wer did ur poll go ? its closed

good one

cyborg closed it because u are only allowed to have 2 active polls at once...

lol havent really excelled this year?? tendulkar needs around 50 more runs to reach 1000 runs in an year!! again!!!!

Here guys...a perfect explanation by Sandeep Patil....nice article and everything makes sense


We don't respect our heroes


We don't respect our heroes. It is appalling that uncharitable comments are surfacing from all corners regarding Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly, all because India have lost the first two matches of the current one-day series to Australia.
Are these three responsible for the state of affairs? And that too because they happen to be seniors! How can we lose our perspective in such a short time? To doubt the integrity, commitment and ability of this fabulous trio amounts to nothing less than sacrilege. I am very hurt.
Do we need to remind poeple that Sachin, Sourav and Rahul are legends? You have to be lucky to see such cricketers and I should know, having worked with them from close quarters. Their loyalty is unflinching and their cricket absolutely impeccable. If India is faring badly, it is not because of them. The fault lies elsewhere.
Having carried Indian cricket on its shoulders, I am sure this trio deserves to be treated with compassion. It is unfair to question their place in the team. Personally, I think they need to play at the right positions. If Sachin, Sourav and Rahul are in the final eleven, they have to bat in the same order. There are no other positions for them.
Ponting bats only at number three; Hayden only plays as an opener; so does Gilchrist. The same policy should apply to our distinguished trio.
I know there has been talk of having Mahendra Dhoni at number three. There is merit in the argument but the urgency is misplaced. I have seen Dhoni grow as a cricketer. I was the coach when he was belting the bowlers mercilessly in Kenya for India `A'. He was simply breathtaking. All great players bat at three. So should Rahul, and Dhoni can wait.
Rahul's record proves. His presence lends balance to the team. He has been an outstanding batsman right through and can control the game at number three. This talk of utilising the power play with an attacking batsman doesn't appeal to me. What happens when we slide to be four wickets down in the first 15 overs, . And now that we have a ball change after 35 overs, it is important to have wickets in hand and it is here that Rahul's role assumes greater importance.
Sachin and Sourav have tormented bowlers for more than a decade as a dashing opening pair. Their association has been awesome. How short can public memory be! They all did well in England where we lost 3-4 matches. Sachin scored 374 with four half-centuries in which 71, 94 and 99 were in a winning cause. Sourav made 249 and Rahul 223. They lent quality to the team's campaign in difficult conditions.
There is too much banter about youngsters, youngsters. It is one thing to be young and another to be ready to deliver. Are our youngsters ready to deliver? I firmly believe that the youngsters need to earn their places and learn to wait.
Rahul and Sourav had to wait; Yuvraj and Kaif had to wait; Gautam and Uthappa had to wait; Sree Santh, RP and Irfan had to wait. Only Sachin never had to wait. Why don't we accept the fact that there is something called transition period for every team and there is a grooming process for every player.
Why are we always in a hurry to drop players when they come in and bring back players when they go out. It is a phenomenon known only to Indian cricket. It is not going to help anyone.

It is time we realize that Indian cricket is going through a tough phase. There is a new man at the helm. His style of captaincy is new and fresh, so please allow him to settle down as he takes his decisions. I have worked with him and with some of the youngsters and I know their time will come. Let us not be in a hurry to pick and discard after every match that India lose. India are playing against the best team in the world and things should be seen in the proper perspective before we draw conclusions.
The calendar is packed and the youngsters will get their chances but not at the expense of experienced players. I would also request our administrators to avoid conflicting statements. The BCCI should have just one spokesman on team matters. What was the need for Mr Niranjan Shah to publicly embarrass Sourav at Hyderabad?
I appeal to all cricket fans to be reasonable towards the team. And please treat Sachin, Sourav and Rahul with the respect they deserve. They have served Indian cricket with dignity and until the time they decide to retire, please support them. Such heroes have been rare in Indian cricket.

Chief selector Dilip Vengsarkar on Saturday issued a stern warning to India's senior players, saying that performance alone will grant them a place in the team.
Conveying a strong message to non-performers, Vengsarkar said that many young players were waiting in the wings and no body could take their place for granted.
"Definitely, the thresh-hold has reduced. No question about it. There are many players like S Badrinath and Suresh Raina who are performing with the India 'A' side. These guys are waiting for their chance and you cannot ignore them," Vengsarkar said.
"It's a professional set-up and nobody can take their place for granted," he was quoted as saying by Mumbai's 'Mid Day' newspaper on Saturday.
Although Vengsarkar did not take name of any senior player, he was apparently referring to the Big Three -- Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly -- who have not contributed much with the bat in the ongoing one-day series against Australia.
While Tendulkar has scores of 0, 16 and 43, former captain Dravid has managed only 31 and 0. Ganguly, who suffered a hamstring injury in the rain-marred first match in Bangalore, had to sit out for subsequent two games.
Vengsarkar also came down heavily on Mumbai off-spinner Ramesh Powar, who has been below-par in the series.
"If you get picked as a frontline bowler, then you have to bowl 10 overs," Vengsarkar said.
"Plus, if your fielding is found wanting and you do not contribute with the bat, the team is obviously at a disadvantage. Ramesh has to get fitter and field better. He also has to improve his bowling," he said.
"We are not a great fielding side anyway. In the Hyderabad match, Australia saved about 25 runs on the field. If we had fielded that way, the match would have been much closer," he added.
On preferring left-arm spinner Murali Kartik ahead of Prgyan Ojha, he said "Ojha is very young... Just 21. It is not fair to unleash him against a side like Australia. We need to groom youngsters. Kartik is experienced and offers us better variation than two off-spinners."



Source: Hindustan Times

beautifully written article do read!

Phasing Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid out
What to do with the Big Three?
Sambit Bal
October 11, 2007


Perhaps playing just two of the Big Three in each one-day match is the way forward © Getty Images

Australia are so damn good that they can make cricket boring. It took a below-par performance from them in Chandigarh - 16 wides were bad enough but that they cost 15 further runs would point to a wretched day for Adam Gilchrist behind the wicket - to bring the series, which was fast becoming a contest only in terms of bad behaviour, alive.

Till then, the Indian supporters, who had only a week to savour the Twenty20 glory, were growing increasingly restless. With each defeat, the cry got more shrill: how long can India carry the Big Three?

Carry? How short the public memory is. In the last one-day series India played, Sachin Tendulkar was their best batsman, playing strokes that seemed to belong to his glorious past; he had two 100-plus partnerships with Sourav Ganguly, who has batted as well in the last few months as he has ever done in his career; and Rahul Dravid shook off his indifferent Test form to play a couple of sublime innings down the order.

Yes, Tendulkar has looked shaky against Brett Lee, Ganguly ponderous, and Dravid is yet to hit his straps. And it's also true that one-day cricket requires energy, sharp reflexes, lightness of feet, and strong throwing arms. Yet the manner in which Australia resumed normal service in the 50-over game should have been evidence enough that this form requires different skills than Twenty20. In comparison to the shortest form, one-day cricket allows bowlers proper spells and captains to keep men in catching positions. In conditions that are kind to bowlers, it calls for batsmen to buckle down and survive a few overs. In more simplistic terms, there is a greater premium on wickets early on: it's far easier to recover from 30 for 4 in the 20-over game than in the 50-over one.

It wasn't pretty watching Tendulkar struggle against Lee in Chandigarh, but without his battling innings India were unlikely to have got to 291. In fact, there was a chance they would have been bowled out for under 200, and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who is yet lose his innocence and candour at press conferences, admitted as much. It was easier for a fellow cricketer to see the value in an innings like that.

Yet, India need to start building for the future. There are no two ways about it. They were fortunate in the last decade to be blessed with abundance. Tendulkar is a batsman of a lifetime and Dravid isn't far behind. And that they had VVS Laxman and Ganguly to back those two up was a rare stroke of luck. It has been a worry for the last couple of years that their departure will leave Indian cricket hollow. Losing them together would be a blow too severe to bear and logic dictates that their departures are phased out.

One-day cricket would be the natural place to start. Laxman and Anil Kumble, another giant who belongs to the same era, are already out of the ODI equation. It can be argued that India can afford to blood younger players in a form that puts less of a premium on traditional cricket skills than Test cricket. Also, one-day cricket provides a natural evolutionary cycle in the form of the World Cup. Countries can plan building their teams around the game's premier tournament. India need to ask themselves how many of their senior players will be around for the next edition in 2011, and whether the team will not be better served by starting to groom players who will be.

But, as always, the real issues are in danger of being overlooked by a nation heady with the unexpected success in the World Twenty20, one that has begun to chant the anthem of youth with an impatience that has a near-vulgar edge to it. This clamour for youth is based not entirely on cold logic and cricket sense but rather on sentiment. Building for the future should not necessarily mean disregarding the present, and nor should age be the overriding factor in the selection of the team. If Tendulkar must be replaced, he must be replaced by a man worthy of his shoes - he remains a considerable batsman even in his obvious decline.

Nor is it any use picking a team that is unable to compete in the most challenging of arenas. It is true India must be willing to absorb some pain for long-term gain, but just as winning is a habit, so is defeat. The challenge for the Indian selectors is to balance the need for building for the future with the immediate imperative of winning.

Building for the future should not necessarily mean disregarding the present, and nor should age be the overriding factor in the selection of the team. If Tendulkar must be replaced, he must be replaced by a man worthy of his shoes - he remains a considerable batsman even in his obvious decline


Ultimately a cricket team is about the right mix. The ideal blend is a combination of energy and spirit of youth and pedigree, experience and knowledge. India can't win in one-day cricket consistently without being sharp in the field and between the wickets, but neither can they win if they fail to ride out tough conditions and to bat out 50 overs. One-day cricket is not merely about hustling, it also allows for consolidation and construction, and every now then it requires rescue missions - particularly outside the subcontinent, where pitches offer more movement and bounce.

It is true that India can't afford too many plodders who need to be hidden in the field. It's nothing to do with age. Not all of India's young players are natural athletes; some are, in fact, decidedly clumsy. But that said, having Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Zaheer Khan in the playing XI is to perhaps concede far too many easy runs in the field. Indian selectors have to weigh that, and the runs they lose out on by their lack of spring between the wickets, with the value they offer in terms of pure skills.

In the wake of a comment from Dilip Vengsarkar, the chief national selector, that seemed to put his senior colleagues on notice, Dhoni has described them as "indispensable". Apart what they add on the field, he has spoken about the learnings they can offer the young players by just being around in the dressing room. Dhoni's defence was perhaps partly motivated by the need to keeping the dressing room healthy, but there was also ring of truth to it.

But Indian cricket will need to take decisions, and that process mustn't be clouded by what they do or don't achieve in the series against Australia and the one against Pakistan. Those decisions must be based on sound principles, an eye on the future, and the balance in team composition. Whether this is to be achieved through a rotation of policy or by a gradual phasing-out is a decision the selectors must ponder. And all of this must be accomplished without intrigue, without bowing to popular sentiments, and with transparency and a clear vision. Players, particularly those who have served Indian cricket with distinction, must be taken into confidence and told where they stand.

It's not a lot to ask for. But the way Indian cricket runs, it will be stretching optimism to expect it.

source - cricinfo

Seniors are the blue chip stocks, sure to deliver

Friday October 12, 03:03 AM



Sachin Tendulkar is right, four hundred is just a number. It is also a monument, not yet a memorial! It is a monument to longevity as much as it is to excellence, passion and fitness. It is not just an acknowledgement of the fact that you are good enough to be picked four hundred times but of the fact that you don't mind young men running in trying to knock your head off, stump you short, sneak another run from you in the deep and snarl at you the way you wouldn't allow your son to!
It is also an aspirational number for an older man who has befriended youth and managed to get so far. When you look at players good enough to play three or four hundred games you don't analyse them every match, or every four matches. These are blue chip stocks that might see dips but which inevitably deliver over a wider horizon. You sell them for meteoric stocks at your peril.
So is it time for these blue chips to be phased out? If India's success at Twenty20 is the argument, it is a flawed one because a quick 25 doesn't quite have the same ring to it over 50 overs. And yet, fearless youth needs to be given an opportunity. The idea of rotating the seniors seems sound when spoken but tends to weaken before the primary objective of putting the best possible side on the park everytime. Is Rohit Sharma a better player than Rahul Dravid on current form? Is Robin Uthappa a stronger alternative to Sourav Ganguly?
Sometimes, faced as we are by dizzying changes, we tend to believe that is the solution. It is merely an alternative path and one that we must assess with care. The end of this series against Australia might be a good time to pause and reflect on the path that the selectors need to choose. The last two games will be very interesting. But it isn't only the seniors there is a buzz about. This series has been played with extraordinary rancour and some strangely holier-than-thou statements have surfaced. The best sound in this game is still that of one object on another; willow upon leather; bat upon stump or pad, ball hitting palm. The moment the lip starts dominating, the game loses something and there is no doubt this series has been the poorer for the dialogues, largely inane, on the field and in print.
You can see why India came out firing and into Aussie domain. It is not always that those that give can take in equal measure, and by turning the heat on Australia India wanted to see if the pressure got to the visitors. It did, but sadly India's verbal aggression wasn't mirrored on the field and maybe India need to do it differently, be a little more selective, a little shrewder. And there is no greater aggression that an outswinger beautifully bowled, or a pull shot jauntily played or a catch easily taken or the stumps scattered from an acute angle. The high ground in a high stakes game belongs to he who is calm in the mind.
It doesn't always matter what gestures the body makes or what sounds escape the lips as long as the mind is calm, ready and poised. And that is something that Sreesanth must learn. He can either resemble a clown, which he does sometimes, or he can seek to play the monk which will be disastrous. He needs to find the middle ground, some place to channel his inherent aggression. He cannot lose it but his aggression cannot lead him astray. A few evenings with Anil Kumble, the most aggressive Indian bowler I have seen, will not be wasted.
Sadly it isn't only the field on which there is far too much being said. The coach, currently a temporary resident, isn't happy with his former teammate, the chairman of selectors, who has a slightly longer tenancy. But it suddenly seems unfashionable to express a point of view in private. The camera and the microphone are far more alluring. Look how they have cast a permanent wicked spell on the secretary who has an insatiable need to be heard. It is not his strength.
Hopefully the focus will be more on cricket in the last two games. And with it the awareness that there is still a big difference between the two shorter forms of the game.



Yahoo

The Round Table
"Go forward towards youth"
October 23, 2007
Download (4071k) | Listen (23:09) | Podcast



Ian Chappell: "India's tour of England was the best I've seen Sourav play in a long time. He looked very confident" © GNN photo

Tony Greig: Hello and welcome to the Cricinfo Round Table.

After the euphoria of India's ICC World Twenty20 win, it is agonising times for Indian cricket again as the Australians have bullied them into submission at home. And as is always the case with Indian cricket, the fans and the media are baying for blood. Is it time for India's ageing superstars to go? Should experience give way to the fearlessness of youth? Is Indian cricket better off without the big three - Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and Sourav Ganguly?

To analyse these questions and hopefully arrive at an answer, I have with me Ian Chappell, former captain of Australia, and Sanjay Manjrekar, former India batsman and someone who is well versed with the goings-on in Indian cricket. Welcome, gentlemen.

There is constant chatter about how the big three of Indian cricket - Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid - need to be phased out. I'm not really sure that they need to be phased out, but there is speculation that they should, especially from the one-day arena. Just to start off this debate, do you feel such calls are justified? Let's hear from you first, Sanjay.

Sanjay Manjrekar: I think people are looking at this issue in the wrong way, completely upside down. I think the focus of the people who have been given the responsibility of running Indian cricket should be, "Okay, we have this Indian one-day team. How has it fared in recent times? What sort of promise does it hold for the future?" I think these are the first thoughts that have to be there in their minds. The other should be a goal for the Indian team - a realistic goal; maybe reaching No. 2 in the world one-day rankings, or staying in the top three for the next four to five years. They have to be thinking, "These are our expectations; is this team fulfilling those expectations?" I think that is the way to look at it.

The answer is, of course, no. India has been languishing in the middle of the one-day rankings. They were knocked out in the first round of the World Cup. There was that victory in the series in Ireland, but I don't know how much weight you can give to that. This Indian one-day team hasn't performed as per expectations. I think more is expected from them.

Once they settle that, you need to start looking at personnel. It's not just about a Tendulkar or a Ganguly, it's about a, b, c, and d, and whether everybody is helping the team achieve its goals. I think this is how it needs to be looked at.

TG: Ian, do you think the calls are justified?

Ian Chappell: The first thing that you have got to do is pick your best team. That's more easily done in the Test match arena than in the one-day arena, because you are looking forward to a World Cup every four years as far as the 50-over team is concerned. At some point you have to start thinking whether the team you have is going to give you a chance of winning the World Cup. They probably have to start thinking about that now.

Your priority as a selector should be to pick the best team, but there is no point picking your best team if you then say to yourself, "Well two or three of these guys aren't going to be here for the next World Cup." At some point, as a selector you've got to say to yourself, "Well, this might be our best team but if it's not going to help us win the World Cup, which is four years away, then we have got to decide when is the point where we start phasing some of these guys out and get younger players in who are going to give us a chance to win the World Cup."

It's no good throwing guys out just because they are older. I saw the form of all three, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid, in England. That was the best I've seen Ganguly play in a long time. He looked very confident. I think Tendulkar has got himself sorted out a bit. He's never going to be the player that he used to be. Indian audiences are going to have to accept that fact, and I think he has accepted that too. Dravid struggled in the Test arena but played brilliantly at times in the one-day arena. At this stage I think they all have got something to offer to Indian cricket, but the question the selectors need to ask is: do they think all three are going to be there for the next World Cup or not. If not, then they need to start thinking very soon about phasing out the ones that they think won't be there.

TG: Sanjay, do you think the current Indian selectors are strong enough to take this decision? What both you and Ian have just said is that there is a situation now where you have just got to bite the bullet as a selector. Do you think that's possible?

I don't think this selection committee is strong. Unfortunately, the biggest bane of Indian cricket is the fact that the selectors and the important office bearers in the BCCI get affected by the popular mood in the country. They never take decisions that are really good for Indian cricket
Sanjay Manjrekar



SM: Well the answer is no. I don't think this selection committee is that strong. Unfortunately the biggest bane of Indian cricket is the fact that the selectors and the important office bearers in the BCCI get affected by the popular mood in the country. They never take decisions that are really good for Indian cricket, although the masses and the fans think otherwise. They are constantly reacting to what the fans and the media are saying. So we don't really make very mature moves in Indian cricket. They are all influenced by the populist mood at that time.

IC: Going back to the previous selection panel, I think that Kiran More did have the courage to take some decisions.

SM: Correct.

IC: Unfortunately, I think he was a bit let down by the younger players, who, when they were given the opportunity, didn't really grab it. But I think he definitely had the strength of character [to take those strong decisions]. Selection, and getting the right selectors, is far more important than the coach. My first priority would be to get the right selection panel, not just at the international level but even at the domestic level, to ensure that the right sort of players are getting filtered through to the top from below.

TG: Well, that certainly seems to be one of the problems in India, judging by what Sanjay has to say.

One of the arguments that is being put forward is that the big three are all are on the wrong side of 30, yet we've got guys like Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden who are 35, and there is no clamour in the Australian media for their heads. Do the Aussies have the answer in this regard, Sanjay?

SM: I do not believe in this age factor too much. I was in Sri Lanka recently and I watched Sanath Jayasuriya, at the age of 38, bat. There was this one instance where he ran three and he was keen to come back for the fourth run, but the debutant who was batting at the other end seemed tired and he refused it and Jayasuriya was furious. So do you put numbers on a Jayasuriya, saying that he's 38 and he's too old? No. I think it's all about adding value to the team. Yes, when you think about the World Cup four years from now, Jayasuriya might not be in the Sri Lankan team, but I think it's important to keep winning the matches that you will be playing in the immediate future.

I'm very conscious of the ranking system that we have. Let's not get completely carried away by it, but it is a general reflection of the way the team is performing on a day-to-day basis. India have to keep an eye on that as well. They have never remained at the No. 2 or No. 3 position for any considerable length of time. Just using that as a yardstick, the Indian seniors aren't really contributing much to that. We aren't really playing well as a one-day team; we aren't going anywhere as far as one-day cricket is concerned. So that is my problem as far as the seniors are concerned. If they were making a great impact, if our team had reached the finals of the World Cup or was No. 2 in the rankings, then yes, it becomes a delicate decision whether you phase out the seniors, looking ahead to the World Cup, but there's no denying that the Indian team's performance has been average for far too long.

TG: Ian, what about age and fielding, for example?

IC: The big difference between the Australian and the Indian team in the situation that you have just mentioned is that Australia is a very good fielding side, whereas India is a very poor one-day fielding side. That, to me, is the greater problem with the big three. It's not their age. I don't care what the age of a guy is; if he can still perform then he's in the team as far as I am concerned. The reason why no one is clamouring for either Gilchrist's or Hayden's head is that, one, they are performing; and two, neither of them is a liability in a very good fielding side. India is such a poor fielding side, and I think that's where this problem is created.

TG: It's all very well calling for the blood of some of the older players. But, Sanjay, are there enough players in the domestic scene in India who can step into the shoes of a Sachin, a Rahul or a Sourav?

SM: That's one thing that is always being written about: who is there to replace Tendulkar? My answer to that is, no one. But look at India's situation as a team and its results in one-day cricket. Say, four years from now these players are not around; do you think India will hit rock bottom? No, it will still be a pretty decent one-day team and will still be winning matches. We should not think of whether there is anyone to replace Sachin or not. He is just far too good a player to be replaced.

But the youngsters who come through, once they are playing with other youngsters and are not overawed by the personalities around them, they will settle down. The feeling I am getting now is that the body language of this team is different from that of the Twenty20 side. When you have such heavyweight personalities in the side, some of the youngsters do get bogged down. That is an Indian trait that we have.

When Sunil Gavaskar retired in 1987, people had the same fear: who will replace Gavaskar? Tendulkar came in two years later. Kapil Dev was replaced by Anil Kumble. I have great faith in the waters of India. We will continue to produce good enough cricketers to remain a pretty decent team in international cricket.



Ian Chappell: "Kiran More had the strength of character to take strong decisions. Unfortunately he was a bit let down by the younger players" © AFP

TG: Ian, Australia have been in a similar sort of a situation where they lost one or two of their big players. Is it the same sort of thing in India?

IC: I think the Australian selectors have always been mindful of a situation where they are going to lose probably up to half a dozen really good players around the same time, and I think they have been trying to filter younger players through. If they've not actually picked them in the side, they've tried to get them ready - take them on some tours and get them used to touring with Australia and get them used to the feeling of being part of an Australian side. It's not always the easiest thing to do. Guys like [Shane]