[joslicx]

Originally Posted by am1m

The question is whether one man has become bigger than the system and if his decision overrides everything else? By all accounts, not just Kohli, it looks like the Indian captain whoever he is has certainly become bigger than the rest of the system.

Usually it is true. Sometimes players do become bigger than life. It happens in all sports.

To give an example from football, take Messi at Barcelona. He is so talented that Barca built their team around him. Anybody who couldn't play with him or in his system got booted out. We saw the likes of Zlatan and even some Barca managers getting the boot to keep Messi in good humour. If you ask me it was ok as Messi is that good and he delivered great success to Barca during his time there. In the end that is what matters. Results matter.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Eddy

The only hypothetical is what would have happened with Ashwin. Everything else is real. We won and we are leading 2-1.

And all the cricket greats were talking of Ashwin till day 4. I didn't hear anyone missing him once the result went India's way. In fact, Joy Bhattacharjya had called it on Day 1.

You mean they should have kept on saying it, repeating themselves? Once a point has been made, it has been made just like pressing the elevator button repeatedly isnt going to bring the elevator any faster. And if we would have played one spinner, why would he have played instead of Shardul and not Jadeja? And speaking of hypotheticals, who knows with Ashwin in the team we might have bundled out England for less and he could have made a contribution with the bat as well given he has 5 test centuries. Hindsight is a genius, is it not?

Winning or loosing doesnt change the fact that one of the best spinner in the world, which by the way also has 5 test centuries to his name compared to Jadeja's 1, is sitting outside warming the bench.

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

You mean they should have kept on saying it, repeating themselves? Once a point has been made, it has been made just like pressing the elevator button repeatedly isnt going to bring the elevator any faster.

Winning or loosing doesnt change the fact that one of the best spinner in the world, which by the way also has 5 test centuries to his name compared to Jadeja's 1, is sitting outside warming the bench.

They did keep on repeating themselves for the first 4 days.

Yes, Ashwin is the best spinner in the world and has all the right credentials. But he did not fit in the combination that the captain + coach wanted to play so he had to sit out. And the combination won. Unlike the WTC final, where Ashwin played (and did well) but we lost.

I prefer a win even without X player playing, X being anyone.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Eddy

They did keep on repeating themselves for the first 4 days.

Well "they" saying is not repetition, its an individual opinion which happen to be the same as a lot of others. If would be different if say a person X kept on saying it for 4 days and even if it did, its not that it invalidates the point.

Originally Posted by Eddy

Yes, Ashwin is the best spinner in the world and has all the right credentials. But he did not fit in the combination that the captain + coach wanted to play so he had to sit out.

I am sorry but i just think this is good enough, its worse than an excuse - "he did not fit in the combination that the captain + coach wanted to play" In what way, form, class, his past performance?

Originally Posted by Eddy

And the combination won. Unlike the WTC final, where Ashwin played (and did well) but we lost.

You have the benefit of hindsight here. You do not know what would have happened if we played Ashwin. And we won the series in Australia without Virat, so get rid of him too. I dont understand your logic at all.

Originally Posted by Eddy

I prefer a win even without X player playing, X being anyone.

Everyone does but you are alluding to it after the fact, in hindsight, already knowing that we won. To give ourselves the best chance at winning, without knowing beforehand (via time machine), you would put out your best 11, not leave the best spinner in your team out sitting for 4 tests!

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Well "they" saying is not repetition, its individual opinions which happen to be the same as a lot of other. If would be different if say a person X kept on saying it for 4 days and even if it did, its not that it invalidates the point.

Yes, all the experts I heard for the first 4 days kept on repeating the same thing. Gavaskar, Manjrekar, Vaughan etc. Everyone. On all days, repeatedly. Till lunch on Day 5. Silence after that.

I am sorry but i just think this is good enough, its worse than an excuse - "he did not fit in the combination that the captain + coach wanted to play" In what way, form, class, his past performance?

Seriously? Even the fab 4 of Indian spin - they only played ONE match together. Why? It was not form, class, performance but the combination. Similarly here, Ashwin just didn't fit in Kohli's best 11.

You have the benefit of hindsight here. You do not know what would have happened if we played Ashwin. And we won the series in Australia without Virat, so get rid of him too. I dont understand your logic at all.

Yes, I do. The team that won the series in Australia was Virat's team - make no mistake about it. And at the cost of repeating myself, I will take a victory over "what would have happened if we played Ashwin".

To give ourselves the best chance at winning, without knowing beforehand (via time machine), you would put out your best 11, not leave the best spinner in your team out sitting for 4 tests!

So you think that the management's desire to win is any less than ours? Of course not. If anything they have far greater things at stake and hence they did what they thought was the best to win. They selected their best 11. And they won. So, let's give them credit. We have hindsight, they had foresight in this case.

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

To give ourselves the best chance at winning, without knowing beforehand (via time machine), you would put out your best 11, not leave the best spinner in your team out sitting for 4 tests!

Best 11 does not necessarily mean best 11 individual players.

I think the best 11 did play yesterday and won. What is the complaint here? India has been consistently winning on tours now. This is something I had never witnessed in my 30+ years of following India. Seriously what is the issue here? if Ashwin had to sit out, so what?

[am1m]

Originally Posted by joslicx

What is the complaint here? India has been consistently winning on tours now.

What is the message that backing Rahane and Jadeja while continuously overlooking Ashwin send? It's better to have a good relationship with the team captain so when you do go through a rough patch it helps? (And this is just a rough patch, both those players are world-class and will surely get back to form.) Anyway the rest of the team's performance will ensure we win and all this will be glossed over.

The Indian media anyway have learnt their lesson, don't criticize the present team power figures otherwise you don't get to cover the IPL. Former players have also learnt their lesson, always praise the current Indian team. Fans anyway swing from one extreme to the other only based on results. Who provides balanced views?

[am1m]

Originally Posted by joslicx

Best 11 does not necessarily mean best 11 individual players.

This is a great point, makes a lot of sense.

I guess that would help if the captain and team management made the effort to explain their decisions. As it stands now, it's become a sort of team vs the media thing. Or are most people also of the opinion that the Indian cricket team does not even need to explain themselves to anyone, as long as they are winning. And all we're expected to do is cheer from the sidelines.

[ebonho]

Originally Posted by am1m

What is the message that backing Rahane and Jadeja while continuously overlooking Ashwin send? It's better to have a good relationship with the team captain so when you do go through a rough patch it helps? (And this is just a rough patch, both those players are world-class and will surely get back to form.) Anyway the rest of the team's performance will ensure we win and all this will be glossed over.

The Indian media anyway have learnt their lesson, don't criticize the present team power figures otherwise you don't get to cover the IPL. Former players have also learnt their lesson, always praise the current Indian team. Fans anyway swing from one extreme to the other only based on results. Who provides balanced views?

You mirrored my thoughts.

Thanks.

I'm not a great fan of Kohli, and his scratchy form and headache inducing histrionics on field does not help.

Dhoni was a power center way bigger than Kohli, but his clout was never wielded so in your face.

Cheers, Doc

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Eddy

Yes, all the experts I heard for the first 4 days kept on repeating the same thing. Gavaskar, Manjrekar, Vaughan etc. Everyone. On all days, repeatedly. Till lunch on Day 5. Silence after that.

Still doesnt invalidate the point. What if we lost this test?

Originally Posted by Eddy

Seriously? Even the fab 4 of Indian spin - they only played ONE match together. Why? It was not form, class, performance but the combination. Similarly here, Ashwin just didn't fit in Kohli's best 11.

Jadeja isnt even in the same league as Ashwin as a bowler. Ashwin has taken 413 wickets in 7 tests he has played vs 106 wickets in 56 tests for Jadeja. They arent even in the same ballpark. I am not sure which fab 4 are you talking about, but was there an instance where one of the fab 4 wasnt playing in a series for no reason?

Originally Posted by Eddy

Yes, I do. The team that won the series in Australia was Virat's team - make no mistake about it. And at the cost of repeating myself, I will take a victory over "what would have happened if we played Ashwin".

I dont exactly know what do you mean by Virat's team and I wont get into hero worship when I can speak to cold hard facts. Ashwin took 16 wickets in the first three test matches of the same series, the best amongst the Indian bowlers.

Originally Posted by Eddy

So you think that the management's desire to win is any less than ours? Of course not. If anything they have far greater things at stake and hence they did what they thought was the best to win. They selected their best 11. And they won. So, let's give them credit. We have hindsight, they had foresight in this case.

I wonder what you response would have been if we had lost. Atleast my stance is the same irrespective of the result.

Originally Posted by joslicx

Best 11 does not necessarily mean best 11 individual players.

I am not sure what you mean? A best team is the best batsmen, best wicketkeeper and the best bowlers. It doesnt mean leaving you best spinner which by the way is a better bat as well and take in a part timer.

Originally Posted by joslicx

I think the best 11 did play yesterday and won. What is the complaint here? India has been consistently winning on tours now. This is something I had never witnessed in my 30+ years of following India. Seriously what is the issue here? if Ashwin had to sit out, so what?

Again, you know the result already which is why they are the best 11. What would have been your response if we lost?

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by am1m

This is a great point, makes a lot of sense.

I guess that would help if the captain and team management made the effort to explain their decisions. As it stands now, it's become a sort of team vs the media thing. Or are most people also of the opinion that the Indian cricket team does not even need to explain themselves to anyone, as long as they are winning. And all we're expected to do is cheer from the sidelines.

Well I am enjoying this phase of Indian cricket when we are fairly competitive all over the world and are winning things. Rarely does this happen, even to best sides. I have stopped worrying too much over things.

Maybe you have a point and you want some answers but I am not sure if those answers, even if they were to come, will satisfy you or everybody as we have billion plus people each with their own opinions and beliefs. Team cannot be dictated by what person A wants or person B wishes or person C doesn't want. It wouldn't work. Unfortunately the hard truth is the big winners or serial winners are quite dictatorial. Look at, for example, Steve Jobs or Musk or in sports people like Sir Alex Ferguson. They all did/do things their way, own success/failures and are extremely ruthless. Even Dhoni was the same.

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Still doesnt invalidate the point. What if we lost this test?

I wonder what you response would have been if we had lost. Atleast my stance is the same irrespective of the result.

I am conceding that the team management and the captain know better than me and others who are not a part of the active setup. And in this case, the win justifies the reason. I wanted Ashwin to play, but I would have played him instead of Shardul. And that would have taken a very crucial chunk out of India's performance.

Jadeja isnt even in the same league as Ashwin as a bowler. Ashwin has taken 413 wickets in 7 tests he has played vs 106 wickets in 56 tests for Jadeja. They arent even in the same ballpark

.

Of course they are not. But as I said its the combination. Virat wants 4 seamers. And since that lengthens the tail, he's played Jadeja instead of Ashwin. Look at Jadeja's batting stats, that's why he's playing. Not as a pure bowler. The stats you have quoted are erroneous. Jadeja has more than double the number of wickets than what you have written.

I am not sure which fab 4 are you talking about, but was there an instance where one of the fab 4 wasnt playing in a series for no reason?

Bedi, Prassana, Chandrashekhar and Venkat. Yes, they only played one match together. Reason = Combination of the 11.

I dont exactly know what do you mean by Virat's team and I wont get into hero worship when I can speak to cold hard facts. Ashwin took 16 wickets in the first three test matches of the same series, the best amongst the Indian bowlers.

Virat's team - the meaning is obvious if you think about it. Let's talk about cold facts = Who has won the most as an Indian skipper? Who is among the top 4 in the world of all time, when it comes to captaincy wins?

Again, you know the result already which is why they are the best 11. What would have been your response if we lost?

As I said, I wanted Ashwin to play. Virat thought otherwise and won, so I am conceding defeat. Look at it from his (and Joy's) point of view - it would have been so much easier to play Ashwin and get the world on his side. But he was convinced about his PoV and it resulted in a win.

The What Ifs that you ask can be many..

What if Joginer Sharma had conceded 15 runs in 07?
What if MSD at 4 got out early and we lost the 11 final?

Those things were captaincy punts which succeeded and got the respect they deserve. This series is no different. Both wins in this series have been, in no small part, because of the captaincy and strategy.

Kohli deserves all the kudos.... and would have got boos if we lost. But we didn't.

Over and out.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by joslicx

Well I am enjoying this phase of Indian cricket

Certainly, I'm feeling awesome about these wins in Australia and England too!

Originally Posted by joslicx

Team cannot be dictated by what person A wants or person B wishes or person C doesn't want. It wouldn't work.

Quite true, it's not about going with what everyone says or bending to popular opinion. The concern is with shutting out any form of constructive criticism with the usual stock answers.

Originally Posted by joslicx

Unfortunately the hard truth is the big winners or serial winners are quite dictatorial. Look at, for example, Steve Jobs or Musk or in sports people like Sir Alex Ferguson.

That may well be true, but the 3 examples you quote are/were heading private entities and were answerable to their shareholders. I'd like to think that a team that represents India owes a bit more to their common followers. And none of the 3 people you quote have shut down the media the way the BCCI and Indian cricket team does. The media have gone hard at them several times.

The point is not about pandering to popular opinion- I'm thrilled if a captain or coach takes hard decisions, if they back deserving players. I'm even more thrilled when Kohli gives back to the Aussies and the Brits what they've been dishing out for so long on the field and takes the fight to them!

But all I'm worried about is don't insulate yourself from all criticism. Some of it is warranted and every great man needs someone to keep him grounded. The way the entire cricket system has aligned itself around the captain's post starting with Ganguly, and the way the past 2 Indian captains have felt the need to overreact to any form of criticism, it seems like that basic fact is being ignored.

[Eddy]

Originally Posted by am1m

But all I'm worried about is don't insulate yourself from all criticism. Some of it is warranted and every great man needs someone to keep him grounded. The way the cricket system has aligned itself around the captain's post starting with Ganguly, it seems like that basic fact is being ignored.

I agree with this. And it stems right from the top. BCCI does not allow commentators to speak their mind. People like Ian Chappel do not agree to the guidelines and never get a contract when BCCI is involved.

This has got to stop, but who will bell the cat?

This situation can be remedied partially by ensuring that there is healthy competition within the team. Right now, there is no standout captaincy candidate in the test team other than Virat. Rohit has just started doing well as an opener, and the additional burden may not bode too well. And split captaincy has never worked in India. So Kohli does not have that pressure on him just yet.

So who is our next long term skipper? Iyer, Gill, Pant, Bumrah? There are no clear answers.

[joslicx]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

I am not sure what you mean? A best team is the best batsmen, best wicketkeeper and the best bowlers. It doesnt mean leaving you best spinner which by the way is a better bat as well and take in a part timer.

I can give you a fantastic example when assembling the best players in the world didnt work out well for a team. Apologies as I give examples from Football world. Thats my fav sport and I have bit more knowledge of that.

You can look at the Galacticos era at Real Madrid. Real signed up the best players in the world at that time (early 2000s). In that team they had the likes of Zidane, Ronaldo (of Brazil), Roberto Carlos, Michael Owen, Luis Figo, Van Nistoolroy, David Beckham, Iker Casillas etc. Curiously this bunch won very little (after some initial success) given their high profile!

Originally Posted by am1m

And none of the 3 people you quote have shut down the media the way the BCCI and Indian cricket team does. The media have gone hard at them several times.

Oh, then you do not know about Sir Alex. He famously did not at all talk to media for many many years! At least couple of times he was fined by the Premier League for this. He had a running feud with them as an article was published regarding his son's dealings as agent I think. Sir Alex found that disparaging and completely shut all his media engagements! By the way, Sir Alex is the most decorated coach/manager in British Football (possibly even all of Football).

Interestingly many people we may regard as examples of liberals have also known to take umbrage to criticism. You can go ahead and read the history of first amendment to our constitution (that put restrictions to free speech in India)