Ram Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 I thought the thread title would be ‘Andrew Symonds SLAMS Indian players’, or ‘Symonds EVISCERATES Indian youngsters’, or ‘Symonds calls Indians “lazy”’’ Such a mellow title? :dontknow:
Guest Gunner Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 I thought the thread title would be ‘Andrew Symonds SLAMS Indian players’' date= or ‘Symonds EVISCERATES Indian youngsters’, or ‘Symonds calls Indians “lazyâ€â€™â€™ Such a mellow title? :dontknow: Bingo on the third one, then the title mellowed. :cantstop:
DomainK Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 yeah but the point is' date=' how much more better could we play if we were more fitter.[/quote'] Yup we would definitely: 1. run harder, be more alert 2. Take our catches 3. Be alert in the field and be better fielderS. Lean and mean is definitely better than fat and meak. India would go places if they were fitter. Also probably would produce real fast bowler if these folks would do more strength conditioning in the gym. It is the chalta hain attitude. Personally although I am an Indian, I am mentally far from such a complacent attitude. Be thankful that this one sport does not demand too much physical fitness. Otherwise another possibility is that we would have sucked in cricket as well. :phehehe: We have traditionally done bad in all sports that needs physical fitness.
Guest Gunner Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Raina, Dhoni, Kohli, Ashwin, Ishant We can't base an entire generation on a few bad apples like Rohit Fatass Sharma. Dhoni is not a youngster. :cantstop: Please make a distinction between slim and fit. I am not sure whether you are getting symonds perspective about fitness here. :cantstop:
jaggadaku Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Stating the obvious, but our players are not dumb enough to go fishing and miss team meeting
jaggadaku Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Be thankful that this one sport does not demand too much physical fitness. Otherwise another possibility is that we would have sucked in cricket as well. :phehehe: We have traditionally done bad in all sports that needs physical fitness. You are absolutely right sir, we used to rule Hockey before the Europeans changed the rules to cut down on skills and made it a more power game
vvvslaxman Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Dont find anything wrong with Sachin's fitness. You don't need perfect abs for cricket.
Ram Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Bingo on the third one' date=' then the title mellowed. :cantstop:[/quote'] I see. :D
fineleg Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Among the bowlers, seems like only Ishant Sharma has the right work/training ethics (despite injury prone) - as per Venkatesh Prasad.
Precambrian Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 yeah but the point is' date=' how much more better could we play if we were more fitter.[/quote'] perhaps not much, perhaps even worse, not that it's an excuse for Rohit Sharmas and Yuvis to sport a tummy
Precambrian Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 personally would take a Inzy over a Dean Jones who pukes all over the pitch after batting for 10 hours
Gunner_Mania Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 perhaps not much, perhaps even worse, not that it's an excuse for Rohit Sharmas and Yuvis to sport a tummy How can we play worse by being more fitter? How can we play worse by attacking the ball better and stopping singles or reducing twos? How can we play worse by running faster between wickets and converting ones into two?
Gunner_Mania Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 personally would take a Inzy over a Dean Jones who pukes all over the pitch after batting for 10 hours Personally would take Dean Jones puking after scoring a double century than Inzamam falling over his own wickets because he cant balance himself.
Precambrian Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 How can we play worse by being more fitter? How can we play worse by attacking the ball better and stopping singles or reducing twos? How can we play worse by running faster between wickets and converting ones into two? by neglecting the core areas of development... Putting in hours in the gym just makes me stronger, but not better re cricketing skills.. sometimes a fine balance needs to be stuck... pumping iron like Arnie does not maketh a Bolt... cricket needs skill, stamina basically, and commitment... commitment to a great extent will take care of fielding aspect..
Ram Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Cricketers don’t have to be muscular monstrosities like Rugby players. Cricket is not a game of strength, but a game of bio-mechanics. But fitness makes a real difference, no one can deny that. If you’re top order batsmen, then how fit and strong you decides the effectiveness of your shots later in the innings, when you begin to get tired. How many times have seen batsmen get out to tired looking slogs towards the end overs of an ODI or after a long hard day of test match batting in oppressively hot conditions, like the winter in Chennai? If you’re also not agile, then it impacts your running b/w the wickets and we know that a matter of inches could the difference b/w a getting out and staying the crease. We don’t need to hear from Symonds to gauge the general Indian attitude towards nutrition, diet and training. Most of our cricketers only train because they have to, not because they want to. They go back home in the off season and load up on the parathas and mithai and come back 10 lbs heavier. Fitness is not a way of life for us, it just a necessity. Until this mindset changes, our players turn up woefully unfit every once in a while.
Precambrian Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Personally would take Dean Jones puking after scoring a double century than Inzamam falling over his own wickets because he cant balance himself. yeah as if Inzy is the first person to tread on his stumps...
IKnowU Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Thats being fit and conditioned :bigboss: Although you dont need to go that far for a cricketer, it still shows the commitment from the players
fineleg Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Thats being fit and conditioned :bigboss: Although you dont need to go that far for a cricketer, it still shows the commitment from the players Awesome! Hatsoff :hatsoff: to their commitment Yes, you dont need that much in cricket, but it shows the commitment and at least we need to get Yuvi and Nohit Sharma to reduce their tontees! Mohd. Kaif :hatsoff: used to take good care of fitness.
Karan114 Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Unfortunately this is becoming a common theme regarding our youngsters. Raina's name keeps popping up as an exception and Prasad singled out Ishant, but otherwise the common refrain is that they are lazy.
yoda Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Dhoni is not a youngster. :cantstop: Please make a distinction between slim and fit. I am not sure whether you are getting symonds perspective about fitness here. :cantstop: Ok, let's leave Dhoni out for the sake of your convenience. He still is a different generation than SRT and Dravid. So how is Raina's fitness level different from Tendulkar or Sehwag? Do you see Ishant breaking down every game? The only guys who are a joke fitness wise are RS and Munaf. Rest are like your typical Indian cricketers of the past, fit enough to play, not more. Anyways Symonds' knowledge of Indian cricketers is limited to those who play for DC, and RS is a showcase example of lack of fitness. He is just generalizing an entire generation of Indian players based on a few he has encountered in DC, so :fail:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now