Cricket - FOREVER

Yes they did it with enormous ease. Great lads, they do it more frequently nowadays. Very special innings by the Indian batsmen, especially Kohli and Dhawan. Still I am wary of Indian bowling, hopeless bowling. If they continuously bowl like this and expect batsmen will save them, it cannot get more shameful than this. Batsmen cannot go on and on, bowlers need to remember this.

I'd say it's got more to do with the rules too. Yes we have a good batting and piss bowling. But we've had good batting for ages (though comparing the last era with this is like comparing cheese and chalk. Previous guard; Sachin, Dada, Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag batted well against better bowlers in more balanced contests). New rules stipulate a brand new ball after 25 overs and not more than 4 fielders in the deep after 40 overs. You have 10 overs of powerplay where there's not more than 3 (or is it 4?) in the outfield. Then you have 10 overs with the bowling and batting powerplay. That's 30 overs in all when most of the fielders are in the infield. Pitches are flat for ODIs in India. Boundaries are shorter. What do we have in it for the bowlers? 350 is the new 270 Fring

At least the older Indian batting giants scored against far better attacks. They lost a sizeble number of chases. But I'd credit the older guard for blooding the attitude into the newer guard. The string of 17 consecutive chased victories came under Dravid from 2005-2006. That team in flux built this attitude we are seeing in this team. Results were not evident in 2007. But a younger team inherited the values and are thrashing every team today. I'd still take the old days of romantic cricket when 250 was competitive where bowlers had an advantage over the bat. Bowlers are cannon fodder these days. Cricket is more entertaining when we have a low scoring thriller. High scoring thrillers don't buy me. Not sure if it's my fault. But if this is the way the game is headed, I'd rather watch only test cricket.

EA cricket replay paarthay effect, Survivor Yuvarasa/Project Raina against Mitchell was  to think these two were our first choice no.6 in tests 

I agree with this as DM stated above. http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013-14/content/story/684187.html If this continues,  the gap between batsmen and bowlers performance will become so big that eventually I see bowlers revolt against this unevenness. This is totally unfair. Cricket has always been batsmen friendly, but these new rules only make it more uneven and less interesting to watch cricket (even if they employed these rules to make it more interesting). Since these rules lead to high scoring games, this is will also lead to fatigue to batmen very early.

I don't want to compare against previous team with this one, as I know we will not get anywhere. Still I remember the heart-breaks I had with those great cricketers. Whenever I think of an easy semi-final 1996 loss to SL in Calcutta (our homeland) or the Sharjah last ball win by Miandad (and endless failure thereafter in Sharjah), or the feverish close loss to Pakistan in Chennai in 1999, I cannot forgive them, even if they played against better teams. All these were not impossible given the best batting teams among the world. If they were better bowlers, are we not better batsmen? Then why are we hailing them as greatest ever? Can't they win those matches for us? If Saqlin Mushtaq can win a match in India, why not our guys? There was not a single finisher of the game in India (except very very few), like a less known, Salim Malik, Saed Anwar, De Silva, Ranatunga, Ponting, Gilchrist etc who were also part of earlier era. That's where they completely lost on me. It's not my fault. I expected a lot from those greatest ever. If they would have won those matches, my thinking would not have gone other way. How many nights I would have slept in dis-belief that we lost.

Whereas the current crop however bad they are, they are able to dictate terms (from 2007, thanks to the bad era) on field without fear and we win very frequently (in ODIs). I agree there are new rules (this new rule came only recently), shorter pitches, hopeless bowling, flat pitches, so the earlier era always played on bouncy pitches, always against best bowlers? I can provide the statistics on what opponents and what pitches they scored the most and on what totals they scored against. Only the ratio is little different, but the fear factor was always there with them whenever they see big totals (250+) and if it is big match. Just imagine how many matches recently after 2007-8 we won when we thought we lost already. Did anyone think we will win the world cup 2011 when we lost two early wickets? I even switched off the TV in frustration after the second wicket, because that was the mentality we had that time (till that time). This team has changed that completely. Now I am watching the complete match believing they will win. We have to give credit where it is due and not blame that they did against a mediocre opponent, mediocre bowlers. After all they are our cricketers and what's more enjoyable than to see our team winning? Can I say West Indies of 70s won against mediocre opponents? Can I say Australia (great invincibles) triumphed three world cups against mediocre opponents? Yes that' true too, right? No. They played better on that day, that's what it matters ultimately, because the same rules applies to both the teams.

Thanks DM and V_S for the updates. I find it incredulous that they would change the rules of a game so much so as to completely change the nature of the contest, or rather tilt it completely in favour of the batsmen. This is nothing but playing to the gallery and I am disappointed that nether players nor commentators or writers are raising their voices against this unabashed selling out of the game. I can't think of any other sport where rules have been changed so much within such a short period - all with the aim of making the sport more entertaining and glamorous for the masses. The only problem being that more runs is certainly more glamorous, but most definitely NOT more entertaining. There has to be a tipping point sometime. How is the crowd for these matches?

Yeah, as DM pointed out, the rules are ridiculous now in ODIs.  Just 4 fielders in the last 10 and only 3 in 30 powerplay overs.  Compare that to only 15 overs of field restrictions.  Do people even remember how tough it used to be to force the pace in the 20-40 overs period.  As if all that is not enough, bats have improved like anything and Aus don't even have Brett Lee, let alone McGrath or Gillespie or Fleming.  Heck, they don't even have an effective ODI specialist bowler like Ian Harvey to contain the flow of runs.  On both sides, nobody managed an economy rate of lower than 5.  It used to be that medium pacers and spinners would give around 3 to 4.5 per over in the 20-40 segment.  Eh, this is what you get when you try to change the game just to please certain sections of the audience instead of doing what is right.  There may be a rain of boundaries and sixes now but the chases lack the tension and excitement of classic ODI chases from the 90s or even early noughties.  The day SA chased down what 430, it was clear the balance had shifted too far in favour of batsmen.   

The worst is some people using these matches as an example to berate the earlier greats.   In a cricket group, some people are saying Kohli has already achieved everything that Dravid did (i.e. that is how bad Dravid was).  Yeah, Dravid who hit a 129 ball 145 in a must win World Cup encounter against SL in ENGLAND.  I mean, sure, Kohli is talented but what's the damn hurry to pass judgment.  It is staggering to think that it was only around 1998 that Tendulkar finally made the transition - in the eyes of critics and former players - from a special talent to a true great of the game, after having played the game for 9 years.  I just hope the hype won't get to the new crop; would be a shame if they lose focus after being hailed as all time great so prematurely.

When Tendulkar toyed with Zimbabwe in Sharjah 1998, he was, er, supposed to be piling on for personal glory.  Never mind that there is not much to choose between Neil Johnson, Olonga, Streak and Paul Strang and this Aus bowling line up, except for the name 'Aus'.   Ha, Aus don't even have a decent leg spinner in their line up anymore.

fring151 wrote:Thanks DM and V_S for the updates. I find it incredulous that they would change the rules of a game so much so as to completely change the nature of the contest, or rather tilt it completely in favour of the batsmen. This is nothing but playing to the gallery and I am disappointed that nether players nor commentators or writers are raising their voices against this unabashed selling out of the game. I can't think of any other sport where rules have been changed so much within such a short period - all with the aim of making the sport more entertaining and glamorous for the masses. The only problem being that more runs is certainly more glamorous, but most definitely NOT more entertaining. There has to be a tipping point sometime. How is the crowd for these matches?

Actually, Dhoni did express his concern over the new rules in the presentation yesterday.  It has been the talking point of the series.  But the crowds are good; series is perfectly timed to coincide with Diwali season. I don't think there will be any tipping point.  Rather, this will become the new normal in ODIs and thereby make Tests look even more archaic.  People will forget that bowlers are a part of the contest and 'yorker' will be enshrined in the Smithsonian for posterity's sake.   What do they lose?  Only outdated loyalists like us...kids growing up on cricket now will lap it up and so will most people for that matter.   Heh, I can relate to the angst of serve and volley purists now even if I don't agree with everything they say.

Whereas the current crop however bad they are, they are able to dictate terms (from 2007, thanks to the bad era) on field without fear and we win very frequently (in ODIs).I agree there are new rules (this new rule came only recently), shorter pitches, hopeless bowling, flat pitches, so the earlier era always played on bouncy pitches, always against best bowlers?

in other words better bowlers/pitches? think so, take the OZ side for instance how many test quality bowlers did Kohls get to play? even Zimboks of 90s had bowlers of better quality than the OZ side which fielded yesterday. moving the odies away from major test centers 
have actually diluted quality of odi cricket in India.

Can I say West Indies of 70s won against mediocre opponents? Can I say Australia (great invincibles) triumphed three world cups against mediocre opponents? Yes that' true too, right? No. They played better on that day, that's what it matters ultimately, because the same rules applies to both the teams.

other than Eng and for certain extent Proteas(though their 90s>>00s) don't you think every other side has regressed?
looks like every other side are in transition phase and the quality of cricket or lack thereof only proves it.

Yeah, as DM pointed out, the rules are ridiculous now in ODIs.  Just 4 fielders in the last 10 and only 3 in 30 powerplay overs.  Compare that to only 15 overs of field restrictions.

Actually, Dhoni did express his concern over the new rules in the presentation yesterday.

I don't fancy the rule change every season but this statement is an attempt to paper over cracks, did he even complain
during the Champions trophy?  Pak/SA bowlers were doing alright with new rules yesterday. If OZ had their first choice bowlers, they would have won the Odi series by now. for a series which India were meant to boss over, India are playing catchup. In the last 12 odies at home, India have only won 50% so much for domination by young turks  

The worst is some people using these matches as an example to berate the earlier greats.   In a cricket group, some people are saying Kohli has already achieved everything that Dravid did (i.e. that is how bad Dravid was).  Yeah, Dravid who hit a 129 ball 145 in a must win World Cup encounter against SL in ENGLAND.  I mean, sure, Kohli is talented but what's the damn hurry to pass judgment.  

Toupee Bhogle even compared Kohls last 2 100s to Sach's sandstorm @ Sharjah :othadei:

It is staggering to think that it was only around 1998 that Tendulkar finally made the transition - in the eyes of critics and former players - from a special talent to a true great of the game, after having played the game for 9 years.  I just hope the hype won't get to the new crop; would be a shame if they lose focus after being hailed as all time great so prematurely.

exactly, pray tell how many test 100s Sach would have scored by then

Wizzy wrote:exactly, pray tell how many test 100s Sach would have scored by then

He scored 15. His 15th was the 155 n.o. at Chennai. That iconic innings. Kohli now has 4 test tons. For Christ's sake stop the comparisons. As for V_S saar's point on previous era teams, I have a different view. The tide started to turn in 2001 vs Australia. That team under Ganguly, Dravid and Kumble till 2007-08 won abroad consistently though they couldn't win a series in SA or Oz. The current crop are finding their feet and have been beaten 0-8 in England and Oz. And This Oz isn't even half as strong as the one that blanked us 0-3 in 1999. So yeah, unless they start winning abroad in tough conditions, especially in tests, it's hard to accept them as worthy successors of the older mantle. As for being spoken as getting the better of them, let them win against Oz in Oz and SA in SA  The older team held Steve frikking Waugh's Australia in Australia 1-1. But yeah, the current crop is talented and they need to be groomed with their feet on the ground. All this bettering the previous era is what gets my goat. Ashte.

crimson king wrote:Actually, Dhoni did express his concern over the new rules in the presentation yesterday.  It has been the talking point of the series.  But the crowds are good; series is perfectly timed to coincide with Diwali season. I don't think there will be any tipping point.  Rather, this will become the new normal in ODIs and thereby make Tests look even more archaic.  People will forget that bowlers are a part of the contest and 'yorker' will be enshrined in the Smithsonian for posterity's sake.   What do they lose?  Only outdated loyalists like us...kids growing up on cricket now will lap it up and so will most people for that matter.   Heh, I can relate to the angst of serve and volley purists now even if I don't agree with everything they say.

Hmmm.. I hope you're proved wrong though I get a sinking feeling you are probably right. I just read that Sunny and Dino boy have already opined that Kohli will surpass Sachin's ODI records.  . India are touring SA in December to play what, 2 tests    and 3 ODIs Well, anyway I am eager to see how Virat plays Steyn. Maybe I will catch that test series live just to see that contest play out as I haven't really watched him bat in his 'mature' phase. Personally I will be rooting for SA and Steyn in particular 

Guys,
I am not talking about test matches at all as I know it is a blasphemy to compare them with the current crop having watched matches since 35 years. The only reason I brought up that Chennai test is to highlight the same attitude we had that in ODIs those days. That was the last day and the score was almost like a ODI target, not that competitive, still we lost fearing against our arch-rivals. I was only talking about ODIs.

Again, you picked convenient quotes from me to answer regarding pitches, better bowlers, while there are no answers for those losses in 1996, 2003 etc. For me winning big and crucial matches counts a lot. Whoever does it I belong to them. As I said earlier, for me, Ranatunga and De Silva are better cricketers. Let's agree to disagree. We have never tried hard to win in the past 25 years and we have started achieving it in the last 4-5 years in a never believable fashion.

Every country prepare their pitches to their advantage for the home team to win. If pitches can decide matches, toss also decides a match. Why no one is talking about it. I can quote numerous examples on why a particular country lost just because of toss and what he opted once they won the toss. I completely agree that the quality of bowlers, pitches are all diluted, but as you say every country is in a transition phase, but that doesn't mean we should not appreciate till they age well. After all for me, a match is a match and a Indian win is a win.

There are always two sides of the coin and those two sides are never going to merge. There also comes the frame of mind with which you watch a cricket match. I always watch a cricket match with lot of passion and like everyone, I want India to win every match. I take it to heart when we win/loose, unlike others who move on. I have already expressed my concerns in this thread some time ago.

When you watch a ODI and see India win, your mind runs likes this. They are playing in flat pitches, very mediocre opponents, mediocre bowlers, shorter boundaries. Those were the times when we used to see those greats play against some mighty, fierce and quality bowlers, on bouncy pitches. This one is not even a contest and dismiss. You were happy then and sad now.

When I watch a ODI and see India win, my mind things likes this. For how many years we have been at the receiving end, thrashed left and right, and since how many years we have been eyeing for the world cup and a domination in cricket. What those "greatest ever" could not achieve in 25 years, these young lads are doing it comfortably and consistently. Those 25 years of ODI exile are wiped out in the last 4-5 years for me. I am happy now while I was sad then.

If you have your own way of watching/defining a cricket match, that's absolutely fine with me and I acknowledge your thoughts, please allow me to enjoy my own way of watching (even you say I am wrong).

You do have a point on the teams being unprofessional and losing without bottle in the late 90s. It was a one army. You are right. And this team would beat that team every day and twice on Sundays (if Sachin did not take off. He'd have murdered our current bowling in his peak everyday). This is a much better team, no doubt. Of course you have every right to enjoy the games the way you deem fit  I just have something personal about the team under Dada, Dravid and Kumble. So I may be biased w.r.t ODIs but I'd still say this team inherited values from that team. 326 in Lord's, 325 in Ahmedabad against better attacks and more even playing rules is what got us believing we could win a target of 300+ and be competitive for me. Yes we lost more. But those special wins were what got the Indian team going into the new age imho. The 17 consecutive chases under Dravid being a case in point. And conditions, rules, quality of opponents and playing fields have changed that that can't be held against this team. They can only play with what they have. Just that I'd be interested to see what they'd have done in say 1996 against SL in the semi finals on a dicey track against Murali, Jayasuriya and De Silva  May be not capitulated like the older team did. But I'd pretty much doubt if they'd have crossed a line. Call me a cynic because I am one

V_S wrote:What those "greatest ever" could not achieve in 25 years, these young lads are doing it comfortably and consistently. Those 25 years of ODI exile are wiped out in the last 4-5 years for me. I am happy now while I was sad then.

Er, because Waugh and Ponting's Aussies were strong enough to have crushed these so-called Kangaroos had they ever played against each other.   McGrath, Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting, Lee, Gillespie - I rest my case.  Not one member of their current side approaches their caliber - people are getting carried away just because India beat Australia.  But it's hardly the same Australian team.  Navjot Singh Sidhu called their bowling attack 'Popatwadi team'   while commentating during the Hyderabad Test and in this one instance, he's not too far off the mark.   

And who exactly helped India qualify for the 2011 World Cup Q/Fs in the first place with tons against England and SA?   This same player also scored back to back tons in two finals against a stronger Aus team in the CB series in 2008.   Other than Champions Trophy, the current team (sans Tendulkar/Dravid/Ganguly) has no other major trophy to show yet and the Ganguly led team split the trophy with SL in 2002 - not their fault that the matches got rained out.  Er, let them first wrap up this series at Bangalore? 

In the words of S Waugh at Sharjah, "We lost to a better player".   As much as I have grown fed up of Sachin hype, I will not be led into underestimating his achievements and the many trophies he helped bring home.  If the memory of those has faded with time, that is surely not his fault.

I don't know if you understood my posts clearly. Why are you always replacing that previous team with the current team and equating with the likes of Mcgrath and saying if these players can play against them? Did I ever make any such assumptions? Sorry, I cannot answer hypothetical questions/situations. All I am asking is, if you are celebrating those "greatest ever", why not they win for India. Winning some Q/F, S/F matches does not win world cups. England have been eyeing this for decades. If India would have won against SL in S/F and finals in 96, or attacked that mighty 359 against Australia (and I am not even talking about 1999 and 2007 world cups, less said the better), then I agree and I would have celebrated them like God. If you term McGrath and Gillespe's attacks were great, why not calibrate our batsmen against them? So in your terms, this clearly states that our batsmen are nothing compared to their attacks, thereby concluding that Australia defeated against minnows like India and SL. Then in that case, I would not call them as greatest cricketers of all time. According to me, they are some of the finest batsmen our country has ever produced, that's about it.

But I still vividly remember the grind they did in the gritty final of 2011, starting with Gambir & Kohli, Gambhir & Dhoni & Dhoni & Yuvaraj followed by the final assault. I still see his focused eyes on the final ball which he hit over the ground, clearly stating how much hunger he had all these years for such a win. What a pressure battle and what a tribute! That's how you do it! Just like I remember our loses, I remember very fondly all those big and special wins we did, which many convenient forget after few years, as if that is normal. That impact is still very fresh in me and will be with me forever. For me, these pinnacle moments stand tall compared to any other wins and whoever does that go straight into my bottom of my heart. Please don't blame me. In  my posts, I am not even gauging opponents strengths and weaknesses, I was taking about a match and the win, take it by the ball as it comes. That's what these guys of doing instead of fearing about the bowlers all the time which will never take them anywhere (obviously it didn't). I don't mind if they don't win another world cup or any other trophies, as they already acquired lot of accolades and trophies in the last few years which India had never dreamt of before.

V_S wrote:Why are you always replacing that previous team with the current team and equating with the likes of Mcgrath and saying if these players can play against them? Did I ever make any such assumptions? Sorry, I cannot answer hypothetical questions/situations. All I am asking is, if you are celebrating those "greatest ever", why not they win for India. Winning some Q/F, S/F matches does not win world cups. England have been eyeing this for decades. If India would have won against SL in S/F and finals in 96, or attacked that mighty 359 against Australia (and I am not even talking about 1999 and 2007 world cups, less said the better), then I agree and I would have celebrated them like God. If you term McGrath and Gillespe's attacks were great, why not calibrate our batsmen against them? So in your terms, this clearly states that our batsmen are nothing compared to their attacks, thereby concluding that Australia defeated against minnows like India and SL. Then in that case, I would not call them as greatest cricketers of all time. According to me, they are some of the finest batsmen our country has ever produced, that's about it.





But I still vividly remember the grind they did in the gritty final of 2011, starting with Gambir & Kohli, Gambhir & Dhoni & Dhoni & Yuvaraj followed by the final assault. I still see his focused eyes on the final ball which he hit over the ground, clearly stating how much hunger he had all these years for such a win. What a pressure battle and what a tribute! That's how you do it! Just like I remember our loses, I remember very fondly all those big and special wins we did, which many convenient forget after few years, as if that is normal. That impact is still very fresh in me and will be with me forever. For me, these pinnacle moments stand tall compared to any other wins and whoever does that go straight into my bottom of my heart. Please don't blame me. In  my posts, I am not even gauging opponents strengths and weaknesses, I was taking about a match and the win, take it by the ball as it comes. That's what these guys of doing instead of fearing about the bowlers all the time which will never take them anywhere (obviously it didn't). I don't mind if they don't win another world cup or any other trophies, as they already acquired lot of accolades and trophies in the last few years which India had never dreamt of before.

Er, because you cannot win in a vacuum.  A team's success rate also depends on the strength of the opposition.  Not only Aus, WI had Ambrose and Walsh through the 90s, SA had Donald, Pollock, even De Villiers for a brief phase, Pak had Wasim, Waqar and Javed.   Against these, India had only Kumble to offer in the bowling attack.  A few great batsmen cannot overcome the weakness in bowling India has had for a long time.  It has not gone away but now even the rest of the field has begun to converge in ODIs.  You may celebrate this rain of wins if you so please, but India's current predicament is somewhat like that of the one eyed ruler in the kingdom of the blind (and yet they may get thrashed in SA).  Thankfully, that is not the position yet in Tests, but never say never.  Let's have two new balls for Tests in India too, right?  

And as for the trophies, so where were you when India won Titan Cup 1996 (featuring Aus and SA),  Independence Cup 1998, Sharjah summer and winter editions of 1998, Akai Nidahas trophy 1998, Natwest Trophy 2002 and CB Series 2008?  I have only included tri series tournaments and not considered bilaterals like the 6-1 thrashing of SL in 2005.  India shared the spoils of the 2002 Champions Trophy with SL and they cannot be blamed if the matches got rained out.  I remember those times well and people had sky high expectations from the team.  Any loss was blamed on the attitude and commitment of the players and not on the quality of the opposition or the vagaries of cricket.   Now in 2013, Pak quietly beat India in a 3 match ODI series.  India fell well short of a chase of 250 in the second match (with Kohli coming a cropper) to concede the series. So what then?  Is that a direct outcome of their attitude, their lack of confidence in a chase?  Or is it simply the simple adage of "you win some and you lose some" to be applied here? You don't know yet what to expect of these young players and so you willfully ignore their losses as part and parcel of the game, which the Indian public was simply not prepared to do in the 90s or noughties.   And please explain to me how do you propose to discount Tendulkar's own contribution to the 2011 World Cup.  

Speaking of which, one last point on the 2011 WC.  In the final, India looked like falling into a 1996 semi final like choke when Kohli perished in the middle of the chase.  But Sangakkara did not bring the field in and allowed Dhoni to collect easy singles to release the pressure.  He also did not have a prime Murali anymore...in fact nobody to threaten the Indian batsmen other than Mallinga.  It was nice to see India win the 2011 WC.  But it cannot compare to the 1983 effort of beating the mighty West Indies.  India were very comfortable in home conditions and sub continental arch rivals Pak and SL themselves underperformed to hand it on a platter.

First of all you didn't answer my questions, rather asking me questions again. I don't understand what you meant by 'we cannot win in vacuum' for my question. There is nothing hypothetical when it comes to cricket. If they would have, if this was like that etc.. The team's success rate if it is determined by the opposition, then I cannot  count Aussie win over Pak, India and SL as all of them played like minnows, as I said earlier. For me, if you are playing an important match with the best player in the world in your team, I expect them to win, otherwise I don't celebrate them and their abilities, PERIOD.

If you are talking about those trophies they were not won by a single captain (nor by Tendulkar who was always fearful of captaining Indian team because it might affect his batting. He was always given what he needed, but others don't get that liberty) it was over the years. CB series 2008 was under Dhoni. You cannot take that put into someone else. I agree Sachin did an excellent job there. If you are talking about other few trophies which India won, I can talk of India losing to Bangladesh in the world cup group matches (in 2007) and also failing against minnows New Zealand and not qualifying to super 8 in 1999 world cup, having the best batting line-up on paper and endless failures. Where those against best/better bowling attacks?

I was mainly considering the world cup wins which India should have won long time ago, given the kind of batsmen we had and the popularity they achieved. I know we don't have good bowling attack, we never had a decent one anytime. We have to live with that. India is definitely as batsmen cricket. All I am saying is they were winning but not consistently or comfortably like now, that fire was not there. If one batsman clicked, the next match he was bound to fail. May be that was the kind of attitude they had. That was the kind of statistics we had.

In 2011 again, I don't discount Tendulkar's contribution, I was only disappointed, that he never rose to the occasion on a big matches like the finals. The only ODI I liked him is the group match against Pakistan in 2003 World Cup. He was brutal there. That's the kind of fire I expected in him for 2003 finals or the 2011 finals. He was never a match winner for me, especially on chases, he expects someone else to finish the game, which is a huge disappointment for me, given the skills and calibre of Tendulkar. The way he gets out to some one like Fernando or Jayasurya hurt me a lot. I was a big fan of Tendulkar's early days, but after 1996 SL Semifinal loss, I gave it up. Sorry.

Regarding 2003 Pak win over India, did I ever say we have to win every match. I was saying we are consistently winning nowadays.

This is what I don't like even when India win, we are not ready to accept it, quoting Sangakkara didn't place his field well and didn't bring back Murali. Should Dhoni or our team advise him to do so, so that India cannot win? This is part and parcel of the game. I can also say we are discounting India's win by merely pointing out some irrelevant facts? A person who is winning India a world cup after 28 years, still we are not able to appreciate it, we have lot of concerns. May be if it was captained by Tendulkar or someone, we would have. I pity Dhoni. I accept it.

Again please don't bring test here, I know this team is very far behind. "but never say never.  Let's have two new balls for Tests in India too, right? ". Your question is very blunt.

Again, I am not going overboard like others and saying Kohli will break all the records, Dhoni is the best and all, I am just happy with the way I am watching cricket, that's all.

PS: I am conversing with you and everyone with my thoughts and I would expect the same amount of diplomacy and professionalism in every answer. You cannot ask me such a question, where were you when India won all these trophies, as if I was blind or I was not born. I hope you know my age. All this 'one eyed' etc kind of statements are not in good taste. I am going to tell you to please mind your language. I have clearly stated my views and why I am enjoying cricket this way, no one can question me on that. That's my space. Is it a rule that every cricket watching person should like/love Tendulkar or that team before discussing anything? Did I ever ask anyone why are they supporting previous team? I know that's your opinion and I respect and acknowledge that. I expect the same.

if I point out where facts get in the way of opinions, that does not mean I don't respect it. By that token you have not so far acknowledged my line of reasoning either. I am blunt about the indian team and am allowed to be. Though you may have been old enough to watch those matches, you have selectively ignored them in your arguments. The Dhaka chase was briefly a world record at that time and yet you have repeatedly claimed those players could not win high pressure matches and did not try hard enough but Dhaka, Sharjah or natwest refute your claims. And if I cannot include cb series, you cannot also credit the next gen solely for wc as Sachin was part of the team and his important tons and fifties contributed to the triumph. You know in your heart of hearts that my analysis of sanga's tactics is accurate but you are emotionally invested in the wc win and do not like my opinion. That is the story of Indian cricket and so shall it be - overreaction to highs and lows and dislike of dispassionate analysis. India's main weakness is the bowling and until the board accepts this, it can never build a great team. So yes I don't consider aus great for beating India or pak but for dominating south Africa consistently in both tests and odis. Without at least four great batsmen and four great bowlers (incl new ball bowlers) , you can never build a great team. India has never had one, pak came closer but lost the chance through self inflicted wounds. I have nowhere called the 90s or noughties indian team great, only said srt, Dravid and vvs were greats. That can happen, lara was a great batsman in a team that went from good to bad.

V_S, for starters India were a 'minnow' side in the 90s and any success which we had enjoyed can be attributed
to batting exploits of one man and to chide him for failing in '96 semis/'03/'11 finals after being a sole reason for taking
his side thus far is stretching things a bit. 

I was only disappointed, that he never rose to the occasion on a big matches like the finals.

do you expect him to bat his way through a worldcup win? sorry it has never happened in history of odi cricket. for
majority of Amits/Virat hindus down south nothings gets bigger than WC Pak encounter and his records there speaks for themselves.

le me spin it around a bit,would Kohls/Ponting tasted similiar success if they had been surrounded with such mediocrity nor have had luxury of 100+ opening stands nor had a gun finishers like Dhoni/Yuvi/Bevan/Mussey ??
for instance Ponting's batting pedigree plummeted the moment old guards left. it will be interesting
to see how Kohls responds when he doesn't have cushion of a finisher or reliable openers.

its a misnomer that Sach phails in chases, its been rebutted from the day cricket forum were started in WWW
and mega bytes have been written on the same. for instance this match will go into record books that Sach had again phailed @ chasing
 http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/416240.html 
would you attribute this loss to him? 

imo world cup team '03 were much better/alround team than '11 ones, it was Gangs bad karma that his team had to content with the invincibles and it would comfortably beat the no.1 ranked odi side of today.

CB series 2008 was under Dhoni. You cannot take that put into someone else.

really? could you enlighten us with what did he actually did? its like crediting him with Champions trophy success :noteeth:

And if I cannot include cb series, you cannot also credit the next gen solely for wc as Sachin was part of the team and his important tons and fifties contributed to the triumph. You know in your heart of hearts that my analysis of sanga's tactics is accurate but you are emotionally invested in the wc win and do not like my opinion.

As I am repeatedly saying, I don't discount his contribution, but at the same time, I have to say that worldcup 2011 could not have been won without Dhoni, but the converse is not true, as it never happened in last 28 years where Sachin was part of it (except 1987). That's the difference Dhoni makes. Not in my wildest of dreams I had Sanga's tactics, because of which we won. Even if I accept it, I would give credit to our team of affecting their rhythm. If you all are discounting many such facts in that special world cup win after 28 years, that too chasing a record score of 275 for the first time in world cup history, you cannot expect me to acknowledge some tri-series wins. Natwest, Sharjah are all important games, but not as important as a world cup. Winning this is completely different.

I have nowhere called the 90s or noughties indian team great, only said srt, Dravid and vvs were greats.

This I agree, except that fact I cannot put them in all time greatest cricketers.

its a misnomer that Sach phails in chases, its been rebutted from the day cricket forum were started in WWW
and mega bytes have been written on the same. for instance this match will go into record books that Sach had again phailed @ chasing
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/416240.html
would you attribute this loss to him?

This is again a classic example of panic, which is very similar to Chennai test 1999. I won't completely attribute this loss to Sachin as he was fulcrum for these matches, yet when a set batsman gives it away with just few runs more (12 runs?), as a specatator this gives a heart-break. When he knows that there is not much batting coming, he should not give away his wicket, expecting someone new will come and finish. These are the improvement areas which Dhoni worked in his favor and winning recently. This is again yet another example of why Sachin is not a match winner in chase of 250+. Again, if that match would have won, everyone will forget that was also played in home conditions, but when a world cup was won on our soil, it becomes insignificant. In that case, I also have to wipe many home wins (which many teams have) including the recent Ashes series which Eng won at their home. Why winning at home considered so insignificant?

Again, I disagree there with respect to 2003 world cup. I am not even saying, we should have won that game, but not even close enough. Lost by 125 runs. If Sachin or Ganguly or Shewag batted through with every other failing, then I can appreciate that what they can do if the team did not support? Now I cannot say that, right? They just panicked at the sight of 359 which was more dangerous of thoughts than the invincibles itself. Good that Shewag put some fight.

We cannot always blame, he didn't get a good team of finishers like today. Why not convert or build a team like that yourselves? Why not take that captaincy? If you leave it for others, I am just going to do my job, it might not work all the time. Out of those three/four matches (chasing), if he would have finished and won just one, that was enough for me to acknowledge him as greatest, but unfortunately it didn't happen. These are the areas which for me differentiates great from greatest. That does not mean Dhoni got a better team. Even here it is the same, the bowlers are even worse. To be honest, when he came, I was one among them who wanted India win world cup under his captaincy. I have proudly said this to many that he will do that.

romba kashtamA irukku. Although not the same level, IR didnt win oscar so Rahman is great mAdhiri dhAn enakku idhu thONudhu
My opinion:
Dhoni Right Place at the Right Time. Sachin : Talent 

Think this is going lengthy. We don't have to convert VS and viceversa : 

I'd really really like to see Dhoni batting decently on difficult pitches. Be it in India or abroad. Plus, I'd like to see Kohli facing a Mcgrath clone or an Ambrose clone and doing decently.

Whats sad is people going by pure results. It is never that simple. A one man team versus a resource rich Indian Cricket finding the right environment including benign pitches and crappy bowling units in all othere teams in Indian conditions.

Forget all that I would like to see Kohli Dhoni and co facing Anderson/Swann and scoring tree fifty etc.Even on a patta wicket in Jaipur.

Over hyped current Indian cricket team. 

I am fine with VS holding a contrarey opinion

Dhoni didnt build a team of finishers etc. His initial victories were gifts from old guard and yuvraj harby etc who wer basically gifts to him from Ganguly and Dravid.

Even Raina is a Dravid product.

Kohli is self made.

Jadeja is the  only Dhoni product

VS only thing to ponder is whether the comparison of past teams didnt win with Sachin vs dhonis team won is fair.

The variables are clearly not the same.

Dhoni hasnt shown any tactical nous. He is routinely a failure on tactics. 

Ricky Ponting is the most succesful captain ever but is clearly not a patch on Steve Waugh or Border or Taylor.
Same is the case with Dhoni

plum, LOL. Music is not a match. I believe a match means there is a win and a loss and we win/lose for a country. In music, it is only with respect to films/situations and how they score. No one is competing with each other, if I am not wrong. I don't claim or over hype this team, just that I feel they had some basics corrected which gives better results. Having said that, I am not too positive on how it will progress, just that today I am enjoying cricket more as it kind of heals those bad scars of yesterday.