From: diwadkva@ctrvx2.vanderbilt.edu (Vaibhav A. Diwadkar)
Subject: Less of a joke than the original post?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 16:55:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.065618.4102@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, 
moonunit@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Benjamin Ruse) writes...

> 
>   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 haven't read PVR's post but I doubt many peoplwould make the
	claim that India has publicly displayed the raw talent needed
	to claim a "top spot" on the world crickeng scene.e.  As for
	whether poor captaincy and poor selection can ruin a team's
	prospects, that is a virtual truism with notable examples
	in the recent past.  Thus the claim that Indian cricket is
	suffering because of both is hardly controversial and given
	the past is almost more likely to be true than not.

>     A look at India's ecent test record shows that it has one only
>   one of its past twenty test matches, and that against the Sri Lankans
>   on a rather dubious Chandigarh pitch. Furthermore India has never in
>   its short history as a cricketing nation been anywhere near the top.
>   It has produced many fine players ( Mankad, Chandresekar, Gavaskar )
>   but has never been able to field a full team capable of challenging
>   the world's best, this situation has been particularly true in the
>    past decade.

	- The test record is out there and is fairly revealing.  What
	it does not reveal is that there have been occasions when the
	team has taken early control of tests but has been unable to
	press home the advantage because of its effete bowling (the
	third test in England in '90 and Sydney last year come to 
	mind).

	- The claim of India never being anywhere near the top is
	demonstrably untrue.  The early '70s saw India win three
	series' against the Windies and England (to argue that the
	Windies were not the "real" Windies is spurious because they
	were the best team the Windies had).  In '69 India lost a
	closely fought series to Bill Lawry's Australians.  The 70s
	and 80s have not been kind on the test front but lest we
	forget, India waltzed thru the Victoria Cup tournament in
	'85.  The only time any tournament has been dominated so
	completely by a team was perhaps the World Cup of '79 when
	the Windies won without breaking a sweat.

>   It was particularly interesting to note the virtual stampede by the
>   Indian Cricket Board to organize a test match against Zimbabwe.
>   The temptation of increasing their record to two wins from 21 tests
>   and proving themselves capable of defeating TWO other Test playing 
>   countries was obviously too much.

	- Actually the board's motives pertain more to money than
	anything else. The raison d 'etre for rushing the South
	Africa oneday series last year was to bring some badly
	needed bucks into the board'scoffers.  The fact that it
	was a "historic" occasion etc. was icing on the cake.


>   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.

	- Not many arguments here.  Incidently there is a dismissive
	ring to the use of "grit and determination" here.  If I remember
	correctly a certain Australian batsman has been similarly 
	"acused" through the duration of his career which is currently
	9000+ runs old.  In defence of Shastri (always a dangerous
	posture on this group), over the last two years he has been
	one of the more effective openers in the world.  A look at
	his record may reveal more than you think.



>   Even India's much vaunted spin bowling attack appeared reduced to two
>   innocuous trundlers one headbanded and looking like the archetypical
>   "Nerd" from an American Sit-Com and the other a grimacing Rowan
>   Atkinson look-alike.
>   Excuses were everywhere for the shocking performance, no sooner had
>    the team got over "Jet-Lag" then they were afflicted with a bad
>   case of "Homesickness" and even after 4 months in Australia they
>   still appeared to be "Troubled by the unfamiliar bounce". 
>   
>   This may be an unfair reflection of the tour but it is not out
>   by much. And more worryingly it appears to have been the history
>   of every indian team over the last few years. 

	- This is a remarkable generalization.  You allow yourself
	the luxury of using the term "appears" rather than 
	committing yourself to your position with a firm "has been
	the history."  Incidently, India folded against the Windies
	in '89 and lost the three test series 2-0 but there have
	been few teams which have won a series in the Windies in the
	last 20 years.  Apart from that, the Indian batting has
	performed reasonably well right up to the Australian tour.


>   Why is it that a society that loves its cricket as India does, and
>   has such an enormous population to choose from is unable to find a
>   team that doesn't play like the Keystone Cops on LSD? Why is it that

	- Unnecessary derogation here.  Perhaps its a case of "I always
	wanted to say that", but you detract from your legitimacy as 
	a critic with this kind of stuff.


>   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
>   Indian cricket must begin a program of reconstruction, improving
>   facilities starting youth clinics and talent identification programs
>   and drastically altering the current infrastructure improving both
>C  pitches and umpiring.  Idle chatter and malicious attempts to
>   undermine Azharuddin's hold on the captaincy will not help if India
>   is to gain the position at the top of world cricket that should be
>   her birthright.

	- This is curious.  After vehemently claiming that the right 
	measures by officialdom will not right Indian cricket, you
	claim that the right measures by officialdom will?  What else
	does the term "infrastructure" refer to?  And the bit about
	"umpiring" is a particularly interesting twist.  One will note
	that the rather precipitous drop this year in Australia's fortunes as
	a oneday team correlated rather strongly with the loss of 
	Australian umpires to officate in their oneday games.

	- I thought you would have many more interesting observations than
	you did.  Your critique of the lack of observed talent in the
	Indian squad is hardly novel and has been made before.  I thought
	your inventive use of phrases to synopsize the Indian team's
	efforts were rather annoying made your post less interesting. The
	bit about "umpiring" at the end looks like it was added on for
	general effec, a case of if something smells, surely everything
	must stink.  In any case, it is hardly controversial to claim
	that Indian cricket is not exactly at its zenith.  There are
	several problems and you have recognized a few of them.  But then
	you are not the first, and more judicious analysis than your's
	have been done.

				Regards, - Vaibhav.