The time has again come when even people who did not know that a test series was about to begin before they heard that India lost three matches awfully have become cricket experts. All of us have an opinion today. We either want x, y, z to be dropped or l, m, n to come in or the captain to be changed or the coach to be sacked or the practice sessions to be made compulsory or the go-carting to be banned. If you ask me what my opinion is, despite being a test cricket fan, I'm confused. So I chose to question the opinion that others have and try to derive some logic out of what I've been hearing if not for all, for few.
On Dhoni's captaincy - True. The guy did well as a captain. Though the world cup was won here in India where our players are too good, it looked like Dhoni played his role quite efficiently.. The same players in Australia or South Africa appear almost like their favorite Sharad Pawar at an international conference.. It looked like the captain had less to do in the world cup tournament, he had lesser to do in Australia. Yet, he is given credit for both the results. However, yes changing the captain would be a good idea since you never know, the captain must have had something to do in Australia which he didn't!
On Dravid and Laxman's retirement - Whenever results have been horrible, there's tendency to target the older ones, more specifically, Dravid and Laxman in the current squad. They are easy targets. Both of them are being asked to retire mainly for one of the following or both.
i) They are aged and their performance has come down. Dravid has come 'down' because he has been bowled five times this series, and Laxman has to retire because his average has been too low.
ii) It's time to bring in new guys which is the first step to ensure better performance in tests.
Laxman played well against West Indies both in West Indies and in India and Dravid has been doing well consistently and was the only batsman who scored runs in England. So, it hasn't been the case that they have been performing badly for a long time and they are still there in the team. They've had one bad series. Just one. Considering the batting averages of other batsmen, Dravid's average isn't too bad. I'm not forgetting that Dravid has been bowled out five times in a series but I'm also not forgetting that Sachin was bowled twice, was out for lbw twice. He repeatedly got out for lbw in England and nobody asks why he hasn't worked on it inspite of being the best batsman in the world. Nobody questions his form. Yes he has a better average this series but it hasn't been as good as Dravid's average in England. Dravid's fans can say "Out of five, he was bowled out at least twice for deliveries that were too good for any batsman".
If we are seriously thinking about the future and that is why we want the fresh blood to come in, why didn't we think about it when Dravid or Laxman were playing well? When Laxman made 170 odd runs against West Indies, why didn't we tell him "That was great dude, now better retire. You are 37, so go gracefully, we need to look at the future as well and you hanging in there still won't help the nation anyway." When everything is going well at present, nobody cares. When something goes wrong, we are suddenly worried about future! Why aren't we asking Sachin to retire? He's aged too and if he retires, another place gets created for a youngster. Okay, we want that 100th 100 but do we ask him to retire after that. Definitely not. We allow him to play as much as he wants. Also, why do we care to wait for the 100th 100!? Does it do good to Indian cricket anyway?
Like I said earlier, I've no opinions. Laxman's retirement might help the team. I do not know. The point is that I've just noticed that we people criticize according to our convenience. All those renowned critics who have been shouting aloud that Dravid or Laxman should retire on social networking sites and blogs know that it's not a good time to ask Sachin to retire considering that people would stop reading them if they write so. However, logically, if you are asking Laxman to retire, there are no enough reasons to why Sachin shouldn't.
There's a certain amount of selfishness in all the opinions that we encounter. I being a die hard Dravid fan, would want him to play forever. Sachin's worshipers would want to see him making a 100 partnership with his son at MCG. Such opinions, despite being illogical, demoralize the players too. It's quite interesting to study how our thought process go and despite having loopholes, attempts to make strong points.
On Dhoni's captaincy - True. The guy did well as a captain. Though the world cup was won here in India where our players are too good, it looked like Dhoni played his role quite efficiently.. The same players in Australia or South Africa appear almost like their favorite Sharad Pawar at an international conference.. It looked like the captain had less to do in the world cup tournament, he had lesser to do in Australia. Yet, he is given credit for both the results. However, yes changing the captain would be a good idea since you never know, the captain must have had something to do in Australia which he didn't!
On Dravid and Laxman's retirement - Whenever results have been horrible, there's tendency to target the older ones, more specifically, Dravid and Laxman in the current squad. They are easy targets. Both of them are being asked to retire mainly for one of the following or both.
i) They are aged and their performance has come down. Dravid has come 'down' because he has been bowled five times this series, and Laxman has to retire because his average has been too low.
ii) It's time to bring in new guys which is the first step to ensure better performance in tests.
Laxman played well against West Indies both in West Indies and in India and Dravid has been doing well consistently and was the only batsman who scored runs in England. So, it hasn't been the case that they have been performing badly for a long time and they are still there in the team. They've had one bad series. Just one. Considering the batting averages of other batsmen, Dravid's average isn't too bad. I'm not forgetting that Dravid has been bowled out five times in a series but I'm also not forgetting that Sachin was bowled twice, was out for lbw twice. He repeatedly got out for lbw in England and nobody asks why he hasn't worked on it inspite of being the best batsman in the world. Nobody questions his form. Yes he has a better average this series but it hasn't been as good as Dravid's average in England. Dravid's fans can say "Out of five, he was bowled out at least twice for deliveries that were too good for any batsman".
If we are seriously thinking about the future and that is why we want the fresh blood to come in, why didn't we think about it when Dravid or Laxman were playing well? When Laxman made 170 odd runs against West Indies, why didn't we tell him "That was great dude, now better retire. You are 37, so go gracefully, we need to look at the future as well and you hanging in there still won't help the nation anyway." When everything is going well at present, nobody cares. When something goes wrong, we are suddenly worried about future! Why aren't we asking Sachin to retire? He's aged too and if he retires, another place gets created for a youngster. Okay, we want that 100th 100 but do we ask him to retire after that. Definitely not. We allow him to play as much as he wants. Also, why do we care to wait for the 100th 100!? Does it do good to Indian cricket anyway?
Like I said earlier, I've no opinions. Laxman's retirement might help the team. I do not know. The point is that I've just noticed that we people criticize according to our convenience. All those renowned critics who have been shouting aloud that Dravid or Laxman should retire on social networking sites and blogs know that it's not a good time to ask Sachin to retire considering that people would stop reading them if they write so. However, logically, if you are asking Laxman to retire, there are no enough reasons to why Sachin shouldn't.
There's a certain amount of selfishness in all the opinions that we encounter. I being a die hard Dravid fan, would want him to play forever. Sachin's worshipers would want to see him making a 100 partnership with his son at MCG. Such opinions, despite being illogical, demoralize the players too. It's quite interesting to study how our thought process go and despite having loopholes, attempts to make strong points.
Stop making victims out of true legends. I believe that sportsmen should retire when people ask "Why?" and not "Why not". All three have missed that bus.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to your point, I believe if Laxman had retired after the WI tour or if Dravid had retired after the 3 England centuries they would have been fantastic stories and fitting ends to great careers.
Anyway, your emotional outpouring aside, I notice that nowhere in your post do you tackle the question "What's the best long-term strategy to build a No.1 side in 3 years?". You are missing the point too.
That's my point exactly! Why didn't we ask Dravid to retire after the England series or Laxman after the WI series? If we haven't done that and we are doing it now, we are definitely not looking at the future.
ReplyDeleteBuilding a no 1 side does require bringing in fresh talents but the thought process shouldn't start after a bad series alone. It should be irrespective of the team's performance. We knew that they are 37+.
I'm sure all 3 have missed the bus but we'll continue to be silent about Sachin. Our opinions aren't impartial for sure.
Your point is contradictory to mine. If Dravid had retired after England, I would have said "Why?" which would have been the right time. The wrong time is when people ask "Why not?" which is now. You and i are talking exactly opposite points.
ReplyDeleteAnd you still haven't talked about what's the right long-term strategy without being too attached to the point you are making. And I simply don't understand what you mean " It should be irrespective of the team's performance". That's the exact opposite of accountability! Ask your manager, for eg, if your team's long-term strategy is irrespective of your team's performance. Let's take another example; will you ask more questions from your govt when they are doing well or when they are doing bad? Give me one example where accountability should be irrespective of performance.
Hold accountable = ask them to retire? No! A team can have a long term strategy irrespective of current performance. It can be based on the 'state' of the current team. We knew these three are 37+.
ReplyDeleteI'm saying it would have been appropriate if we had asked Dravid to retire after the England series because a) It'd have helped him go with a fitting end to his career b) The project of building a strong team for the future would have got the start.
Look at Sachin now, we aren't asking him to retire because he's playing well? (though we are only blindly telling that to ourselves). By not asking him to retire, we are repeating the same mistake that we did with Dravid or Laxman. We keep applauding when we are playing well forgetting that we need to bring in someone to their place soon since they are going to retire anyway and once they fail, just because we start worrying about the present, we quickly relate it to out future plans and ask them to leave.
Besides these, my point was this. We criticize or judge as per our convenience. Nobody asks Sachin to retire now and we don't say why. We aren't sensible enough to be impartial. This post isn't about cricket predominantly!
Still waiting for the answer to the question "What's the best long-term strategy to build a No.1 India side in 3 years?". I guess you are not interested in answering that. I give up.
ReplyDelete