Kris srikkant's term has finally finished as chief selector

[GautiMaan]

^ Rain + injuries is NOT an excuse for not winning even a single game that tour. D/L may have favored England but we let D/L favor England.

Not so simple,as u you are aware its easier for the side batting second when D/L comes into play and England were chasing in all the games.I still think we did ok in ODI's,all matches were close(one was tied). The Test series is another matter entirely

[Crookbond]

Theek hai remove the ODIs, abhi Tests and tour games ka bol. Woh bhi injuries aur rains mein beh gayi?

[GautiMaan]

Theek hai remove the ODIs' date=' [i']abhi Tests and tour games ka bol. Woh bhi injuries aur rains mein beh gayi?

-n9NiULqxp4

[Lord]

Not so simple' date=as u you are aware its easier for the side batting second when D/L comes into play and England were chasing in all the games.I still think we did ok in ODI's,all matches were close(one was tied). The Test series is another matter entirely

not always.take a wicket n par score goes up significantly

[GautiMaan]

not always.take a wicket n par score goes up significantly

True,but then the batting side knows what exactly is needed and can act accordingly.We also had to bowl with a wet ball.

[Lord]

True' date='but then the batting side knows what exactly is needed and can act accordingly.We also had to bowl with a wet ball.[/quote'] bowling side also knows wats needed-wickets n tight bowling.we achieved neither. about wet ball.it happens all the time.we should be prepared for it

[coffee_rules]

Embarrassing interviews - esp the Sachin Cheer leading. I thought he would reach over and slap the interviewer. Disgraceful attitude.

[Precambrian]

Those who talk about Kris Srikanth's attitude towards media, its the BCCI which employs Kris and not the media.

[Precambrian]

Embarrassing interviews - esp the Sachin Cheer leading. I thought he would reach over and slap the interviewer. Disgraceful attitude.

The whole interview was a farce. The questions posed were just rubbish, without any iota of research or homework. Atleast could've got the stats right.

[The Dark Horse]

Some bad points about this selection panel that I observed: 1. Failed to fill vacant spots in tests and trying to fill them with ODI specialists. 2. Failed to phase out seniors even after worst results(tests). 3. Some bizarre selections like Chawla( which is common in all selectors). Apart from these they have been okay and definitely not the worst selection commitee. And the have tried to blood youngsters like Yadav, Aaron and Rahul Sharma who were quite unheard of before.

[MCcricket]

India won the world cup during his reign but it was despite of him, brainless selections no planning, CSK selections, in and out revolving door policy, soo many goof ups , lol who can forget Unadkat, Kumar, R P and soo many more decisions, to my knowledge the worst selection committee in a very long time, took Indian cricket backwards by 10 years.

[Ultimate_Game]

but but but he got us the WC n made us no.1 test team.u must surely be an anti- Chennai racist to hate such a successful selector:--D

:haha:

[cricketman]

In all honestly Srikkanth has a good resume for his tenure as selector. As a number of others have pointed out, it was under his selection that we reached the number 1 test team and won the World Cup in 2011. There were some brave moves by Cheeka in there as well. There were a lot of people clamoring for Yuvraj Singh to be dropped prior to the WC. Rahul Dravid was under the axe after a few disastrous seasons before that magic run in 2011. We unearthed some fast bowling talent in Yadav and Aaron and gave a fair amount of chances to youngsters, some of which have become regular mainstays in the team (KOHLI!). True, there have been some picks that haven't gone our way. I think we got lucky getting away with picks like Piyush Chawla in the WC squad. Seriously, where the heck did that come from?! I think we have given too many opportunities to some medium pacers like Vinay Kumar and Abhimanyu Mithun, but to the selector's credit they do have a decent first class record to their name, and we aren't working with much when it comes to seam bowling in India. There was a huge slump in the 0-8 period coupled with some very bizarre selections (RP Singh?? WTF). Overall, it will go down in the books as a successful campaign for Srikkanth, barring a bad run overseas recently. I think this is a good time for a change. I would hate to go back to the selection policies of Kiran More and Dilip Vengsarkar - a period in which Indian cricket truly struggled to stay competitive IMO.

[MCcricket]

India's selectors pick populism over vision The final selections by Srikkanth's committee have sent all the wrong signals to the players and fans Aakash Chopra August 16, 2012 Comments: 30 |Login via | Text size: A | A Wriddhiman Saha was vice-captain on India A's tour of West Indies, and is being groomed to take over the keeper's role in Tests. Why then is he not in the A squad to tour New Zealand? © AFP Sanjay Manjrekar : Anyone thinking of South Africa 2013? Features : Selections pose more questions than answers After India's 0-8 rout in England and Australia in 2011, the BCCI took some measures to ensure the team doesn't face such a drubbing again. Among these were scheduling two India A tours every year and revamping the domestic structure to make it more competitive, with the aim to produce players who will do well in all conditions. These efforts may not form the complete blueprint for success, but we must laud the BCCI for taking the first few steps in the right direction. But while the board has showed it intends to bring change, the national selectors have simply delayed the process of repair India need if they are to be successful against all teams in all conditions. The beginning of a new season was an opportune moment for the selectors to show their vision and intent. It was also their last selection (four of the five selectors will finish their terms in September), so the moment could not have been more appropriate to perhaps undo the errors of the past. Instead, they chose to bury their heads in the sand. Where they could have taken a few radical, if possibly unpopular, decisions, they preferred to play it safe. Instead of showing vision by backing youngsters for the India A tour, they chose to please everyone by picking a completely different squad from the one for the A tour of West Indies a couple of months ago. This shows not only a dangerous incoherence in thought process, it also raises questions about the selectors' credibility. While Yuvraj Singh's comeback for the World Twenty20 grabbed the headlines, it was the other, unemotional, selections that revealed the selectors' lack of vision. Sidharth Monga covered several of these in his column last week. Decisions like Ishant Sharma's inclusion for the New Zealand Tests without him having played a single competitive match after undergoing ankle surgery, Suresh Raina replacing Rohit Sharma in the Test side, and Gautam Gambhir replacing Virat Kohli as vice-captain for the World Twenty20 are jarring enough, but none betrays the lack of clarity as much as Piyush Chawla's return to the Indian team for Tests and the World Twenty20 does, 16 months after playing his last international game, in the 2011 World Cup. In fact, Chawla was a surprise selection for the World Cup as well, and was dropped after taking four wickets in three matches (two of them against Ireland and Netherlands). It isn't often that a member of a World Cup-winning team isn't played again for 16 months. Only a sub-standard performance can lead to such a long absence, and it would then be fair to assume that Chawla must have forced his way back with a series of sterling performances. Not really. Rahul Sharma, who replaced Chawla in the squad after the World Cup, did very well in the 2011 IPL, and was picked for India on the basis of his performance in the league, despite poor first-class figures - 18 wickets in ten matches till then. But then selection is not always about numbers, or we'd have statisticians for selectors. Every selection committee has the right to look beyond statistics and go by instinct for potential and talent. It isn't often that a member of a World Cup-winning team isn't played again for 16 months. Only a sub-standard performance can lead to such a long absence, and it would then be fair to assume that Chawla must have forced his way back with a series of sterling performances. Not really There are only two ways to justify any selection: by merit, backed by seriously good numbers, or by the selectors' instinct for considering potential over performance. Rahul's selection fell into the second category. But while he was picked with the long-term idea of playing Tests, he was dropped after only ten months, not having been given an opportunity in the longer format. So was his being picked an error in judgment, or was dropping him without giving him a chance a mistake? Chawla has now reclaimed his place without producing any earth-shattering numbers - 27 wickets at 40.62 from nine first-class matches. Yes, there were only eight spinners in the top 30 wicket-takers last season, and the best took 28 wickets in eight matches, but then again, if Chawla was going to be picked for the Test series against New Zealand, why wasn't he picked for the A tour to West Indies? National selections rarely demand out-of-the-box thinking because most players select themselves. You need to simply pick the best team possible to win the assignment, which means there isn't much scope for working towards a vision. Not so with an A squad, where the selectors have opportunities to plan for the future, and gives us a peek into their thought process. If selected fairly, an A squad is a great indicator of the country's bench strength. Being consistent in selections for the national team is the default mode, but consistency in A team selections can only be achieved through a carefully crafted design. A team is as good as its bench strength, and the bench can only be as strong as it is allowed to be. In July 2011, Srikkanth Anirudha was picked in a three-day squad for the Emerging Players tournament, even though he wasn't a regular in Tamil Nadu's Ranji team. It goes without saying that one deserving candidate was pushed further back in the queue for no fault of his own. Only six players from the India A tour to the West Indies have survived for the A tour to New Zealand in September-October. Robin Bist, the highest run scorer in the 2011-12 first-class season, Wriddhiman Saha, who is being groomed take over the gloves from MS Dhoni in Tests, and Parwinder Awana, considered one of the most promising young fast bowlers in the country, have all failed to make it. Saha was the team's vice-captain, while Bist and Awana got only one match each on the tour. What did Saha do wrong? Was one opportunity enough to judge that Bist and Awana aren't good enough? Shikhar Dhawan and Abhinav Mukund both failed to score runs in the West Indies, but Mukund has now been named captain for the New Zealand tour, while Dhawan has been dropped. RP Singh was picked for the West Indies but couldn't make it because he wasn't fit. Now Jaydev Unadkat has been preferred over a fit RP. And what about Praveen Kumar? If he wasn't considered good enough for the World Twenty20, shouldn't he have been a part of the India A set-up? As a rule, A squads consist of promising players from the first-class circuit who have a realistic chance of graduating to the next level and those who have fallen off the national radar and are trying to make it back. Picking completely different teams every time defeats the purpose of organising such tours. India are about to begin a very long home season, and this selection could have been used to make a statement of intent. Unfortunately, the out-going selection committee didn't see it as an opportunity; maybe they looked at it as a liability. Former India opener Aakash Chopra is the author of Out of the Blue, an account of Rajasthan's 2010-11 Ranji Trophy victory. His website is here and his Twitter feed here Feeds: Aakash Chopra © ESPN EMEA Ltd These selctors especially CHEEKA HAVE BEEN THE WORST I HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME, AKASH'S ARTICLE PINPOINTS A FEW THINGS, THERE IS NOT PLANNING, LOGIC, SELECTIONS BASED ON MERIT AS 70 % PLAYERS SELECT THEMSELVES THE OTHER 30 % ARE THE IMPORTANT SELECTIONS, FOR GROOMING AND HAVING THE INTEGRITY AND ACUMEN TO CHOOSE THE RIGHT PLAYERS AND NOT TOURISTS.

[SLICKR392]

The fact is that there will be talk of biased selections or poor decisions no matter who the selector is in India. People who think that getting in certain cricketers will change that are kidding themselves. Remember GRV?

Excellent point. No matter who the selector is, end of the day we will blame them for their biased selection just because they did not pick the individuals that we would love to see play.

[rkt.india]

Headache and questions for selectors

VVS Laxman is not a rude fellow at all, in fact quite the opposite. He was called mama (colloquial Hindi for uncle) by most of his team-mates for being quite avuncular. What his retirement has done though, quite unintentionally, is fling a few eggs on selectorial faces. He announced his retirement on Saturday, just over a week after he had been named in the two Test-series against New Zealand. A few hours before his formal press announcement, Laxman called chairman of selectors Kris Srikkanth, thanked the selectors for their "confidence" and "faith" in him, but said he was stepping out of the Indian cricket Big Top. The back story buzzing around was about Laxman's deep hurt over the public criticism that he was holding up a younger man's spot once the team had been announced for the Tests versus New Zealand. It was widely expected on Saturday he was going to state that enough was enough and the New Zealand Tests were to be his last. It was the retirement "with immediate effect" though that knocked everyone sideways. His departure was declared emotional because he decided not to have a public farewell party in his home city. In the midst of the hubbub, not for a minute, whether he was reading out his statement or answering questions on Saturday, did Laxman look fraught. Whatever had led him to take a completely unexpected decision had fallen away. He denied that critical comments had pushed him to take this sudden leap. When asked to list his major cricketing disappointments, he said on the day he wasn't going to look at his career that way. He thanked his parents for giving him "equanimity" to handle challenges. His retirement was met with howls of 'how' and 'why' rather than a single why not. Isn't that the essence of what retirements are supposed to be about? Cricketers will always want to play; it is the only job they have, it is the only world they know. It is why the idea of retirement itself is very hard to accept. Laxman had been in training like a beast in recent months. In real terms, he was not 'holding up' the place of some tortured genius. (Real hold-ups took place in the 90s when fast bowlers waited for Kapil Dev to complete his record tally of wickets.) Sourav Ganguly would have guffawed at the idea. In England last year, when on commentary duty, Ganguly spoke of having retired "in anger", due to the prospect of a lurking selectorial axe. That there was a selectorial presence capable of having led Ganguly to the decision to quit, today, sounds completely astonishing. In the aftermath of 8-0, by contrast, the Krishnamachari Srikkanth-led selection panel have only indulged in head-in-sand stuff. When it came to any astute handling of India's Test transition, these selectors have been completely remiss. If Laxman was indeed deeply upset by what was being said from the outside about his presence in the team, so much so that he was pushed into immediate retirement, it would mean that those directly connected to the squad had not been doing their duty. His case required selectorial acumen and diplomacy, with an eye on the seasons that lay ahead. That lay in either giving Laxman the security to stay on or talking to him about his future with a countdown clock switched on. Over the last few months, it is obvious, nothing of the sort has happened. When Laxman weighed his options and chose to walk off, he renounced a final Test in his home town, a chance to face the world's second-lowest ranked Test attack and so fulfil the very real prospect of crossing 9000 Test runs. Such low-hanging fruit could quieten much anger, hurt or emotion. Whatever his prime motivation for retirement, only a highly principled man could refuse to be tempted. Laxman's retirement startled not just the general public but, revealingly, the selectors themselves. In the last six months, rather than behave like divas, two of India's greatest middle-order batsmen have timed their departures with great maturity. Like they had done in their cricket, India's golden generation - starting with Anil Kumble - in the final years of their cricket has also set the standard for conduct. Having done so, both Laxman and Rahul Dravid have given the selectors two free middle-order spots - on a plate. The next lot of selectors must prove that they can identify the right candidates, with an eye on South Africa 2013. Had Laxman been around for the series at home this season, that tour would have been the main point of argument against his place in the squad. The same argument must hold good even for the younger batsmen who follow. Make no doubt. Many batsmen will jostle to head the queue against New Zealand. The selectors need to identify players with the home series against England and Australia in mind. This is not about putting pressure on inexperienced players or demanding they fill giant boots; like Virat Kohli, all they need to do is make distinct footmarks of their own. Ideally, not found retreating outside leg stump. Following the World Cup victory, the Srikkanth selection committee was given a year's extension - and under the BCCI's current systems that meant one more year of an annual salary of Rs 45 lakh. In Test terms, however, they failed in their duties. Their glaring omissions with regards to a succession plan or tactical transition have quite furtively been passed on to the new committee as its collective headache. The presence of older players in the Test team was never the hurdle to order and progress. The selectors' lack of foresight was. Now, with Laxman and Dravid's departure, the new panel must demonstrate greater wisdom and confidence. The new panel of selectors, which is likely to be headed by Mohinder Amarnath, will pick the teams to play England and Australia at home. Along with filling in two middle-order spots, they will have a few more questions staring them in the face with reference to South Africa 2013: How is Zaheer Khan to be handled between now and then? How long must Ishant Sharma's rope be? What is the best way to have Virender Sehwag get his overseas mojo back? Who deserves to chosen as the lone attacking, wicket-taking spinner for away tours? This time next year, with 18 months to go for the 2015 World Cup, another question is going to pop up: What does Sachin Tendulkar want to achieve from his ODI career? Unlike the young batsmen who must follow Laxman and Dravid, the standards to be matched by the new selectors are, fortunately and unfortunately, not very high ones.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/current/story/578305.html

[The Outsider]

Cricketers will always want to play; it is the only job they have, it is the only world they know. It is why the idea of retirement itself is very hard to accept. Laxman had been in training like a beast in recent months. In real terms, he was not 'holding up' the place of some tortured genius. (Real hold-ups took place in the 90s when fast bowlers waited for Kapil Dev to complete his record tally of wickets.)

Kapil averaged 40 with the bat and 30 with the ball in his last 15 tests - which tortured genius has been able to match that?

[rkt.india]

Goodbye Srikkanth

ThereÃÔ a parallel universe in which 0-8 never happened. In that corner of a Utopian field, India returned from England and Australia after competing on even terms, their pride and the world No. 1 ranking intact, two more glorious entries added to their list of overseas conquests. How comforting would it be to exist in that universe now? Ask Kris Srikkanth, who inhabits that universe with the regal air of a frog in the well that canÃÕ be bothered about reality. Left to his devices, Srikkanth would have made only one change to the Indian side that underwent a WACA walloping back in January, the teamÃÔ eighth successive away Test thrashing: MS Dhoni returning to the XI in place of Wridhiman Saha, having served his one-Test ban for poor over-rates. In the HitchhikerÃÔ Guide to Indian Cricket, Srikkanth has got to be the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, a creature that thinks if you can't see it, it can't see you. And somehow, SrikkanthÃÔ managed to not see the shambles that his tenure has left behind. ThereÃÔ a joke somewhere in there, about his ubiquitous dark sunglasses, an appendage that accompanies him to most of those incoherent selection press ÃÄonferences? Srikkanth took charge of the selection committee in September 2008, with India on the verge of toppling Australia at home as the No. 1 Test side in the world, and their golden generation already on the verge of being disbanded. Indeed, two of the primary architects Sourav Ganguly and Anil Kumble would call time on their careers by the end of that 2008 home series against Australia. SrikkanthÃÔ mandate could not have been clearer: preside over the inevitable ascendancy, bask in the glory, but donÃÕ let it distract from laying the foundation for the next generation to take over. The latter goal would have required the committee to show foresight, guts, and the ability to communicate: Foresight in spotting the next line of talent; Guts in choosing what was best for the teamÃÔ long-term future instead of taking the easy way out; Communication skills in letting Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar and Zaheer in on the long-term plan, making them a part of the hand-over process, hand-holding the Sharmas, the Pujaras and the Yadavs into the future, ensuring the boys were ready when time eventually caught up with the men. Four years have passed. Four years in which India, having scaled the peak could have gone on to show the world how legacies are handed over, and how excellence is institutionalized. Instead, four years since September 2008, SrikkanthÃÔ bunch has piled one inexplicable selection on top of the other, without managing to discover a single Test talent that has gone on to become a regular. Not one in four years. India played 41 Tests under SrikkanthÃÔ watch. A weighty 16 players were blooded during this period, of which only three Virat Kohli, R Ashwin and Umesh Yadav are first-choice starters for the Hyderabad Test. Only four of SrikkanthÃÔ 16 discoveries have managed more than 10 Tests so far - Suresh Raina, Amit Mishra, M Vijay, and that selectorial ragdoll Pragyan Ojha. The rest of the list is a train-wreck of selectorial choices. (Yes, this is a train-wreck of a metaphor, but it is in keeping with the spirit of the subject.) Jaydev Unadkat and Wridhiman Saha have become trivia questions, subjected to unexpected Test debuts at inopportune moments. Abhinav Mukund has been exposed at the highest level, thrown into away Tests without being eased in at home. Praveen Kumar has his name on the LordÃÔ honours board, but not in SrikkanthÃÔ good books. Vinay Kumar and Abhimanyu Mithun have had sobering experiences at the highest level, wondering if they will ever get another chance. What are the selectors trying to tell them, by picking in their stead a fresh-from-rehab Ishant Sharma, despite his crushing ordinariness in Australia? The fact is that at no stage during their four-year tenure, did SrikkanthÃÔ merry men consider putting together a succession plan. If Ganguly hadnÃÕ decided to call time on his career, thereÃÔ a good chance the selectors would have never asked him to leave. No one spoke to Dravid. No one spoke to Laxman, even as murmurs and rumours began to surface about his future. Why bother when someone else can do the dirty work? Even after 41 Tests, SrikkanthÃÔ team couldn't find GangulyÃÔ successor for No. 6. Worse, they have seldom looked beyond Yuvraj Singh, Suresh Raina and finally Virat Kohli none of whom have done enough in first-class cricket to merit Test selection. Rohit Sharma and Ajinkya Rahane are yet to debut, and Cheteshwar Pujara has not been allowed to build on a promising start a trio that has actually done the hard yards in domestic cricket. Has anyone taken the pains to talk to these youngsters? Did anyone tell S Badrinath why all his domestic toil wasnÃÕ worth more than 2 Tests? Laxman is a man of too much class, and even while announcing his hurried retirement in nebulous circumstances, displayed as much dignity as the situation would allow. Elsewhere, Cheeka must have been wiping egg off his sunglasses and face. Suddenly Badrinath is back in business, not in place of Raina as should have originally been the case. The circus continues. Hopefully the next person in charge will be a proper ring master; Not a clown.

http://knittins.blogspot.in/2012/08/goodbye-srikkanth.html

[Ultimate_Game]

Mama is sort of an insult in North India and typically the term is used for traffic cops :giggle: Feel for Laxman as I can very well see Sehwag, Gambhir, Yuvi, Kohli, Yuvi, Raina etc. addressing him as "mama" and having a laugh :haha:

[The Dark Horse]

Mama is sort of an insult in North India and typically the term is used for traffic cops :giggle:

Same in south :desiman: