Who cares about cricket?

[Chandan]

Re: Who cares about cricket? I watched the clipping of Mumbai vs TN and the Bengal game on TV. The Motera groung had hardly any grass in the outfield. How do we expect the fielders to dive and risk injury in such a condition while fielding? Mohali has terrific conditions and why can't all the grounds be like that? Why is BCCI not ready to spend money to make the conditions better?

[Chandan]

Re: Who cares about cricket? Now read this. It is a very interesting article! Points to ponder It is a war of a different kind. Who controls the players more? The Board of Control for Cricket in India or the sports managers/agents? Vijay Lokapally on what the BCCI and sports managers say. Rahul Dravid will be playing an active part in working out a compromise with the Board. Just one bad day, one loss to Bangladesh, has caused upheavals in Indian cricket. The administrators have started flexing their muscles and the players' agents have taken the punches silently. The BCCI has now taken a fresh look at the commercial aspects of a player's contract. The players' contracts stood cancelled as the Board took a hard stand after the team crashed out of the World Cup in the first stage itself. According to the Board's directive, not more than three endorsements were allowed per player. In fact, even some of the past players were appalled at the reaction of the Board officials. Former captain Kapil Dev, member of the BCCI's cricket advisory committee, slammed the Board for its knee-jerk reaction. The BCCI was categorically opposed to the players endorsing more than three products. Its Executive Secretary, Prof Ratnakar Shetty, was candid, "We are not against the players making money or having agents or managers. It is also wrong to say that the contracts have been cancelled. They have been redrafted and the new contracts will suit every player." He insisted, "Please don't project a wrong picture. As administrators, we have the responsibility to ensure the players are not misguided or lose their focus. We are constantly engaged in giving the players the best of facilities and we only think of the players' interests." Shailendra Singh, Joint Managing Director of Percept Holdings Pvt Ltd, countered: "We are here to promote the talent in the country. If we spot a talent and decide to handle his career, so that he can focus on the sport, isn't it the sport and country that is benefiting?" Latika Khaneja, Director of Collage Sports Management, which represents Virender Sehwag, Gautam Gambhir and Dinesh Karthik among many other cricketers, noted: "The BCCI must accept that exceptional ability and hard work earns a player an India cap and like all highly qualified professionals, they must be paid for having had the persistence to achieve the highest echelon of sport in the country. Fundamentally I believe that the segregation of players into A, B and C categories was detrimental to team spirit and its operation as an integrated unit." Seniors like Sachin Tendulkar can handle the pressures of both worlds but not the juniors feels the Board. Shailendra said, "About the advertising contracts, the BCCI is being harsh on the players. But I am sure that the Board will review and reconsider this decision, as it goes against the fundamental rights of freedom of the Indian constitution to restrict the earnings of an individual. Regarding the player's contracts, I think there is a fair balance in the payment system, because it rewards performances. While it may seem that the Board has reduced their pay system, the fact is that they will also be rewarded multifold if there are more wins under their belt." But why curtail endorsements? Prof Shetty responded, "The seniors can handle the pressures but not the juniors. These agents are signing up even the new entrants and offering them 3 to 4 years contracts. At 17 or 18 years of age, a player, even before establishing himself in the team, earns a contract of 10 lakh. Can he handle such money matters at a time when he should be focussing on his cricket? Believe me, there is more to it because once the player signs the contract he is obligated to the agent. There are several issues and the BCCI is only trying to save the player from the agent's stranglehold." In defence, Latika had a point. "Curtailing endorsements will appease all those who are jealous of the cricketers making relatively easy money and will give an enraged public succour when the team is down and out. It will, however, dilute the dream of thousands of young cricket lovers who aspire to grow up and become the next big star. It will dilute the glamour and fanfare that makes the game a religion by slowly moving corporate support out of cricket. It will no longer attract the best talent. It will be highly regressive sending cricket back to where other sports currently exist in the minds of the public. All great sport is driven by its heroes." Shailendra supported Latika's views. "Curtailing contracts is not an alternative to improving the performance of the players. What they do on the field is completely based on their efforts and one cannot link it to the number of brands they endorse," he said. "Endorsements are just a means of having a financial backing. Unlike regular working people, cricketers or sportspersons have a shelf-life. They may play for say 8-10 years. They have a right to have a support system created. In any case, if the performance of a player deteriorates, it will also reflect on his endorsements. I don't believe that cricketers are distracted by endorsements. They may be spending say 1-2 weeks in a year shooting. How is that going to affect the performance of a cricketer and the game of cricket?" asked Shailendra. Jeet Banerjee from Game Plan, representing Mahendra Singh Dhoni, argued thus: "We try and identify and support players much before they come into reckoning as even national players. We have never signed a star player. When we sign a player, there is no guarantee that he would become a star." Prof Shetty questioned the very presence of an agent in a cricketer's profile. "The public perception can't be ignored. The public believes that the players only make money and do not concentrate on the game. We are not stopping the players from signing the contracts. Let them sign but not before getting a clearance from the BCCI. We will reply within seven days after studying the contract. We need to ensure there are no hidden clauses that are performance linked. We want to keep the captain out of it too." Latika responded to this saying: "Cricket agents are business people and are guilty of trying to push their products even when they are not doing well. How are they corrupt? If they wrongly try to influence the authorities who are responsible for selection and retention then that makes the selectors/officials corrupt. If the system is strong there is no need to fear external influences. Cricket is high profile and with media gags on cricketers, agents are being constantly badgered (often against their will) to be insider mouth pieces. The media has made the agent visible in the most mundane of cricket controversies. Maybe that is why they are seen as self promoting." The BCCI is keen to bring transparency even in selection matters. "There have been accusations of favouritism in the past but we have to have faith in the selectors. Even the selectors know there can be public outcry if they are not honest. If there is any hanky panky, the BCCI will act on it," assured Prof Shetty. Banerjee does not like the term agent. "We are sports managers. Worldwide, top sportsmen are represented by managers. Every top soccer player, boxer, tennis player, golfer, athlete has a manager, who don't just get endorsements but also negotiate playing fees." There have been accusations that too many endorsements caused distractions. Banerjee refuted this. "Endorsements are of some significance but please remember that only four or five players enjoy this privilege. You have to be among the top 15 players of the country and then, if you are a batsman, you have to be among the top five. If you are a bowler, you have to be among the top five. It is hard competition because we have a large pool of players and only a few can achieve it. There are so many who don't make it." In Latika's opinion, a cricketer needs an agent to promote himself. "Your average cricketer is a young boy in his 20s with very little exposure to commerce and business. He is suddenly propelled into superstardom with very little idea of how to cope with it. He is surrounded by sycophants who promise him the world and is witness to how others have benefitted financially by being cricket stars. They would not be human if this did not play on their mind. They would then be concerned with how to get these for themselves, using free time to do some networking, tracking instalments and coping with the onslaught of press and commercial appearance requests. We free the player from these concerns. We filter through the chaff and see his limited time goes to the right cause. We ensure he is not being cheated and he is getting his due from the market. They trust us because we become an extension of friends and family." The agents would like the BCCI to follow the Australian model to the core. "We want to play like Australia but why not adopt their administration too. Once in a year, Cricket Australia meets the managers of the players and discusses all the issues. Here there is never a dialogue between the agents/managers and the BCCI," said Banerjee. Banerjee also pointed out: "An agent does not only help a player get endorsements. We also enable many of them to get some income by helping them acquire a contract to compete in the English league cricket in summer. Please remember that the playing span of a cricketer is limited. For every person who makes it, there are hundreds who don't." The BCCI Executive Secretary, Prof. Ratnakar Shetty is of the view that the public perception can't be ignored. That is one reason why the BCCI has redrafted the contracts. "Everything is now related to performance and we are offering win incentives so that the players can be motivated to win more and more. The BCCI will give Rs. 3 lakh for every ODI win and Rs. 50 lakh for every ODI series win at home. If the team wins an ODI series away, it will earn Rs. 75 lakh. For Tests, the incentive is Rs. 4 lakh per win and Rs. 3 lakh per draw at home and Rs. 6 lakh per win and Rs. 4 lakh per draw in an away match. For a Test series win at home the team gets Rs. 75 lakh and for an away win Rs. 90 lakh. The match fees is not discriminatory now. Each player gets Rs. 1 lakh per ODI and Rs. 2 lakh per Test," said Prof. Shetty. What would be the best way out? Latika suggested: "The board should understand the cricketers' concerns as very gifted sportsmen with limited shelf-life trying to maximise their careers. The Board should understand that by giving the companies opportunities to tie up with individual stars we are actually propelling them towards the game. The Board makes its money from corporates who choose to associate with the game of cricket. By banning cricketers from endorsements, you are reducing their communication options and repulsing them from cricket." Shailendra concluded: "The Sports Managers will always want their players to do well for the country. When the team is winning nobody complains. It's when the team starts losing that you try and point fingers or the blame-game begins. Most of the sports managers are in talks with their clients, players and the Board to come out with an amicable solution." The Board, meanwhile, will work out a compromise with skipper Rahul Dravid playing an active part. "We just want to ensure that the young stars of the future keep their focus in place." The sports managers/agents are keeping their fingers crossed. MANAGERS Collage Sports Management has represented the following stars: Virender Sehwag, Dinesh Mongia, Gautam Gambhir, Dinesh Karthik. Game Plan: M. S. Dhoni. Percept Holdings Pvt Ltd: Sourav Ganguly, Yuvraj Singh, S. Sreesanth. Iconix : Sachin Tendulkar, Harbhajan Singh. Twentieth Century Media: Rahul Dravid, Mohammad Kaif, Irfan Pathan, Anil Kumble, Parthiv Patel. PLAYERS & THEIR ENDORSEMENTS 1. Sachin Tendulkar: TVS, MRF, Adidas, Pepsi, Sunfeast (ITC), Pantaloons, Cannon, G Hanz and Nazara Technologies, Audemars Piguet; Annual earnings: Approx Rs. 45-50 crores. 2. M. S. Dhoni: Exide, Videocon, Brylcreem, Reebok, Mysore Sandal Soap, TVS, Siyarams, Reliance Communication, Seagram, GE Money, Titan Sonata, Castrol, Orient Fan; Annual earnings: Rs. 5-7 crores. 3. Rahul Dravid: Bank of Baroda, Hutch, Pepsi, Reebok, Britannia, Citizen, Sansui, Karnataka Tourism, Skyline Real Estate, Castrol, Max New York Life; Annual earnings: Rs. 10-15 crores. 4. Sourav Ganguly: Idea, Puma, Hero Honda, Pepsi, Sahara, Chirag Computers, Pratidin, TCL; Annual earnings: Rs. 5-7 crores. 5. Yuvraj Singh: Westside, Pepsi, Hero Honda, Marico, Seagram; Annual earnings: Rs. 3-4 crores. 6. Virender Sehwag: Boost, Pepsi, Britannia, Sahara, Nazara Technologies, Boost, Adidas and Hero Honda; Annual earnings: Rs. 5-7 crores. 7. S. Sreesanth: Air India, Mather Group, Nike, TCL; Annual earnings: Rs. 80 lakh-1 crore. ---------------------------------------------------- Does BCCI really want to improve cricket or simply wants to rein the players?

[Chandan]

Re: Who cares about cricket? Ranji captains meet, ask for points revamp Amol Karhadkar New Delhi, April 20, 2007 First Published: 23:19 IST(20/4/2007) Last Updated: 00:47 IST(21/4/2007) Though the Board of Control for Cricket in India's (BCCI) annual conclave of its affiliated units' coaches and captains, held at the Hilton Towers on Friday, did not turn out to be stormy, it had enough food for thought for those involved in the mission to improve Indian domestic cricket. The meeting, presided over by BCCI president Sharad Pawar and chaired by its technical committee chairman Sunil Gavaskar, was attended by representatives of the 27 Ranji Trophy teams. A press release later issued by BCCI secretary Niranjan Shah stated that the members present were informed about the BCCI Working Committee's decision to have neutral venues for the Ranji Trophy semis and finals and to have 10 and 17 teams in the Ranji Trophy Elite and Plate groups, respectively, from the 2008-9 seasons. However, though the members did not have a problem with having 10 teams in the Elite group, the decision to have 17 teams in the lower division did not go down too well with them. "Many believe that instead of having so many (17) teams in the lower division, we should add one more division and continue with the existing promotion and relegation system in the three divisions," said a source who attended the meeting, but didn't want to be named. The scheduling of the domestic season was at the forefront of the suggestions made by the team captains and coaches. While the members suggested that Duleep Trophy be held after the Ranji Trophy as earlier, instead of the current system of hosting it before the Ranji Trophy (in October-November every year). And the teams also wanted the Twenty20 tournament, which made its debut this season, to be held earlier. However, the most interesting suggestion was about the change in the Ranji Trophy points system. At present, the team that has the first innings lead in a drawn match gets two points while the team that concedes the lead gets none. And a team gets four points for an outright win, with a bonus point for a win by either 10 wickets or by an innings. The teams, however, wanted a team that concedes the lead yet draws the match to be rewarded for their effort. "We suggested that the team losing on the basis of the first innings lead (technically a draw) should be awarded a point," said another member who attended the meeting. "But we also wanted to maintain the two-point difference in this case. So we've proposed three points for the team that earns the innings lead while one for the other." It was also suggested that instead of four, an outright win should give five points to the team and an additional bonus for the existing criteria. All these suggestions will now be discussed when the Technical Committee meets in June. Import or no import It was learnt that Maharashtra coach Chandrakant Pandit raised an issue of the three imported players' limit to be given a rethought especially if one of them is donning the national colours. Maharashtra, as of now, have Sairaj Bahutule, Munaf Patel and Sridharan Sriram as their imported players of which Patel is a regular in the Indian team for the last year. Pandit's point was if it is made clear that a player wouldn't be able to be available for his state team due to international commitments, as was in Patel's case in the just-concluded domestic season, the state team should be allowed to replace the player with another import mid-season. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- What a golden opportunity lost here to revamp the domestic cricket and strengthen it to utmost so that there is competition to the optimum level and battle-hardened players produced!! Why should drawing a match get three points and drawing the match despite conceding the 1st inning lead 1 point? Are we encouraging the teams to play for a draw here? Why don't we have a system where only winning will get the points so that teams play only to win? Why can't BCCI decide about all the venues of every FC match played, so that state associations and captains do not pressurise the curator to prepare a pitch to suit their strength? Can anyone suggest how can the domestic cricket be made stronger?

[Chandan]

Re: Who cares about cricket? Looks like no one cares for Indian cricket. I've got no suggestions here so far!! Come on guys! If you love Indian cricket and want it do well, a good domestic cricket structure is essential. We have as many as 27 FC teams playing: * Assam * Goa * Himachal Pradesh * Jammu & Kahmir * Jharkhand * Kerala * Madhya Pradesh * Orissa * Railways * Services * Tripura * Vidarbha * Andhra * Baroda * Bengal * Delhi * Gujarat * Haryana * Hyderabad * Karnataka * Maharashtra * Mumbai * Punjab * Rajasthan * Saurashtra * Tamil Nadu * Uttar Pradesh Can anyone suggest what can be done to improve the domestic cricket competition?

[Chandan]

Re: Who cares about cricket? Ok. It looks like no one is interested in cricket related contructive discussions! So just read this article: The problem with Australian cricket ... The Australians know how to win but not how to attract attention. Rohit Brijnath takes a tongue-in-cheek look at why the best team in the world needs to learn from India. Australian cricketers do not make news. They merely win. Which gets them a few ho-hum paragraphs and the odd appreciation of their skills. Their cricket is cold and brutal, like getting mugged in daylight by a gang of toughs. Their skills are polished and they always look irritated. What sort of team is this? Evidently they require tutoring from us. Indian cricket is a majestic failure yet looks well fed, content and is constantly headline news. Perhaps an Indian official or two needs to be sent to prop up Cricket Australia. The Australians know how to win but not how to attract attention. Especially since Warnie disappeared and opened his pizza shop. In India, television, with its unending gossip and anonymous hit-men posing as "sources" would not know what to do with Ponting's men. Where is the story, anchors will ask, in all this winning? The Australians, locked in training like automatons, have denied themselves the joy of losing. Few pleasures for instance can match effigy burning. Rarely, too, do they enjoy the delightful chest-beating and hair-pulling that occurs when a coach is to be replaced. Indeed, a team is no fun if its coach, like John Buchanan has been, is secure. It goes against every tenant of sport. Other coaches must hate Buchanan and his blood pressure-medication-free breakfasts. You can hear them saying: "What does he know of pressure. Try getting Inzi to touch his toes, or Lara to forget the mirror and listen, or an Indian to field in front of a hoarding which is advertising something he doesn't endorse." Buchanan is clearly not a good coach as much as he is a spoilt one. If he tells Matty Hayden to run two rounds, the opener does 10, the show-off. Coaching Australia, say his rivals, is a bit like playing the cymbals in the New York philharmonic. Australian newspapers are duller than a Cheney speech, with less tittle-tattle than a Vatican weekly. There's no Indo-Pak style "senior player accuses captain" and "spinner cries favouritism" headlines. Instead McGrath puts his hand around Watson's shoulder when the youngster gets injured, and Watson thanks McGrath for his support. And they say cricket is a manly game. Anyway the Australians are simply rude: they will sledge anyone. Not like us: we prefer to sledge each other. For all their trips to the continent in search of spirituality and a way to pay off their mortgage, Australians still don't get it. Cricket is about personality, not runs. Dhoni probably earns more than Ponting, which confirms that excellence simply doesn't pay. Anyway, for all his centuries does anyone want to cut his hair like Ponting? Australian cricketers lack ambition. Rarely is there talk of players wanting to be captain. Perhaps they are scared of responsibility. Every sub-continental cricketer worth his Oakley sunglasses wants the captaincy. We are born to lead, and will undermine anyone to get there. Favouritism is embedded in the official Australian psyche and it is disturbing that the same fellow has been manager of the Australian team for nearly a decade. What excitement does he bring to the party? In India, democracy trumps professionalism, and in every tour there's a different manager, and it is a minor inconvenience that by the time he knows half his job, he's out. Furthermore, it lends colour to the team. One fellow borrowed India shirts from the players and wore them with his pyjamas every night. Australians are absent of such imagination. There is no respect for age on the island either. James Sutherland became chief executive of Australian cricket when he was in his 30s, a mere stripling of a fellow who had just got his first Gillette. In Indian cricket, we prefer senior men in charge, both consistent and unyielding while running the game into the ground. It takes character not to change course even when a billion people keep insisting you're wrong. Former cricketers are treated poorly in Australia. Most of them are more famous in India than at home. Richie Benaud hardly even speaks through the year. Occasionally they are called on television shows, asked desultory questions, and provide timid replies. Many of India's former players are a braver bunch, ordered, sorry prepared, to speak out at a moment's notice. As players they asked for constructive criticism, and now as commentators they have mastered it. Like "hang the fast bowlers". In short, the Australians play brilliant cricket but do not enjoy the game. Not like us. Which is why, one can now reveal, they sent Greg Chappell to India. But apparently en route he forgot his orders. He thought he was here to teach. But it was to learn.

[Chandan]

Re: Who cares about cricket? At last a positive news: Pawar-led BCCI?s first major pitch committee summit this May Nadim Siraj Kolkata, April 28: While Rahul Dravid & Co will be busy negotiating the fast-improving Bangladeshis for much of next month, the Indian cricket Board will conduct a full-fledged summit of the pitches and grounds committee. In response to recent outcry over the poor quality of Indian wickets, the BCCI has called a three-day-long special meeting of all five zonal heads, to be held from May 11 to 13 in Mumbai. BCCI president Sharad Pawar is learnt to have personally taken a keen interest in the brainstorming session of the country?s leading curators and ground experts. In fact, this is the first time that the Pawar-led BCCI administration has undertaken a full-fledged summit of the pitch committee members. The last time all the five zonal heads got together and met the BCCI top brass was way back in 2002-03, when the then Board chief Jagmohan Dalmiya convened the pitch committee?s summit in Kolkata. North zone pitch and grounds committee representative Daljit Singh and west zone chief Dheeraj Parsana will lead the charge, while representing the east zone will be veteran Probir Mukherjee. The Board?s initiative to host a proper brainstorming session of the country?s experienced curators comes in the wake of massive criticism over the BCCI?s indifference towards preparing sporting, bouncy wickets. Interestingly, there?s more to this scheduled summit than just the five zonal heads getting their points of view across. Sources in the BCCI informed that the Board will instruct all the state associations to send across two ?representatives? to the summit, who will later be trained to take up the role of additional pitch and ground experts. ?Every state will be asked to send over one or two persons, connected with the game, as next-in-line pitch experts. The newcomers, about 50 to 60 in number, will attend the summit in which the Board officials and zonal heads will interact and exchange views,? the BCCI source told Newsline. Meanwhile, Kolkata-based Mukherjee?s re-appointment as the east zone head comes after much drama, with the senior curator facing the heat from various section of the Cricket Association of Bengal (CAB) recently over his alleged criticism of the state body?s administration. The Board has instructed the Kolkata curator to prepare not just the nets wickets at the Eden Gardens, but also the main tracks. ?These days, when teams go through camps, simulation matches are played as drills. It?s a new trend. The Indian team will be here for five days. So, we are going to prepare the main wickets and keep them ready, in case they want to play short matches,? curator Mukherjee told this daily. ------------------------------------------------ I'll watch the domestic cricket this year as well. We'll see if the pitches improve or this is just a hog-wash!!

[talksport]

Re: Who cares about cricket? The following doesnt make sense to me , Saurashtra , Gujarat and Baroda .....Three Votes from Same Region....Could Make it as One Ranji Team Maharasthra and Vidarbha ...Can make as One Team..... Also , Hyderabad and Andhra can be clubbed ...( The fear is Hyderabad board will dominate) ...but when Chennai and TN & Bangalore and Karnataka play as one team

[Chandan]

Re: Who cares about cricket? Thanks for at least noticing it. Otherwise I thought that there was no one on this forum who was interested in Indian domestic cricket!! These have been made separate associations so that there can be more votes in the BCCI election. I hope you're able to see how BCCI has managed to wreck cricket in our country!!!

[veer]

Re: Who cares about cricket? IMO, one of the things that domestic cricketers need is foreign condition exposure.. australia preferably.. make a contract with australia board that every season our domestic league winner will play against their domestic cup winner.. deodhar cup winner or ranji trophy winner or whatever.. but get them to go to abroad.. similarly contract with south africa board.. that our all India under-21 team will play their under-21 team.. we are doing this at very small level but looks like in very unsystematic way.. bottom line is whenever our star players go abroad they become cats.. (dhoni, raina etc.. ).. they need to play on those bouncy pitches against those 85mph pacers.. when we have MONEY, we can do a LOT.. but who cares right..?

[Chandan]

Re: Who cares about cricket? I've explored that angle. Australia doesn't allow foreign teams to play in their domestic cricket. And it won't serve much purpose too. Say, if the Ranji winners Bombay play with those of NSW. How many players will benefit who can be of use to India? Just 1 or at the most 2. India has to stengthen its own domestic cricket structure, which is not possible with close to 500 FC players playing every season, A tours have to be regular but the board is least interested!

[Chandan]

Re: Who cares about cricket?

when we have MONEY' date=' we can do a LOT.. but who cares right..?[/quote'] Right. Now read this article: Coach holds the key to future A main coach has to get things done through his specialist, writes Makarand Waingankar ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE: S. Venkatraghavan has all the qualities expected of a team manager and would be a good choice for the position. Indian cricket is going through a tricky phase, remarked Rahul Dravid. As captain of the team, he is in a position to read the body language of his players, and his interactions with the President and the office-bearers of the BCCI before the Working Committee meeting must have given him enough indications about the future of Indian cricket. Everyone connected with Indian cricket feels its future lies in the hands of a coach, and so the search is on. The committee of seven wise men, out of which four are administrators and three former India captains, will decide on the coach who will replace cricket manager Ravi Shastri. Super plans Shastri apparently put his hand up to save Indian cricket, but if his intentions were to be available only for the Bangladesh tour, what super plans he had in mind to save Indian cricket on a short tour of Bangladesh only he can tell. The move to appoint Venkatesh Prasad as bowling coach and Robin Singh as fielding coach has been appreciated, but there is definitely a need to have a main coach. In a team game, no matter how many specialist coaches are appointed, if their cricketing thought process and strategy don't match the thinking of a main coach, failure is guaranteed. Unlike other team games, cricket requires time, effort and thought, and the more time a player spends in the middle or off the field during the game, he is constantly thinking. He needs solutions. The BCCI's advisory committee which appointed Venkatesh Prasad and Robin Singh may go in for a batting coach as well as a cricketer of repute and integrity to be the main coach. This may work, provided all the coaches agree to stick to their brief. The moment each specialist coach assumes the role of a main coach, the team will go out in the middle not knowing what to do. A main coach has to be responsible for getting things done through his specialist coaches so that he can concentrate on strategy management. Then there are two categories of coaches. Strategy coach and technique coach. At the international level, apart from technical problems, what a player faces is a lack of confidence and that affects his game. Here only an experienced performer, having gone through such situations will be able to read the mind of a confused player and suggest corrective methods. As a batting consultant to NCA, Gundappa Vishwanath's approach was to fine-tune technique with a reason that would convince a batsman to score runs. Here is a man of stature, integrity and known to handle situations against all types of attack on different surfaces. Having gone through problem situations successfully first as a player and then specialist coach, he is in a position to guide a batsman. His solutions are simple but very effective. Vishwanath could be the answer to our batting problems. But the real problem will be to find a replacement for Greg Chappell. There may be a move to get Venkatraghavan as cricket manager. A thinking player, a former India captain who didn't get upset and lose focus when Prasanna was the first choice, a good international umpire who watched all the strategies employed in the middle and has managed the Indian team before, Venkatraghavan could be the choice for the post of a cricket manager. The think-tank will have a solid base with inputs from the seniors in the Indian team, but these coaches will have to get the juniors to perform consistently if at all we are to do well. No senior will be fit enough to go through the tight schedule of next season and the juniors will have to be prepared to handle situations. --------------------------------------------------- Makrand Waingankar is the CEO of Baroda cricket association. So someone please tell me that this is a toungue in cheek article!!! If we'll follow his suggestion we'll ender with more staff members than cricket players in the squad!!!

[yoda]

Re: Who cares about cricket?

Shastri apparently put his hand up to save Indian cricket, but if his intentions were to be available only for the Bangladesh tour, what super plans he had in mind to save Indian cricket on a short tour of Bangladesh only he can tell.

Good point. The guy shamelessly came on TV and claimed the same - "putting my hand up when the country needs it".

As a batting consultant to NCA, Gundappa Vishwanath's approach was to fine-tune technique with a reason that would convince a batsman to score runs. Here is a man of stature, integrity and known to handle situations against all types of attack on different surfaces.

Being a good/great bat is different from being able to make others better. But let's atleast try something instead of twidling thumbs hoping our batting woes will magically disappear.

There may be a move to get Venkatraghavan as cricket manager. A thinking player, a former India captain who didn't get upset and lose focus when Prasanna was the first choice, a good international umpire who watched all the strategies employed in the middle and has managed the Indian team before, Venkatraghavan could be the choice for the post of a cricket manager.

What is the role of the cricket manager in the presence of the coach? Just PR or overall in-charge? Either case, Venkatraghavan seems like a bad choice. Would have gone for someone younger, non-player, who is an expert in people management.