Suggestions for India's Redemption

[Sachinism]

In December 1996, a few months after Sachin Tendulkar had signed the first multi-million-dollar deal in the history of Indian sport, Tom Cruise, in the film Jerry Maguire, uttered the lines that have become the credo of a new generation of athletes and agents - "Show me the money". Perhaps now, as we sift through the wreckage of India's worst cricket tour since the misadventure in Australia in 1999/2000, it is time we talked about the money. When players are accused, often with no evidence to prove it, of putting personal gain before national interest, it makes sense to crunch the numbers. Last November, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) announced a new payment structure for a select group of 24 players. The top nine, including MS Dhoni and Sachin Tendulkar, were given a retainer of 10 million rupees (Dh804,000). The B and C-list players were offered 5m and 2.5m respectively. Match fees were fixed at 700,000 rupees for a Test, 400,000 for a one-day international (ODI) and 200,000 for a Twenty20 game. In 2011, Dhoni has played seven Tests, 14 ODIs and one T20 international. Including the retainer, he has banked 20.7m rupees by playing for India. That's for 50 days of work. The Chennai Super Kings retained the same individual before the Indian Premier League's player auction in 2011. We have yet to see transparent accounts from IPL franchises, but according to auction rules, Chennai would have had to pay US$1.8m (Dh6.6m, 81.4m rupees) to hold on to Dhoni. Given that Gautam Gambhir subsequently went from Delhi to Kolkata for $2.4m, it is safe to assume that the more marketable Dhoni was paid extra sweeteners to stay in canary yellow. In effect, for 16 days of IPL work, the man who captains the national team in all three formats of the game took home at least four times as much money as he got for playing for India. Does that matter? Of course it does, to performers with limited time at the top. Remember Ashley Cole having a fit in his car when he heard of Arsenal's "derisory" offer of Ž£55,000 (Dh363,400) a week? Let's put Dhoni's earnings into some perspective. In March last year, England's top cricket players refused to sign central contracts because they felt - to quote from the Daily Mail newspaper - "undervalued in comparison with their Australian counterparts". The contracts they turned down were believed to be worth between Ž£120,000 and Ž£450,000. Australia's leading players make more than a million dollars a year from their Cricket Australia contracts. So, let's get this right. The captain of a team representing the richest cricket board in the world has a contract about as lucrative as one given to a fairly junior player in England or Australia. Let's not confuse the issue by bringing in factors like cost of living and taxes. Sergio Aguero and Yaya Toure did not go to Manchester City to enjoy the weather in the north west of England. City were prepared to pay them more than either Atletico Madrid or Barcelona. Toure, an Ivorian, will most likely never win the highest honour in his sport, the World Cup, and he can't even dream of the kind of popularity that Dhoni enjoys. Yet, he banks more than the cricketer every week. After he blamed the IPL for India's pathetic defence of the World T20 in England in 2009, Gary Kirsten, the then coach, was asked about the possibility of international players skipping the league in future. "I've seen that happen in other sports," he said. "I know in South Africa they do that in rugby union. Maybe that's something to think of in the future. Whether it is possible, we don't know." Some of the more powerful figures on the board quietly told him to mind his own business. The BCCI was after all poacher and gamekeeper - the main stakeholders in the IPL and also responsible for doing what was best for the national team. It is hard to think of a more flagrant conflict of interest in all of sport. Asking players to forego the IPL is as unrealistic as asking a journalist not to write for a magazine that pays him five times as much for every word he writes. They could only contemplate doing that if the retainers they were on were lucrative enough for them not to care. If Mitchell Johnson can prioritise representing Australia above the IPL or the Big Bash, it is because his central contract gives him that security. Ishant Sharma's first IPL deal, signed when he was 19 years old, was worth $900,000 for the 14 games. Every over he bowled brought him $16,000, roughly what he makes these days for five days of toil in India colours. And the board seriously expects him to regard Test cricket as the pinnacle of the game? Jerry Maguire needs to have a word. http://www.thenational.ae/sport/cricket/money-becoming-a-factor?pageCount=0

[anotherhawkeye]

Australian players get a million dollars a year ? Hmmm...

[f.b.m]

This is something I have been trying to say for ages. Its not as if IPL $$s are necessarily that bad. Its just that test salaries must be higher to indicate the priorities of a cricket board. Anyone expecting 1000s of hours of toil for relative scraps is kidding themselves. Also, I think players should be payed for what they are worth in test cricket a bit like in the IPL, might see higher salaries then. *will post in a more sober state of mind tomorrow :D

[J P K]

Time to infuse new talent, say former India cricketers ndia's drubbing in the just-concluded Test series in England has signalled the urgent need for youngsters to be blooded into the Test team, according to former India captain Anil Kumble. Kumble said that while it could take time for India to return to their best, players like Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina and Yuvraj Singh needed to be given an extended run to allow the rebuilding process to take place. "They have to be given a long rope," Kumble told AFP. "You may not see India come back to the top in quick time. But we have to ensure that with these youngsters, we remain in the top three and climb to the top spot after a few years." Arun Lal, the former India batsman, echoed Kumble's view. "You cannot go on with 35 or 38-year-olds till eternity," Lal said. "We need to infuse new talent. What happened in England was in a way good. We needed an awakening." India's 4-0 loss is the their first whitewash since the three-match series in Australia in 1999-2000, and the first by a four-game margin since the 1967-68 tour of Australia. Since Sourav Ganguly took over the captaincy in 2000, India's overseas record has shown marked improvement - India have won 24 away Tests in the last 11 years as compared to only four between 1980-99. However, the players responsible for several of these wins have already gone - Anil Kumble and Sourav Ganguly - or are close to retirement, while the likes of Virender Sehwag, Zaheer Khan and Harbhajan Singh, who were part of these wins, have been dogged by injuries recently. Kapil Dev, another former captain, said several of these players would be hard to replace, making India's task that much harder. "We were fortunate to have such good players all at one time, but they can't go on forever," Dev said. "It won't be easy to replace them." Former India captain Sunil Gavaskar said, during commentary, that while England were the better side, he had not expected India to cave in so meekly. "Losing is part of the game but for a top-ranked side to lose so badly is inexcusable," he said. "England were magnificent, they were much superior to India and much better prepared. But I did expect India to show more fight than they did in the four Tests." With the Don Argus-led review of Australian cricket getting a lot of attention over the last week, there has been speculation over whether the BCCI will commission a similar appraisal in the aftermath of the England series. Former captain Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi said he didn't anticipate too many changes coming into place. "The BCCI is not going to show a great deal of vision," Pataudi said. "Cricket will continue [in India] the way it is, but I sincerely hope that some sense does come in." Ravi Shastri, another former captain, said it was time to look at different players for the different formats, with an emphasis on Test cricket. "It's time for Indian cricket to identify players who are specifically suited to the different formats of the game," Shastri wrote in the Times of India. "A way has to be found to encourage those cricketers who want to give Test cricket priority. There ought to be superior remuneration or compensation." http://www.espncricinfo.com/england-v-india-2011/content/current/story/529125.html

[vvvslaxman]

Whole system was exposed there. Bench strength is appalling. India has to assemble all the bowlers in one spot and put them through rigorous training and select the best among them. Spinners seperately. pacers seperately. They need to come up with revolutionary way of identifying real talents. Every goddamn regular Indian player should involve in this process. Mental, physical conditioning is required. Allow bowlers to play in county cricket where players can learn a thing or two.

[Crookbond]

Learn the lessons of failure http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/529116.html

Victory brings the warmest glows but the cold light of defeat can bring clarity. The great thing about success is that it is often self-perpetuating, but the trouble is, it can sometimes obscure flaws. If India aren't sick to their stomachs after being handed out a drubbing reminiscent of their dark ages, they don't possibly care enough; but not everything will have been lost if the pain of this defeat spurs the changes essential to prevent a free fall. It was just as well that Sachin Tendulkar didn't go on to get his 100th hundred at The Oval. It denied India a distraction, a glimmer of feel-good in their hour of misery. Indian cricket doesn't need the blow to be softened at this moment; instead it needs to feel the full impact of this devastating loss, feel the pain, look within and ponder the future with a clear understanding of their failings. Success highlights strengths but failure often offers better opportunities to learn, for it exposes weaknesses. Those who remain successful for long periods use lessons from failure to their advantage. India didn't fluke their way to the top of the Test table, or to their World Cup win; indeed, they scrapped every inch, digging into their deepest reserves and drawing on the exceptional skills of a core group of cricketers. They won the World Cup despite the thinness of their bowling attack and despite being the most unathletic team in the tournament. They drew the Test series in South Africa despite not having played a practice game and despite losing the first Test by an innings and some. They managed to beat Australia in a Test by adding nearly 100 runs for the last two wickets in the final innings. In the series before that, they came back after a huge defeat against Sri Lanka. The rescue act was bound to go awry some day, and England were too good a team to let India come from behind. The appraisal must begin with honesty. India will do themselves no favours by wishing this away as an aberration. A return to winning ways in one-day cricket or against West Indies at home should change nothing. There has been talk about them not respecting their No. 1 status. The truth, perhaps, is that they backed themselves to overcome the lack of preparation, bench strength and general fitness. Zaheer Khan turned up with a paunch and without match practice; Tendulkar came off a holiday; Virender Sehwag chose to postpone his shoulder surgery until his team had been knocked out of the IPL, and landed in England after India were two-down; Gautam Gambhir, who played the IPL with an injury, chose to sit out the second Test because of a painful elbow. India delayed calling for an replacement for Zaheer until the second Test. Eventually RP Singh was summoned from Miami, and he arrived looking every inch a man who had been enjoying the good life. It is one thing for a team to believe it can fight its way out of the worst adversity, another to repeatedly put itself in adversity. India ticked every box for how not to prepare for a big series. Administrators and players must be honest about where they stand vis a vis Test cricket. The No. 1 spot in the format was attained not by design but through the burning ambition of a small group of Indian cricketers, for whom the Test version remained the pinnacle. The awakening among the administrators came only after the team became No. 1. Hastily a one-day series against Australia was rearranged to accommodate two Tests. Much in the same manner, an additional tour game is now being sought before the Test series in Australia. Administrators bristle and players shy away when it is suggested that not everything about the IPL is good for Indian cricket. Of course, there is no denying it its place. Crowds love the entertainment, players love the financial security it provides, and administrators love the might the money brings. But the real challenge for India is to keep Test cricket attractive to players, and it won't be achieved by mere sloganeering. The biggest problem with Twenty20, and particularly with the IPL, is that it provides disproportionate rewards for too little work and limited skills. Who would pass up the chance of earning in six weeks what might otherwise take a couple of years? There is no other reason why even those Indian players who had withdrawn from playing international Twenty20 even before the IPL began, would never consider missing an IPL season. Since they dictate terms in most matters, how difficult can it be for the Indian cricket board to draw up a schedule that gives their cricketers the best chance of success in all three forms of the game? It is up to the Indian board, if it wishes to back its words up with deeds, to provide enough incentives to keep the players interested in Test cricket, which requires far greater toil, not merely on the field but also in preparation. To turn up and deliver four overs of change of pace might not be as simple as it sounds, but weigh that up against maintaining the intensity over 60 overs against international batsmen. Since they drew up the rules of the IPL and possess the cash to call the shots in world cricket, it is not beyond the means of Indian cricket's overlords to make the Test game the most remunerative form. And since they dictate terms in most matters, how difficult can it be for the Indian cricket board to draw up a schedule that gives their cricketers the best chance of success in all three forms of the game? If Indian players have looked utterly spent during the English summer, consider this: half the team will drag themselves to the Champions League three days after they complete their one-day assignment in England, then take on England in a five-match one-day series, and cram in a full home series against West Indies before flying out to Australia for four Tests and a one-day triangular. India's future without their batting greats is too gruesome to contemplate, but the bowling is already in crisis. Zaheer faces an uncertain future, Sreesanth has been a huge disappointment, and that Praveen Kumar, resourceful and skillful as he is, was India's spearhead in England, must say something. The spin front is even more depressing: Harbhajan Singh has continued to slide and not one credible contender is in sight. One way of looking at the ruins of this tour would be that it cannot get worse, but Indian cricket must brace itself that it's unlikely to get much better in the immediate future. As a Test team India have peaked and descent is inevitable. How well this is managed is to down to the leaders. The role of the captain and the coach will be vital. It is a test of character for MS Dhoni, who took over an upwardly mobile team and led them to heights never achieved before. But he will be required now to extend himself beyond the field - for players will need to be nurtured and managed. Duncan Fletcher is no stranger to building a team, but he must now demand and be given the powers he needs, and the space to help shape a team not merely capable of winning back the top spot but of holding on to it. The most important cog in this wheel will be N Srinivasan, the BCCI's president incumbent and widely acknowledged as the most powerful man in Indian cricket. More than anything else Indian cricket needs its priorities sorted and a roadmap set. It is inconceivable that a country so passionate about the game, with so much wealth and so many people, can't produce, by will and planning, another set of winners.

[Cricket Tragic]

Five areas of concern India need to address

The Argus review showed that Australian cricket had diverted its focus too far from the success of the Test team. Must India recognise that it has done the same? Ian Chappell, former Australia captain The BCCI are in the business of making money, more so than cricket. They have let the senior players have a bit too much say in what they want and the selectors have been negligent in their duty. It almost seems to me like the selectors have said: this is a terrific period for us, we are going to make the most of it, and if we leave the mess to the next lot, too bad. I say that they have not done anything really to plan for the future at all. All you have got to do is have a system that produces good young, skilful, competitive cricketers. And if you are producing a number of good, strong leaders then you will be fine. Work on the things that are going to get you wins in any game of cricket. If you are going to produce leaders, then it is not going to matter if you are going to play Test, one-day or Twenty20 matches. India need a decent bowling attack to build a good team around. I wrote when India became the No. 1 Test team that I did not see them maintaining that position under all the different conditions. Apart from the fact that the selectors have not faced up to the issue of an ageing batting line-up that is terrible in the field in a five-day game, they have not also faced up to the fact that Harbhajan Singh has not been a good attacking weapon for at least for a good two years now. And where are the good fast bowlers? I have never seen a winning team tire. All the tired teams are the ones that are losing. India at the moment are losing. India should have been able to stay at the No. 1 for a quite a long time because have a look at the numbers that play the game, just for starts. Then they have got all the money, but if it is not well administered then the money does not mean anything. Aakash Chopra, former India opener For a very long time we buried our heads in the sands and refused to believe a problem existed. That is why we were so thoroughly underprepared for the England tour, because the BCCI thought India are No. 1 and would just turn up and do well. Now they are asking Cricket Australia for an extra warm-up match. But it is just not about scheduling. Preparation for me is a long-drawn process: it starts from identifying the right personnel and then taking it forward. If you are not improving by 10% as a team every time you play overseas, you become stagnant. Other teams are also improving, so you cannot be No. 1 anymore. You have to be extremely ruthless in your preparation. We cannot just have one strike bowler in Zaheer Khan. If Chris Tremlett broke down, England had Tim Bresnan, Steven Finn and Graham Onions. You have to have a pool. Imagine if Zaheer had broken down during the World Cup; we would have lost it there and then. In fact, about a year ago we knew we were over-reliant on Zaheer in Tests and one-dayers. Success can always tell a lot more than failure can. When you are doing well, if you know why you are doing well, it is always easier to just keep doing the same thing and keep improving alongside. That is what good teams do. Kiran More, former India selector The biggest review the Indian board needs to do is at the National Cricket Academy [NCA]. It has become a joke. The last time I was there, all the bowlers and batsmen were being just cloned mechanically. I was shocked. You can't have everyone do the same thing. How many cricketers has the NCA helped produce who are at the level of Anil Kumble or Rahul Dravid or Sachin Tendulkar? The NCA has failed in feeding good talent to the national team. It is time the Indian board seriously rethinks how the NCA is run. Kumble [now the NCA chairman] should be given a free rein. He will make sure the right structure is put in place. You can't just have coaches who are equipped with Level 1, 2 certificates. To an extent these guys can help, but you need national cricketers playing a bigger role. Is it time that at least the most important players get an off-season window? And how long should it ideally be? Chopra It should be left to the players. I mean, some batsmen might not want that break unless they are playing in all three formats and the IPL. Actually players like Suresh Raina and Virat Kohli are fit and young and don't really need a break. MS Dhoni is the guy who deserves, and should be given, a break. Some of the Indian players who will be involved in the England ODI series will have to directly fly to Hyderabad to play in the Champions League Twenty20 qualifiers three days later. More importantly, in the last few years the number of injuries have shot up massively and players are breaking down. That needs review. More The BCCI needs to prioritise the events where players need to play. Look at England and Australia, whose best players don't play in tournaments like the IPL. They are well-compensated. In India the situation now is such that nobody is held accountable. Look at this season's IPL, where Tendulkar, Gautam Gambhir, Virender Sehwag and Zaheer played with injuries immediately after winning the World Cup. It clearly showed that priority was never given to the England series. The workload of players needs to be managed really well. Everyone, from the player to the selectors to the physios to the trainers, needs to chalk out a plan and work on it, otherwise this will never change. Is there a case to offer incentives to players to build their skills in Test cricket? And how do you go about doing that? Chappell The administrators made their bed. If you are going to provide enormous riches for playing T20 cricket then most people will take the easy way out. Occasionally there comes a Dravid, Tendulkar or a Laxman, who wants to be good Test cricketer, but most people are lazy and opt for the easy way out. It is going to be bloody hard to turn that around. You can't really solve it by upping the wages in first-class cricket, because if money is the only incentive then you have a problem. The best cricketers I know of are the ones who love playing it well, and because they play it well they get paid well. This is the problem with cricket administration - they do not think things through. The IPL has done some good things for cricket, but the best of ideas do have downsides. And it is not restricted to India. It is a global malaise. Chopra There is definitely a good way - make first-class cricket (four-day matches) the key tournament in the country. Then increase the remuneration in the Ranji and Duleep Trophy. At the moment a player gets Rs 1 lakh (US$ 2200 approx) per first-class game, but in the IPL the average player gets about Rs 30 lakhs ($65,000) for 14 T20 matches. So why should he sweat earning Rs 5 lakhs ($10,900) for playing one full season of first-class cricket? That gap needs to be bridged. You need to start rewarding players in domestic cricket. How can you have the Irani Trophy (October 1-5), a premier domestic tournament and the curtain-raiser to the main domestic season clashing with the Champions League and also the Challenger Trophy? You are actually ridiculing it. More importantly, keep T20 out of bounds for teenagers. You need to take such radical steps to popularise one format which is losing its sheen - not because the quality of cricket is not there but only because people are not willing to put in those extra hours. Across India most Under-12 and Under-14 tournaments are T20 format. If kids are exposed to the shortest form at such a young age, what will they become eventually? The dynamics have changed in the last four years - with the IPL coming in, guys playing a lot of cricket, and India having reached the summit. So you need to review a lot of things. The impact of the IPL on domestic cricketers - are these performances prioritised over domestic performances? If we are going to pick a player on his IPL showing, then you are ridiculing the domestic system. More Our system that needs to change right from the state level. Everybody blames the BCCI for everything, but I will blame the 31 state associations. All the states receive a fantastic amount of money from the Indian board, but they don't make the right use of it. They need to develop the right infrastructure in the form of a good academy, set up a good format of domestic cricket I will cite the example of Baroda, where I come from. There are hardly any three-day matches played, so how can a Baroda player develop a good mindset for the longer form? That is not the case in states like Mumbai, Karanataka or Tamil Nadu, where structures are in place and there are different formats that allow youngsters to develop the right skills. So there is a strong need to play the right tournaments at the domestic level. Our state associations are only interested in raking in the money. Building a good stadium does not mean the money is being utilised in the right way. The BCCI does not organise camps at age-group levels. That is the responsibility of the states. Has the time come to phase out the old guard? How do you do it? Chopra I definitely do not agree that the time is up for the Big Three. Having said that, what we should have started doing more than a year ago is blooding youngsters. Say, we are playing an inconsequential Test match, like a dead rubber, or against Bangladesh, like last year - it's a good time to throw the youngsters in at the deep end and see if they can stand up. Without really letting go of the senior pros, I would put a new player in a series like the Caribbean tour with a clear process in mind, and not just trying for the sake of trying out a newcomer. Chappell It was time probably two years ago. There is no doubt that Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman are certainly amongst the best batsmen, but have they picked the right young players in the squad? Rohit Sharma is twice as good a batsman as Suresh Raina and he has not yet played Tests. Okay, there may be personality problems, and Rohit might not have a big amount of first-class runs, but you don't worry about all that. You just back your judgement. Some guys adapt to the big stage faster than others. You can leave guys at the lower level for too long. Graeme Hick is a classic example. He played a lesser standard of cricket way too long and by the time he played Test cricket he had flaws that were found out. If he had played Test cricket earlier maybe he would not have got into sloppy habits. You have got to get Rohit up there and find out whether he can do it. You do not pick teams to please people; you pick teams to win cricket matches, but while you are always picking a team to win the next game, you are also selecting a team with an eye on the future. Good selectors are good enough to do both: pick a team that will win and also know when the time has come to start making some changes. And it is much easier to make gradual changes rather than have to make four or five changes all at once. Australia have suffered that fate. Take the Indian fielding, which was atrocious in England. It is going to be worse in Australia, where they will be playing on bigger grounds. You can give an allowance to the Big Three, who have slowed down, but what about some of the youngsters? Absolutely rubbish. India's best fielder can't bat. The bowling attack struggled in conditions that favoured the bowlers more than they will in Australia. I would love to hear from the selectors what squad they will pick for the Australian tour. If they come with the one seen in England, then good luck. More The selectors need to take some hard decisions. What was the point of asking Sehwag to come to England when he was half-fit? It would have been better to play Abhinav Mukund instead for four Tests, even if he failed. If there is a senior player who is unfit it is a suitable time to pick a youngster and give him as many chances as possible. As for the Big Three, we need them, but some time down the line we need to make a call for phasing them out in the right fashion. After the World Cup win, nobody is bothered anymore. You have to make some tough calls even if people might not like it. If you don't do that at the right moment, it will only be bad for Indian cricket. Does India have a pool of fast bowlers? How do you create one and manage it? Venkatesh Prasad, former India bowling coach You have to travel around the country if you are a coach and attend important matches like Ranji Trophy or Duleep Trophy finals to check if there is any interesting talent coming along. You have to go and talk to the people at the domestic level and gather information. There should be a pool of shortlisted players who will be sent to the zonal cricket academies and then the NCA. I do agree with the opinion that Indians bowlers have not been fit. When India won the World Twenty20 in 2007, there was a trainer like Greg King working his backside off to make sure the players were at their peak. He made sure every player was religiously following the routine he had given them, and if the player was not doing so, King personally ensured it was being followed. In the last two years fitness has been left to the individuals, but fitness is something where you need to push the players. To a certain extent, yes, it is a personal responsibility, but you need to raise the bar and you need someone to push you. As for the pool of fast bowlers I can confidently say that India have a good bunch of six to seven bowlers. But these bowlers need to be given a break after the IPL for about 15 days. After that get them to the NCA where you work only on their fitness to begin with, during this off season. Make sure there is personal attention given to each of them and push them to work hard. Don't make them bowl a lot as they do that during the domestic season. I would make them bowl two sessions in a week during the off season. During the remaining time work on their fielding and fitness. Also get them in batches of five to seven bowlers, and every 10 days work with a different batch. This way you are working on about 15 to 20 bowlers. And if the player has a BCCI contract, make sure he is always around doing something at the NCA. You can't have guys holidaying somewhere and suddenly being recalled to the team. As you come closer to the season you need to taper down the speed- and agility- and strengthening conditioning and focus more on your bowling. You have to bowl a helluva lot of overs to get match-fit. Our bowlers have the talent, but I am not sure about the planning during a series. Have we been bowling to our strengths? Have we analysed the opposition? Look at England, how they have tried to map Sachin Tendulkar's brains and work out algorithms to work him out. When I was a bowling coach, I would make it a point to have a chat as a bowling group in the coffee shop once we got back to the team hotel after the day's play.

[Fontaine]

Once again Venkatesh Prasad is absolutely 100% correct about his observations on bowling/fitness. And well done to Kiran More for calling the NCA exactly what it is and what I along others have been saying: A joke.

[Cricket Tragic]

Yeah, Prasad has got some good ideas. He also appears to be someone who has a real interest in spotting and nurturing tailunt. Does the coach have the time to attend domestic matches though? It looks like the even the selectors don't.

[J P K]

BCCI interested in making money, more than cricket: Chappell New Delhi, Aug 25 (IANS) Former Australian captain Ian Chappell launched a scathing attack on the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for allowing senior players have too much say in what they want. Chappell also blasted the Krish Srikkanth-led selection committee for being negligent in their duty and questioned the committee's ability. Chappell further questioned the selection committee's intent of finding a potent bowling attack for all conditions. 'The BCCI are in the business of making money, more so than cricket. They have let the senior players have a bit too much say in what they want and the selectors have been negligent in their duty,' Chappell was quoted as saying in ESPNCricinfo. Criticising the selection committee, Chappell said: 'It almost seems to me like the selectors have said: this is a terrific period for us, we are going to make the most of it, and if we leave the mess to the next lot, too bad. I say that they have not done anything really to plan for the future at all.' 'India need a decent bowling attack to build a good team around. When India became the No.1 Test team, I said that I did not see them maintaining that position under all the different conditions. 'They have not also faced up to the fact that Harbhajan Singh has not been a good attacking weapon at least for a good two years now. And where are the good fast bowlers,' he asked. Chappell came down hard on the selection committee for not able to infuse young blood in the ageing Indian batting. 'Apart from the fact that the selectors have not faced up to the issue of an ageing batting line-up that is terrible in the field in a five-day game,' he said. http://cricket.yahoo.com/cricket/news/article?id=item/2.0/-/story/cricket.indiaabroad.com/bcci-interested-making-money-more-than-cricket-chappell-20110825/

[achilles]

Agree with a lot of points made. Certain points that I liked were- 1. They have let the senior players have a bit too much say in what they want and the selectors have been negligent in their duty. It almost seems to me like the selectors have said: this is a terrific period for us, we are going to make the most of it, and if we leave the mess to the next lot, too bad. I say that they have not done anything really to plan for the future at all. 2. Rohit Sharma is twice as good a batsman as Suresh Raina and he has not yet played Tests. Okay, there may be personality problems, and Rohit might not have a big amount of first-class runs, but you don't worry about all that. You just back your judgement. Some guys adapt to the big stage faster than others. 3. Success can always tell a lot more than failure can. When you are doing well, if you know why you are doing well, it is always easier to just keep doing the same thing and keep improving alongside. That is what good teams do.

[Andy]

Agree with a lot of points made. Certain points that I liked were- 1. They have let the senior players have a bit too much say in what they want and the selectors have been negligent in their duty. It almost seems to me like the selectors have said: this is a terrific period for us, we are going to make the most of it, and if we leave the mess to the next lot, too bad. I say that they have not done anything really to plan for the future at all. 2. Rohit Sharma is twice as good a batsman as Suresh Raina and he has not yet played Tests. Okay, there may be personality problems, and Rohit might not have a big amount of first-class runs, but you don't worry about all that. You just back your judgement. Some guys adapt to the big stage faster than others. 3. Success can always tell a lot more than failure can. When you are doing well, if you know why you are doing well, it is always easier to just keep doing the same thing and keep improving alongside. That is what good teams do.

Yes, even I think Rohit should play ahead of Raina, Yuvraj and Kohli in test matches. His style of play suits the longer format more. Than the names mentioned.

[Cricket Tragic]

Yuvraj has had his chance and he isn't good enough. Raina will never be a successful test player in all condtions. We're left with Sharma/Kohli/Pujara and Rahane. People underestimate how tough it is to find top class test players who will play for 10+ years.

[achilles]

Yes' date=' even I think Rohit should play ahead of Raina, Yuvraj and Kohli in test matches. His style of play suits the longer format more. Than the names mentioned.[/quote'] Yes. If we are giving chances to youngsters, whats the harm in giving a few to Rohit? You wouldn't want Rohit to suddenly find himself on debut replacing VVS/SRT/RD and then facing immense pressure to fill their shoes from the word go. Players should be allowed to ease in to the Test team.

[gs]

New Delhi, Aug 25 (IANS) Former Australian captain Ian Chappell launched a scathing attack on the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for allowing senior players have too much say in what they want. Chappell also blasted the Krish Srikkanth-led selection committee for being negligent in their duty and questioned the committee's ability. Chappell further questioned the selection committee's intent of finding a potent bowling attack for all conditions. 'The BCCI are in the business of making money, more so than cricket. They have let the senior players have a bit too much say in what they want and the selectors have been negligent in their duty,' Chappell was quoted as saying in ESPNCricinfo. Criticising the selection committee, Chappell said: 'It almost seems to me like the selectors have said: this is a terrific period for us, we are going to make the most of it, and if we leave the mess to the next lot, too bad. I say that they have not done anything really to plan for the future at all.' 'India need a decent bowling attack to build a good team around. When India became the No.1 Test team, I said that I did not see them maintaining that position under all the different conditions. 'They have not also faced up to the fact that Harbhajan Singh has not been a good attacking weapon at least for a good two years now. And where are the good fast bowlers,' he asked. Chappell came down hard on the selection committee for not able to infuse young blood in the ageing Indian batting. 'Apart from the fact that the selectors have not faced up to the issue of an ageing batting line-up that is terrible in the field in a five-day game,' he said. http://cricket.yahoo.com/cricket/news/article?id=item/2.0/-/story/cricket.indiaabroad.com/bcci-interested-making-money-more-than-cricket-chappell-20110825/

No sheet Sherlock!

[Cricketics]

Which board isn't interested in making money?? Shut up Ian Chappell.

[yoda]

Selectors had a great vision by injecting youth (Kohli, Raina, ...) when we just won the WC, now we get drubbed 0-4 in a test series and the selectors have suddenly turned into bozo the clowns. :hahaha:

[WC2011INDIA]

Sab haath dhoke peeche pade hai.

[WC2011INDIA]

Yes. If we are giving chances to youngsters, whats the harm in giving a few to Rohit? You wouldn't want Rohit to suddenly find himself on debut replacing VVS/SRT/RD and then facing immense pressure to fill their shoes from the word go. Players should be allowed to ease in to the Test team.

That's the problem with Indian selectors. They expect young players to come out and start playing like VVS/SRT/RD which is sad. If you don't then you aren't given many chances.

[Rahul Dravid]

oh, we didn't know that Chappal... thanks for letting us know. :)