The race to sign Whatmore!

[silentstriker]

And drawing series in both England and Australia (unprecedented and only once before been done, respectively) makes Wright's probably even more so.

Yup.

 

[silentstriker]

And how else do you judge that when Wadekar had only one series away from subcontinent ?

Ding ding. We don't know how good Wadekar was just for that very reason.

You clearly look at their home records and Wadekar's home record is better than Chappell/Wright, hence he is alot more successful than both.

I don't really look at home records unless it is really horrible when it comes to India. Our pitches and our spin bowlers generally take care of the sides there, and I am not convinced that coaching makes all that much of a difference.

 

[Sanz]

Ding ding. We don't know how good Wadekar was just for that very reason.

Well India Under Wadekar did play a test in NZ and drew it. Compare that to our performance in NZ under Wright, we lost 2-0. So at home we were infintely better under Wadekar, at only non-subcontinent tour India played under Wadekar, it was better. So No I dont have any reason to believe that India would have done much worse at other places.

I don't really look at home records unless it is really horrible when it comes to India.

Well I do and our record at home is getting worse with every passing series, we are not unbeatable at home now.

Our pitches and our spin bowlers generally take care of the sides there, and I am not convinced that coaching makes all that much of a difference.

Is that so ? Then why did we lose a series to Australia, failed to win a series against England since the 80s, drew a series with a weak Pakistan team, lost series to Srilanka in SriLanka, Lost series to Pak in Pak, drew a series against NZ - All in the Subcontinent ?

 

[Richard]

Batting only a bit stronger ?? Can you please check the batting performances of Sehwag, Sachin, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly and compare that to the likes of Azhar, Sidhu, Shastri etc.

Azharuddin and Laxman are pretty well equal; Sidhu and Sehwag are pretty well equal; Shastri and Ganguly are pretty well equal; Mongia was better than Dasgupta, Ratra or Patel; only Dravid's presence makes the batting stronger, and given that it's offset by the wicketkeeper, that means Wright's line-up was only slightly stronger.

And yes Zaheer was poor, but was he really worse than Rajesh Chauhan or an aging KapilDev ?

Of course he was worse than Kapil Dev - even as he aged, he remained an effective bowler. And given that Chauhan was a spinner he was better, even if he wasn't that good a spinner.

 

[Richard]

And then losing a series to Australia, failing to win a series against England at home negates that. Oh and we had won two series in England before - 1986 and 1971.

Nonetheless India had never before drawn a series in England.

Is that so ? Then why did we lose a series to Australia, failed to win a series against England since the 80s, drew a series with a weak Pakistan team, lost series to Srilanka in SriLanka, Lost series to Pak in Pak, drew a series against NZ - All in the Subcontinent ?

Drew with NZ because the pitches were way too flat, lost in Pak because the pitch with the result was a seamer, lost in Sri Lanka because the Sri Lankan spinners were even better, and drew with England because the First Test pitch was way too flat.

Oh, and lost to Australia because it had to happen eventually. And even then it might very well not have done but for the last day at Chennai being washed-out.

 

[Sanz]

Nonetheless India had never before drawn a series in England.

Yeah we had never drawn, we had won. I dont know if I will count that as an improvement from our past.

Drew with NZ because the pitches were way too flat, lost in Pak because the pitch with the result was a seamer, lost in Sri Lanka because the Sri Lankan spinners were even better, and drew with England because the First Test pitch was way too flat.

Not Again !! So when we won under Wright/Chappel, it was because our foreign coaches were so damn good, but we lost in pak/SL, drew with NZ/Eng because of the pitches. Please come up with a better argument. We drew the series with England at home and that after leading the series.

Oh, and lost to Australia because it had to happen eventually. And even then it might very well not have done but for the last day at Chennai being washed-out.

It had to happen eventually ? What kind of argument is that ? It is a fact that India were out coached, out performed by Australia during that series and I agree that Rain affected the Chennai test, but at best we would have drawn the series and at worst we would lost the series 3-1, still not an improvement from the 90s.

 

[Sanz]

Azharuddin and Laxman are pretty well equal; Sidhu and Sehwag are pretty well equal; Shastri and Ganguly are pretty well equal; Mongia was better than Dasgupta, Ratra or Patel; only Dravid's presence makes the batting stronger, and given that it's offset by the wicketkeeper, that means Wright's line-up was only slightly stronger.

How was Mongia's batting better than Dasgupta/Ratra/Patel ? And no Shastri/Sidhu weren't better than Ganguly/Sewhag. And Dravid ipresense is huge because his batting was the difference in all those wins in England, Australia etc.

Of course he was worse than Kapil Dev - even as he aged, he remained an effective bowler. And given that Chauhan was a spinner he was better, even if he wasn't that good a spinner.

Kapil was not an effective bowler during Wadekar's tenure as coach.

 

[Richard]

Yeah we had never drawn, we had won. I dont know if I will count that as an improvement from our past.

The only thing that matters is that India had never before drawn in England.

Not Again !! So when we won under Wright/Chappel, it was because our foreign coaches were so damn good, but we lost in pak/SL, drew with NZ/Eng because of the pitches. Please come up with a better argument. We drew the series with England at home and that after leading the series.

Had the pitches been better prepared to suit India, as ss said, then it's likely those games would have been won. In the early 90s, pitches were generally better prepared to suit the home team, and that is good reason as to why Wright's home record is no worse than Wadekar's.

It had to happen eventually ? What kind of argument is that ? It is a fact that India were out coached, out performed by Australia during that series and I agree that Rain affected the Chennai test, but at best we would have drawn the series and at worst we would lost the series 3-1, still not an improvement from the 90s.

The deliberate sabotage of the team from the Nagpur Cricket Association didn't help either.

 

[Richard]

How was Mongia's batting better than Dasgupta/Ratra/Patel ? And no Shastri/Sidhu weren't better than Ganguly/Sewhag. And Dravid ipresense is huge because his batting was the difference in all those wins in England, Australia etc.

Sehwag is pretty poor, Sidhu at least was a proper opener even if his record outside Asia is poor. Shastri and Ganguly were both good, solid Test batsmen. Mongia was about as good a wicketkeeper-batsman as India have ever produced, Dasgupta, Ratra and Patel were all a complete joke in one respect or another.

Kapil was not an effective bowler during Wadekar's tenure as coach.

No, of course not.

He still had some good performances in that time and was still a better seamer than most India have ever produced.

 

[Sanz]

Sehwag is pretty poor, Sidhu at least was a proper opener even if his record outside Asia is poor.

Sehwag may be poor now, but under Wright, he was India's second best batsman after Dravid.

Shastri and Ganguly were both good, solid Test batsmen. Mongia was about as good a wicketkeeper-batsman as India have ever produced, Dasgupta, Ratra and Patel were all a complete joke in one respect or another.

Ummm it was obvious that we were talking about Mongia's batting? I am not a fool to compare Mongia's wicket keeping with Ratra, PP. Dasgupta. And no Mongia isn't the best wicketkeeping batsman India have produced, There were couple of guys named Kirmani, Engineer etc that were way ahead of Mongia.

No, of course not.

He still had some good performances in that time and was still a better seamer than most India have ever produced.

care to show those good performances ?

 

[Richard]

Sehwag may be poor now, but under Wright, he was India's second best batsman after Dravid.

Maybe something at least to do with Wright? Maybe he made a pretty average player into a fairly reasonable opener (never anything more than that).

Ummm it was obvious that we were talking about Mongia's batting? I am not a fool to compare Mongia's wicket keeping with Ratra, PP. Dasgupta. And no Mongia isn't the best wicketkeeping batsman India have produced, There were couple of guys named Kirmani, Engineer etc that were way ahead of Mongia.

Kirmani was not a better wicketkeeper-batsman than Mongia. And nor were Dasgupta, Ratra or Patel. All three were woeful in one or both areas. Mongia was probably a better pure batsman than all, in any case, though.

care to show those good performances ?

This is hardly the worst set of games you'll see.

 

[Sanz]

Maybe something at least to do with Wright? Maybe he made a pretty average player into a fairly reasonable opener (never anything more than that).

Maybe, I have never said that Wright was a poor coach, infact IMO he was an excellent coach. What I am saying is that he wasn't as successful as Wadekar.

And Sehwag under Wright was a phenomenal test opener, and anyone who says otherwise has either not watched him play during that period or doesn't have an idea what he is talking about.

 

[Sanz]

Kirmani was not a better wicketkeeper-batsman than Mongia.

Ask anyone(other than yourself) on this planet who has seen both play and they will tell you who was a better batsman and wicketkeeper. I dont understand on what basis you make such a claim.

And nor were Dasgupta, Ratra or Patel. All three were woeful in one or both areas. Mongia was probably a better pure batsman than all, in any case, though.

I think we can agree to disagree on that.

 

[Sanz]

This is hardly the worst set of games you'll see.

So how is a strike rate of 84 better than a strike rate of 68-69 ?

 

[Richard]

Maybe, I have never said that Wright was a poor coach, infact IMO he was an excellent coach. What I am saying is that he wasn't as successful as Wadekar.

And Sehwag under Wright was a phenomenal test opener, and anyone who says otherwise has either not watched him play during that period or doesn't have an idea what he is talking about.

He wasn't phenominal, he played some good innings and had a fair amount of luck.

But the fact that he did better than he had any right to do could quite possibly have something to do with Wright, and I think Sehwag's success under him should mean extra credit, not less, to him.

 

[Richard]

Ask anyone(other than yourself) on this planet who has seen both play and they will tell you who was a better batsman and wicketkeeper. I dont understand on what basis you make such a claim.

Syed Kirmani was not a better batsman than Nayan Mongia. No-one has ever claimed that and probably never will.

 

[Richard]

So how is a strike rate of 84 better than a strike rate of 68-69 ?

It's not. But SR is not all there is to bowling.

 

[♪♪♪]

Chappell cops a lot of flak. India went into decline before he even entered the picture. Wrights last year in charge was the beginning, and its surprising no one takes him to task for not becoming more stren towards the end. Its ridiculous that Sachin Tendulkar comes up with gems like "consult the players before appointing a new coach". Just so you get the pliable personality you egomaniacs want ? Fat chance, buddy. I just hope he doesn't go crying to mommy if Whatmore or whoever comes next questions his batting the next time.

 

[andmark]

I thought India.

 

[SJS]

Coming back to the question of which is better - foreign or local?

Frankly it shouldn't make a difference as long as both are good coaches but there are a couple of factors that are more relevant to the sub continent.

1. The regionalism in India and Pakistan is SERIOUS business. Anyone who lives in India or Pakistan and thinks thats not the case is just arguing for the sake of argument. There wil be the odd unbiased individual but that would be a rarity and may not, necessarily, be a good coach anyway.

2. There are various new techniques that have evolved in coaching and countries like Australia are well ahead of us in adopting these thus coaches coming from these environments are much better able to use these techniques than most sub-continent coaches. Most of our coaches have a long way to go before they will catch up.

If 'home' coaches have been successful in Australia, its understandable.