Brahmin dominance in Indian Cricket Team?

[head coach]

This came in Sydney Morning Herald A class act? Opinions differ: http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/a-class-act-opinions-differ/2008/01/04/1198950076545.html?page=3 Despite his talents, Kambli was always booed and mocked at his home ground, Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. Observers believed it was because of the dark colour of his skin. Not so, says Kambli. "I think it's because of my caste." Castes among the Indian team's Hindus: Brahmin Anil Kumble Rahul Dravid VVS Laxman Sachin Tendulkar Sourav Ganguly R.P. Singh Ishant Sharma Jat Yuvraj Singh Rajput Mahendra Dhoni Siddhartha can see caste as a possible explanation for the Brahmin dominance, particularly in batting. "Traditionally, cricket has been an elitist sport, and in terms of the physique and what you need as a batsman, it's more skill, wrist and angles than what you need as a fast bowler or fielder," he says. "That probably explains it in a way. If you look at the body structure of the higher castes, you would find they aren't as athletic as they are deft."

[head coach]

There is also a response article in cricinfo: http://content-www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/329291.html The piece ceases to be legitimate commentary on Indian society because it misses what drives Indian cricket today: money. There is so much of it floating around that it is no longer possible for a selection committee to make odious decisions and select a caste-based, sub-standard squad. Choose someone for reasons other than merit and the wrath of a billion people visits the selection committee.

[siddhu]

Yeah... Maybe some indian writers should point out... how many people of colored origin have played for Australia. Symonds and Jason Gillespie (who is 1/8 or 1/16??). In my 24 years of following world cricket since WC1983, i cannot recall anybody then these two?? Can anybody help me out here?? Its easy to point finger on others but there are 3 fingers pointing towards themselves...

[head coach]

This is an article that is referenced by Stevenson which came in outlook: That the Brahmins related to a team-game like cricket, more easily than to football or hockey, also owes to the fact that cricket involves very little body contact.For a community that has believed in touch-me-not ritual cleanliness (which socially translated into the practice of untouchability), cricket's relative lack of physicality seems to have been an inducement. According to Ramachandra Guha, historian of the game who once described himself as an 'anti-Brahminical Hindu', "Cricket being a non-body contact sport was certainly one attraction for the Brahmin. Besides, to play this game you did not have to be physically very strong." Cricket being a largely relaxed game, where a player is required to be in action only in spurts, the Brahmin didn't have to exercise himself much. He didn't have to be very athletic but could turn technical correctness and rational self-centredness into assets (like Gavaskar). Reason why we perhaps constantly saw individual successes not translating into success for the team. You could be rated the best Test player in the world, the most accomplished, technically astute batsman, but need not make a difference to the team when it mattered. Besides, in this 'gentleman's game', ideally you didn't have to be aggressive. Guha also points out that those with a working-class background tended to be bowlers since it involved more sweat. "There are exceptions of course like Srinath, but Dodda Ganesh and Venkatesh Prasad shared a working-class background, though Prasad was a Brahmin." There's also the economic angle. Bowlers, unlike batsmen, says Guha, don't have to spend much on paraphernalia. All you need is a ball and someone to bowl at. It's much cheaper and easier to work towards being a bowler. "When I once drew up a Princes Eleven for my column there was not one full-time bowler in the team. The princely elite would look down upon a physically demanding activity like bowling," says Guha. By this logic, Brahmins and the upper class have dominated batting, and cricket is a 'batsman's game'. TV journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, whose father Dilip Sardesai was one of the several Saraswat Brahmins who played Tests for India, thinks the Brahmin dominance continues to reflect on some crucial aspects of the game. "We have not produced great fielders. In fact, we have neglected fielding." Sardesai links the Brahmin penchant for cricket with the community's greater access to metropolitan centres. "You will see that Brahmins tended to be good at sports that sprung around the Gymkhanas. They dominated these sports for decades. Cricket in Maharashtra was also a vehicle for upward mobility. However, post-Independence other sports became democratic. Other communities not only proved equal to Brahmins, but also better in the physical sports. On a level playing field, the Brahmin became just another player. Not so in cricket." Sardesai argues that "cricket and the values it promoted fitted well with the hierarchies that our feudal and caste society engendered. It did not break them".

[THX_1138]

Yeah... Maybe some indian writers should point out... how many people of colored origin have played for Australia. Symonds and Jason Gillespie (who is 1/8 or 1/16??). In my 24 years of following world cricket since WC1983, i cannot recall anybody then these two?? Can anybody help me out here?? Its easy to point finger on others but there are 3 fingers pointing towards themselves...

gillespie has aboriginie blood in him?

[Desi Cartman]

[fineleg]

@Sydney Morning Herald:

[guju24]

yuvi in low jaat hahaha..:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[beetle]

Why give importance to stupid article?