Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[sudzz]

What really is going wrong with both Mr G Chapplle and to some extent Mr Woolmer.

Well these guys have come from so called developed nations where sport as a successful profession has been tested and proven.

By this theory, the commitement to excell in sport is ingrained right from probably the first time the childs parent drives the kid for its first practice or coaching session at the local park, school or elsewhere.

The system is designed to identify and hone talent give ample opportunities to excellent candidates to really give at shot at making it big and more importantly those that fail do not find all doors closed to them.

So when a person plays and coaches in say the Aussie system, at every stage the coach gets finished products for that stage, so for example if a coach is coaching a school side he will ensure that his students are ready to graduate to the district level for the next coach to take over and he does so because his longevity in his job depends on that.

This means that by the time someone is ready to play shield cricket or state level cricket that person is probably as ready as he can be.

The science of playing cricket is all there by this time and the only thing that the next level coach now needs to focus on is the art and philosophy of the game. Here is where a guys attitude gets sharpened and his ability to think himself out of situations gets honed and the much vaunted killer instinct becomes intrinsic to the person.

All this happens between ages of say 18 to 22/23, by this time the person is ready for international cricket and despite all this sometimes people are found wanting (Remember Pontings debut/Michael Clarke etc)...but these guys had what it takes in terms of basics so they could go back work on it and come back.

Now look at India and to some extent Pakistan and surely Srilanka. We find that people know the art but the science is lacking even at the highest level, there have been examples of galore of  batsmen making basic errors and bowlers consistently making the same set of mistakes etc.

To give some examples if Aus had a talent like say VVSL they would have made sure he was not just a unidimensional cricketer right from when they identified his, or say someone like Sehwag would never have been allowed to have the flaws he has in his batting that can be so obviously exploited

So when these cricketers reach the national stage and you have a coach like GC it is disaster waiting to happen who focus solely on the same facets that these cricketer know of namely the mental aspect. Unfortunately they still need technical training and to some extent even physical training to strengthen themselves.

A Dr Rudi.... is not going to help this time because mentally these blokes are strong (they came through heavily red taped selection process into the team) but they still have flaws in their cricket. Unless that gets addressed coaches like GC will never ever succeed.

What JW did to a great extent was to play with what he had and nurtured the good ones knowing full well not one is fool proof other than say a RD or SRT.

GC is choosing to ignore this basic principle and keeps bringing in shrinks, psycho's and now maybe even a shaman or a witch doctor who will sprinkle a bats blood on Sehwag, it will not work he needs to identify and help each inidividuals technical flaw and iron that out....

It's all very easy to say SG is suscptibel to a short rising delivery in the rib area but pray tell which coach did anything to help iron that out at a national level-isnt that what a coach is supposed to do...

[arjun]

Good points, Sudzz.

[caught and bowled]

Sudzz,
Your are putting the onus entirely on the coaches and absolving the players of their responsiblity altogether. The coach can make you aware of your flaws using various methods and offer you solutions in the nets etc. Its for the player concerned to then practice hard and implement the changes during match situations.

From afar, we dont know how many coaches (and to what extent) have worked on Ganguly's short ball issues or Sehwag's technical flaws etc. You are just assuming that Chappell is only bringing in Psychologists etc. How do you know that he is not working on the players technical requirements? It could also be that these players just lack the ability and perhaps have not put in the consistent efforts. Hence in a match situation, when the reaction time is just a fraction of second, their instincts  take over.

If you go by Sehwag's utterances so far, it appears as if he has refused to learn and is insisting on playing his  "nechural" game as he calls it.

[prfsr]

To repeat a cliche, coaching is very different from playing. GC is the perfect example of a techincally sound player who sees things scientifically and feels that everyone sees it the same way. Sadly, every person learns differently. Teching/coaching is much more than lecturing. You have to factor in every person's limitations (technical and mental), their learning styles and prescribe appropriate steps. Even then it is a very delicate line. You cannot change someone's technique completely (imagine asking Azhar to play with a straight backlift) or someone's mindset completely. OTOH, you have to challenge people and not let them stagnate. Most importantly changes do NOT happen overnight.

The problem with GC that I had was that he was trying to change everything overnight without apparently understanding the existing scenario. Plus his only management technique seemed to be to put people under the gun (this went away after SG was fired though). Such measures ring in some short term success but may not work in the long term in places like India. Of course the jury is out on that. I would not, however, place all the credit or blame for results on the coach. There have been plenty of instances where people have succeeded and failed in spite of the available coaching.

Coming back to my original points, any coach (including GC) cannot be dismissive if VS wants to play his natural game. Typically people are encouraged to play naturally, *except* in dire circumstances. This must be hammered into the player through methods other than holding a gun to his head. I fear that VS is not being dealt with in the right way, simply because his thinking process is far more simplistic than say RD's and I am not sure GC/RD knows how to get through to such a person. Another thing that GS should understand that most of our players are not scientifically minded, in the sense that many may not even have had science in the +2 stage. To expect them to really appreciate scientific jargon is a stretch.

-P

[sudzz]

CnB, I dont think Iam putting the entire onus on the coach for failures, what Iam saying is what Professor also said, every individual learns differently and most of us are loathe to change what brought us success in the first place.

A guy like Sehwag scored 300 the same way that he is playing now and we all applauded. The guy today has a problem, it might be psychological or technical. If it is was only psych Rudi and team should have worked wonders on him and Pathan (As LN had said there is no dearth of effort from Pathan and everybody from Andy Roberts to Vivek Razdan have given him advise).

The thing about coaching sides is that there are two aspects to be kept in mind

1. Attitude and aptitude management of people in the team
2. Cracking the whip/experimenting when and if necessary

GC from the word go wanted to undo everything that JW did and like I said in the beginning of his stint and I manitain today he did not understand the true ailments and threw everything he knew at the problem hoping something will work. Unfortunately it did not and it wont because he addressed the wrong malaise and administered a anti malarial pill to a team that needed some shots for indigestion

[ruchir]

I see a lot of incorrect and rhetoric statements made in this thread. I will list the individually.

INCORRECT
Sadly, every person learns differently. Teching/coaching is much more than lecturing. You have to factor in every person's limitations (technical and mental), their learning styles and prescribe appropriate steps. -- One thing is being convinently forgotten here. It has been reported many times that players are being coached individually. Individual physical, batting, bowling exercises have been developed for all players. So it is wrong to say that all players are being coached the same way or being asked to tow the same line. It is not so. Each player is being worked upon individually and that has been reported innumerable times. The thing is that for some reason, few players are unable to improve. So, what can be the problem? If a student fails, many consider it to be teacher's fault. However, in the same class, many student pass with distinction. MP, HS, AA, SRT, RP, even MSD. So, is teacher really at fault?? Or is it that there is something wrong with the students, that they are unable to come out of their bad stretch?

GC from the word go wanted to undo everything that JW -- That again is incorrect. GC said immediately after joining that he will continue to take the direction that JW was going on, will build upon that and will try to further improve the performance and stop the slide. This fact is being convinently forgotten. GC is not trying to undo what JW did. Matter of fact, can any examples be cited to prove that GC is undoing JW? AK, VVS are still out of ODI team. MSD is still the keeper. Fitness and discipline are still being given importance.

Typically people are encouraged to play naturally, *except* in dire circumstances. This must be hammered into the player through methods other than holding a gun to his head. -- What is this? VS is slipping in ODIs and yet you want him to play natural? His natural play IS the problem and yet you want him to continue? I think VS's current circumstances are DIRE. So if GC asks him to change or forces him to change by moving him down the order, what's wrong? Isn't that what you want too? That change is neccessary in dire circumstances? If VS is not listening to GC and not playing circumspectly at opening spot, what is GC supposed to do? He can either continue to talk to him (without any benefit), or recommend that he be dropped down the order so he is forced to not play rash strokes or he can hold a gun to his head and threaten him with getting dropped if he doesn't listen. Apparently, GC tried everything but VS is still not improving. So, is GC at fault? Maybe VS just doesn't want to listen to anyone.

It's all very easy to say SG is suscptibel to a short rising delivery in the rib area but pray tell which coach did anything to help iron that out at a national level-isnt that what a coach is supposed to do -- Question to be asked here is that did SG even acknowledge that he had this problem? To my knowledge he never even acknowledged he had such a problem. So what is a coach supposed to do with it? How is a coach suppose to help a player when the player is refusing to acknowledge that he is having a particular problem. I think this is simply finding a fault with coach because you don't like him.


RHETORIC
Scientific Jargon -- Please explain what do you mean by scientific jargon. Give specific examples. Bono's hats seem to have been discarded for good now. So what other scientific jargon is GC indulging in that you are finding difficult to digest?

OTOH, you have to challenge people and not let them stagnate. -- Challange people? How? Please give specific examples on how a cricketer can be challanged and try to come up with something that you think GC has not yet tried with the team. I mean how do you challange an international player? I am curious to know that. These players are not kids to whom you can say that if you play well, you will get a treat or a chocolate. How do you challange them? I want to know what idea can you come up with to challange the player of current Indian team, specially those ideas that you think GC has not yet tried on the players.

The problem with GC that I had was that he was trying to change everything overnight without apparently understanding the existing scenario. -- Changing overnight? How do you know that? GC said in the very begining that he did not have any magic wand to bring immediate results. Have you selectively forgotten that statement? If so, I can understand. GC said at the very beginning that it will take a while for our team to stop the slide and start improving on their performances. Till few months back we saw that the slide had stopped and performances were improving. IP, MP, YS, SR, MSD were all playing out of their skin and winning matches. YS was MOM in 3 consecutive series. I don't know from where do people get this notion that GC want to change things onvenight, when GC himself says that change will take time. I mean, you are ready to believe when a player says one thing but not ready to believe when the coach says one thing. I find that surprising.

[ThankYouChappel]

ruchir,
excellent post.

[prfsr]

I see a lot of incorrect and rhetoric statements made in this thread. I will list the individually.

INCORRECT
Sadly, every person learns differently. Teching/coaching is much more than lecturing. You have to factor in every person's limitations (technical and mental), their learning styles and prescribe appropriate steps. -- One thing is being convinently forgotten here. It has been reported many times that players are being coached individually. Individual physical, batting, bowling exercises have been developed for all players. So it is wrong to say that all players are being coached the same way or being asked to tow the same line. It is not so. Each player is being worked upon individually and that has been reported innumerable times. The thing is that for some reason, few players are unable to improve. So, what can be the problem? If a student fails, many consider it to be teacher's fault. However, in the same class, many student pass with distinction. MP, HS, AA, SRT, RP, even MSD. So, is teacher really at fault?? Or is it that there is something wrong with the students, that they are unable to come out of their bad stretch?

You claim my statement is incorrect. Do you want references from the literature? All of what you say is irrelevant (in proving my statements incorrect). My statement (that you quoted in red) was just pointing out facts. 

Typically people are encouraged to play naturally, *except* in dire circumstances. This must be hammered into the player through methods other than holding a gun to his head. -- What is this? VS is slipping in ODIs and yet you want him to play natural? His natural play IS the problem and yet you want him to continue? I think VS's current circumstances are DIRE. So if GC asks him to change or forces him to change by moving him down the order, what's wrong? Isn't that what you want too? That change is neccessary in dire circumstances? If VS is not listening to GC and not playing circumspectly at opening spot, what is GC supposed to do? He can either continue to talk to him (without any benefit), or recommend that he be dropped down the order so he is forced to not play rash strokes or he can hold a gun to his head and threaten him with getting dropped if he doesn't listen. Apparently, GC tried everything but VS is still not improving. So, is GC at fault? Maybe VS just doesn't want to listen to anyone.

Again, lot's of irrelevant stuff. Moving someone in the batting order is not changing someone's natural game. "Apparently, GC tried everything but VS is still not improving." How do you know this? What is "everything"? A good leader can get the best out of what he has. Perhaps the GC/RD  combo has failed to get the best of VS?

In any case all of these are suggestions and may be wrong. Why you are so aggressive to defend GC, I do not know. I may be wrong and you may be wrong and we may both be wrong. We discuss by putting forth our theories. My statement (perhaps not well-stated) was that changing a player's natural game by holding a gun to his head never works out in the long run.

It's all very easy to say SG is suscptibel to a short rising delivery in the rib area but pray tell which coach did anything to help iron that out at a national level-isnt that what a coach is supposed to do -- Question to be asked here is that did SG even acknowledge that he had this problem? To my knowledge he never even acknowledged he had such a problem. So what is a coach supposed to do with it? How is a coach suppose to help a player when the player is refusing to acknowledge that he is having a particular problem. I think this is simply finding a fault with coach because you don't like him.

SG acknowledged this many many times. Perhaps you did not read them. I will admit I read Bengali papers that you do not. But I am sure I have seen it in English interviews as well.

RHETORIC
Scientific Jargon -- Please explain what do you mean by scientific jargon. Give specific examples. Bono's hats seem to have been discarded for good now. So what other scientific jargon is GC indulging in that you are finding difficult to digest?

Have you read the Chappell way? All of it is gobbledy gook about angles and linkage and what not.  I had posted a lot of this in this group. Do you want me to list the URL's? And me "finding difficult to digest"? This is plain offensive. I am a scientist. Why do you presume I have any trouble understanding scientific jargon?

OTOH, you have to challenge people and not let them stagnate. -- Challange people? How? Please give specific examples on how a cricketer can be challanged and try to come up with something that you think GC has not yet tried with the team. I mean how do you challange an international player? I am curious to know that. These players are not kids to whom you can say that if you play well, you will get a treat or a chocolate. How do you challange them? I want to know what idea can you come up with to challange the player of current Indian team, specially those ideas that you think GC has not yet tried on the players.

You really want to know how to challenge people? You do it with positive and negative reinforcement. WHY do you take everything as a criticism of GC? Read my statements
"You cannot change someone's technique completely (imagine asking Azhar to play with a straight backlift) or someone's mindset completely. OTOH, you have to challenge people and not let them stagnate." -- All I meant was there is a difficult line between deciding how much to challenge someone and yet not take them too far out of their comfort zone. As to how I can challenge the players -- there are a million things that can be done. Fines, dropping, rewards, combinations.....I do not know what GC has done. All I am saying is that the results are not encouraging.

The problem with GC that I had was that he was trying to change everything overnight without apparently understanding the existing scenario. -- Changing overnight? How do you know that? GC said in the very begining that he did not have any magic wand to bring immediate results. Have you selectively forgotten that statement? If so, I can understand. GC said at the very beginning that it will take a while for our team to stop the slide and start improving on their performances. Till few months back we saw that the slide had stopped and performances were improving. IP, MP, YS, SR, MSD were all playing out of their skin and winning matches. YS was MOM in 3 consecutive series. I don't know from where do people get this notion that GC want to change things onvenight, when GC himself says that change will take time. I mean, you are ready to believe when a player says one thing but not ready to believe when the coach says one thing. I find that surprising.

I do not go by what SG says (I think that's what you are referring to). I go by what I see. I do not want to rehash old debates but I have written several times how GC would have been more effective (IMO) by doing the same things he did but slower.

Anyway, it does not look like you understood the main point I was trying to make regarding quick change. A new manager comes in and announces his intention to fire non-performers. Every one does very well for a few quarters irrespective of what else the manager does. Then slowly people return to their daily habits. At this time the manager's skills really make a difference. A good manager will sustain the performance more or less without further threats. A bad manager cannot do so.

I do not know what GC has done (in any detail) and neither do you. I put forward my hypothesis based on what I see. You may not agree. Let's leave it at that and not question my understanding of science.

-P

[toney]

Let me concentrate on Veeru alone if I may. As you all will agree, technically, he is not the most sound player we have. But he had done wonders with his slightly unconventional approach. He succeeded in places like SA and Aus where a lot of big names flopped miserably. He was perhaps as important as RD in the series victory in Pak. His ODI achievements are there for everyone to see.
All this was perfectly fine when he was in this rich vein of form. But there is something very important that I remember to this day. Steve Waugh had said in so many words that VS wont last more than a year in international cricket. At that time, I grudgingly agreed with him. The reasons were obvious. Poor technique may fetch you a few runs here and there but you can never be the consistent player in the mould ofa Rahul Dravid. Quality bowlers and captains will expose him.
Even though Veeru surpassed the expectations of Waugh (very very glad that he did), his current situation is something that every batsman of his kind fears. When a technically well equipped batsman fails, he can go back to the drawing board and try rectifying his faults. What can Veeru do? Suddenly, it is not possible to completely revamp his technique and ask him to develop better footwork. Yet, we want him to play his natural attacking game too. I honestly think that such players live in different phases. Some periods can be of the most unbelievable kind where he demolishes attack after attack. And then come these periods (he hasnt scored an ODI 100 in 18 months, right?) where you literally want to tear your hair out in frustration. It is not fair to blame him for those "irresponsible" shots when in reality, the same shots were the foundation of his triple century.
What we can honestly do is hope this phase is over soon. The decision for the team management to make is whether to dump a street smart cricketer who is proving to be a useful part time bowler for a more predictable guy or dump him hoping that his magic returns in FC cricket before he is given his next chance. IMO, Veeru should be persisted with, at least till the end of the WC. We dont have a huge number of options and this is a little too late to try fresh faces.
Sorry if this post sounds like Veeru has no solution in sight. But I honestly feel so.

[undercover]

Sudzz,
Your are putting the onus entirely on the coaches and absolving the players of their responsiblity altogether. The coach can make you aware of your flaws using various methods and offer you solutions in the nets etc. Its for the player concerned to then practice hard and implement the changes during match situations.

From afar, we dont know how many coaches (and to what extent) have worked on Ganguly's short ball issues or Sehwag's technical flaws etc. You are just assuming that Chappell is only bringing in Psychologists etc. How do you know that he is not working on the players technical requirements? It could also be that these players just lack the ability and perhaps have not put in the consistent efforts. Hence in a match situation, when the reaction time is just a fraction of second, their instincts  take over.

If you go by Sehwag's utterances so far, it appears as if he has refused to learn and is insisting on playing his  "nechural" game as he calls it.

C& B ..In the WI  tour VS scored  22,12,97,11,95 in the ODI’s . Come what in the next series he was moved to middle order , why ? ( because he gave a statement  when SRT was declared fit that he would open with SRT ? ) GC’s ego is hurting the team .

What is wrong with VS's  "nechural" game ? the same  "nechural"  game won matches for India .

[LosingNow]

What we can honestly do is hope this phase is over soon. The decision for the team management to make is whether to dump a street smart cricketer who is proving to be a useful part time bowler for a more predictable guy or dump him hoping that his magic returns in FC cricket before he is given his next chance. IMO, Veeru should be persisted with, at least till the end of the WC. We dont have a huge number of options and this is a little too late to try fresh faces.
Sorry if this post sounds like Veeru has no solution in sight. But I honestly feel so.

Very well said, sir.

[toney]

What we can honestly do is hope this phase is over soon. The decision for the team management to make is whether to dump a street smart cricketer who is proving to be a useful part time bowler for a more predictable guy or dump him hoping that his magic returns in FC cricket before he is given his next chance. IMO, Veeru should be persisted with, at least till the end of the WC. We dont have a huge number of options and this is a little too late to try fresh faces.
Sorry if this post sounds like Veeru has no solution in sight. But I honestly feel so.

Very well said, sir.

Thanks. I have this weird nervous kind of energy in anticipation of the match I will be really mad if the India I want doesnt show up.

PS: And now my wife wants to watch Desperate Housewives recordings with me. Doesnt she know that cricket starts an hour early today?

[ruchir]

You claim my statement is incorrect. Do you want references from the literature? All of what you say is irrelevant (in proving my statements incorrect). My statement (that you quoted in red) was just pointing out facts. 

Oh good. You claim to be a scientist and yet you summarily dismiss my statement without as much as trying to give a reason for that. You are pointing out what facts? The fact that you are making this statement in a thread that underrates GC means that your so-called facts are pointing at GC, hinting that GC does not pay attention to every player individually OR does not take into account the learning capabilities of every player. Hence I asked a legitimate question -- How do you know that happens, when GC himself said that he has tried to tailor practice for each player as per him requirements. You are effectively saying that GC is a liar, without providing any proof. What reference from literature are you talking about? Please specify. All you are saying is that my statements are irrelevant... without telling me why.

Again, lot's of irrelevant stuff. Moving someone in the batting order is not changing someone's natural game. "Apparently, GC tried everything but VS is still not improving." How do you know this? What is "everything"? A good leader can get the best out of what he has. Perhaps the GC/RD  combo has failed to get the best of VS?

In any case all of these are suggestions and may be wrong. Why you are so aggressive to defend GC, I do not know. I may be wrong and you may be wrong and we may both be wrong. We discuss by putting forth our theories. My statement (perhaps not well-stated) was that changing a player's natural game by holding a gun to his head never works out in the long run.

What is everything? Let me tell you what it is. It has been reported that GC tried talking with VS, asking him to play judiciously. He dropped VS from a couple of games when he had a string of very low scores. Finally, he tried moving VS down the order when VS still did not come back in form. What more can he do? You think GC/RD combo failed VS? That's your opinion. I think VS failed GC/RD by not listening to them. VS has not scored a 100 since Apr-05-2005. JW/SG were in charge then. He was not able to score even a 50 till Sep-04-2005 (16 games). Till JW/SG dispensation was there, VS had an AVG of around 32. Mind telling me why they were not able to improve VS?? Or maybe you think AVG of 32 is extreemly good for an Indian opening batsman. My point is that JW/SG were not able to do anything with VS in order to improve him. You don't talk about that. You selectively talk about GC not using right methods of helping him. Have ever tried thinking that if no one has been able to help VS, maybe VS is not listening to anyone?? Maybe he is too thick headed to listen to anyone?

SG acknowledged this many many times. Perhaps you did not read them. I will admit I read Bengali papers that you do not. But I am sure I have seen it in English interviews as well.

If I spend 30 minutes on google I can post hundreds of URL of SG saying that he does not have a problem with rising deliveries, but I'm not going to waste my time on that. I remember clearly SG saying "I have scored 22 hundreds, 10000 runs in ODIs. Obviously I would not have scored them if I had a problem with short-pitch balls". He maintained the same thing till he was shunted out of the team. So, maybe it is ONLY in bengali papers they write that SG acknowledges the short-pitch problem. I have not read it anywhere.

Have you read the Chappell way? All of it is gobbledy gook about angles and linkage and what not.  I had posted a lot of this in this group. Do you want me to list the URL's? And me "finding difficult to digest"? This is plain offensive. I am a scientist. Why do you presume I have any trouble understanding scientific jargon?

This is what you said -- Another thing that GS should understand that most of our players are not scientifically minded, in the sense that many may not even have had science in the +2 stage. To expect them to really appreciate scientific jargon is a stretch. -- I don't have to go to Chappellway. Just because GC has a site, you think he is testing everything published there on Indian team. That is a foolish foolish assumption. Are you with them team when they are practising? 'cause that's what you are insinuating in your comment. You don't even know how GC coaches the indian team and yet you make lofty comments like he is throwing scientific jargon at them. That's why I call it Rhetoric. Just throwing around words without caring to know the reality. Why do you find the phrase "finding difficult to digest" as offensive?? In the context that I used it, any one with normal english comprehension would think that I mean to say that "you are finding it hard to believe".

You really want to know how to challenge people? You do it with positive and negative reinforcement. WHY do you take everything as a criticism of GC? Read my statements
"You cannot change someone's technique completely (imagine asking Azhar to play with a straight backlift) or someone's mindset completely. OTOH, you have to challenge people and not let them stagnate." -- All I meant was there is a difficult line between deciding how much to challenge someone and yet not take them too far out of their comfort zone. As to how I can challenge the players -- there are a million things that can be done. Fines, dropping, rewards, combinations.....I do not know what GC has done. All I am saying is that the results are not encouraging.

Wow. challenge someone and yet not take them too far out of their comfort zone. That's the problem with most indian fans and cricketers. They don't want to move out from there comfort zone. Inspite of some horrible performances, you still want the players to be in their COMFORT ZONE. That's your style of coaching and I am glad you are not Indian coach. Even JW said that Indian players resisted moving out of their comfort zone, and he hated that. GC hates the same thing. Same thing that JW hated. What was the result? JW did not push them hard and by the time he left, we were # 6-7 in ICC rankings. You want GC to do the same thing. Just gently challenge them (probably verbally), but don't push them out of their comfort zones. Let them sleep where they are extreemly comfortable. there are a million things that can be done. Fines, dropping, rewards, combinations.....I do not know what GC has done. -- Every thing you said was tried by JW (if you care to remember, they had monitary fines for every catch dropped in fielding practice). But still we were at the near bottom of the ICC ranking when he left. Still, you want GC to do the same thing. Same thing that failed earlier. You don't want to learn from history, you want to repeat it. And you yourself say that you don't know what GC has done. Yet you try to find faults in his ways. That is what is surprising. You find fault in a person without knowing what he is doing. Yet you don't find fault in players who are as much at fault.

I do not go by what SG says (I think that's what you are referring to). I go by what I see. I do not want to rehash old debates but I have written several times how GC would have been more effective (IMO) by doing the same things he did but slower.

Anyway, it does not look like you understood the main point I was trying to make regarding quick change. A new manager comes in and announces his intention to fire non-performers. Every one does very well for a few quarters irrespective of what else the manager does. Then slowly people return to their daily habits. At this time the manager's skills really make a difference. A good manager will sustain the performance more or less without further threats. A bad manager cannot do so.

I do not know what GC has done (in any detail) and neither do you. I put forward my hypothesis based on what I see. You may not agree. Let's leave it at that and not question my understanding of science.

I did not take SG's name in my comment so I don't know why you are bringing him here. Yet again you find faults in GC's ways without even knowing what he is doing and how he is conducting his coaching. I never questioned you understanding of science. I don't know you, so how can I make any understanding about you? I was merely asking you to give specific examples of how GC forced scientific jargon on indian players. Quoting his website is no example because you don't even know if he uses everything that is published on his website on indian players.

You say new manager fires non-performers and everyone does well IRRESPECTIVE of new manager. How can you make this assumption. The very fact that new manager fired non-performers means that he took the first step in improving the performance. So any improvement is a direct result of him taking this step. And why would every one perform better after new manager comes in?? Can you explain that? Maybe because every one puts their best in front of him. What does this tell you?? That every person on the team is capable of better performance and yet out of sheer laziness and complancy, they are not giving their best. Then you say that after a while every person goes back to their old habits. What does this tell you?? It tells me that it is the team members' fault that they even think of going back to their old lazy ways. They know they are capable to giving more but they dont.

Yet, you don't ever find fault with members. You find fault the manager. That is what surprises me. Inspite of saying that team members are not giving their best delibrately, you don't find any fault with them. Not only that, when the new manager acts tough with team members and demands better performance, you again find fault in him. You say he should be gentle with the members, challange them BUT SHOULD NOT FORCE THEM OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONES.

Do you realize how ridiculous this statement sounds??

[ThankYouChappel]

Ruchir,
  Applause again.

[Rocky]

Three ways Sehwag gets out:
1. Short and wide outside off stump at shoulder height - he uppercuts it to thirdman. If it clears the ropes it is a six otherwise OUT.
2. Outside off going out and SEAMING out - tries a drive the cover off the ball away from his body - flies to the head of 1st or 2nd slip - takes it at head height.
3. Just outside off - SEAMING in - goes in between bat and pad - bowled.

Is it so difficult for an international player to work on just three areas and improve?
HOW?
1. Play this stroke only if thirdman is fine. If the thirdman is square - just let it go.
2. Play the drive for a single instead of a four - concentrating on the gap instead of power - gives more time for adjustment for the movement. Getting the feet moving is not an option for Sehwag.
3. This is usually tried for Sehwag after a short ball. Expect this and plonk foot forward as initial movement after every short ball.

[LosingNow]

What we can honestly do is hope this phase is over soon. The decision for the team management to make is whether to dump a street smart cricketer who is proving to be a useful part time bowler for a more predictable guy or dump him hoping that his magic returns in FC cricket before he is given his next chance. IMO, Veeru should be persisted with, at least till the end of the WC. We dont have a huge number of options and this is a little too late to try fresh faces.
Sorry if this post sounds like Veeru has no solution in sight. But I honestly feel so.

Very well said, sir.

Thanks. I have this weird nervous kind of energy in anticipation of the match I will be really mad if the India I want doesnt show up.

PS: And now my wife wants to watch Desperate Housewives recordings with me. Doesnt she know that cricket starts an hour early today?

R u kidding me.. I have been fretting all day about this match. I know deep down that we cannot win..and I dont want to watch this match but still there is this nervousness and hope about it. (It really is pathetic that a friggin game of cricket can do this to me!)
--
BTW, just watched Chris Gayle's performance. This guy is so similar to VS .. either super hit or mega flop with the bat and will give you crucial breakthroughs occassionally with the bowling. Wonder how long it will be before he hits the "found out" bad patch like our own VS.

[kban1]

ruchir:

If I spend 30 minutes on google I can post hundreds of URL of SG saying that he does not have a problem with rising deliveries, but I'm not going to waste my time on that. I remember clearly SG saying "I have scored 22 hundreds, 10000 runs in ODIs. Obviously I would not have scored them if I had a problem with short-pitch balls". He maintained the same thing till he was shunted out of the team. So, maybe it is ONLY in bengali papers they write that SG acknowledges the short-pitch problem. I have not read it anywhere.

Do not mean to butt in on the discussion between you and prfsr, but it is quite likely that you have missed SG acknowledging his short ball problem.

The fact is that he has acknowledged the problem -- he gave statements to the media before and after the Aus tour (in context of his taking advice from the Aussie greats incl. GC), he has also acknowledged that later on (when he was still part of the team) and he has done that after he was out of the team.

However, he said that with some caveats thrown in -- as in I have scored runs and been successful, everybody has weaknesses, but at the end of the day its how you maximize your strengths over weaknesses that matters, look at Steve Waugh, etc etc -- stuff to that effect. But there were clear references to the hook shot not being a strength or the short ball bothering him.

Some of these statements were in the national media. And some in the vernacular media. Also, such statements were not dime a dozen, there were limited number of such admissions, and I perfectly agree with that.

Seriously, why is it important for a professional player to acknowledge his weaknesses openly everytime the media asks the question ? And knowing the numerous Indian media sources and the level at which cricket news sells, I am sure this question has been asked of him a hundred times.

Responding to this question a 100 times is like standing on a rooftop and saying loudly, hey opposition bowlers, I am a stationary target, take your shots and knock me over. More importantly its public acknowledgement that it is an isue which is his weakness and bothers him.

Sorry to burst this bubble, but almost no professional player worth his salt will admit his weakness time and time again. There is ego and pyschological gamesmanship that is involved here and most of it relates to the opposition.

A player has no obligation to admit this either to the media to give them quotes or to the fans to sate their longing for player acknowledgement when such admissions become detrimental to issues in the playing field.

The important thing is he knows himself, his coaches know, and he attempts to work on it. Which he has  --but with mixed results. I fail to see the need for the public proclamations every 100 times he is asked the same question by the media.

I have never seen a Drew Bledsoe or a Troy Aikman announcing in public that we are stationary quarterbacks -- please Reggie White / Bruce Smith / Michael Strahan, come and sack us.

Neither did Steffi Graff acknowledge that her one handed backhand needed to be an overhand one rather than a slice in order to counter Monica Seles.

And for that matter, didnt see the Magic acknowledge that their main center Shaq does not match up well with the Rockets center Olawejawan because the latter is faster of foot and a better shooter.

The point I am making is self realization and actualization is enough in some cases, a public catharsis is unnecessary.

[prfsr]

Ruchir,
You really are not reading much of what I wrote.

You claim my statement is incorrect. Do you want references from the literature? All of what you say is irrelevant (in proving my statements incorrect). My statement (that you quoted in red) was just pointing out facts. 

Oh good. You claim to be a scientist and yet you summarily dismiss my statement without as much as trying to give a reason for that. You are pointing out what facts? The fact that you are making this statement in a thread that underrates GC means that your so-called facts are pointing at GC, hinting that GC does not pay attention to every player individually OR does not take into account the learning capabilities of every player. Hence I asked a legitimate question -- How do you know that happens, when GC himself said that he has tried to tailor practice for each player as per him requirements. You are effectively saying that GC is a liar, without providing any proof. What reference from literature are you talking about? Please specify. All you are saying is that my statements are irrelevant... without telling me why.

What reasons do you need? Open a book on education and you will see what I wrote mentioned -- that people have different learning styles. The following statement "The fact that you are making this statement in a thread that underrates GC means that your so-called facts are pointing at GC, hinting that GC does not pay attention to every player individually OR does not take into account the learning capabilities of every player." is completely WRONG. Maybe that is how you write or interpret threads, not me. People may state general facts like "some people are left-handed" -- even when the thread is about GC. Does not insinuate GC is or is not left-handed. Agreed?

I have NEVER said GC does not provide customized practice -- you insist on reading between lines. Ok, your choice.

Again, lot's of irrelevant stuff. Moving someone in the batting order is not changing someone's natural game. "Apparently, GC tried everything but VS is still not improving." How do you know this? What is "everything"? A good leader can get the best out of what he has. Perhaps the GC/RD  combo has failed to get the best of VS?

In any case all of these are suggestions and may be wrong. Why you are so aggressive to defend GC, I do not know. I may be wrong and you may be wrong and we may both be wrong. We discuss by putting forth our theories. My statement (perhaps not well-stated) was that changing a player's natural game by holding a gun to his head never works out in the long run.

What is everything? Let me tell you what it is. It has been reported that GC tried talking with VS, asking him to play judiciously. He dropped VS from a couple of games when he had a string of very low scores. Finally, he tried moving VS down the order when VS still did not come back in form. What more can he do? You think GC/RD combo failed VS? That's your opinion. I think VS failed GC/RD by not listening to them. VS has not scored a 100 since Apr-05-2005. JW/SG were in charge then. He was not able to score even a 50 till Sep-04-2005 (16 games). Till JW/SG dispensation was there, VS had an AVG of around 32. Mind telling me why they were not able to improve VS?? Or maybe you think AVG of 32 is extreemly good for an Indian opening batsman. My point is that JW/SG were not able to do anything with VS in order to improve him. You don't talk about that. You selectively talk about GC not using right methods of helping him. Have ever tried thinking that if no one has been able to help VS, maybe VS is not listening to anyone?? Maybe he is too thick headed to listen to anyone?

Wrong again. I said I feared GC was not handling VS right. That was only by looking at the results. Maybe he is too thick-headed, tell me where I have said that he cannot be?

SG acknowledged this many many times. Perhaps you did not read them. I will admit I read Bengali papers that you do not. But I am sure I have seen it in English interviews as well.

If I spend 30 minutes on google I can post hundreds of URL of SG saying that he does not have a problem with rising deliveries, but I'm not going to waste my time on that. I remember clearly SG saying "I have scored 22 hundreds, 10000 runs in ODIs. Obviously I would not have scored them if I had a problem with short-pitch balls". He maintained the same thing till he was shunted out of the team. So, maybe it is ONLY in bengali papers they write that SG acknowledges the short-pitch problem. I have not read it anywhere.

Since I cannot give you a reference right now, I'll shoulder arms to this one.

Have you read the Chappell way? All of it is gobbledy gook about angles and linkage and what not.  I had posted a lot of this in this group. Do you want me to list the URL's? And me "finding difficult to digest"? This is plain offensive. I am a scientist. Why do you presume I have any trouble understanding scientific jargon?

This is what you said -- Another thing that GS should understand that most of our players are not scientifically minded, in the sense that many may not even have had science in the +2 stage. To expect them to really appreciate scientific jargon is a stretch. -- I don't have to go to Chappellway. Just because GC has a site, you think he is testing everything published there on Indian team. That is a foolish foolish assumption. Are you with them team when they are practising? 'cause that's what you are insinuating in your comment. You don't even know how GC coaches the indian team and yet you make lofty comments like he is throwing scientific jargon at them. That's why I call it Rhetoric. Just throwing around words without caring to know the reality. Why do you find the phrase "finding difficult to digest" as offensive?? In the context that I used it, any one with normal english comprehension would think that I mean to say that "you are finding it hard to believe".

No my friend, go back to your original statement : "So what other scientific jargon is GC indulging in that you are finding difficult to digest?" -- clearly means I cannot digest GC's scientific jargon. Digest is not the same as believe.

GC has described his personal coaching philosophy and technique on his web site. He calles them the fundamental priciples of the Chappell way. You think that is not what he actually uses while coaching? Maybe.

About "Are you with them team when they are practising? 'cause that's what you are insinuating in your comment." -- I have nothing to add. I have said before "In any case all of these are suggestions and may be wrong. " and
"I do not know what GC has done (in any detail) and neither do you. "
Reading problem?

You really want to know how to challenge people? You do it with positive and negative reinforcement. WHY do you take everything as a criticism of GC? Read my statements
"You cannot change someone's technique completely (imagine asking Azhar to play with a straight backlift) or someone's mindset completely. OTOH, you have to challenge people and not let them stagnate." -- All I meant was there is a difficult line between deciding how much to challenge someone and yet not take them too far out of their comfort zone. As to how I can challenge the players -- there are a million things that can be done. Fines, dropping, rewards, combinations.....I do not know what GC has done. All I am saying is that the results are not encouraging.

Wow. challenge someone and yet not take them too far out of their comfort zone. That's the problem with most indian fans and cricketers. They don't want to move out from there comfort zone. Inspite of some horrible performances, you still want the players to be in their COMFORT ZONE. That's your style of coaching and I am glad you are not Indian coach. Even JW said that Indian players resisted moving out of their comfort zone, and he hated that. GC hates the same thing. Same thing that JW hated. What was the result? JW did not push them hard and by the time he left, we were # 6-7 in ICC rankings. You want GC to do the same thing. Just gently challenge them (probably verbally), but don't push them out of their comfort zones. Let them sleep where they are extreemly comfortable. there are a million things that can be done. Fines, dropping, rewards, combinations.....I do not know what GC has done. -- Every thing you said was tried by JW (if you care to remember, they had monitary fines for every catch dropped in fielding practice). But still we were at the near bottom of the ICC ranking when he left. Still, you want GC to do the same thing. Same thing that failed earlier. You don't want to learn from history, you want to repeat it. And you yourself say that you don't know what GC has done. Yet you try to find faults in his ways. That is what is surprising. You find fault in a person without knowing what he is doing. Yet you don't find fault in players who are as much at fault.

Very very sad really. I said "there is a difficult line between deciding how much to challenge someone and yet not take them too far out of their comfort zone." you said "Inspite of some horrible performances, you still want the players to be in their COMFORT ZONE.".
What can I say after this? And "Yet you don't find fault in players who are as much at fault." -- I have been defending GC for the last several days along with Rams. Probably the only people defending him right now.

I do not go by what SG says (I think that's what you are referring to). I go by what I see. I do not want to rehash old debates but I have written several times how GC would have been more effective (IMO) by doing the same things he did but slower.

Anyway, it does not look like you understood the main point I was trying to make regarding quick change. A new manager comes in and announces his intention to fire non-performers. Every one does very well for a few quarters irrespective of what else the manager does. Then slowly people return to their daily habits. At this time the manager's skills really make a difference. A good manager will sustain the performance more or less without further threats. A bad manager cannot do so.

I do not know what GC has done (in any detail) and neither do you. I put forward my hypothesis based on what I see. You may not agree. Let's leave it at that and not question my understanding of science.

I did not take SG's name in my comment so I don't know why you are bringing him here. Yet again you find faults in GC's ways without even knowing what he is doing and how he is conducting his coaching. I never questioned you understanding of science. I don't know you, so how can I make any understanding about you? I was merely asking you to give specific examples of how GC forced scientific jargon on indian players. Quoting his website is no example because you don't even know if he uses everything that is published on his website on indian players.

You say new manager fires non-performers and everyone does well IRRESPECTIVE of new manager. How can you make this assumption. The very fact that new manager fired non-performers means that he took the first step in improving the performance. So any improvement is a direct result of him taking this step. And why would every one perform better after new manager comes in?? Can you explain that? Maybe because every one puts their best in front of him. What does this tell you?? That every person on the team is capable of better performance and yet out of sheer laziness and complancy, they are not giving their best. Then you say that after a while every person goes back to their old habits. What does this tell you?? It tells me that it is the team members' fault that they even think of going back to their old lazy ways. They know they are capable to giving more but they dont.

Again, very sad. I said "Every one does very well for a few quarters irrespective of what else the manager does." You say "You say new manager fires non-performers and everyone does well IRRESPECTIVE of new manager."

Yet, you don't ever find fault with members. You find fault the manager. That is what surprises me. Inspite of saying that team members are not giving their best delibrately, you don't find any fault with them. Not only that, when the new manager acts tough with team members and demands better performance, you again find fault in him. You say he should be gentle with the members, challange them BUT SHOULD NOT FORCE THEM OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONES.

Do you realize how ridiculous this statement sounds??

No clearly I do not, but again your misstatement "BUT SHOULD NOT FORCE THEM OUT OF THEIR COMFORT ZONES." ascribed to me is what is ridiculous.

Listen, you are a regular contributor and usually are more receptive than this and this is really going fast towards a slanging match. I have no interest in engaging in a flame war with you (or anyone else). I am out of this sub-thread (conversation with you in this thread). You may have the last word if you wish. I am sure you and I will have better discussions later.

-P

PS: Maybe you'll see my point if you ever work under a boss who is ready to fire you in an instant, year after year.

[Sahir]

I have note read all the posts, but it seems to me that in considering what is going wrong we seem to place far too much emphasis on the coach (not saying that is great or anything).  The onus in on the individual players to perform, regardless of who the coach is or what the coach does, or even if there is a coach at all. 

Bottom line-- I expect a far better effort and far better performances from all our players and we constantly let them off the hook by diverting the attention to coaching and captaincy issues (although I too agree that the captaincy was very poor, especially sending Raina over Pathan at the death-- I am still searching for a reason as to why the heck that decision was made).

I say forget who the captain is and forget who the coach is-- I really don't give a crap-- make anyone captain and make anyone coach, but the eleven players that take the field must take individual responsibility to try and perform for the TEAM cause, not play for their individual statistics.

In my mind, there is also no question that there is a distinct lack of talent in this side compared with a couple of the other top sides.  Our bowling has always stunk as a team, barring the performance by one or two good bowlers like Srinath, Kumble, or Harbhajan-- so the mediocre efforts in that department do not come as much of a surprise.  However, we had grown accustomed to our batting lineup being capable of winning matches with strokeplayers at their peak like Ganguly, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Laxman combined with the solidity of Dravid.  There truly were plenty of batsmen that were consistently playing big matchwinning innings several years ago.  Even all that has faded now with Ganguly gone, Tendulkar still deciding to play appalling innings like the one today against what can only be termed as line and length bowling on a rather flat track with good carry, Sehwag showing up once in a blue moon, Laxman gone and not playing quite as authoritatively as he used to at the start of this decade (gone more into accumulation mode like SRT), and Dravid still contributing solidly but as a support ODI batsman, not a destroyer of attacks.

The only imporvement I can see over the years is in the ground fielding, but honestly, my general assessment is that our team has always been low on talent and sucked over the long haul, barring a couple of golden periods with some matchwinning batting under Ganguly and a team full of allround skill under Kapil Dev.

If I start to go back through history and compare the number of great players we have had with other countries such as Australia, West Indies, England, Pakistan, and South Africa, I think we fall woefully short.  I think we grossly overestimate the ability of all our players.  While they still ought to perform far better than the crap that has been on display over the past couple of tournaments, I think we should realize they basically are just not that good.

All this may sound glum, but I don't see much changing with this crop of cricketers, nor do I see any revolution with the next batch either.  There might be some improvement, but we will continue to win a fair bit at home, while losing almost all big tournaments and matches away from home, just as we have always done.  I always hear people constantly suggesting the talent is there and these players are the most talented bunch in the world, blah, blah, blah-- I don't see it at all.  If the BCCI really is serious about developing a truly great team, not just an OK team, but a truly great team that can lay a genuine claim to being the best in the world, it has to focus far more on grassroots cricket. becuase I am getting really tired of seeing scrawny fast bowlers with no pace, fat players in the field that cannot run or bend to pick up a ball, batsmen without the power to clear the ground and shockingly poor running between the wickets.

Call me a cynic, call me depressed, but I have very little hope of any kind of consistent purple patch from the team for even a five year period, let alone becoming the best side in the world.  But as always, I torture myself by continuing to watch with plenty of passion and hope, but it looks like I am waiting for the next generation and praying.  Here's to hoping we see that world beating side filled with truly professional athletes during our lifetimes.

*Rant over*

[prfsr]

Sahir,
Good, valid points and you may well be right about the talent pool. However, SG and to a lesser extent Azhar had success with similar players. You say that the matchwinners under SG are no longer the same. True, but could that not be a *result* of the current coach/captain's policies? Just a hypothesis, but IMO a plausible one. Just like you can argue VS has been "sorted out" or is careless or not dedicated, could it not be true that the incessant changing of batting order and experimentation has resulted in this? Similarly, by continually dumping older bowlers and bringing in new players prematurely, the team managament has hurt our chances of developing long term prospects. You can call ZK a fat slob as much you like but apparently he is going to SA. Whatever we achieved under SG was with ZK/AN/LB.

About personal responsibility, sure, ideally all the players are motivated, nobody needs to be counselled or encouraged. Does it work that way? If it did, captains would be insignificant. I am sure you will agree that captains talk to bowlers, work with them and assure them for a reason.

One of the reasons for SG's success was that he basically guaranteed young players positions for a while. You can argue about the means and JD etc but SG did manage to assure everyone and motivate them. When YS was injured and out many years back, SG alone kept in touch with him. YS mentioned this in an interview and said that one can die for captains who encouraged him in the darkest times. (Please note that I am in no way suggesting that RD does not do this. I just do not know). What I know about RD is that he stays on a different floor from the rest of the players because he feels that a captain must maintain a distance from the juniors and VS does the bulk of the mixing with youngsters. This was in an English interview I read sometime back -- I do not have the URL so feel free not to believe me I am sure you agree that motivation from the captain makes a difference. Again, especially for Ruchir, not trying to imply that RD/GC does not motivate, just that there is scope for motivating even professional players.

Finally you talk about this team as if they have always sucked. We were pretty consistently #2 for a while before SG let things slip. There is no reason we cannot get back there. Even with the current crop.

-P

[bala]

prfsr:

I disagree with your premise that the Indian team was good under SG or Azhar. We were mediocre at best, with a few good runs based on individual brilliance here and there. You are of course familiar with the current disappointments. If you think back to SG's time, the world cup had SRT and a couple of our bowlers in tremendous form. But just prior to that we had the disastrous NZ tour. Look back enough and there is a pattern - mediocrity with patches of good results.

I tend to agree with Sahir. We are basically an overhyped team who are mediocre at best.

But then who cares...we are world cricket's biggest market. We are cricket.

[Vick]

prfsr:

I disagree with your premise that the Indian team was good under SG or Azhar. We were mediocre at best, with a few good runs based on individual brilliance here and there. You are of course familiar with the current disappointments. If you think back to SG's time, the world cup had SRT and a couple of our bowlers in tremendous form. But just prior to that we had the disastrous NZ tour. Look back enough and there is a pattern - mediocrity with patches of good results.

I tend to agree with Sahir. We are basically an overhyped team who are mediocre at best.

But then who cares...we are world cricket's biggest market. We are cricket.

Thats not true. WC wasnt only thing to show off under SG. We twice reached Champions trophy final too. And in ODI's you always need only half your team firing at a time. That takes care of every thing. Last year when we were winning there were 3-4 main contributors. Namely Yuvi, MSD, Pathan and Aggie. Rest were just supporting.
In WC too while SRT scored big time, other batsmen did decently too. And then we had a long line up with every one capable of scoring decently till number 7.
In longer version of game too. We achieved a lot. Alomst in every away series we won atleast one game while before SG we used to just roll over. The process now has been reverted back. Now not only we are losing in ODI's but also in tests at home.

And i dont agree with Sahir here. I dont think we are behind NZ, SA and WI in talent right now right now. Aussies for sure but not rest. Most teams have bowlers who bowl in 130's so do we. We have better Spinners. We have quite decent spin bowling allrounders who have proven again and again. But we continue to play with 5 bowlers when its our batting which needs re-inforcement.
Batting position is another area where we are not working with brain. In a important game like todays i thought we missed a point by not bringing in Dhoni up instead of Kaif at number 5 specially after his good showing in last game.

[dextrous]

Putting down teams from past to make the current lot look good is just plain ol sad. If you really want to believe that SG's Indian team was the same as this team, then I'm not sure why some of you still watch cricket -- if we just remain medicore. Hell, some of you have made the 1983 WC winning effort a "mediocre" one. All for what? To claim that this team is merely same ol mediocre, when in truth the '83 team, the 2003 team, the 85 team, Azhar's 1993 team...there were a notch above rest. But for some of you, it would cause a lot of hearburn to say anything nice about SG or Kapil Dev -- as they are sworn enemies of GC...so go on, berate our achievements.

[inoc]

ruchir

i dont want to barge into your discussion with prfsr but this paragraph of yours left me bewildered. i have split it to aid discussion. your quotes in red.

What is everything? Let me tell you what it is. It has been reported that GC tried talking with VS, asking him to play judiciously. He dropped VS from a couple of games when he had a string of very low scores.

I am sure as a coach GC must have talked to VS and advised him. That’s his job.
He also certainly dropped him for two matches or should we be politically correct and say the Indian team management dropped him.
Following which VS showed improvement in form and his next few scores are as listed.

73,22,12,97,11,95.

Finally, he tried moving VS down the order when VS still did not come back in form.

Why do you say he was not in form then? note the scores above.
I think GC tinkered with his position unnecessarily and the resultant scores were

9 and 8 at no.4 and 3 respectively.

Following these two attempts at demotion he was back opening the innings. resulting in scores of 1,10,9,17,65

What sort of experimentation is that? What answers did he get? Does he know that VS is not suitable at another batting position other than opener on the basis of two innings?

What he may have done instead is communicating an impression to VS that his performance is not satisfactory as opener.


What more can he do? You think GC/RD combo failed VS? That's your opinion.

I don’t know about prfsr but that is indeed my opinion. Tinkered with his position unnecessarily.


I think VS failed GC/RD by not listening to them.

This surely is your opinion because there is no way you can substantiate your claims.


VS has not scored a 100 since Apr-05-2005. JW/SG were in charge then.

Indeed and SG was captain in 3 matches after that and JW was coach in 5 of the 52 matches he has played since  - 47 and 49 under GC/RD

He was not able to score even a 50 till Sep-04-2005 (16 games).

Yes 11 of them under GC/RD



Till JW/SG dispensation was there, VS had an AVG of around 32. Mind telling me why they were not able to improve VS?? Or maybe you think AVG of 32 is extreemly good for an Indian opening batsman. My point is that JW/SG were not able to do anything with VS in order to improve him. You don't talk about that. You selectively talk about GC not using right methods of helping him. Have ever tried thinking that if no one has been able to help VS, maybe VS is not listening to anyone?? Maybe he is too thick headed to listen to anyone?


Yes, VS had an average of around 32 under JW/SG. This discussion has come up numerous times under their tenure as well and the majority opinion at that time was VS coming fourth in the pecking order of batsmen (following SRT/SG/RD) – a lower average with a high strike rate was acceptable. Remember he was supposed to have been told to play his natural game and the day he played well we won. So both the criteria and expectations were different in the JW/SG era.

His role in this team has changed somewhat. With the demise of SG we now have him as the third senior batsman after SRT/RD and an average in the high twenties early thirties is not acceptable. Dhoni has a high average but we are increasingly using him only at 6 or 7 and his batting potential is not being realised to the full.
I have posted the individual batting averages of all the teams in a post earlier and can search it out if you wish to show that bar NZ all other teams have atleast three around the 40 mark if not more. sehwag has therefore  begun to be criticised more often recently (specially when others around him fail as well) because we need a third / fourth batsman who averages in the forties.

You may have a point in suggesting that VS is not listening to anyone but I would not like to call him thick headed even if it makes GC look sharper.

[fineleg]

There is no way I'm gonna catch up on a week or actually two weeks worth of threads in like 20 minutes.

But I did want to poke my head in and express my disappointment of this Indian team.
I could not watch the Ind-WI or Ind-Aus, but perhaps it was good I could not watch! Very disappointing.

I need more time to catch up with the DG later. Still tied up with a bunch of other tasks.

[Sahir]

Putting down teams from past to make the current lot look good is just plain ol sad. If you really want to believe that SG's Indian team was the same as this team, then I'm not sure why some of you still watch cricket -- if we just remain medicore. Hell, some of you have made the 1983 WC winning effort a "mediocre" one. All for what? To claim that this team is merely same ol mediocre, when in truth the '83 team, the 2003 team, the 85 team, Azhar's 1993 team...there were a notch above rest. But for some of you, it would cause a lot of hearburn to say anything nice about SG or Kapil Dev -- as they are sworn enemies of GC...so go on, berate our achievements.

Not sure if you are referring to me, but that is certainly not what I was saying at all.  I clearly mentioned that our 2003 team and 1983 team were better in my post, but said that over time, we have generally sucked big time without any consistent run even near the top of world cricket.  The basic premise of what I posted was that the players all need to grow up and take some personal reponsibility for their games-- I'm tired of hearing any excuses for any of them.

Overall, my assessment is simply based on India's record in cricket history-- how often have we won tours abroad?  After all these years, you can still count them on your fingers.  We almost never win any ODI tournaments either and yet, I consistently hear about how talented our group of cricketers are.  If that is the case, they are a serious waste of talent. 

This whole line of thinking has nothing to do with SG or KD.  Anyone that cannot agree that SG was a great captain, maybe the best we have had (I cannot speak as intelligibly on Wadekar or Pataudi, so let us stick with modern times), and that our team certainly improved under his stewardship from 2001-2004, simply was not watching the same games I was.  All that was very clear to me back then.  However, ever since the tour to Pakistan in early 2004, our performances have been spiralling downwards remarkably.  I have not taken a look at the stats of all the individual players, but I would daresay that almost all of them would have averages that are far below par ever since that time.  There was a period last year where we seemed to stem the rot and played some very good ODI cricket, but once again, all the really good performances came on extra flat wickets.  The Test performances were far from special, particularly the debacle at Mumbai against England, the West Indies series notwithstanding.

[ramshorns]

There is no way I'm gonna catch up on a week or actually two weeks worth of threads in like 20 minutes.

But I did want to poke my head in and express my disappointment of this Indian team.
I could not watch the Ind-WI or Ind-Aus, but perhaps it was good I could not watch! Very disappointing.

I need more time to catch up with the DG later. Still tied up with a bunch of other tasks.

Always remember this can wait, but work comes first.  Finish up with your tasks.

In a nutshell it is more of the same with this Indian team.  Nothing's changed since you last watched a match.  So actually you were better off staying away from the humiliation on the home turf.

[dextrous]

Putting down teams from past to make the current lot look good is just plain ol sad. If you really want to believe that SG's Indian team was the same as this team, then I'm not sure why some of you still watch cricket -- if we just remain medicore. Hell, some of you have made the 1983 WC winning effort a "mediocre" one. All for what? To claim that this team is merely same ol mediocre, when in truth the '83 team, the 2003 team, the 85 team, Azhar's 1993 team...there were a notch above rest. But for some of you, it would cause a lot of hearburn to say anything nice about SG or Kapil Dev -- as they are sworn enemies of GC...so go on, berate our achievements.

Not sure if you are referring to me, but that is certainly not what I was saying at all.  I clearly mentioned that our 2003 team and 1983 team were better in my post, but said that over time, we have generally sucked big time without any consistent run even near the top of world cricket.  The basic premise of what I posted was that the players all need to grow up and take some personal reponsibility for their games-- I'm tired of hearing any excuses for any of them.

Overall, my assessment is simply based on India's record in cricket history-- how often have we won tours abroad?  After all these years, you can still count them on your fingers.  We almost never win any ODI tournaments either and yet, I consistently hear about how talented our group of cricketers are.  If that is the case, they are a serious waste of talent. 

This whole line of thinking has nothing to do with SG or KD.  Anyone that cannot agree that SG was a great captain, maybe the best we have had (I cannot speak as intelligibly on Wadekar or Pataudi, so let us stick with modern times), and that our team certainly improved under his stewardship from 2001-2004, simply was not watching the same games I was.  All that was very clear to me back then.  However, ever since the tour to Pakistan in early 2004, our performances have been spiralling downwards remarkably.  I have not taken a look at the stats of all the individual players, but I would daresay that almost all of them would have averages that are far below par ever since that time.  There was a period last year where we seemed to stem the rot and played some very good ODI cricket, but once again, all the really good performances came on extra flat wickets.  The Test performances were far from special, particularly the debacle at Mumbai against England, the West Indies series notwithstanding.

Sahir,
As you may already know, I wasn't referring to you. But good post, this one.

[fineleg]

There is no way I'm gonna catch up on a week or actually two weeks worth of threads in like 20 minutes.

But I did want to poke my head in and express my disappointment of this Indian team.
I could not watch the Ind-WI or Ind-Aus, but perhaps it was good I could not watch! Very disappointing.

I need more time to catch up with the DG later. Still tied up with a bunch of other tasks.

Always remember this can wait, but work comes first.  Finish up with your tasks.

In a nutshell it is more of the same with this Indian team.  Nothing's changed since you last watched a match.  So actually you were better off staying away from the humiliation on the home turf.

Regarding your last stmt, unfortunately, I guess so! Nothing has changed with this "star studded" team!

[LosingNow]

What I know about RD is that he stays on a different floor from the rest of the players because he feels that a captain must maintain a distance from the juniors and VS does the bulk of the mixing with youngsters. This was in an English interview I read sometime back -- I do not have the URL so feel free not to believe me

That is an incorrect (and mischevious) statement.

[dhruvdeepak]

There is no way I'm gonna catch up on a week or actually two weeks worth of threads in like 20 minutes.

But I did want to poke my head in and express my disappointment of this Indian team.
I could not watch the Ind-WI or Ind-Aus, but perhaps it was good I could not watch! Very disappointing.

I need more time to catch up with the DG later. Still tied up with a bunch of other tasks.

Always remember this can wait, but work comes first.  Finish up with your tasks.

In a nutshell it is more of the same with this Indian team.  Nothing's changed since you last watched a match.  So actually you were better off staying away from the humiliation on the home turf.

Regarding your last stmt, unfortunately, I guess so! Nothing has changed with this "star studded" team!

fineleg, worry not! whatever comments we predicted from you have been mentioned in 100s of different ways over the past week 
DG is safe on the pessimism front for a while to come 

[prfsr]

What I know about RD is that he stays on a different floor from the rest of the players because he feels that a captain must maintain a distance from the juniors and VS does the bulk of the mixing with youngsters. This was in an English interview I read sometime back -- I do not have the URL so feel free not to believe me

That is an incorrect (and mischevious) statement.

As I said, I read in in an interview. Nothing mischievous about it, unless you mean RD is mischievous.
Look, you may have reasons for thinking it is wrong. Maybe you know RD's room number and those of the rest. I do not know that. All I am saying is that I read an interview where RD said this *himself*.
I never said this was true for all tours. Perhaps it was true for that one tour or even one venue and he was asked about it. I will try to dig up the URL but I am not sure if I can.

-P

[toney]

What I know about RD is that he stays on a different floor from the rest of the players because he feels that a captain must maintain a distance from the juniors and VS does the bulk of the mixing with youngsters. This was in an English interview I read sometime back -- I do not have the URL so feel free not to believe me

That is an incorrect (and mischevious) statement.

As I said, I read in in an interview. Nothing mischievous about it, unless you mean RD is mischievous.
Look, you may have reasons for thinking it is wrong. Maybe you know RD's room number and those of the rest. I do not know that. All I am saying is that I read an interview where RD said this *himself*.
I never said this was true for all tours. Perhaps it was true for that one tour or even one venue and he was asked about it. I will try to dig up the URL but I am not sure if I can.
-P

Does he stay upstairs or downstairs relative to the rest of the players? That might be important before judging on this issue.

[Cover Point]

I remember reading somewhere (will post a link some time in the future .... aka never) that Ganguly when he was captain used to request a bed which was higher than the rest of his praja. Even in the dressing room he used to ask for a higher throne.

The request to have his hat to be redesigned as a crown seemed to have been denied

Dont shoot me for this. I just read this somewhere. I think the interview was in Bolivian.

[Sahir]

I remember reading somewhere (will post a link some time in the future .... aka never) that Ganguly when he was captain used to request a bed which was higher than the rest of his praja. Even in the dressing room he used to ask for a higher throne.

The request to have his hat to be redesigned as a crown seemed to have been denied

Dont shoot me for this. I just read this somewhere. I think the interview was in Bolivian.

You know they speak Spanish in Bolivia-- that can be translated!

[prfsr]

What I know about RD is that he stays on a different floor from the rest of the players because he feels that a captain must maintain a distance from the juniors and VS does the bulk of the mixing with youngsters. This was in an English interview I read sometime back -- I do not have the URL so feel free not to believe me

That is an incorrect (and mischevious) statement.

As I said, I read in in an interview. Nothing mischievous about it, unless you mean RD is mischievous.
Look, you may have reasons for thinking it is wrong. Maybe you know RD's room number and those of the rest. I do not know that. All I am saying is that I read an interview where RD said this *himself*.
I never said this was true for all tours. Perhaps it was true for that one tour or even one venue and he was asked about it. I will try to dig up the URL but I am not sure if I can.
-P

Does he stay upstairs or downstairs relative to the rest of the players? That might be important before judging on this issue.

Really? Or is an attempt at humor? In that case, good one 

-P

[Cover Point]

I remember reading somewhere (will post a link some time in the future .... aka never) that Ganguly when he was captain used to request a bed which was higher than the rest of his praja. Even in the dressing room he used to ask for a higher throne.

The request to have his hat to be redesigned as a crown seemed to have been denied

Dont shoot me for this. I just read this somewhere. I think the interview was in Bolivian.

You know they speak Spanish in Bolivia-- that can be translated!

No this was a special bolivian dialect spoken in the north-southwest-east part of the country. From what I understand only two people speak this language and only one of them can write it (the interviewer).

[Sahir]

I remember reading somewhere (will post a link some time in the future .... aka never) that Ganguly when he was captain used to request a bed which was higher than the rest of his praja. Even in the dressing room he used to ask for a higher throne.

The request to have his hat to be redesigned as a crown seemed to have been denied

Dont shoot me for this. I just read this somewhere. I think the interview was in Bolivian.

You know they speak Spanish in Bolivia-- that can be translated!

No this was a special bolivian dialect spoken in the north-southwest-east part of the country. From what I understand only two people speak this language and only one of them can write it (the interviewer).

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!  That's funny...

[LosingNow]

What I know about RD is that he stays on a different floor from the rest of the players because he feels that a captain must maintain a distance from the juniors and VS does the bulk of the mixing with youngsters. This was in an English interview I read sometime back -- I do not have the URL so feel free not to believe me

That is an incorrect (and mischevious) statement.

As I said, I read in in an interview. Nothing mischievous about it, unless you mean RD is mischievous.
Look, you may have reasons for thinking it is wrong. Maybe you know RD's room number and those of the rest. I do not know that. All I am saying is that I read an interview where RD said this *himself*.
I never said this was true for all tours. Perhaps it was true for that one tour or even one venue and he was asked about it. I will try to dig up the URL but I am not sure if I can.
-P

Can you tell me which tour and/or which venue?

It was clearly not the case in St. Kitts - the one test I saw in person and was visiting the team hotel each day..and freely mingling with players. Most of the players(RD with his wife and kid included) were on the same floor...and there was nothing Jr or Sr about floor assignment. 
As a matter of fact, each junior was assigned a senior mentor/"chaperone" (for example, YS for VRV) ...who was with them most of the time while hanging out in the hotel lobby or bar area, eating meals at the hotel, going out for dinner etc. It was very common to see a RD(with his family) or VS(with his wife) or VVS or AK or HS or YS with a "junior in the tow" while at the hotel.

Also, I know in places other than WI(including India), where security has to be tighter, the entire team is preferably kept on the same floor for security reasons.  They cordon of the floor and access is restricted (and I know that at Taj Krishna in Hyderabad, you had to go through a separate metal detector placed outside the elevators of the floor the team was staying in!)
--
I thought the reporter was being mischevious .. as this item,in general, is incorrect and there is no "real" news value in highlighting this item. He is just taking panga.

[sudzz]

What I know about RD is that he stays on a different floor from the rest of the players because he feels that a captain must maintain a distance from the juniors and VS does the bulk of the mixing with youngsters. This was in an English interview I read sometime back -- I do not have the URL so feel free not to believe me

That is an incorrect (and mischevious) statement.

As I said, I read in in an interview. Nothing mischievous about it, unless you mean RD is mischievous.
Look, you may have reasons for thinking it is wrong. Maybe you know RD's room number and those of the rest. I do not know that. All I am saying is that I read an interview where RD said this *himself*.
I never said this was true for all tours. Perhaps it was true for that one tour or even one venue and he was asked about it. I will try to dig up the URL but I am not sure if I can.
-P

Can you tell me which tour and/or which venue?

It was clearly not the case in St. Kitts - the one test I saw in person and was visiting the team hotel each day..and freely mingling with players. Most of the players(RD with his wife and kid included) were on the same floor...and there was nothing Jr or Sr about floor assignment. 
As a matter of fact, each junior was assigned a senior mentor/"chaperone" (for example, YS for VRV) ...who was with them most of the time while hanging out in the hotel lobby or bar area, eating meals at the hotel, going out for dinner etc. It was very common to see a RD(with his family) or VS(with his wife) or VVS or AK or HS or YS with a "junior in the tow" while at the hotel.

Also, I know in places other than WI(including India), where security has to be tighter, the entire team is preferably kept on the same floor for security reasons.  They cordon of the floor and access is restricted (and I know that at Taj Krishna in Hyderabad, you had to go through a separate metal detector placed outside the elevators of the floor the team was staying in!)
--
I thought the reporter was being mischevious .. as this item,in general, is incorrect and there is no "real" news value in highlighting this item. He is just taking panga.

In this day and age when security is so important I dont think they would follow this principle of diff floors etc...he might get a suite while the rest are three to a room or something but I dont think even that happens...I was watching a moronic interview on TV where Vinod Kambli was saying there is no teamwork and camradries in this team because each of them gets a separate room so they dont interact after the days play.