarily miles ahead of the rest of the world — so building a system around replicating them limits the team’s ceiling rather than raising it. Its a mental perspective as well. Axar had the ability and will to push our Jaddu when he saw an opening in T20s. He leapfrogged Krunal Pandya as well. Bishnoi is another example who gets raw deal in T20s, yet has maintained himself to high standards and hence immediate replacement if Kuldeep or Varun flops. Stuart McGill was for his whole life understudy of Warne, yet never let his guard down. Wood was slower than Archer when latter burst into the scene, former took it as challenge and enhanced his pace and eventually overtook Archer by 2020. He did it all in his 30s. Bumrah, Shami...they bumped their skills massively after their debut, while Umesh & Siraj remained more or less at same level or just shown marginal improvement. KL Rahul is an example of other extreme, so much potential, yet he can never graduate it to the levels which Rohit did later in his career. Rahane is another one who started off so well but can never take his game to another level and remained mediocre. Lord 1
tapandrun Posted April 18 Posted April 18 (edited) 47 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said: Its a mental perspective as well. Axar had the ability and will to push our Jaddu when he saw an opening in T20s. He leapfrogged Krunal Pandya as well. Bishnoi is another example who gets raw deal in T20s, yet has maintained himself to high standards and hence immediate replacement if Kuldeep or Varun flops. Stuart McGill was for his whole life understudy of Warne, yet never let his guard down. Wood was slower than Archer when latter burst into the scene, former took it as challenge and enhanced his pace and eventually overtook Archer by 2020. He did it all in his 30s. Bumrah, Shami...they bumped their skills massively after their debut, while Umesh & Siraj remained more or less at same level or just shown marginal improvement. KL Rahul is an example of other extreme, so much potential, yet he can never graduate it to the levels which Rohit did later in his career. Rahane is another one who started off so well but can never take his game to another level and remained mediocre. yes mentioned about incentive cycle as well, all these like for like players knows they do not have to push really hard to be in the rotation of Ind side. They know they will be picked once the main player is not avialable and because of this model selectors and tm is not going to give high potential players many chances hence these like for like have their place secure. As for Axar and Jaddu, think jaddu is not v.high benchmark in white-ball cricket and axar is also not far a head its just he is oit performing his potential, jadeja has less than 15 fifties in odis and 0 in t20is and sr of below 130. Shami and Bhumrah are way a head , they are gold standrads of Ind fast bowling, they are not celebrated much because Ind likes batters , Umesh, siraj, improved alot but they can not reach the standards of bhumrah and shami thats a diff thing , bt they were high potential players and by time umesh proved it , siraj is also good not v.good. Kl is diff. case , if some1 is Ind batter with short-ball issue already sorted out of box and plays for 4-6 major domestic sides is destined to be at-least Ind great but he blew that , do not recall any1 like him. so much talent , everything sorted out of box , backing from all the tm and selectors and bcci yet he is what he is. Ind keep recycling same back-ups over and over agin in meaningless bilaterals rather than finding x-factor players and match winner. Here are few example:: Khallel-He has all the ingredients and if he pushes a bit he can be Ind regular, without doing much he is already 2nd best LA pacer in Ind because there are not many options Avesh- Season after season his pace decreases Bishnoi- If he develops a leg-break ball he can be Ind regular, and that leg-break does not need to be prefect but jst good enough to create doubts in batter mind Edited April 18 by tapandrun
AKane Posted April 18 Posted April 18 I actually think Thakur was a good bowler who could bat a bit. Somewhere during an England tour where he bowled well and hit 2 fifties somehow he decided to take batting more seriously and focus on it. Maybe Dravid insisted but I don't know....... That was it - he lost his bowling skills and the batting was never going to improve much. It was enough to leave it alone. Since Kapil Dev, India is always trying to make any pace bowler who can bat a bit into an "allrounder". The first victim of this was Irfan Pathan. Later it was Thakur. Fortunately Bumrah, Shami, Ishant, Siraj, Prasidh etc cannot bat at all. So they are/were left alone by mgt to concentrate on their bowling. Hallelujah!
Recommended Posts