rkt.india Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 I agree but how come we cannot even produce spinners of late ? And if not fast bowlers we should be able to produce more guys like zaheer and we have produced many quicks in last few years with little more emphasise on pace and few years ago people thought it was I possible and right now we have to guys who can hit 150 in our team .. You are talking like we were producing dozens of spinners every year before. Since 90s, we have produced two good spinners Kumble and Bhajji.
Old guy Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Even so' date=' Australia were a rabble back then, it was the end of our era, damn, England even beat us at home lol. (Something they will pay for, for a very, very long time)[/quote'] I am talking about early 2000 when eon,y india showed fight in Australia And 2008 but that was after your great bowlers retired but it still shows we were just good team and at home even better so it abo surprise Australia found it harder against us ..
Old guy Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 You are talking like we were producing dozens of spinners every year before. Since 90s' date=' we have produced two good spinners Kumble and Bhajji.[/quote'] that is not even what I am saying but you say fast bowling need genetics ..please explain how we cannot even produce proper spinners if system is so good ? Why most batsmen has big technical faults and this Echo succeed work hard on their own and learn quickly in national team to become good .. It's not just genetics ..I am not even gonna argue there is difference in fitnes on whole but when you are win to sports you can always select fitter people and guys like umesh shows it's possible .. I know many people here who work on their body since school days and I feel culture is changing and peole are getting fitter ..
MCGGG Posted January 14, 2015 Author Posted January 14, 2015 I am talking about early 2000 when eon,y india showed fight in Australia And 2008 but that was after your great bowlers retired but it still shows we were just good team and at home even better so it abo surprise Australia found it harder against us .. Yes India were our biggest challenge, and the final frontier away from home, that series we lost in India when Waugh (or was in punter?)enforced the follow on in the second test cost us the series IMO, that will go down as the greatest test series ever played IMO, at least from what I've seen.
Old guy Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Yes India were our biggest challenge' date=' and the final frontier away from home, that series we lost in India when Waugh (or was in punter?)enforced the follow on in the second test cost us the series IMO, that will go down as the greatest test series ever played IMO, at least from what I've seen.[/quote'] Yeah the famous laxman inning :cantstop: But as you can see next time we toured Australia it was draw so it's not like team was only good at home and Australia lost because of alien conditions only but that we were good team who was great home .. If that Australian team toured now we might get whitewashed ..
MCGGG Posted January 14, 2015 Author Posted January 14, 2015 Yeah the famous laxman inning :cantstop: But as you can see next time we toured Australia it was draw so it's not like team was only good at home and Australia lost because of alien conditions only but that we were good team who was great home .. If that Australian team toured now we might get whitewashed .. That Australian team would white wash our current team as well, pretty sure (give or take) our top 7 back then averaged 50+, and the bowlers were probably more impressive, and even that side struggled to win in India.
Old guy Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 I used to wake up early even for neutral matches to see them play ... And like I said we were great team at home the record was just insane with only one loss against Australia .. Still I feel problems were same back then just hidden by few exceptional cricketers . All our young bowlers find it hard to bowl with red kookaburra ball in test ...
kubrickian Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 What is wrong with Australian cricket ? Australia is 50 times richer than India, Pakistan and still got whitewashed against India, Pakistan and lost in England 3-1 ? What is wrong with English cricket ? They got whitewashed in Australia 5-0 recently and have never won a World Cup ? What is wrong with South African cricket ? They never won a knock out game in World Cup. Can I go on ? Equating size of population with how the cricket team is playing is as dumb as it gets. Just because India has 1.2 billion population, doesnt mean we can field 15 players.
BeautifulGame Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 You have to admit with our interest in cricket ' date='population and lack of other sports we should be dominating this game a lot more ..[/quote'] The problem is most of the kids choose education ahead of sports in our country . Then there is the issue of infrastructure. Even in a state like TN , outside Chennai there is zero infrastructure . And then there is heavy nepotism and politics local administrations to overcome as well. Population is a pretty weak argument . Because based on that theory we should be dominating every sport. Uruguay has probably the equivalent population of kochi and yet compare the quality of players produced .Kerala is just as mad when it comes to football. Interest will result in great revenue not good players.U need infrastructure , Professionalism and lot of other criteria for producing quality players.But thats not the way it is in a developing country like India unfortunately
Old guy Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Issue is even with bigger population and more interest the number of players playing competitive cricket at high level is still less and I think OP should consider it more than actual population of country .
MCGGG Posted January 14, 2015 Author Posted January 14, 2015 What is wrong with Australian cricket ? Australia is 50 times richer than India, Pakistan and still got whitewashed against India, Pakistan and lost in England 3-1 ? What is wrong with English cricket ? They got whitewashed in Australia 5-0 recently and have never won a World Cup ? What is wrong with South African cricket ? They never won a knock out game in World Cup. Can I go on ? Equating size of population with how the cricket team is playing is as dumb as it gets. Just because India has 1.2 billion population, doesnt mean we can field 15 players. Australia has a population of around 24 million, many of those are immigrants from Soccer playing nations, and, in the southern states every kid wants to play AFL football, most of our cricketers come from NSWs and Queensland and those 2 states play rugby league mostly and rugby league is crap, hence why most of the kids pick cricket.
Old guy Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 The problem is most of the kids choose education ahead of sports in our country . Then there is the issue of infrastructure. Even in a state like TN , outside Chennai there is zero infrastructure . And then there is heavy nepotism and politics local administrations to overcome as well. Population is a pretty weak argument . Because based on that theory we should be dominating every sport. Uruguay has probably the equivalent population of kochi and yet compare the quality of players produced .Kerala is just as mad when it comes to football. Interest will result in great revenue not good players.U need infrastructure , Professionalism and lot of other criteria for producing quality players.But thats not the way it is in a developing country like India unfortunately Yep good post .. This is where I am trying to go we do have interest but that interest does not means we have more cricketers playing and playing and getting same coaching from school level like kids probably in Australia do . also you talked about neptomism any more detail ? I know in Punjab you have to pay money to get in:giggle:
kruiser Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 In fact we are not dominating because of the huge population! The infrastructure - whatever little there is gets overwhelmed and because of the limited opportunities to get ahead, people resort to non-cricketing means (money, nepotism, political power etc). This discourages a good chunk of the talent to not pursue cricket as a career. Economic conditions play a huge part too. If I know that I can try playing cricket for 5 years and if I do not succeed, i can come back and get another vocation, you will see a lot more success stories. Unfortunately in India, either your family has to be super rich or super poor to have that sort of freedom to choose. There are exceptions in a few centers as mentioned above in this thread - Mumbai, Karnataka etc where there is plentiful support to young cricketers. Genetics is a BS argument.. we don't have any decent spinner even
Cricket_Hacker Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 I should point out that cricket acheived the status that it has now after the 83 WC win,it inspired many to take up the sport,that is why you are seeing better Indian cricketers than before
Lannister Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Not many fancy of becoming bowlers in India. If you look at our pampered super stars rarely you see any bowler in there. It's a belief here that bowling is considered weak compared to batting.
HippoSucks Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Genetics plays a large role in the performance for most players in almost any sport. In India, while many play the sport recreationally, very few of them even think about playing in some competitive league. However, I would assume that the case is the same in Australia, South Africa etc. Then, if our population is much larger than them, why aren't we producing good cricketers? The argument about education is probably wrong considering I don't think everyone in Australia is thinking of dropping out of school to play cricket.
MCGGG Posted January 14, 2015 Author Posted January 14, 2015 In fact we are not dominating because of the huge population! The infrastructure - whatever little there is gets overwhelmed and because of the limited opportunities to get ahead, people resort to non-cricketing means (money, nepotism, political power etc). This discourages a good chunk of the talent to not pursue cricket as a career. Economic conditions play a huge part too. If I know that I can try playing cricket for 5 years and if I do not succeed, i can come back and get another vocation, you will see a lot more success stories. Unfortunately in India, either your family has to be super rich or super poor to have that sort of freedom to choose. There are exceptions in a few centers as mentioned above in this thread - Mumbai, Karnataka etc where there is plentiful support to young cricketers. Genetics is a BS argument.. we don't have any decent spinner even Damn, you've forced me to post one of my most controversial theory's. Was Bradman really that good? One thing in Australia as big (probably bigger) as Bradman at the time was Pharlap (a freakish race horse), both came to fame during the Great Depression, maybe the competion wasn't up to scratch at the period, I say probably, but I mean definately. The 1st world war ended 15 years earlier, many fathers were lost, most kids who would've been peaking as cricketers were forced to be the bread winners for their families, the cricketing gene pool during bradmans era was at Rock bottom, just like horse racing, Just IMO.
BeautifulGame Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Yep good post .. This is where I am trying to go we do have interest but that interest does not means we have more cricketers playing and playing and getting same coaching from school level like kids probably in Australia do . also you talked about neptomism any more detail ? I know in Punjab you have to pay money to get in:giggle: Try to watch the jeeva movie( if possible )in tamil with Subtitle.It is about the nepotism in Ranji trophy in TN .Excellent movie particularly 2nd half http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=3133298&postcount=230
Old guy Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Damn, you've forced me to post one of my most controversial theory's. Was Bradman really that good? One thing in Australia as big (probably bigger) as Bradman at the time was Pharlap (a freakish race horse), both came to fame during the Great Depression, maybe the competion wasn't up to scratch at the period, I say probably, but I mean definately. The 1st world war ended 15 years earlier, many fathers were lost, most kids who would've been peaking as cricketers were forced to be the bread winners for their families, the cricketing gene pool during bradmans era was at Rock bottom, just like horse racing, Just IMO. It does not matter ..he can only play against competiton he had also this is reason I do not like comparing players from different era but let's not derail this you can search some legendary thread on this topic :giggle:
Old guy Posted January 14, 2015 Posted January 14, 2015 Try to watch the jeeva movie( if possible )in tamil with Subtitle.It is about the nepotism in Ranji trophy in TN .Excellent movie particularly 2nd half http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=3133298&postcount=230 I will ..thank you :)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now