ODI cricket and general cricketing discussion [self - mod]

[rugrats]

I actually think he has decent enough skill with the best that he can generate. but it will be wrong to hype him up too much because we have seen a lot of youngsters getting hyped up too much and not performing as he was expected later. and he has to maintain fitness really well because it is really easy for fast bowlers to get injured.

I believe that he’ll secure his place under Dravid (Indian coach) mentoring, and if he continues to follow Dravid’s instructions then there’s a huge possibility that he’ll develop into one of the best bowlers we have seen till date. However he should be told to ignore the expectations and just focus on his natural game, because the weight of expectations can harm his game and lastly I hope that team India will carefully groom him and help him deal with this newfound stardom.

The problem with any southeast Asian country is that they generally hype up a youngster too much. And at a point even though the youngster performs well it is believed that he is not performing at his level best and that obviously puts a lot more pressure on him. I hope that does not happen to him.

[1715018583]

1715018583

[1715018583]

1715018583

[1715018583]

1715018583

[1715018583]

1715018583

[Sithara007]

I honestly believe that the politician was actually unbiased in terms of the political effect on the player. He actually tried to help the player's career but I also agree that in a country like India it obviously causes a lot more harm instead of good. Because that raises the question in other people's minds. And any player from any other religion can obviously say that if you follow the same religion as an important political figure you will have a better chance of playing for the national team. and that will eventually come back to bite the player.

Right now Umran is an emerging player and he has a bright career ahead. Now what happens is that some of the politicians may jump in to fray, and take credit for his success (similar to what Tharoor has done). And when politicians get involved, people forget the sports aspect and think about the political aspect. Tharoor is a representative of a particular political party and when he jumps in for someone the other camp may oppose that individual. That won't be the case, if Sourav Ganguly or Sachin Tendulkar issues a statement to support Umran. And all that said, I still don't think that Tharoor's intention was good. When was the last time he put up a cricket-related tweet?

[JSRAW]

I honestly believe that the politician was actually unbiased in terms of the political effect on the player. He actually tried to help the player's career but I also agree that in a country like India it obviously causes a lot more harm instead of good. Because that raises the question in other people's minds. And any player from any other religion can obviously say that if you follow the same religion as an important political figure you will have a better chance of playing for the national team. and that will eventually come back to bite the player.

India has fair amount of problems when it comes to bigotry and religious fanaticism but when it comes to cricket then there is virtually no drama at all, it's all about meritocracy and nothing else. Just to give you example of Arjun Tendulkar (Sachin's son), he recently got rejected for even Mumbai's Ranji squad. For decade or so it started happening in other spots too. 

I remember sometimes back some Ambedkarite (pro reservation) made a reservation jibe at the Cricket. With in a few hour everyone including Left-Centre-Right and literally every visible nutjob in the media ganged up together against this idea.

[pakhitheboss]

I have been closely following IPL and have been amazed by the performance of Gujrat Titans and especially their captain Hardik Pandya. He has not only contributed as a baller but also as a batter in numerous occasions in this season of IPL while leading his team. They are already in the finals now and considering if they win the finals, will he replace K L Rahul as the vice captain of the Indian side? I also feel he is better than K L Rahul as a captain.

What do you guys think?

[CryptoBuds]

I have been closely following IPL and have been amazed by the performance of Gujrat Titans and especially their captain Hardik Pandya. He has not only contributed as a baller but also as a batter in numerous occasions in this season of IPL while leading his team. They are already in the finals now and considering if they win the finals, will he replace K L Rahul as the vice captain of the Indian side? I also feel he is better than K L Rahul as a captain.

What do you guys think?

^ Considering he did not do well at all before the IPL I think it was actually a little bit of a gamble by the Gujarat Titans team to appoint him as the captain. And he certainly is showing that he is capable of doing the duty properly that he is given. I also think that he is actually better compared to KL Rahul. at least that's what is evident in this IPL till now. And his performing as a captain has also not had any bad effect on his performance I believe.

[minairia3]

I honestly believe that the politician was actually unbiased in terms of the political effect on the player. He actually tried to help the player's career but I also agree that in a country like India it obviously causes a lot more harm instead of good. Because that raises the question in other people's minds. And any player from any other religion can obviously say that if you follow the same religion as an important political figure you will have a better chance of playing for the national team. and that will eventually come back to bite the player.

Right now Umran is an emerging player and he has a bright career ahead. Now what happens is that some of the politicians may jump in to fray, and take credit for his success (similar to what Tharoor has done). And when politicians get involved, people forget the sports aspect and think about the political aspect. Tharoor is a representative of a particular political party and when he jumps in for someone the other camp may oppose that individual. That won't be the case, if Sourav Ganguly or Sachin Tendulkar issues a statement to support Umran. And all that said, I still don't think that Tharoor's intention was good. When was the last time he put up a cricket-related tweet?

I think this politician is just an admirer of cricket. Probably he just likes the cricket that he is watching from the player and because of the amusement that he got, I think he did what he did base on that. I don't think there will be any big problems caused by this.

India has fair amount of problems when it comes to bigotry and religious fanaticism but when it comes to cricket then there is virtually no drama at all, it's all about meritocracy and nothing else. Just to give you example of Arjun Tendulkar (Sachin's son), he recently got rejected for even Mumbai's Ranji squad. For decade or so it started happening in other spots too. 

I remember sometimes back some Ambedkarite (pro reservation) made a reservation jibe at the Cricket. With in a few hour everyone including Left-Centre-Right and literally every visible nutjob in the media ganged up together against this idea.

Actually, I believe the Indian people always want to keep politics out of cricket, that is a really good thing. I personally believe sports and politics should not mix with each other. But we have seen some problems happening in India because the cricketers played badly (talking about the problem that was created after the 2007 world cup). I believe India has come a long way since that. Everyone is quite understanding and always thinks rationally.

[Sithara007]

India has fair amount of problems when it comes to bigotry and religious fanaticism but when it comes to cricket then there is virtually no drama at all, it's all about meritocracy and nothing else. Just to give you example of Arjun Tendulkar (Sachin's son), he recently got rejected for even Mumbai's Ranji squad. For decade or so it started happening in other spots too. 

I remember sometimes back some Ambedkarite (pro reservation) made a reservation jibe at the Cricket. With in a few hour everyone including Left-Centre-Right and literally every visible nutjob in the media ganged up together against this idea.

At first I laughed at the idea of quotas within the national cricket team. But then I realized that we already have that in international cricket. The South African national team has so called "transformation quotas" which calls for 7 non-white players in the national squad playing XI. Most of the top performers in South African domestic cricket are white players. But these guys will never get a chance to represent their country. Anyway, these sort of policies will never be implemented in Asian countries. No one supports such quotas here.

[YinShuiSiYuan]

At first I laughed at the idea of quotas within the national cricket team. But then I realized that we already have that in international cricket. The South African national team has so called "transformation quotas" which calls for 7 non-white players in the national squad playing XI. Most of the top performers in South African domestic cricket are white players. But these guys will never get a chance to represent their country. Anyway, these sort of policies will never be implemented in Asian countries. No one supports such quotas here.

It may be funny for many people but it's a serious concern for people living in South Africa who are for decades abused by white supremacy. Top performers of SA are no doubt white du Plessis, de kock but what's there use when they prefer IPL while national squad losing to weak team like Bangladesh in ODI series at home.

[laurenB7742]

India has fair amount of problems when it comes to bigotry and religious fanaticism but when it comes to cricket then there is virtually no drama at all, it's all about meritocracy and nothing else. Just to give you example of Arjun Tendulkar (Sachin's son), he recently got rejected for even Mumbai's Ranji squad. For decade or so it started happening in other spots too. 
I remember sometimes back some Ambedkarite (pro reservation) made a reservation jibe at the Cricket. With in a few hour everyone including Left-Centre-Right and literally every visible nutjob in the media ganged up together against this idea.

At first I laughed at the idea of quotas within the national cricket team. But then I realized that we already have that in international cricket. The South African national team has so called "transformation quotas" which calls for 7 non-white players in the national squad playing XI. Most of the top performers in South African domestic cricket are white players. But these guys will never get a chance to represent their country. Anyway, these sort of policies will never be implemented in Asian countries. No one supports such quotas here.

But the problem is that Asian countries do have quotas. We just don't realize it. There is a certain amount of favoritism in almost all Southeast Asian countries. Several countries (I am not saying any names here) do not give a lot of bright players a chance to play at the national level just because they support the opposition party. That is quite equivalent to having a quota system in my opinion. Asian say that they don't support the quota system but inside they do the exact same.

[pakhitheboss]

India has fair amount of problems when it comes to bigotry and religious fanaticism but when it comes to cricket then there is virtually no drama at all, it's all about meritocracy and nothing else. Just to give you example of Arjun Tendulkar (Sachin's son), he recently got rejected for even Mumbai's Ranji squad. For decade or so it started happening in other spots too. 
I remember sometimes back some Ambedkarite (pro reservation) made a reservation jibe at the Cricket. With in a few hour everyone including Left-Centre-Right and literally every visible nutjob in the media ganged up together against this idea.

At first I laughed at the idea of quotas within the national cricket team. But then I realized that we already have that in international cricket. The South African national team has so called "transformation quotas" which calls for 7 non-white players in the national squad playing XI. Most of the top performers in South African domestic cricket are white players. But these guys will never get a chance to represent their country. Anyway, these sort of policies will never be implemented in Asian countries. No one supports such quotas here.

But the problem is that Asian countries do have quotas. We just don't realize it. There is a certain amount of favoritism in almost all Southeast Asian countries. Several countries (I am not saying any names here) do not give a lot of bright players a chance to play at the national level just because they support the opposition party. That is quite equivalent to having a quota system in my opinion. Asian say that they don't support the quota system but inside they do the exact same.

There is a big difference between favouritism and quota. A quota basically means a fixed seats for individuals belonging to a particular race or ethnicity. I am not sure about other south Asian countries but in India we do not have such kind of quota in cricket. Favouritism is present in India but it doesn't mean the whole team is selected based on it. Another important aspect of Indian cricket is that nepotism also doesn't work here.

[laurenB7742]

There is a big difference between favouritism and quota. A quota basically means a fixed seats for individuals belonging to a particular race or ethnicity. I am not sure about other south Asian countries but in India we do not have such kind of quota in cricket. Favouritism is present in India but it doesn't mean the whole team is selected based on it. Another important aspect of Indian cricket is that nepotism also doesn't work here.

The point that I was trying to make is the South African team did the quota thing openly and everyone knew what was going on.
But, in certain countries in Asia, there is not any hint of a quota system but there are a lot of bright players who are not getting any chance to play in the national team just because they support a political party that is not in power.

Actually, I am talking about the Bangladeshi selection of cricketers. If you do some research you will find that there are a lot of very good players who have a really good record in first-class cricket but they are not getting any chance just because they don't support the political party that is in power.

[bitgov]

There is a big difference between favouritism and quota. A quota basically means a fixed seats for individuals belonging to a particular race or ethnicity. I am not sure about other south Asian countries but in India we do not have such kind of quota in cricket. Favouritism is present in India but it doesn't mean the whole team is selected based on it. Another important aspect of Indian cricket is that nepotism also doesn't work here.

There is another factor call Luck, when it shines bright favouritism and quota remains at the back.
Nepotism is everywhere - be it sports or film industry, many kids of stars are struggling hard to get place in the industry but unfortunately/fortunately  they are not that popular like their parents.

[Sithara007]

There is a big difference between favouritism and quota. A quota basically means a fixed seats for individuals belonging to a particular race or ethnicity. I am not sure about other south Asian countries but in India we do not have such kind of quota in cricket. Favouritism is present in India but it doesn't mean the whole team is selected based on it. Another important aspect of Indian cricket is that nepotism also doesn't work here.

Agreed. Favoritism and nepotism are there in cricket (although not as much as it used to be there in the old times), but these are individual-based preferences and doesn't favor any particular religion or ethnic group. As we have seen, nepotism alone can't guarantee the survival of players. Kohli tried to stuff the national team with RCB players such as Navdeep Saini, Washington Sundar and Mohammed Siraj. But in the end, these players couldn't cement their positions in the national side and Kohli himself lost the captaincy.

[minairia3]

There is a big difference between favouritism and quota. A quota basically means a fixed seats for individuals belonging to a particular race or ethnicity. I am not sure about other south Asian countries but in India we do not have such kind of quota in cricket. Favouritism is present in India but it doesn't mean the whole team is selected based on it. Another important aspect of Indian cricket is that nepotism also doesn't work here.

Agreed. Favoritism and nepotism are there in cricket (although not as much as it used to be there in the old times), but these are individual-based preferences and doesn't favor any particular religion or ethnic group. As we have seen, nepotism alone can't guarantee the survival of players. Kohli tried to stuff the national team with RCB players such as Navdeep Saini, Washington Sundar and Mohammed Siraj. But in the end, these players couldn't cement their positions in the national side and Kohli himself lost the captaincy.

Yes, that is true. The difference between the quota system and nepotism/favoritism is that the quota system is actually directly affecting the selection of a cricket team for a long time. Like the players are going to be there even though there are other players who are the best fit for the job.

But in Favoritism, a player might get chances of playing but if they don't play well they will eventually be dropped.

So, eventually in my opinion the quota system causes a lot more harm instead of nepotism/favoritism. But I believe both are detrimental to the future of cricket.

[bitgov]

Yes, that is true. The difference between the quota system and nepotism/favoritism is that the quota system is actually directly affecting the selection of a cricket team for a long time. Like the players are going to be there even though there are other players who are the best fit for the job.

But in Favoritism, a player might get chances of playing but if they don't play well they will eventually be dropped.

So, eventually in my opinion the quota system causes a lot more harm instead of nepotism/favoritism. But I believe both are detrimental to the future of cricket.

This happens everywhere - those who are privileged have the ability to get the best out of everything. Unlike the middle class or lower middle class people who keeps on striving throughout their lives. No use of raising voice against nepotism - it stayed there and it will stay there forever. Chill!

[pakhitheboss]

There is a big difference between favouritism and quota. A quota basically means a fixed seats for individuals belonging to a particular race or ethnicity. I am not sure about other south Asian countries but in India we do not have such kind of quota in cricket. Favouritism is present in India but it doesn't mean the whole team is selected based on it. Another important aspect of Indian cricket is that nepotism also doesn't work here.

Agreed. Favoritism and nepotism are there in cricket (although not as much as it used to be there in the old times), but these are individual-based preferences and doesn't favor any particular religion or ethnic group. As we have seen, nepotism alone can't guarantee the survival of players. Kohli tried to stuff the national team with RCB players such as Navdeep Saini, Washington Sundar and Mohammed Siraj. But in the end, these players couldn't cement their positions in the national side and Kohli himself lost the captaincy.

Yes, that is true. The difference between the quota system and nepotism/favoritism is that the quota system is actually directly affecting the selection of a cricket team for a long time. Like the players are going to be there even though there are other players who are the best fit for the job.

But in Favoritism, a player might get chances of playing but if they don't play well they will eventually be dropped.

So, eventually in my opinion the quota system causes a lot more harm instead of nepotism/favoritism. But I believe both are detrimental to the future of cricket.

Cricket is a game of talent and skills when you implement quota you destroy the basic requirement of the game. I do not think quota should be imposed in sports as such. If you want to provide quota then give financial and coaching assistance to those new talents that are economically backward. You can implement quota at that level but not for selection.

[KennyR]

There is a big difference between favouritism and quota. A quota basically means a fixed seats for individuals belonging to a particular race or ethnicity. I am not sure about other south Asian countries but in India we do not have such kind of quota in cricket. Favouritism is present in India but it doesn't mean the whole team is selected based on it. Another important aspect of Indian cricket is that nepotism also doesn't work here.

Agreed. Favoritism and nepotism are there in cricket (although not as much as it used to be there in the old times), but these are individual-based preferences and doesn't favor any particular religion or ethnic group. As we have seen, nepotism alone can't guarantee the survival of players. Kohli tried to stuff the national team with RCB players such as Navdeep Saini, Washington Sundar and Mohammed Siraj. But in the end, these players couldn't cement their positions in the national side and Kohli himself lost the captaincy.

Yes, that is true. The difference between the quota system and nepotism/favoritism is that the quota system is actually directly affecting the selection of a cricket team for a long time. Like the players are going to be there even though there are other players who are the best fit for the job.

But in Favoritism, a player might get chances of playing but if they don't play well they will eventually be dropped.

So, eventually in my opinion the quota system causes a lot more harm instead of nepotism/favoritism. But I believe both are detrimental to the future of cricket.

Cricket is a game of talent and skills when you implement quota you destroy the basic requirement of the game. I do not think quota should be imposed in sports as such. If you want to provide quota then give financial and coaching assistance to those new talents that are economically backward. You can implement quota at that level but not for selection.

Quota will never workout with cricket, because this will also lead to improper judgement. Will the right person from the specific quota will be selected, no there corruption will play a role. Even now somehow things are getting on track amidst corruption and different forms of favouritism, nepotism, selection process. To keep things perfect everything needs to be transparent, but the same isn't possible.

[YinShuiSiYuan]

Agreed. Favoritism and nepotism are there in cricket (although not as much as it used to be there in the old times), but these are individual-based preferences and doesn't favor any particular religion or ethnic group. As we have seen, nepotism alone can't guarantee the survival of players. Kohli tried to stuff the national team with RCB players such as Navdeep Saini, Washington Sundar and Mohammed Siraj. But in the end, these players couldn't cement their positions in the national side and Kohli himself lost the captaincy.

Now kohli in next phase will lose his slot as batsmen from India  squad because of his stats. Kohli start as a player was perfect but he went too proud because of his performance that he started giving preference to players he like over there performance., result is in front of all of us.

[minairia3]

Cricket is a game of talent and skills when you implement quota you destroy the basic requirement of the game. I do not think quota should be imposed in sports as such. If you want to provide quota then give financial and coaching assistance to those new talents that are economically backward. You can implement quota at that level but not for selection.

Quota will never workout with cricket, because this will also lead to improper judgement. Will the right person from the specific quota will be selected, no there corruption will play a role. Even now somehow things are getting on track amidst corruption and different forms of favouritism, nepotism, selection process. To keep things perfect everything needs to be transparent, but the same isn't possible.

Yes, I agree.
Selection should be absolutely based on talent and skill. Otherwise, it deteriorates the quality of the team. Talented players will always be the first priority of a team and if the selectors think otherwise, it is very detrimental to the team. I don't think there should be any type of quota system in any sphere of sports. All players should be treated equally.

[Sithara007]

Now kohli in next phase will lose his slot as batsmen from India  squad because of his stats. Kohli start as a player was perfect but he went too proud because of his performance that he started giving preference to players he like over there performance., result is in front of all of us.

Well.. it is quite possible. Kohli is not in good form for the last 2 years or so, and there are so many talented youngsters waiting to replace him from his no.3 batting position within the national team. It needs to be seen for how long the BCCI will stick with him despite his poor performance. Hardick went through a similar lean phase and it took 2 years for the selectors to kick him out. If Kohli had concentrated on his game rather than all the drama such as Black Lives Matter and Diwali cracker ban, then he would have been able to perform much better. Maybe he should learn a lesson or two from the past legends such as Sachin Tendulkar or Rahul Dravid.