Positives from 2012

[dr_tooley]

We have a lot of positives to look back on. 1. We have found a world class batman - Pujara 2. We have found a world class bowler - B. Kumar 3. We will shortly get a new coach 4. N. Srinivasan will not be re-elected 5. We have realised it was complete waste of time arguing about DRS and wasting our political capital on this pointless issue, whilst we ignored the dramatic rule changes in ODIs 6. We understand we can no longer rely on rank turners to cover up the inadequacies in our batsman. 7. The IPL has survived despite losing 1/3 of its franchises 8. We understand the not changing our uniform whilst ignoring all the structural changes needed in Indian cricket has not helped. 9. Batsmen like Gambhir can no longer say they have great records at home while averaging single digits abroad to cover up for the technical short coming. 10. Every Pakistani who played or watched this series knows that India is a much better place to live. Happy new year guys.

[1983-2011]

We have a lot of positives to look back on. 2. We have found a world class bowler - B. Kumar 3. We will shortly get a new coach 4. N. Srinivasan will not be re-elected 10. Every Pakistani who played or watched this series knows that India is a much better place to live. Happy new year guys.

2. world class after 2 t20s and 1 ODI:hysterical: 3. coach wont make any difference 4. he's still gonna be there till 2014 and will be replaced by arun jaitley 10. all they have heard on indian channels is about delhi gangrape

[bharat297]

Yeah I think its way too early to call B.Kumar world class. We've had a number of bowlers that looked "world class" early in their career. 3 games against Pakistan is not enough to form a solid judgement yet imo. Looks promising though.

[dr_tooley]

2. world class after 2 t20s and 1 ODI:hysterical: 3. coach wont make any difference 4. he's still gonna be there till 2014 and will be replaced by arun jaitley 10. all they have heard on indian channels is about delhi gangrape

- I didn't need long when I first saw Dravid, Ganguly and Mohammed Amir to work out they were world class. What stands such players apart is not only talent but ability to think clearly under pressure. Kumar has this in spades. If he keeps his head together he will be outstanding. - If the coach makes no difference what about Gary Kirsten. Taken two entirely different teams to No1 - Jaitley will be an improvement. Srinivasan is currently a lame duck. - your last point only holds if they spend all their time watching TV. Plently of other things to do and see in the Modern India.

[yoda]

Positives from 2012 is that 2012 is over. :P

[dragonfly]

Biggest positive of 2012: It can only get better from here.

[R.D forever]

We are going to struggle more in 2013 with seniors gone. 2012 positives - we got some good young players for the future - kohli,rahane,tiwary,ashwin,kumar,ojha,yadav

[dangerman1985]

nothing positive to speak of in 2012. lost the test series vs australia with a whitewash, lost the CB series, Asia cup, T20 world cup, lost the home test series to england, lost the first ODI match of the current series to pak, 1-1 vs england and pak in T20 at home in not a big achievement.

[Pioneer]

Wtf is with the last point. How does that make sense ? I don't agree so change it and don't say every Pakistani. Stamoor kus

[bharat297]

- I didn't need long when I first saw Dravid, Ganguly and Mohammed Amir to work out they were world class. What stands such players apart is not only talent but ability to think clearly under pressure. Kumar has this in spades. If he keeps his head together he will be outstanding. - If the coach makes no difference what about Gary Kirsten. Taken two entirely different teams to No1 - Jaitley will be an improvement. Srinivasan is currently a lame duck. - your last point only holds if they spend all their time watching TV. Plently of other things to do and see in the Modern India.

* While I do know exactly what you mean re: recognising class right away, I'd just like to remind you that the majority of people you are arguing with want Ishant and Rohit Sharma to not play Test cricket for India. Both these men started their international careers with displaying not only talent but the ability to bat / bowl under pressure. They both lost their form and now most Indian fans do not want them in the team. I, for the record think they are both very talented cricketers with tremendous potential but are struggling to impose themselves in Test cricket (but I don't want to argue that here). In the case of B.Kumar, I've seen a number of 130km/h swing bowlers for India make an immediate impact an fizzle away. I'd like to see how B.Kumar performs against Australia or South Africa before I make a judgement on him * India never truly deserved the No.1 Test ranking, we were very lucky with fixtures during that period. We did not play Australia, England or South Africa during his tenure, and we got to the No.1 spot off the back of draws against England and South Africa and wins against weaker teams. While I think Kirsten's biggest strength was man management and batting skills, aside from a technical point-of-view, I don't think the coach by himself, can make that much of a difference. * Things will only change when priorities change. India's administration are not putting Test cricket as their No.1 priority. They are putting making money as No.1 priority. Until this changes, it doesn't matter which clown they elect to replace Srinivasan.

[kooljatt]

Yuvraj surviving cancer and back on field.

[dr_tooley]

* While I do know exactly what you mean re: recognising class right away, I'd just like to remind you that the majority of people you are arguing with want Ishant and Rohit Sharma to not play Test cricket for India. Both these men started their international careers with displaying not only talent but the ability to bat / bowl under pressure. They both lost their form and now most Indian fans do not want them in the team. I, for the record think they are both very talented cricketers with tremendous potential but are struggling to impose themselves in Test cricket (but I don't want to argue that here). In the case of B.Kumar, I've seen a number of 130km/h swing bowlers for India make an immediate impact an fizzle away. I'd like to see how B.Kumar performs against Australia or South Africa before I make a judgement on him * India never truly deserved the No.1 Test ranking, we were very lucky with fixtures during that period. We did not play Australia, England or South Africa during his tenure, and we got to the No.1 spot off the back of draws against England and South Africa and wins against weaker teams. While I think Kirsten's biggest strength was man management and batting skills, aside from a technical point-of-view, I don't think the coach by himself, can make that much of a difference. * Things will only change when priorities change. India's administration are not putting Test cricket as their No.1 priority. They are putting making money as No.1 priority. Until this changes, it doesn't matter which clown they elect to replace Srinivasan.

- As I've said what had impressed me about B. Kumar is his mental approach as well has his skills. If he is able to maintain the former the latter will sort it self out. Ishant by contrast showed little thinking ability but good skill at getting lift and bounce. This worked on bouncy Aussie wicket and while he had pace. Both have gone as has his promise. The list of players outstanding at First Class level who fail at the highest level is legion. Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash, Neil Fairbrother, Phil Hughes, Badrinath etc etc. The explanation often given is that these are excellent players against mediocre bowling. At the highest level where weaker bowlers are fewer, their inadequacies are shown up. Rohit Sharma has had 4 years to show his ability. I have yet to see a quality innings by him against a top flight attack. Some have a slow start and turn it around eg Matthew Haydan. I suspect Rohit epitaph will say "IPL legend, International nobody." - No 1 status simply cannot be a matter of luck. During either ascent India beat every major side except side SA. You can just as easily argue England's No 1 status was undeserved - built on the back of a host of home wins (except the Aussie series away) and beating mediocre sides like Bangladesh - admittedly home and away. Or that SA don't deserve to be No1 as they haven't been about to beat any side at home over the past 5 years except for SL. The point is that this is a fatuous discussion. - Kirston has taken 2 different teams to No1. ItÃÔ hard to disaggregate the components of great leadership but in the end a leader is just by results and in that he has been outstanding. - Indian cricket in the end are lead by ratings. If the team keeps losing things will change. Either that or the game will die in India as it is overtaken by nimbler opponents.

[Clarke]

Hundred hundreds is done with, phew!

[bharat297]

- As I've said what had impressed me about B. Kumar is his mental approach as well has his skills. If he is able to maintain the former the latter will sort it self out. Ishant by contrast showed little thinking ability but good skill at getting lift and bounce. This worked on bouncy Aussie wicket and while he had pace. Both have gone as has his promise. The list of players outstanding at First Class level who fail at the highest level is legion. Graeme Hick, Mark Ramprakash, Neil Fairbrother, Phil Hughes, Badrinath etc etc. The explanation often given is that these are excellent players against mediocre bowling. At the highest level where weaker bowlers are fewer, their inadequacies are shown up. Rohit Sharma has had 4 years to show his ability. I have yet to see a quality innings by him against a top flight attack. Some have a slow start and turn it around eg Matthew Haydan. I suspect Rohit epitaph will say "IPL legend, International nobody." - No 1 status simply cannot be a matter of luck. During either ascent India beat every major side except side SA. You can just as easily argue England's No 1 status was undeserved - built on the back of a host of home wins (except the Aussie series away) and beating mediocre sides like Bangladesh - admittedly home and away. Or that SA don't deserve to be No1 as they haven't been about to beat any side at home over the past 5 years except for SL. The point is that this is a fatuous discussion. - Kirston has taken 2 different teams to No1. ItÃÔ hard to disaggregate the components of great leadership but in the end a leader is just by results and in that he has been outstanding. - Indian cricket in the end are lead by ratings. If the team keeps losing things will change. Either that or the game will die in India as it is overtaken by nimbler opponents.

Ok some good points. Here are my counter arguments. * Ishant early on bowled a number of very good spells to the Australians. His spell to Ponting in 2008 in Perth was more than just getting lift and bounce. He bowled inswinger after inswinger to Ponting and many times struck him on the body. Then he pushed one slightly wider that held its line and Ponting was forced to reach for it and edged it to first slip. It's a classic set-up. I also remember an ODI against Australia in Melbourne where Dhoni had a plan to Hayden of not bowling straight (because Matthew Hayden was one of the best players straight down the ground) but rather to make him reach on the off-side. They kept a catching cover and an extra cover and put 2 or 3 slips in and kept pushing it wide. Ishant bowled wide to Hayden and Hayden cover drove him a few times. Ishant, despite being only 19 at the time, didn't get disheartened and start changing it up. He stuck to the plan, pushed it slightly wider and they got the edge in the slips. Ishant hasn't actually lost his lift or bounce. He has shown in quite a few spells this year that he is still capable of generating those deliveries. What he has lost is the ability to work away at a batsman like he used to. He is bowling the odd boundary ball every over and that relieves the pressure of the good balls he is bowling. * Rohit Sharma has played good innings against quality attacks. He played a crucial knock in the CB series final against a bowling attack of Lee, Johnson, Bracken and Hogg. 4 Australian ODI bowlers who all average 25 or under in ODIs. He came in when India were in a bit of trouble and batted in an extremely calm and composed manner. His performance in ODIs since is another issue. But he has played innings' like this. * Re: India's No.1 status ... It was a matter of luck. Have a look at who we played between 2008 and 2010 and where we played them. To me there were 2 significant achievements during Kirsten's reign. The World Cup obviously and drawing in South Africa. But re: No.1 status to say we beat every team other than S.A. is conveniently forgetting many things. During Kirsten's tenure we didnt have to play Australia, England and South Africa on their home turf. Now its fair to say that England probably didn't deserve it but they at least did something we couldn't do and that is beat Australia in Australia. The problem with most Indian fans and subsequently the players too is that they get a little bit of success and it goes to their head and they talk that success up. Kirsten was a good coach but a coach on his own can't take a No.5 team to No.1.

[dr_tooley]

* While I do know exactly what you mean re: recognising class right away, I'd just like to remind you that the majority of people you are arguing with want Ishant and Rohit Sharma to not play Test cricket for India. Both these men started their international careers with displaying not only talent but the ability to bat / bowl under pressure. They both lost their form and now most Indian fans do not want them in the team. I, for the record think they are both very talented cricketers with tremendous potential but are struggling to impose themselves in Test cricket (but I don't want to argue that here). In the case of B.Kumar, I've seen a number of 130km/h swing bowlers for India make an immediate impact an fizzle away. I'd like to see how B.Kumar performs against Australia or South Africa before I make a judgement on him * India never truly deserved the No.1 Test ranking, we were very lucky with fixtures during that period. We did not play Australia, England or South Africa during his tenure, and we got to the No.1 spot off the back of draws against England and South Africa and wins against weaker teams. While I think Kirsten's biggest strength was man management and batting skills, aside from a technical point-of-view, I don't think the coach by himself, can make that much of a difference. * Things will only change when priorities change. India's administration are not putting Test cricket as their No.1 priority. They are putting making money as No.1 priority. Until this changes, it doesn't matter which clown they elect to replace Srinivasan.

You obviously have an excellent knowledge of the Indian game and some considered points. I would say with regard to Ishant and Rohit - the proof of the pudding will be in playing in England. Currently India have no major commitments in Apirl/May and this would be an excellent time to send to county cricket especially with the Champion's Trophy upcoming. B. Kumar should likewise do well with such a stint and this may allay some of the doubts you have about him. It is difficult to disaggregatethe components of great leadership. But in the end a leader is judged by results and in this Kirston has been simply outstanding. Fletcher has not. My pick for his replacement would be Stephen Flemming. You are right that the No1 status did go to some of our colleagues heads. But it did the same for many English fans. From the likes of Alex Stewert and Botham - there were quote like "there is no doubt that they are the best team and the only question is about legacy" and "they can now rightly be compared to the great Australian team." Hyperboly has no nationality. You are right that a vision is required. But in the end the rating drive everything. If India continue to lose at Tests there are only 3 possibility 1. Tackle the underlying problems and become better 2. Stop playing tests (remember they initially only planned to play 2 tests in 2010 just prior to becoming No1) 3. The game of cricket will die out in India :sniffle: