Feed Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Jatin Paranjpe and Gagan Khoda will be removed from the men's selection committee, which will be trimmed to three going forward, as per the Lodha Committee recommendations View the full article tweaker 1
BeautifulGame Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Quote The BCCI used to pick five-men selection panels through a zonal process, but the Lodha Committee recommended the panel be trimmed to three selectors, all of whom would be Test players retired for at least five years. Paranjpe, the former Mumbai batsman, and Khoda, who led Rajasthan, will be removed from the existing selection committee considering neither has played Test cricket. Have to say another excellent rule.Cant really believe BCCI didnt consider this as basic criteria. How on earth a selector will know a player is good enough for international cricket if he himself has never played it
renjith Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Also I hope it will end each selector representing a zone or is it already out of the system? Ultimate_Game and express bowling 2
msplash9 Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 3 hours ago, BeautifulGame said: Have to say another excellent rule.Cant really believe BCCI didnt consider this as basic criteria. How on earth a selector will know a player is good enough for international cricket if he himself has never played it You don't need to be a test player to identify the talent. SC is going a little too far here. If non test players can coach players at an young age then why can't they just watch and identify the talent ? cowboysfan 1
BeautifulGame Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 You don't need to be a test player to identify the talent. SC is going a little too far here. If non test players can coach players at an young age then why can't they just watch and identify the talent ? Yes you need to be. Coaches prove themselves at lower level with success before getting bigger jobs. Where do these selectors prove themselves before getting the national selector job?The comparison in itself is stupid.
msplash9 Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said: Yes you need to be. Coaches prove themselves at lower level with success before getting bigger jobs. Where do these selectors prove themselves before getting the national selector job?The comparison in itself is stupid. Ridiculous . How can a selector prove himself [Even if he had played test cricket] ? Both of these guys have played Ranji cricket for a considerable number of years . That is not an easy thing to do.
BeautifulGame Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Ridiculous . How can a selector prove himself [Even if he had played test cricket] ? Both of these guys have played Ranji cricket for a considerable number of years . That is not an easy thing to do. Exactly that's comparison with coaches is stupid.Also why basic qualification should be that he has played test cricket.Then he would understand the demands of test cricket because he has experienced it himself and knows. Someone who has not even played test cricket will simply have no understanding of what it needs to succeed in International cricket.
msplash9 Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said: Exactly that's comparison with coaches is stupid.Also why basic qualification should be that he has played test cricket.Then he would understand the demands of test cricket because he has experienced it himself and knows. Someone who has not even played test cricket will simply have no understanding of what it needs to succeed in International cricket. So a Sarandeep singh and MSK Prasad will know better ? You just don't have a clue about any of these guys right ? Take a moment to at least look up their records on cricinfo. Anyways I felt the current selection committee was doing lot of things right. Hope they can find some one else who can continue the work Edited January 7, 2017 by msplash9
rkt.india Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 4 hours ago, BeautifulGame said: Have to say another excellent rule.Cant really believe BCCI didnt consider this as basic criteria. How on earth a selector will know a player is good enough for international cricket if he himself has never played it Restricting it to 3 is a poor decision. 3 selectors can't track or cover cricketers all over India. cowboysfan 1
BeautifulGame Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 So a Sarandeep singh and MSK Prasad will know better ? You just don't have a clue about any of these guys right ? Take a moment to at least look up their records on cricinfo. Anyways I felt the current selection committee was doing lot of things right. Hope they can find some one else who can continue the work Where did I say they are the best options.Stop imagining your own stuff
rkt.india Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 25 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said: Exactly that's comparison with coaches is stupid.Also why basic qualification should be that he has played test cricket.Then he would understand the demands of test cricket because he has experienced it himself and knows. Someone who has not even played test cricket will simply have no understanding of what it needs to succeed in International cricket. Test cricket is just a better level of first class cricket so anyone who has played FC cricket for considerable length has probably played with or against test players to, so, they will pretty much understand what one needs to be a test cricketer. msplash9 1
msplash9 Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 1 minute ago, BeautifulGame said: Where did I say they are the best options.Stop imagining your own stuff Oh ok . My bad Good nite :)
BeautifulGame Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Restricting it to 3 is a poor decision. 3 selectors can't track or cover cricketers all over India. Yeah I agree with that .Infact for me apart from general selectors ,there should a couple of specialists as well .Atleast a former test fast bowler should always be part of the selection process so that we can identify the young potential ones rather than recycling the useless Vinay Kumar's and Dindas purely based on stats. MCcricket 1
BeautifulGame Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Test cricket is just a better level of first class cricket so anyone who has played FC cricket for considerable length has probably played with or against test players to, so, they will pretty much understand what one needs to be a test cricketer. Don't agree with that.The gulf between test cricket and domestic cricket is significant.One needs to understand the necessities of what is needed in International cricket to succeed . Most of our selectors often don't know the difference between performing in different formats.We regularly have picked players for one format based on performance in other for years mancalledsting 1
msplash9 Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 20 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said: Don't agree with that.The gulf between test cricket and international cricket is significant.One needs to understand the necessities of what is needed in International cricket to succeed . Most of our selectors often don't know the difference between performing in different formats.We regularly have picked players for one format based on performance in other for years So you are saying none among the current group of selectors are good enough to continue ? Sorry , I am trying to decipher what you are saying . To my knowledge all 5 selectors are failures @International level.
BeautifulGame Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 So you are saying none among the current group of selectors are good enough to continue ? Sorry , I am trying to decipher what you are saying . To my knowledge all 5 selectors are failures @International level. Actually that's what I am saying.Selectors should have Atleast 20-25 International matches for India should be the criteria ideally in my view.But something is better than nothing .Atleast having the basic criteria for having played test cricket is better than having no criteria msplash9 and mancalledsting 2
msplash9 Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 Ok fair enough. But do you think a person who played 20-25 test matches will go around and watch domestic watches. I seriously doubt about that. So I prefer people like Paranjpe, Khoda etc. But I think its good if the chairman of selector has that much experience
gattaca Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 5 hours ago, BeautifulGame said: Have to say another excellent rule.Cant really believe BCCI didnt consider this as basic criteria. How on earth a selector will know a player is good enough for international cricket if he himself has never played it Gagan koda played in international cricket.
kosingh Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 I like having relatively young selectors. Some of the oldies tend to be out of touch with the dynamics of modern day cricket, and seem to evaluate the game based on criteria from their era that is permanently ingrained in their head.
WC2011INDIA Posted January 7, 2017 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) One of these selectors is a huge fan of a certain player who is having rough time nowadays. Edited January 7, 2017 by WC2011INDIA
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