Have we handled the transition better?

[bsriharsha]

We need to get Vijay replaced , he'll be an abject failure in Tests overseas...the very sight of steyn will be enough to get him pissing in his pants. Dhoni , erm...he isn't a test quality bats but i don't think he'll be a weakness if you take the overall total package

[fineleg]

Vvvs Bcci has done very little if any - for transition By chance, we have a few things that went ok recently In indian cricket, bcci does very little proper planning Bunch of buffoons Things somehow happen despite the (lack of) system As to how this young team does, lets wait for sa nz and eng

[vvvslaxman]

Vvvs Bcci has done very little if any - for transition By chance, we have a few things that went ok recently In indian cricket, bcci does very little proper planning Bunch of buffoons Things somehow happen despite the (lack of) system As to how this young team does, lets wait for sa nz and eng

I think they fired lot of people. Lot of dead weights were dropped cold. That is a good start :cantstop:

[Sachin=GOD]

BCCI hasn't done anything at all to manage the transition. Players like Pujara, Rohit Kolhi, Rahane Dhawan etc have come up by their performances and not because BCCI identified and groomed them as successors for the outgoing legends.

[vvvslaxman]

BCCI hasn't done anything at all to manage the transition. Players like Pujara' date=' Rohit Kolhi, Rahane Dhawan etc have come up by their performances and not because BCCI identified and groomed them as successors for the outgoing legends.[/quote'] Selectors played a huge role i think. Even though their administrative people are scumbags, their selection team is somewhat aggressive.

[Sachin=GOD]

Selectors played a huge role i think. Even though their administrative people are scumbags' date=' their selection team is somewhat aggressive.[/quote'] you could say that. But even there in some cases the BCCI (or Srini) has meddled and hasn't allowed them to do their job (as in the case of selectors wanting to fire Dhoni after 8-0 but being vetoed by Srini.)

[Crookbond]

Very less population (Similar for the WI) - around 20 mil or so. In fact I expect Indian succeeding generations to do better and better till a plateau is reached. At least for home tests and ODIs this side seems far dominant than the previous team did.

Sir, More population does not equate to more talent. In addition, Australians played 12 spinners in like 2-3 years. That would be a record even for Pakistand and England - tat's how bad their selection policies were for spinners.

[deathmonger]

Sir' date=' More population does not equate to more talent. In addition, Australians played 12 spinners in like 2-3 years. That would be a record even for Pakistand and England - tat's how bad their selection policies were for spinners.[/quote'] Why not? If there's an equal craze for a sport in two countries, and provided that there is similar infrastructure the one with the most population will produce more world class players - that's the reason Brazil has been the best football playing nation and China wins all those Olympic medals. China used to win so less Olympic medals earlier. What changed? The economy. Even we have started winning more than the solitary medal (yeah, 6 is not much but still greater than 1) and this tally will keep on increasing. Talent is an overrated concept. Talent isn't some god-given genetic trait. It's due to years of honing your body in academies and under proper coaches that people become good athletes.

[Crookbond]

Why not? If there's an equal craze for a sport in two countries, and provided that there is similar infrastructure the one with the most population will produce more world class players - that's the reason Brazil has been the best football playing nation and China wins all those Olympic medals. China used to win so less Olympic medals earlier. What changed? The economy. Even we have started winning more than the solitary medal (yeah, 6 is not much but still greater than 1) and this tally will keep on increasing. Talent is an overrated concept. Talent isn't some god-given genetic trait. It's due to years of honing your body in academies and under proper coaches that people become good athletes.

Correlation does not imply causation. I can spin the theory around the other way. China may have won less medals earlier because they did not focus on winning, not because of lack of talent. The jury is open and each theory is equally probable. The highlighted is an arguable and simplistic theory. A crow (no matter how long it practices, hones etc) can't be a nightingale. Practice differentiates the A players from the B players but you can't change from a Z player to B player by practice. There's a whole of other factors like comfort, aptitude etc. which matters. Talent is not over rated but the emphasis on practice/hard work is under rated. You need to have both ends meet - one without the other is like dilapidated Taj Mahal.

[vvvslaxman]

Average age of the current side (replacing Tendu with Jaddu from the last test XI) is 26.8 . Dhoni is the only one above 30. Murali has one more year to go before turning 30. Average number of tests by this 11 is 17.4 tests of the total of 192 tests by 11 players .79 tests were by Dhoni. So it is highly inexperienced side in Tests. It might look seasoned because of their participation in ODIs. Actually at test level this is almost a noob team.

[someone]

The results will determine it, so its not possible to answer this question today. Suppose we fail in upcoming matches, wouldn't surprise me that there are certain cries to bring back those old players.

[vvvslaxman]

The results will determine it, so its not possible to answer this question today. Suppose we fail in upcoming matches, wouldn't surprise me that there are certain cries to bring back those old players.

Against SA even with experience teams struggled. This is highly inexperienced side. So they will definitely be given a run. Considering that there is no more senior to fall back one or the other guy is bound to come good. May be Pujara May be Rohit May be Kohli. Two guys i have absolutely no hope are Dhoni and Vijay. Dhoni depending on when he comes in to bat either you can expect him to score a gutsy 50 or hopeless stay of few minutes. Vijay if he scores 25 i will consider it as a bonus.

[saneindian]

Average age of the current side (replacing Tendu with Jaddu from the last test XI) is 26.8 . Dhoni is the only one above 30. Murali has one more year to go before turning 30. Average number of tests by this 11 is 17.4 tests of the total of 192 tests by 11 players .79 tests were by Dhoni. So it is highly inexperienced side in Tests. It might look seasoned because of their participation in ODIs. Actually at test level this is almost a noob team.

True, I can't remember the last time we had such an inexperienced test side. In the late 80s, early 90s, we had Kapil, Azhar and Shastri. Then around 1996, Sachin, Azhar, Sidhu, Kumble, Srinath formed the core of the side, since then the Fab 4 plus Kumble were there. Even in late 70s, early 80s when Bedi, Chandra and co were all gone, we had Gavaskar, Kirmani, Amarnath and Vishwanath. Very interesting times ahead for this young side.

[deathmonger]

Correlation does not imply causation. I can spin the theory around the other way. China may have won less medals earlier because they did not focus on winning, not because of lack of talent. The jury is open and each theory is equally probable. The highlighted is an arguable and simplistic theory. A crow (no matter how long it practices, hones etc) can't be a nightingale. Practice differentiates the A players from the B players but you can't change from a Z player to B player by practice. There's a whole of other factors like comfort, aptitude etc. which matters. Talent is not over rated but the emphasis on practice/hard work is under rated. You need to have both ends meet - one without the other is like dilapidated Taj Mahal.

But here we are not talking of crows and nightingales. We are talking of a single species - human beings. At the end of the day, cricket or any other sport is just the reaction/movement of the body at specific times and this is honed by years and years of practice. Yes, genetic factors do come into play (like better reflexes make you a better slip fielder, taller height makes you a better fast bowler). But again, higher the population, higher will be the subset of people with such favorable traits. And again higher this subset higher will be the subset of people with such traits who hone themselves through practice and become international athletes/players etc. I'll use the example of Olympics to make my point. I'll use the examples of the Asian tigers, third world countries that have become/are becoming first world. SOUTH KOREA 1960 - 0 1964 - 3 1968 - 2 1972 - 1 1976 - 6 1980 - DNP 1984 - 19 1988 - 33 1992 - 29 Stabilized around 30 CHINA 1984 - 32 1988 - 28 1992 - 54 1996 - 50 2000 - 58 2004 - 63 2008 - 100 What changed in these countries that they were able to win so many medals compared to earlier? Was there a sudden influx of 'talent'? It's no coincidence that this increase in medals has come alongside high economic growth. It doesn't matter how 'talented' you are if you don't have proper infrastructure/facilities.

[Crookbond]

But here we are not talking of crows and nightingales. We are talking of a single species - human beings. At the end of the day, cricket or any other sport is just the reaction/movement of the body at specific times and this is honed by years and years of practice. Yes, genetic factors do come into play (like better reflexes make you a better slip fielder, taller height makes you a better fast bowler). But again, higher the population, higher will be the subset of people with such favorable traits. And again higher this subset higher will be the subset of people with such traits who hone themselves through practice and become international athletes/players etc. I'll use the example of Olympics to make my point. I'll use the examples of the Asian tigers, third world countries that have become/are becoming first world. SOUTH KOREA 1960 - 0 1964 - 3 1968 - 2 1972 - 1 1976 - 6 1980 - DNP 1984 - 19 1988 - 33 1992 - 29 Stabilized around 30 CHINA 1984 - 32 1988 - 28 1992 - 54 1996 - 50 2000 - 58 2004 - 63 2008 - 100 What changed in these countries that they were able to win so many medals compared to earlier? Was there a sudden influx of 'talent'? It's no coincidence that this increase in medals has come alongside high economic growth. It doesn't matter how 'talented' you are if you don't have proper infrastructure/facilities.

Crows and Nightingales are the same species -birds. :winky: Higher population increases mathematical probability but real life is not a set of defines rules which work according to the normal distribution or the bell curve. For the answer to your last question and I said this in my earlier post too, the "talent" may always have been there but under represented due to lack of infrastructure. And I think I made it very clear that both talent and facilities matter - with facilities (and no talent) you can't do anything. Some examples? England in the 90s had the best facilities but were a sh!t team. So both are important - talent plus hard work. Each without one another is a half baked cake.