You need the Kumbles and Dravids, not just the Tendulkars

[SLICKR392]

In a country of over a billion people, talent ought to be as common as table salt. Why fuss over it? Especially talent in cricket - synonymous with sport in India, and hence intensely followed and widely played. Clearly, though, that isn't the case, for had talent been so common, India would have been churning out prodigies all the time, sitting secure as Test No. 1, and ruling the other ICC rankings tables for decades together. Perhaps that's why talented cricketers are so revered - and rightly so. Rohit Sharma finds himself in this hallowed club, protected and persisted with to fortify his "god-gifted talent", as MS Dhoni puts it. In a sense, Rohit's talent has even superseded the intangible yet highly consequential yardstick of form, the lack of which is often responsible for a player being dropped from a team. But isn't talent as intangible and indefinable as form? Talent means a special natural ability or aptitude, but who is to judge if that ability is special or everyday? Wouldn't the answer be highly subjective? Our judgement of talent is often based on preconceived notions of what constitutes it, and thus of who is "talented". For instance, Sachin Tendulkar has been widely recognised as talented, but in comparison, but not many would say the same for Anil Kumble - at least they wouldn't say that he was talented in the same measure as Tendulkar. Does that make him less talented? From the beginning Tendulkar displayed special skills to successfully deal with all kinds of challenges thrown at him. He could do things others couldn't. He always seemed to have enough time to play the fastest bowlers on the fastest pitches. He had more than one stroke for every delivery. His timing and balance were superior to those of his peers, and above all, he had the ability to keep the good balls out and punish the bad balls consistently. He had more time because he could pick the ball a fraction earlier, which allowed him to get into the right positions before the ball arrived. He had more strokes because he had supreme control over his bat's movements, and the extra time he had made that possible. His timing was also a gift, for he always knew precisely when to bring the bat down at the desired speed and angles. His ability to keep the good balls out, though, was not natural but nurtured. On the other hand, Kumble, who made his debut a year after Tendulkar, was first considered the antithesis of what a talented player should be. Unlike Tendulkar, who was marked as a "special talent", Kumble fought a constant battle to prove people wrong, for legspinners of his type were not supposed to succeed beyond a point. The preconceived notions about talented legspinners were to do with their natural ability to get loop, drift in the air and vicious turn off the surface. Kumble ticked none of these boxes, for his height and high-arm action didn't allow him to create loop, nor did he spin the ball off the surface. He relied on unbelievable accuracy and subtle variations to create deception.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/605503.html

[G_B_]

i dont know what this article is moaning about. While Dravid and Kumble were considered less talented most Indian cricket fans, its not as if they were ignored. Dravid and Kumble did get very good sponsorship deals. (Jam jam jammy anyone??). While Akash chopra makes some valid points and astute observations in his articles, sometimes i get a feeling he loved to moan about everything.

[vamos_rafa]

It works both ways does not it? People think Dravid Kumble worked hard and hence they are not considered "that" taleneted. Same ways, it's thought that Sachin was so talented that things were always easy for him. The hard work that goes into being a Sachin is sometimes overlooked. IMO, it's the right combination of talent and attitude that can take you through. Else, all we would be left with is either a Rohit Sharma(talent with no attitude) or a Ravinder Jadeja(the extreme opposite)

[rkt.india]

Talent alone does not make one a great player. For that, one has to score huge runs or take wickets which needs hard work.

[NareshK]

Yeah, its so easy isnt it ? We just need a Kumble who picked 619 test wickets and a Dravid who scored 13,000+ test runs and also a Tendulkar who also scored 15,000+ test runs and India will be well on its way to become a good test team again. Wow, Akash found the solution. :two_thumbs_up:

[vandokkum]

Kumble deserves more credit than Tendulkar for India's test wins, so does Dravid. Kumble is massively underrated

[vandokkum]

Yeah' date=' its so easy isnt it ? We just need a Kumble who picked 619 test wickets and a Dravid who scored 13,000+ test runs and also a Tendulkar who also scored 15,000+ test runs and India will be well on its way to become a good test team again. Wow, Akash found the solution. :two_thumbs_up:[/quote'] Jadeja will better both Kumble and Dravid's records with bat and ball

[Ultimate_Game]

IMO we need Kumble much more than say a Dravid or a Tendulkar.

[vandokkum]

IMO we need Kumble much more than say a Dravid or a Tendulkar.

No doubt, 10/ 15 years ago you would have got laughed out of the town if you said Ashwin and Ojha would be India's main spinners :giggle: Kumble was India's biggest match winner in tests.

[Dumbbells]

What an useless article. Waste of time.

[NareshK]

No doubt' date=' 10/ 15 years ago you would have got laughed out of the town if you said Ashwin and Ojha would be India's main spinners :giggle: Kumble was India's biggest match winner in tests.[/quote'] They are good bowlers and they are still young and learning but the big problem with them I feel is their fitness and the reason why they were not as effective as they should have been against England. They bowled very well in the first test but they had to bowl continuously for 3 days as Dhoni made England follow on after they got dismissed cheaply. In the second test as Cook and Pietersen formed a partnership, they couldnt bowl consistently well enough because they were tired. Also, it was a 4 test series and they were not fit enough to bowl well for an entire series without much rest in between. They have to work on this aspect if they want to do well in test cricket.

[vandokkum]

They are good bowlers and they are still young and learning but the big problem with them I feel is their fitness and the reason why they were not as effective as they should have been against England. They bowled very well in the first test but they had to bowl continuously for 3 days as Dhoni made England follow on after they got dismissed cheaply. In the second test as Cook and Pietersen formed a partnership, they couldnt bowl consistently well enough because they were tired. Also, it was a 4 test series and they were not fit enough to bowl well for an entire series without much rest in between. They have to work on this aspect if they want to do well in test cricket.

Ashwin is more suited to limited overs, specially t20

[NareshK]

Ashwin is more suited to limited overs' date=' specially t20[/quote'] He is also the fastest Indian bowler to pick 50 wickets in tests and has a batting average of 45. So he has the talent. If he and Ojha work on their fitness, they will do much better. There is no excuse for being so unfit at 26.

[G_B_]

I think people are being too harsh on the Ojha Ashwin combo. Yes they failed versus England. But its only one series. I think a problem for both of them is that they dont have any guidance. England hired Mushtaq ahmed to teach their spinners. Who have the BCCI hired? nobody. Both are 26 years old and learning their craft. If they fail to fire v Aus in the first two tests then we will talk. Dont jump the gun too early. The problem with Ashwin is that he tries out too much, Too much variety, somebody needs to sit him down and sort out his quota of deliveries. I guarantee you if Kumble is made spinning coach both the performance of Ojha and Ashwin will improve. Bhajji when Kumble was playing averaged 31 in tests home and away. Bhajji when Kumble retired averaged 37. The bottomline is simple. Get these boys some coaches and stop judging them based on one bad series. They are 26 years old. The world best spinners Swann and Ajmal made their debuts at ages 30 and 32 respectively. Ajmal especially had a quiet first year before really turning it on. Swann averaged nearly 40 with the ball in his first series in India (which england lost 1-0).

[Brainfade]

The article is a bit self-contradictory. On the one hand, he tries to make a case for why Kumble and Dravid should be considered as talented as SRT, and on the other, he tries to make a case for why Kumble and Dravid are less talented but are hardworking. I think the point he is trying to make is that we often confuse "style," and "artistry" for "talent." Which is why Rohit Sharma is "talented." Or someone with flight and loop, but not someone with nagging accuracy, is talented. What bewilders me is that unwavering commitment, dedication and focus don't often qualify as talents. To me, they are as much of a gift as the ability to flight and loop and hook and pull.

[Brainfade]

I think people are being too harsh on the Ojha Ashwin combo. Yes they failed versus England. But its only one series. I think a problem for both of them is that they dont have any guidance. England hired Mushtaq ahmed to teach their spinners. Who have the BCCI hired? nobody. Both are 26 years old and learning their craft. If they fail to fire v Aus in the first two tests then we will talk. Dont jump the gun too early. The problem with Ashwin is that he tries out too much, Too much variety, somebody needs to sit him down and sort out his quota of deliveries. I guarantee you if Kumble is made spinning coach both the performance of Ojha and Ashwin will improve. Bhajji when Kumble was playing averaged 31 in tests home and away. Bhajji when Kumble retired averaged 37. The bottomline is simple. Get these boys some coaches and stop judging them based on one bad series. They are 26 years old. The world best spinners Swann and Ajmal made their debuts at ages 30 and 32 respectively. Ajmal especially had a quiet first year before really turning it on. Swann averaged nearly 40 with the ball in his first series in India (which england lost 1-0).

Agreed on most points. But, it seems that most peoples' biggest beef against Ashwin is his apparent lack of fitness. As an international cricketer, he's got to be more committed to staying fit. Otherwise, he won't last long.

[Vilander]

cheesy..but good point in the article.. that 'tailunt' is overrated and misinterpreted.

[Vilander]

Agreed on most points. But' date=' it seems that most peoples' biggest beef against Ashwin is his apparent lack of fitness. As an international cricketer, he's got to be more committed to staying fit. Otherwise, he won't last long.[/quote'] fatwin the thairsadham...

[Vilander]

Talent alone does not make one a great player. For that' date=' one has to score huge runs or take wickets which needs hard work.[/quote'] how does one differentiate "natural aptitude for cricket" from "acquired skill in cricket because of natural aptitude to learn cricketing skills" both are talents right ? which one is the more important talent..

[Chandan]

The article is a bit self-contradictory. On the one hand, he tries to make a case for why Kumble and Dravid should be considered as talented as SRT, and on the other, he tries to make a case for why Kumble and Dravid are less talented but are hardworking. I think the point he is trying to make is that we often confuse "style," and "artistry" for "talent." Which is why Rohit Sharma is "talented." Or someone with flight and loop, but not someone with nagging accuracy, is talented. What bewilders me is that unwavering commitment, dedication and focus don't often qualify as talents. To me, they are as much of a gift as the ability to flight and loop and hook and pull.

I didn't find anything self contradictory! Main point is, Is talent more important or temperament? Sachin had God gifted talent but he didn't become a great player just because of that. He had excellent temperament too because of which he kept evolving as a batsman. Same with Kumble and Dravid. They might not have had god gifted talent but had supreme temperament and hence their achievement are for everyone to see. So why do we run after so called talent? Why don't we give chance to temperament which has more chance to succeed?