Ian Chappel's lahori logic

[Holysmoke]

A quick look at the early going in this year's IPL gives a clear indication that the latest auction has produced a few potential steals and some dud deals. The Mumbai Indians appear to have gone to auction with more money than sense. To pay a huge fee for both Andrew Symonds and Kieron Pollard, two powerful strikers who field well and can bowl a bit, seems to be a case of overkill. Both are able to play a full season, so why not buy only one and have a cheap replacement available if the star player is injured?:cantstop: In the first five matches Pollard faced two balls and Symonds hit just two sixes, with neither contributing greatly to a Mumbai win. Forget the economics, having both those players in a side where Tendulkar is renowned for regularly batting a good proportion of an innings that only lasts 120 balls doesn't make cricketing sense. Both Pollard and Symonds are viable propositions if they are regularly clouting sixes and contributing to at least a couple of victories a season. It's difficult for that to happen when neither is getting much time at the crease. As one of the rich clubs, Mumbai can afford to make a few monetary mistakes but eventually even the high rollers tire of fiscal folly. Some of the less affluent clubs can't afford to make million-dollar mistakes. They are looking for bargains - a reasonable value player who performs extremely well. In that category, both Jesse Ryder, for the Pune Warriors, and Paul Valthaty, of the Kings XI Punjab, represent good value for money in the early going.

He thinks if we had purchased only Symonds, and if he got injured, we could have just called in Polly as a replacement. Because no other team would have picked him:hysterical: And WTF is up with "As one of the rich clubs, mumbai can afford monetary mistakes." The idiot doesnt even know all clubs are on the same foot.:hehe:

[gult]

Forget the economics, having both those players in a side where Tendulkar is renowned for regularly batting a good proportion of an innings that only lasts 120 balls doesn't make cricketing sense. Both Pollard and Symonds are viable propositions if they are regularly clouting sixes and contributing to at least a couple of victories a season. It's difficult for that to happen when neither is getting much time at the crease.

What is he trying to say? He always seem to have a problem with Sachin. In WC post match talk show, after sachin scored 99th century, he said sachin should try to get the 100th before the KOs as otherwise it could slow down the team run rate. May be I'm nitpicking, but this article is pure nonsense in any case :finger:

[Guest tekno]

Yes, not a good logic by Chappel overall. Team should look to buy best players. Though buying someone like Ray Price is weird because being a spinner, he's not going to get a game. The cap was 9M but quite a lot of the teams did not get get close to the cap and had lots of money still left

[Ultimate_Game]

We already know Chappel's logic and we have seen it so many times before. Most prominent of them are... 1. Tendulkar should have retired in 2007 2. Gambhir should have been dropped for knockouts in favor of Pathan/Raina The guy simply hates it when India's doing well and tries to bring India or anything Indian (IPL in this case) down.

[Sir_Afridi]

Why it is lahori logic and not Aussie logic??

[Zap_Brannigan]

Lahori logic is twisting the facts. This is not one. This is simply illogical. In case of baseball, where yankees hand out a over 100 million $ in salary while the lesser teams hands out in the range of 40 million $, it makes sense to know the true worth of a player and working within the salary cap. In IPL,when the difference between the maximum and mandatory minimum is just 2 million $ or less than 5% of a franchises spending, it makes no sense. Its better to give an extra 200,000$ to get a player who might be useful for just 1 more game than a really cheap buy. RR was fined in IPL 1 for not spending enough. They could have bought another player for that money.

[Ultimate_Game]

Why it is lahori logic and not Aussie logic??

Coz it belongs to the same category as "We lost a match to India, must be fixed", "India won the cup, must be due to BCCI/DRS tampering/other boards being bought out" etc. I am sure you get my drift

[Sir_Afridi]

Coz it belongs to the same category as "We lost a match to India' date= must be fixed", "India won the cup, must be due to BCCI/DRS tampering/other boards being bought out" etc. I am sure you get my drift

What do you call the logic of Indian fans for fixing of Sharjah games??? Ludhiana or Patiala logic??:woot:

[abhinav]

What do you call the logic of Indian fans for fixing of Sharjah games??? Ludhiana or Patiala logic??:woot:

It is a proven fact that the games at Sharjah were often fixed. Salim Malik,l Ata Ur Rehman, Azhar, Jadeja were banned because of those dirty dark days. Your denial is clearly "Lahori Logic"

[Ultimate_Game]

What do you call the logic of Indian fans for fixing of Sharjah games??? Ludhiana or Patiala logic??:woot:

Well it has been proven with other boards like WICB refusing to send their cricket teams to Sharjah as well. I mean the chap/VIP you used to see there was Dawood Ibrahim who actually runs most of illegal gambling business in India at that time and you are saying those matches were credible! Here's another one for you... if Pak were so great how come they have a totally different record against India outside of Sharjah. I mean how come a team who's 18-4 or thereabouts suddenly become a 0-5 team when it matters? It's the same pattern which emerged after the neutral umpires were introduced. Before neutral umpires Pak was unbeatable in Pak and after the introduction of neutral umpires they have lost series to nearly everyone - Aus, Ind, Eng, SL and even Zim!!! Now is that coincidence or what! :hysterical:

[CRM114]

Lahori logic is twisting the facts. This is not one. This is simply illogical. In case of baseball, where yankees hand out a over 100 million $ in salary while the lesser teams hands out in the range of 40 million $, it makes sense to know the true worth of a player and working within the salary cap. In IPL,when the difference between the maximum and mandatory minimum is just 2 million $ or less than 5% of a franchises spending, it makes no sense. Its better to give an extra 200,000$ to get a player who might be useful for just 1 more game than a really cheap buy. RR was fined in IPL 1 for not spending enough. They could have bought another player for that money.

You hit the nail on the head. The other factor is that hiring a good player who doesn't have the opportunity to contribute to your team also ensures he contributes nothing to other teams.

[cricketlover]

It is a proven fact that the games at Sharjah were often fixed. Salim Malik' date=l Ata Ur Rehman, Azhar, Jadeja were banned because of those dirty dark days. Your denial is clearly "Lahori Logic"

doesnt that mean Pak lost matches on purpose... so Pak would have had an even greater record if there hadnt been fixing?

[cricketlover]

Though comment of the century has to be this:

It's ironic that currently cricketers receive the highest pay for playing the shortest game. Three hours of effort in an IPL match reaps far greater rewards for a player than a gruelling five-day Test. This doesn't make sense - economic or cricketing - but it's a matter of supply and demand.

Someone ask this idiot that does he even know what Supply and Demand mean. They are clearly economic terms??? First he says it does not make any economic sense but 2 words later he says it is a matter of supply and demand which is an economic concept???