I don't rate India a long-term No.1 - Ian Chappell

[The Outsider]

the problem with what you are saying is- what was chappell supposed to say in the discussion -"this shud be known to other people as well.so i am not going to say anything" :haha: he just echoed his view. people do try to stir to get publicity- media men,tabloids, even scholars releasing their books. we all know that. so change the real world?

And if you read my first post on the thread, I did not really blame Chappell. I know he is a bitter, old fart and rarely pay heed to what he says - even when he compares Sehwag to Bradman. My gripe is with the manner in which the entire media is whipping into a frenzy about India's status as the number 1 side to get hits and cheap publicity because they know there are enough people like you and akshay to buy the crap they are selling. There is absolutely nothing that Chappell, Manjrekar, or Bhogle said in that show which is a novelty for people to get so worked up about.

[akshayxyz]

the problem with what you are saying is- what was chappell supposed to say in the discussion -"this shud be known to other people as well.so i am not going to say anything" :haha: he just echoed his view. people do try to stir to get publicity- media men,tabloids, even scholars releasing their books. we all know that. so change the real world?

perfectly said. unless you read his article - how would you evaluate it in the first place (common knowledge or may be something new)? Though Ian could have done better job by suggesting what can be done to fill the gaps that are there (common knowledge)

[Fontaine]

In my opinion rankings mean nothing without respect. Everyone around the world, whether they love out batsmen or hate them, they ALL respect the hell our of Sehwag, SRT, Dravid and VVS in the test format and rate Dhoni as one of the best batsmen wicket keepers. That to me is far more important than debating our our longevity at the number 1 ranking. Ultimately, of course, you would like to have that kind of respect for our bowlers but as of right now, it's not there because we don't have great individuals. HOWEVER, in the test format, India does bowl well as a team. We may not have one guy that can bowl sides out but collectively we have enough depth and different types of bowling to suit extremely well to all conditions except patta tracks that produce 600 runs per innings from even mediocre batsmen. If our OWN curators and BCCI don't respect our fast bowlers enough to prepare pitches that help them also then why the hell should anyone else respect our bowlers? That's the irony of it all I guess.

[The Outsider]

While I understand your point that we can put selective filters from where we should take knowledge, especially filter someone who have been proven to provide junk. My point is - in general - this is not right attitude to have to shut all the doors. In this case - instead of saying what he said is junk - I would have liked people to come up with better suggestions for everyone's benefit... or educate others why it is junk. Why do not you ask some one like sachin - whether it is right attitude to have ( being thick skinned) ?

Huh? Who is being thick skinned? If you cannot see what cricinfo, Chappell, Bhogle, and Manjrekar are trying to do here I really don't know what to say. If they are so sincere about their reporting and analysis how about a discussion and title like, "A hypothetical blueprint for Indian dominance in the coming decade" or something constructive along those line rather than **** stirring titles and sound bytes which are junta is ever so eager to get feisty about.

[akshayxyz]

Some of the players who would be retiring are like once in a generation kind of players who come, make their mark and go. There are no real replacements. Ind is still struggling to replace Srinath. Like Australia is not the same team once those stalwarts retired. Neither Ian nor your combinations can do much to bring it back to that level but its domestic structure, the players that the system produce will! Also the example of the combinations that you thought of like 10 Rhodes is hilarious. Those 10Rhodes are pointless if they bat like Misbah for example. This is just to illustrate why having tons of combination don't work when you have something obvious like good batting and good bowling > good batting + good fielding or good bowling + good fielding (if there was such a choice). If you add good fielding to good fielding to good batting and good bowling, you can count on being the team that can really dominate as you can sqeeze in advantage from most angles

I say - your comprehension skills are hilarious. Yes I did leave a bit of ambiguity and could have been more precise. It must have been difficult for you to understand, but most of them would get it - when I said 10Rhodes - I meant - given our current skills. There are two possible approaches (there may be 59 others) to take: a) enable all the 10 fielders to "field" (in terms of effectiveness) like Rhodes - given their primary skills of bowling and batting stay as they are b) enable 5 of the bowlers to "bowl" as effectively as McGrath / Warne. - given their fielding and batting abilities stay as they are. Appropriately educated one can always come up with cost / duration/ feasibility /effectiveness analysis of these theoretical approaches that will be contribute most in achieving the primary goal - being long term # 1. Now - instead of laughing at it - tell me what is not clear for you?

[youngindia]

If you add good fielding to good fielding to good batting and good bowling, you can count on being the team that can really dominate as you can sqeeze in advantage from most angles

vision strategy and tactics (great+ very good +good) players

[zen]

I say - your comprehension skills are hilarious. Yes I did leave a bit of ambiguity and could have been more precise. It must have been difficult for you to understand, but most of them would get it - when I said 10Rhodes - I meant - given our current skills. There are two possible approaches (there may be 59 others) to take: a) enable all the 10 fielders to "field" (in terms of effectiveness) like Rhodes - given their primary skills of bowling and batting stay as they are b) enable 5 of the bowlers to "bowl" as effectively as McGrath / Warne. - given their fielding and batting abilities stay as they are. Appropriately educated one can always come up with cost / duration/ feasibility /effectiveness analysis of these theoretical approaches that will be contribute most in achieving the primary goal - being long term # 1. Now - instead of laughing at it - tell me what is not clear for you?

it should be clearhere since you replied to it My point is such hypothetical scenarios and theories when in the end we have to come to an obvious conclusion are laughable. By talking abt mathmatical formula and australian cricket, I thought I made it clear that there may a million combination but in the end it depends up on what you have Anyone who understand cricket knows that 5 McGrath or Warne > 10 Rhodes (i hope I don't have to clarify on other skill sets). As I said before the examples that you chose are hilarious too. Why not start playing cricket and you will understand what I mean :winky:

[zen]

vision strategy and tactics (great+ very good +good) players

batting bowling fielding

[akshayxyz]

I see what is not clear for you - the scenarios I "came up with", are not serious suggestions to make India number 1 or whatever.. These were to put across some other abstract point - I will give you another chance to try and comprehend it.

[zen]

I see what is not clear for you - the scenarios I "came up with", are not serious suggestions to make India number 1 or whatever.. These were to put across some other abstract point - I will give you another chance to try and comprehend it.

What I am suggesting is that you could have chosen better examples and that your theory is not much different from the examples that you chose :P .... By talking abt examples, I also spoke on your theory (using the same examples that you gave for your theory). Now you can say that those scenarios were not spot on or whatever but weren't you the one who was trying to discuss 3 idiots vs sholay unsuccessfully (as if it was something imp). This only shows you don't know what you are talking abt As I said, before trying to make others comprehend what you are saying first understand cricket by playing it. Get a team for yourself and play against a good team, try out as many combinations and permulations as you can come up with, use your theories to their optimum level, do all type of analysis and then come back and tell us how it went

[Pakistan-India]

offcourse he wont say the same thing about pakistan in t20. I do rate Pakistan a long-term No.1 in T20's - Ian Chappel

[OriginalCopy]

Now where from did Pakistan come into this discussion? This is a discussion about India's position in Test Cricket ... Not related to anyone's position in ODI, or T20. Pathetic attempt to butt in.

[akshayxyz]

What I am suggesting is that you could have chosen better examples and that your theory is not much different from the examples that you chose :P .... By talking abt examples, I also spoke on your theory (using the same examples that you gave for your theory). Now you can say that those scenarios were not spot on or whatever but weren't you the one who was trying to discuss 3 idiots vs sholay unsuccessfully (as if it was something imp). This only shows you don't know what you are talking abt As I said, before trying to make others comprehend what you are saying first understand cricket by playing it. Get a team for yourself and play against a good team, try out as many combinations and permulations as you can come up with, use your theories to their optimum level, do all type of analysis and then come back and tell us how it went

You still dont get it??? I was talking about attitude - nothing to do with specifics of cricket, I am taking cricket examples to have little connection with the context. As for sholay - it was a response to someone who posted the comparison in the first place.. unfortunately the person deleted the post by the time I posted mine. As i said - I chose that way because - it made sense to teach him in his languauge.. I am sure, you wont still get it.. it is not first time that I am seeing people who fail to understand concept of "attitude".

[zen]

You still dont get it??? I was talking about attitude - nothing to do with specifics of cricket, I am taking cricket examples to have little connection with the context. As for sholay - it was a response to someone who posted the comparison in the first place.. unfortunately the person deleted the post by the time I posted mine. As i said - I chose that way because - it made sense to teach him in his languauge.. I am sure, you wont still get it.. it is not first time that I am seeing people who fail to understand concept of "attitude".

sure, you were talking abt attitude! btw, it was me who posted abt 3 idiots and Sholay and I didn't delete anything unless you are talking abt someone else posting after I posted here is the original post

[akshayxyz]

One more attempt - The cricketing examples that I have taken (and if you noticed certain numbers also) - were intentionally chosen to sound absurd - I was fully aware that they have little relevance/ practicality in real cricketing world. For two reasons: a) One does not attempt to dissect that - as it is intentionally absurd. b) This was to emphasize that (in my opinion) - its always better to have an open minded attitude towards criticism. You can not rule out the possibility of finding some useful info in even most absurd one ( e.g. may be by negation or some tweaks ). as for my response on sholay vs 3 idiot- I would rather sleep now, as you wont get it unless I post another 10-15 posts, may be more. You are too focused in dissecting specifics when I am talking at another level. Talking about specifics - I think I will be able to make a case of 10 Rhodes (fielding) :), we will try that some other time... and also post me a link to 3 idiots discussion forum and I will tell you my opinion why it is an average movie ( quality wise).

[vvvslaxman]

CONCLUSION Ian chappel is captain obvious.

[dr_tooley]

Isn't Chappall the same guy that wrote in 2005 that Tendulkar should retire. Isn't he the same guy who said at the begining of the India-Aus ODI series that Ponting had long since left Tendulkar behind as a batsman. This is in a year where Sachin averaged 67 in Tests vs 36 for Ponting and Sachin scored more centuries too despite the fact that Ponting played twice as many tests. In ODIs Sachin averaged 54 vs 42 for Ponting again scoring more centuries despite Ponting Playing 8 more games. The guys a genius. :haha::haha::haha:

[zen]

One more attempt - The cricketing examples that I have taken (and if you noticed certain numbers also) - were intentionally chosen to sound absurd - I was fully aware that they have little relevance/ practicality in real cricketing world. For two reasons: a) One does not attempt to dissect that - as it is intentionally absurd. b) This was to emphasize that (in my opinion) - its always better to have an open minded attitude towards criticism. You can not rule out the possibility of finding some useful info in even most absurd one ( e.g. may be by negation or some tweaks ). as for my response on sholay vs 3 idiot- I would rather sleep now, as you wont get it unless I post another 10-15 posts, may be more. You are too focused in dissecting specifics when I am talking at another level. Talking about specifics - I think I will be able to make a case of 10 Rhodes (fielding) :), we will try that some other time... and also post me a link to 3 idiots discussion forum and I will tell you my opinion why it is an average movie ( quality wise).

omg, you are still writing same stuff that's been answered to! (in the name of others not understanding you :haha: ) Nah, I am not interested in getting your opinion on 3 idiots. What I used that example for is quite clear in my original post .... But you are free to post your opinion on it. And talking abt attitude, there is no point in begging for the link when you can find one easily :winky: I doubt your ability to make a strong case. Only case you have made so far is crying about others not understanding you, flipping around, picking out lines from the posts that you think you have a chance of answering with any conviction! .... And take this as a positive criticism (like Ian's) and see if you can follow your own advise and find something meaningful out of this (like you expected others to do) :--D

[pappu_kanghi]

And needless to say' date=' Pakistan is not getting there at least for another decade.[/quote'] How is your comment different from Ian Chappel then? You are so sure about whats going to happen in the future? As far as Ian Chappel's comments are concerned, they can kiss my a**. Cry baby cry.

[99.94]

Obviously they don't have the team to dominate like the West Indies and Australia have unless they unearth some more bowling talent. Currently number one, yes - but whether they continue to dominate for the next decade is doubtful.