From: pvr@argo.rice.edu (PVR Narasimha Rao)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket
Subject: Re: Indian Cricket:--> JOKE OR WHAT????!!!!?!?!?
Date: 17 Aug 1992 05:21:48 GMT
Organization: Rice University


	[in my previous follow-up, as I was in a hurry, I left out
	certian things which I wanted to address later. Let me
	address them now]


In article <1992Aug15.065618.4102@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, moonunit@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Benjamin Ruse) writes:
|> 
|>    I am writing in response to P.V.Rao's questionnaire about 
|>    the make up and captaincy of the Indian cricket team.
|>    I found this article particularly interesting as it appears
|>    to be a demonstration of an idea, or perhaps a delusion common
|>    to many followers of Indian cricket. Namely that the Indian side is 
|>    being stopped from achieving its rightful spot as the world's top
|> 
|>    team by a combination of poor captaincy and team selection.
|>    This is obviously ridiculous.


I don't know why you thought that questionnaire (which merely stated some
questions, explained the format to answer them and gave some sample arguments
commonly used (which were not necessariuly my views as I stated) to refresh
the memory of the netters on those issues) "appereared to be a demonstration
of an idea, or perhaps a delusion common to many followers of Indian cricket.
Namely that the Indian side is  being stopped from achieving its rightful
spot as the world's top team by a combination of poor captaincy and team
selection".

Though many people stated on this net that the cricketing talent in India is
underutilized, nowhere did anyone mention on this net (to my knowledge) that
Indian team had the talent to be world's "top team". Somehow, you got that
impression. This is obviously ridiculous.


	[most of the stuff was deleted as Vaibhav has answered it very well]


|>    The problem with the current Indian team is not selection or
|>    leadership, but the simple fact that, with the exception of a few
|>    good players their side is utter pigswill. The only players of Test 
|>    quality in the team are: Kapil Dev the magnificent all-rounder,  
|>    Azharuddin who must be the most stylish player in the modern game
|>    and of course the magnificent Tendulkar. Players such as Kiran More
|>    and Manoj Prabhakar and of course Ravi Shastri show grit and
|>    determination   in all facets of their play but apart from these few
|>    the Indian term shows all the dependability of the proverbial
|>    chocolate teapot.


As Vaibhav said, Shastri has had a great record as an opener (let me add - in
tests) since his recall. If a player who scored 185, 108, 84, 206 from 7 tests
is not of test quality, I wonder who is.

Also, you might've seen Manjrekar at his worst and so probably you think he is
not a test quality player.

I am not a great fan of Manjrekar, but I must say he is one of the best test
players in the Indian team (though ODIs spoiled him a lot). He scored about 600
runs from 4 tests (when almost everyone else struggled) in Pakistan. He scored
a fantastic century in WI, which was very well rated by critics. He is definitely
a world class player.


|>    During their recent tour of Australia I had the "privilege"
|>    of watching them through a whole summer.  Beginning with a One-dayer
|>    against West Australia in which they folded like a hideaway bed
|>    in the batting department (All Out 64) and then proceeded to bowl
|>    like a wheelbarrow full of Amputees.  I watched with disgust as their
|>    bumbled their way through a 4-0 thrashing in the most depressing Test
|>    series I have ever seen.  Time after time their batting collapsed
|>    against McDermott,Hughes and finally Whitney. Srikkanth, Sidhu,


There is no doubt that Indians were totally outplayed in the first 2 tests
[in the last few years, they got used to losing the first test without any
fight :-(]. At Sydney, even after losing almost one whole day's play due to
rain, they went so close to winning the test! Though they lost the next 2
tests, it is arguable whether they were really "outplayed". If only Azhar
decided on the last day of each of those 2 tests to settle for a draw, the
results could've been different (I am not criticizing Azhar's decision).
Anyway, there are no facts here, only opinions prevail and let's not get
into any debates.


|>    The belief that a new captain and a few changes in personnel will
|>    herald a brave new era is a self-deluding one, the positve effect
                                                     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>    of the many captaincy changes over the past years has been exactly
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|>    nil. The insecurity and disruption they have caused is immeasurable
      ~~~

The reason for not changing a captain shouldn't be that the changes in the
past have achieved nothing. That's the most ridiculous reason for retaining
a captain.

Tell me there is no alternative, I'll accept it as a good reason. Tell me the
guy is starting to look good and will probably do well if given more chances,
I'll accept it as a good reason. But if you tell me since the changes in the
past have done nothing, you decided against changes, I will not accept it as
a good reason.

Unfortunately, this seems to be the way many people think. It is like a cat
deciding not to drink milk because it burnt its mouth trying to drink very
hot milk once. The solution is not to decide against drinking milk - it is to
find out whether milk is hot or not before drinking. You have to identify the
problem instead of resorting to blind generalizations.

Changing captains was a bad thing one day. But, may be it's the best thing to
do today. If Azhar is a very bad captain and Kapil is likely to be a better
captain, the best thing to do is to replace Azhar with Kapil. There is no
point in sticking to a bad captain just because changing captains didn't work
in the past.

The reason for the failure in the past was perhaps that the changes were bad,
but it doesn't mean changes are a bad thing. Changing captains can cause
insecurity, but there is no point in leaving the fate of the team to an unable
person and making him feel very secure.

However, when it comes to the question of whether Azhar is really as bad as
many (including Manoj Prabhakar) think and whether Kaps will be a better cap,
I am not the person to judge. It is definitely a tough decision, but the job of
selectors is a tough one then. All I am saying is that arguments like "changing
the captain frequently has done no good in the past. So let's refrain from it.
Let's make this captain feel very secure" are somewhat illogical and have no
substance in them. An unable captain cannot achieve anything even if given a
term of 5-10 years.

If Manjrekar is made cap, it will be like repeating the mistakes of past. But
if Kapil is given command, it's not repeating the mistake. It's like correcting
the mistake. God knows if Azhar will feel secure even if he is retained for this
season (in view of Prabhakar's public statements against him and criticism from
Bedi, Veng, Pataudi etc). But, if Kap is made cap, undoubtedly there will be
stability for 3-4 years. There will not be any insecurity.


--------
PVR Narasimha [SRT is simply the best
               Whether it's an ODI or a test] Rao
Newsgroups: rec.sport.cricket,soc.culture.pakistan