Performance, Players and Pay

[Anakin]

There is a difference between SCG of today and SCG of 90s. Simply speaking youngsters dont care much about money, simple. Why worry about cricketers, lets take the case of you(or me Gambo). At my first job money was important, but hardly the driver. The emphasis was to get a job, become independent and take on the world. Today would I take job similar to my first one? Hell no. For the bulk of us the first requisite of a good job is the benefits we receive today, not the satisfaction. Which is another reason why youngsters should replace the buddha brigade :eyedance:

LMAO, totally weird and retarded way to look at it, but keep at it buddy, you're good at that.

[Guest HariSampath]

NOW READ THIS SAME ARTICLE . This is how I felt after Lord's 2002, March 25 2007 and TODAY ******************************************************************************* Sunday, March 25, 2007 Lord's 2002; A matter of (W)right ? Although this article was written by me 5 years back, there are some relevant points to be noted in view of the current Indian debacle in the World cup. More specifically, it is pertinent to note what coaches say after disastrous games, and this is more relevant now in view of Greg Chappell not accepting that he is accountable to 1 billion Indians. ************************************************************ A matter of (W)right ? by Hari Sampath The approach of the Indian XI in the Lord's test is in stark contrast to the England team in terms of strategy and focused priorities. The most atrocious comment I have heard in the past couple of days is that of the Indian coach John Wright saying that more runs were expected from tail enders, after the top batsmen in the side fell tamely to a mediocre English attack on a placid wicket. Wright had said the same thing in the West Indies when Indian batting performed pathetically to lose the series. I fail to understand the thinking of the coach. It is really a simple matter, and leaves no room for confusion. Batsmen are selected to score hundreds, and bowlers are selected to take 5 wkts and bowl teams out. Whatever else these specialists do is a bonus, and not what you expect as a matter of right (Wright?). Sachin getting 3 wkts on an odd occasion or Agarkar getting a hundred are not things you count on to win a Test match or for that matter , lack of the above incidents happening is hardly the principal reason cited for defeat. This is absurdity in midseason form. Sachin has to get hundreds that propel India a long way towards victory, so do Dravid and Ganguly. When India is reeling at, say, 30-3 facing 300 to avoid a follow on, these world class specialists have to get 150 notout and do the job. When India needs 350 to win on the last day, and are 20-2, some top class batsman has to put his hands up, and say “I shall get 120, and we will win , just support me". If India is defending a last innings target of 180 runs , Zaheer Khan, Nehra or Harbhajan should come forward to say " count on me, I will get a fiver.... we bowl them out and win today". If these things do not happen, then the team management should be pointing the finger at the specialists, and ask tough questions publicly... not coverup for the failures of those expected to deliver the goods, by picking on those not expected to do so, and divert the focus. Here is where we need to take a leaf out of England's approach, I remember a test match in 1981 when the Off Spinner Geoff Miller got 98 in a test match but was dropped for the next game. Reason? He didn't bowl well enough to be selected as a bowler, and the 98 didn't mean a thing, as there were batsmen expected to do that job! Take the case of The Waugh brothers being dropped. Reputations don't count in a game. Runs and wickets do. Last season's form or a decade of records is no escape from today's crunch situation. All batsmen walk in with the scoreboard reading 0 not out, and even bowlers like Muralitharan with hundreds of wickets will be clobbered if they bowl badly. Cricket is a great leveler and an unforgiving game, last game's 100 or 5 wickets is not counted in the scoresheet for today's match. What ails the Indian Cricketer? Simple. An overwhelming inner attitude that dictates some minimum statistical performance individually to stay in the side for the season. This goal itself defines and decides what the collective performance of the team is going to be. See the Lord's test and the statistics. Dravid gets a couple of 40s and 50s, so do Laxman, Sehwag et al. Zaheer, Kumble and Nehra pitch in with a couple of wickets. All said and done, nothing wrong individually and you cannot drop a player after these satisfactory performances. Result? A crushing defeat against a mediocre side on a placid wicket. Maybe I shouldn't say mediocre, it is wholly unfair to England, they were a great side. A collection of ordinary individuals, with no tag of the "World's best batsman or bowler", and no records behind them, but collectively producing the champion team performance when it counts. Well deserved winners, as it should be. Cricket has a funny way of really rewarding team effort, and mocking at individual statistical glory. The 1983 Prudential cup finals is a telling example of this great axiom. A cricketer should be made to understand before the Toss that he needs to make a difference towards his side winning the game, not merely make some contribution to be barely considered for selection in the next game based on performances of the past few years. Raise the bar, raise the expectations and standards. Tell Kumble that even if he has got 200 wkts, he cannot assume that it is insurance for a place in the side by merely taking 2 wkts today. Tell Ganguly and Tendulkar that thousands of runs and dozens of 100s of the past don't make the slightest difference if they fail in succession and India loses today. Let the Tendulkars and Gangulys and Kumbles be ever aware that they need to score match winning hundreds and turn in decisive 5 wkt hauls and win games. This is a job requirement. The failures that are part and parcel of the game, the bad form etc, are perfectly understandable. But the key is “an in form Kaif with no test 100s, is a better bet than an out of form Sachin with 30 hundreds". The moment the Tendulkars, Gangulys, Dravids and Kumbles realize this, they will raise their own standards and deliver for the team. A matchwinning 80 from a less renowned batsman, or an important 2 wkt spell by a rookie bowler, is a lot more valuable than an insignificant 100 from a star batsman in a lost or drawn game, or an uninspiring 3 wkt haul that saves the bowler a place in the side. Nowadays there are efforts to "grade" a player based on past experience and performance. Among others,my good friend of 2 decades and former India captain Kris Srikkanth too has been an advocate of this system, arguing that " a player who has played a 100 tests cannot be expected to be paid the same amount as a player playing in his first series". My dear Cheeka, I beg to differ.... try saying this to the umpires!! “A player who has played 100 tests cannot be given leg before the same way as a debutant. A seasoned veteran should not be clobbered for a six for bowling a full toss, but a rookie can”. Cricket disagrees! A debutante's run is the same as a Star's run, as are the wickets. If a debutant takes 6 wkts or scores a 100 and wins a match for India today, why should he be paid lesser for the day's work, when the star batsman or bowler , having miseraby failed is raking in 10 times more money ?? Imagine the complacency this promotes in so called established stars, and the despondency among the aspiring stars. The solution? For winning games, have an overall pay packet, and divide it after the game based on performances that contributed to the win, based on evaluation. A crucial 35 notout by a new player when the side is chasing 190 to win and is 120-7 is far more valuable than a 60 made by a star coming in at 285-4 in the first innings. Same is the case with bowling and getting 2 wickets when defending 150, as opposed to getting 4 wkts when the opposition side is slogging to declare the innings. Who gives a damn whether Dravid or Sachin has played more and is paid more based on that , if India doesn't win. All of Sachin's 29 past hundreds couldn't save India yesterday. One single 200 from a new player could well have done so. Why all this ? Because like 1 billion other Indian fans... I care... I want my country to win... always win...never lose. And I am not paid to feel more for my country, and the least I can expect from those who are paid to satisfy the aspirations of millions like me is a 100 % effort to give their lives on the field trying to win games for our country. Be devastated when they don't... be ashamed....don't show their faces.... turn back their match fees.... offer to step down from the side, apologise to the fans and the country for not winning, at least, for not trying 100 %. This and This alone entitle the players to the glories that come when they do win. It is a matter of RIGHT for me, the Indian cricket fan, to expect this. Hari Sampath.

[Anakin]

Nice rants again

[putrevus]

NOW READ THIS SAME ARTICLE . This is how I felt after Lord's 2002' date= March 25 2007 and TODAY ******************************************************************************* Sunday, March 25, 2007 Lord's 2002; A matter of (W)right ? Although this article was written by me 5 years back, there are some relevant points to be noted in view of the current Indian debacle in the World cup. More specifically, it is pertinent to note what coaches say after disastrous games, and this is more relevant now in view of Greg Chappell not accepting that he is accountable to 1 billion Indians. ************************************************************ A matter of (W)right ? by Hari Sampath The approach of the Indian XI in the Lord's test is in stark contrast to the England team in terms of strategy and focused priorities. The most atrocious comment I have heard in the past couple of days is that of the Indian coach John Wright saying that more runs were expected from tail enders, after the top batsmen in the side fell tamely to a mediocre English attack on a placid wicket. Wright had said the same thing in the West Indies when Indian batting performed pathetically to lose the series. I fail to understand the thinking of the coach. It is really a simple matter, and leaves no room for confusion. Batsmen are selected to score hundreds, and bowlers are selected to take 5 wkts and bowl teams out. Whatever else these specialists do is a bonus, and not what you expect as a matter of right (Wright?). Sachin getting 3 wkts on an odd occasion or Agarkar getting a hundred are not things you count on to win a Test match or for that matter , lack of the above incidents happening is hardly the principal reason cited for defeat. This is absurdity in midseason form. Sachin has to get hundreds that propel India a long way towards victory, so do Dravid and Ganguly. When India is reeling at, say, 30-3 facing 300 to avoid a follow on, these world class specialists have to get 150 notout and do the job. When India needs 350 to win on the last day, and are 20-2, some top class batsman has to put his hands up, and say “I shall get 120, and we will win , just support me". If India is defending a last innings target of 180 runs , Zaheer Khan, Nehra or Harbhajan should come forward to say " count on me, I will get a fiver.... we bowl them out and win today". If these things do not happen, then the team management should be pointing the finger at the specialists, and ask tough questions publicly... not coverup for the failures of those expected to deliver the goods, by picking on those not expected to do so, and divert the focus. Here is where we need to take a leaf out of England's approach, I remember a test match in 1981 when the Off Spinner Geoff Miller got 98 in a test match but was dropped for the next game. Reason? He didn't bowl well enough to be selected as a bowler, and the 98 didn't mean a thing, as there were batsmen expected to do that job! Take the case of The Waugh brothers being dropped. Reputations don't count in a game. Runs and wickets do. Last season's form or a decade of records is no escape from today's crunch situation. All batsmen walk in with the scoreboard reading 0 not out, and even bowlers like Muralitharan with hundreds of wickets will be clobbered if they bowl badly. Cricket is a great leveler and an unforgiving game, last game's 100 or 5 wickets is not counted in the scoresheet for today's match. What ails the Indian Cricketer? Simple. An overwhelming inner attitude that dictates some minimum statistical performance individually to stay in the side for the season. This goal itself defines and decides what the collective performance of the team is going to be. See the Lord's test and the statistics. Dravid gets a couple of 40s and 50s, so do Laxman, Sehwag et al. Zaheer, Kumble and Nehra pitch in with a couple of wickets. All said and done, nothing wrong individually and you cannot drop a player after these satisfactory performances. Result? A crushing defeat against a mediocre side on a placid wicket. Maybe I shouldn't say mediocre, it is wholly unfair to England, they were a great side. A collection of ordinary individuals, with no tag of the "World's best batsman or bowler", and no records behind them, but collectively producing the champion team performance when it counts. Well deserved winners, as it should be. Cricket has a funny way of really rewarding team effort, and mocking at individual statistical glory. The 1983 Prudential cup finals is a telling example of this great axiom. A cricketer should be made to understand before the Toss that he needs to make a difference towards his side winning the game, not merely make some contribution to be barely considered for selection in the next game based on performances of the past few years. Raise the bar, raise the expectations and standards. Tell Kumble that even if he has got 200 wkts, he cannot assume that it is insurance for a place in the side by merely taking 2 wkts today. Tell Ganguly and Tendulkar that thousands of runs and dozens of 100s of the past don't make the slightest difference if they fail in succession and India loses today. Let the Tendulkars and Gangulys and Kumbles be ever aware that they need to score match winning hundreds and turn in decisive 5 wkt hauls and win games. This is a job requirement. The failures that are part and parcel of the game, the bad form etc, are perfectly understandable. But the key is “an in form Kaif with no test 100s, is a better bet than an out of form Sachin with 30 hundreds". The moment the Tendulkars, Gangulys, Dravids and Kumbles realize this, they will raise their own standards and deliver for the team. A matchwinning 80 from a less renowned batsman, or an important 2 wkt spell by a rookie bowler, is a lot more valuable than an insignificant 100 from a star batsman in a lost or drawn game, or an uninspiring 3 wkt haul that saves the bowler a place in the side. Nowadays there are efforts to "grade" a player based on past experience and performance. Among others,my good friend of 2 decades and former India captain Kris Srikkanth too has been an advocate of this system, arguing that " a player who has played a 100 tests cannot be expected to be paid the same amount as a player playing in his first series". My dear Cheeka, I beg to differ.... try saying this to the umpires!! “A player who has played 100 tests cannot be given leg before the same way as a debutant. A seasoned veteran should not be clobbered for a six for bowling a full toss, but a rookie canâ€. Cricket disagrees! A debutante's run is the same as a Star's run, as are the wickets. If a debutant takes 6 wkts or scores a 100 and wins a match for India today, why should he be paid lesser for the day's work, when the star batsman or bowler , having miseraby failed is raking in 10 times more money ?? Imagine the complacency this promotes in so called established stars, and the despondency among the aspiring stars. The solution? For winning games, have an overall pay packet, and divide it after the game based on performances that contributed to the win, based on evaluation. A crucial 35 notout by a new player when the side is chasing 190 to win and is 120-7 is far more valuable than a 60 made by a star coming in at 285-4 in the first innings. Same is the case with bowling and getting 2 wickets when defending 150, as opposed to getting 4 wkts when the opposition side is slogging to declare the innings. Who gives a damn whether Dravid or Sachin has played more and is paid more based on that , if India doesn't win. All of Sachin's 29 past hundreds couldn't save India yesterday. One single 200 from a new player could well have done so. Why all this ? Because like 1 billion other Indian fans... I care... I want my country to win... always win...never lose. And I am not paid to feel more for my country, and the least I can expect from those who are paid to satisfy the aspirations of millions like me is a 100 % effort to give their lives on the field trying to win games for our country. Be devastated when they don't... be ashamed....don't show their faces.... turn back their match fees.... offer to step down from the side, apologise to the fans and the country for not winning, at least, for not trying 100 %. This and This alone entitle the players to the glories that come when they do win. It is a matter of RIGHT for me, the Indian cricket fan, to expect this. Hari Sampath.

Your argument is flawed I tell you why , who is going to determine which perfomance is better , say any team is batting 300/2 and a bowler takes one wicket , and the rest of batting folds to another bowler and they are all out for 352. who has better perfomance the guy taking one wicket or the bowler or bowlers who took other wickets. Any sport not just cricket , you should be judged by heart , effort and playing hard all time not by the result, you may lose a close match , that doesnt mean you have given your best effort. like in last match aussie lost the match by eight runs , they fought hard till the end , that is what it is important.It is the process which counts not the results.The results will come if you have the process done right. the solution is you need to instill the process to done the right way , and selectors should their jobs not fearing public outcry but what is good for the team now and in future even if calls to axe few stars. this selection committee is prime example of changing their tunes depending on the results rather than having a plan for future without sacrificing the present.They totally left the youth movement for the world cup and after . leading to world cup the manthra was youth movement and rotation policy but after couple of set backs .They rushed the back to veterans for world cup , just to save their faces from the media and public. After 20 -20 success they want to kick out veterans out of the team after couple of failures for youngsters, where are the so called young stars in the team who have perfomed in the series.They need to find a balance between youth and experience , once the youth who are in team they need to be given some rope and assurance that their places in the team are safe even if they fail in couple of matches.