***Official India in New Zealand***

[Polo23]

There was nothing wrong with India's strategy if they were happy with a 1-0 series win, and if they were then good on them. 500 would have easily been enough though.

 

[Sanz]

Gavaskar - Strategy was fine.

From his column in Telegraph India -

Sure, there will be some who would say that a 2-0 win was frittered away by a late declaration but these are the same who, when a batsman has got a century will dwell on a chance he gave in his 20s or if a bowler has captured 5 wickets will talk about how many no balls he bowled.

They can never be satisfied and are always looking for a fault some where. The fact of the matter is simple. India were 1-0 up and if any team had to make the moves it was New Zealand if they wanted to level the series. This is not being defensive.

It is being pracrical. The Indians rightly shut New Zealand out of the game and then tried to win. Nothing wrong with that at all.

So True but again..there are some folks here who are going to fart out of their pants at the very mention of Gavaskar's name but will quote every other tom and harry who wants to tell us how much of a 'Nawab' Pataudi was and that Dhoni is no 'Nawab'.

Not to forget that Mr. Pataudi himself remains very modest about his team's success and he had to say this :-

"....The current team is much better than ours was..In fact, it is easily one of India's best ever sides, probably the best...I have been very impressed the way the team has played over the past few years, both at home and abroad, and in all forms of the game,...The side has a bright future."

 

[Pratters]

The problem with SJS is that he believes too strongly in his convictions and refuses to accept that another point of view can exist. He is very knowledgeable on the game but not a good debater of it when some one doesn't agree with his view point. He finds comfort in people who agree with him, no matter if they are anti-India posters and would have agreed to any anti-India remark. I knew before coming to this thread that we would be getting a barrage of negative posts from SJS. He had done the same when Kumble failed to win a test though he won the series and kept going till no one else was interested. Whatever.

 

[Uppercut]

On Indian fans being over the top,

first, I didn't know there was a scale available where you could measure over-the-top qualities of fans

second, how is a typical Indian fan compared? Is he compared with a fan in England, where soccer is more popular than cricket, or a fan in NZ, where Rugby rules? It must be understood that cricket is a prime sport in India and to judge an Indian fan one has to judge how the fans following the prime sport in other countries are. Indian soccer fans will usually appear more humble than a English soccer fans, who are known for violence. If you take the most popular sport of respective countries then it would be interesting to see how Indian cricket fans are compared to English soccer fans or NZ Rugby fans

third, sports is about emotions too. the more passionate you are abt something the more emotional you get. it's probably hard to beat Indian cricket fans as far as passion for cricket is concerned. If I am following a sport then it's because I am passionate abt it, and if I am passionate abt something I can lose some of my objectivity

What's interesting is that England soccer fans are, IMO, much worse than Indian cricket fans. They're not the violent yobs that stereotypes would have you believe, but they're often prone to knee-jerk reactions, nonsensical opinions that cannot be changed and becoming horribly offended at any criticism, however reasonable, of their players. Again, it certainly doesn't apply to all of them, but it's a sentiment that's there.

On the subject of emotion, i try to keep reason separate from it. This is fine in cricket because I've no clear predetermined bias towards a particular side, but football will play with my emotions all day long and there's nothing i can do about it. I wouldn't want to change that.

But when having specific debates, i try to leave it all at the door. Having an obsessive interest in Man Utd doing well doesn't mean i have to bite the head off anyone who criticises Nemanja Vidic's lack of pace and accuse them of anti-United bias. It's much better to at least try to judge impartially- Rooney is overrated but Tevez is underrated, Gerrard will never make a great central midfielder but Torres is the best striker in England. I don't think caring deeply about a sport gives me an excuse to be blindly biased.

The impression i get of some Indian fans- and this doesn't mean any specific Indians here should take offense- is that they'll react against any criticism of their side. You can't say Tendulkar flatters to deceive or Dravid was a poor one-day player without several less-than-articulate objections. Sometimes, much to my bemusement, I'm accused of anti-Indian bias for suggesting such things. It's a perception that could be borne out of the vast numbers of Indian fans, the fact that it's their main sport, little cultural differences or, indeed, my own mind. But it's definitely the impression I get moreso from their fans than those of any other country.

 

[biased indian]

The impression i get of some Indian fans- and this doesn't mean any specific Indians here should take offense- is that they'll react against any criticism of their side. You can't say Tendulkar flatters to deceive or Dravid was a poor one-day player without several less-than-articulate objections. Sometimes, much to my bemusement, I'm accused of anti-Indian bias for suggesting such things. It's a perception that could be borne out of the vast numbers of Indian fans, the fact that it's their main sport, little cultural differences or, indeed, my own mind. But it's definitely the impression I get moreso from their fans than those of any other country.

Say same thing about ponting or hayden you do get some aussie fans to respond the same way. as for the english fans they are more of the unders standing that thier team is not that good and rest of the fans we dont have much here ..ya we do have some pepole who react little to much but we do get that from some aussies also

 

[ret]

What's interesting is that England soccer fans are, IMO, much worse than Indian cricket fans. They're not the violent yobs that stereotypes would have you believe, but they're often prone to knee-jerk reactions, nonsensical opinions that cannot be changed and becoming horribly offended at any criticism, however reasonable, of their players. Again, it certainly doesn't apply to all of them, but it's a sentiment that's there.

On the subject of emotion, i try to keep reason separate from it. This is fine in cricket because I've no clear predetermined bias towards a particular side, but football will play with my emotions all day long and there's nothing i can do about it. I wouldn't want to change that.

But when having specific debates, i try to leave it all at the door. Having an obsessive interest in Man Utd doing well doesn't mean i have to bite the head off anyone who criticises Nemanja Vidic's lack of pace and accuse them of anti-United bias. It's much better to at least try to judge impartially- Rooney is overrated but Tevez is underrated, Gerrard will never make a great central midfielder but Torres is the best striker in England. I don't think caring deeply about a sport gives me an excuse to be blindly biased.

The impression i get of some Indian fans- and this doesn't mean any specific Indians here should take offense- is that they'll react against any criticism of their side. You can't say Tendulkar flatters to deceive or Dravid was a poor one-day player without several less-than-articulate objections. Sometimes, much to my bemusement, I'm accused of anti-Indian bias for suggesting such things. It's a perception that could be borne out of the vast numbers of Indian fans, the fact that it's their main sport, little cultural differences or, indeed, my own mind. But it's definitely the impression I get moreso from their fans than those of any other country.

You yourself said that English soccer fans in general are worse in general so when you say that you leave bias out when others criticize your soccer team you are only speaking about yourself .... and whatever you do doesn't have to be true for all, who are emotional abt their favorite sport and rightly so

I, usually, post on India threads and as far as I know you seem to be supporting teams that are playing against India. I surely recall that you were supporting Aus in Ind vs Aus series and since you are complaining abt Ind fans here, I would assume that you were rooting for NZ

supporting teams that play against Ind is being biased towards India, isn't it? and then you are one of the few who thinks that India fans are over the top! is that a co-incidence? .... if you claim to leave your bias at the door, how come you seem to support teams that play against Ind even when your home team isn't involved? Aren't you suppose to be neutral?

and let's not forget that you are neither an Indian nor a Kiwi so your emotional involvement is not going to be the same as an Indian or a Kiwi, so trying to judge others on a thread where others are emotionally involved but when you are not doesn't make much sense. I guess, you will find Indian fans leaving their bias at the door on Eng vs NZ thread or whatever

May be you have come to that conclusion more because of your bias against India, which makes you write negative things abt India on threads where Indians are emotionally involved, which in turn makes them go at you, which in turns makes you think that they are over-the-top and biased, while you keep thinking how unbiased you are, which is a fallacy as you tend to support teams that play against India

 

[Uppercut]

I don't actually have an anti-Indian bias. I supported Australia there because i had money on them, but i supported India against England and again in the ODIs against Sri Lanka. It depends where my interests lie.

As a side, there are players i love- Sehwag and Mishra- players i don't like- Dravid and Harbhajan- and players I'm indifferent towards. But they don't receive special treatment, I sometimes have reasons for wanting them to lose and sometimes want them to win. Sometimes i rate them higher than most, sometimes lower. They're much like any other side.

Except Ireland

 

[ret]

I don't actually have an anti-Indian bias. I supported Australia there because i had money on them, but i supported India against England and again in the ODIs against Sri Lanka. It depends where my interests lie.

As a side, there are players i love- Sehwag and Mishra- players i don't like- Dravid and Harbhajan- and players I'm indifferent towards. But they don't receive special treatment, I sometimes have reasons for wanting them to lose and sometimes want them to win. Sometimes i rate them higher than most, sometimes lower. They're much like any other side.

Except Ireland

oh so you support teams that suit your interest!.... I would imagine that supporting a team because its your home team without any other interest in mind is emotionally more involving than supporting teams that suit your interest .... the loyalty level and probably passion are much higher, when you support your home team without any other interest in mind, which is probably like your supporting Ireland in soccer

for what you said, you are clearly not on the same boat as Indian fans are to be able to make a fair judgment on them, imo

 

[honestbharani]

What's interesting is that England soccer fans are, IMO, much worse than Indian cricket fans. They're not the violent yobs that stereotypes would have you believe, but they're often prone to knee-jerk reactions, nonsensical opinions that cannot be changed and becoming horribly offended at any criticism, however reasonable, of their players. Again, it certainly doesn't apply to all of them, but it's a sentiment that's there.

On the subject of emotion, i try to keep reason separate from it. This is fine in cricket because I've no clear predetermined bias towards a particular side, but football will play with my emotions all day long and there's nothing i can do about it. I wouldn't want to change that.

But when having specific debates, i try to leave it all at the door. Having an obsessive interest in Man Utd doing well doesn't mean i have to bite the head off anyone who criticises Nemanja Vidic's lack of pace and accuse them of anti-United bias. It's much better to at least try to judge impartially- Rooney is overrated but Tevez is underrated, Gerrard will never make a great central midfielder but Torres is the best striker in England. I don't think caring deeply about a sport gives me an excuse to be blindly biased.

The impression i get of some Indian fans- and this doesn't mean any specific Indians here should take offense- is that they'll react against any criticism of their side. You can't say Tendulkar flatters to deceive or Dravid was a poor one-day player without several less-than-articulate objections. Sometimes, much to my bemusement, I'm accused of anti-Indian bias for suggesting such things. It's a perception that could be borne out of the vast numbers of Indian fans, the fact that it's their main sport, little cultural differences or, indeed, my own mind. But it's definitely the impression I get moreso from their fans than those of any other country.

yeah... but we have a very few Aussie fans here who blow up at the merest suggestion that some of their guys are not really that good, as players and sometimes even as people... Personally, I think the number of irrational knee jerk Indian fans here at CW is about the same as the no. of Aussies, Kiwis, and English and even Pakistan or Sri Lankan supporters that we have here... They are all, thankfully, in a minority...


And as for Dravid in ODIs, I don't think he is a great player in ODIs but not even good? No wonder it gets opinions from others when you post stuff that like that... W.r.t Harbhajan... as far as I am concerned, he is in no way worse than a Symonds and when people see he is, I do take exception to that and try to point out why.. I don't understand where bias comes into it, esp. since I am one of those guys who is a bigger fan of Lara than Tendulkar, one who thinks Dhoni is, for all his achievements, a defensive captain and one who thinks the BCCI are idiots whose only priority is to fill their own coffers (and purses even though it is supposed to be "honorary" jobs)... and one who thinks India are a small rung below Aus and RSA and still need to do a lot to catch up...


But of course, just because I defend Harbhajan and Dravid against criticism that I feel is unwarranted, it makes me a biased Indian fan...

 

[Anil]

But of course, just because I defend Harbhajan and Dravid against criticism that I feel is unwarranted, it makes me a biased Indian fan...

didn't know you were such a big fan of biased indian...

 

[G.I.Joe]

I think hottestbharani appreciates biased indian's work in the honest women thread.

 

[Sanz]

And as for Dravid in ODIs, I don't think he is a great player in ODIs but not even good? No wonder it gets opinions from others when you post stuff that like that... W.r.t Harbhajan... as far as I am concerned, he is in no way worse than a Symonds and when people see he is, I do take exception to that and try to point out why.. I don't understand where bias comes into it, esp. since I am one of those guys who is a bigger fan of Lara than Tendulkar, one who thinks Dhoni is, for all his achievements, a defensive captain and one who thinks the BCCI are idiots whose only priority is to fill their own coffers (and purses even though it is supposed to be "honorary" jobs)... and one who thinks India are a small rung below Aus and RSA and still need to do a lot to catch up...


But of course, just because I defend Harbhajan and Dravid against criticism that I feel is unwarranted, it makes me a biased Indian fan...

You are supposed to act the way these masters tell you to do, otherwise you are just a biased Indian.

 

[Polo23]

It seems to me the Indians on here are arguing between themselves about how biased they are.

 

[Uppercut]

yeah... but we have a very few Aussie fans here who blow up at the merest suggestion that some of their guys are not really that good, as players and sometimes even as people... Personally, I think the number of irrational knee jerk Indian fans here at CW is about the same as the no. of Aussies, Kiwis, and English and even Pakistan or Sri Lankan supporters that we have here... They are all, thankfully, in a minority...


And as for Dravid in ODIs, I don't think he is a great player in ODIs but not even good? No wonder it gets opinions from others when you post stuff that like that... W.r.t Harbhajan... as far as I am concerned, he is in no way worse than a Symonds and when people see he is, I do take exception to that and try to point out why.. I don't understand where bias comes into it, esp. since I am one of those guys who is a bigger fan of Lara than Tendulkar, one who thinks Dhoni is, for all his achievements, a defensive captain and one who thinks the BCCI are idiots whose only priority is to fill their own coffers (and purses even though it is supposed to be "honorary" jobs)... and one who thinks India are a small rung below Aus and RSA and still need to do a lot to catch up...

Symonds is a **** too, it doesn't justify Harbhajan's behavior for me. I'm a huge fan of Dhoni's captaincy, and i stated why earlier in the thread- he tries things. You very rarely see his side bowl without a plan, and that alone makes all bowlers much more effective. Besides, it's hard to argue with results. Not only are their performances visibly vastly improved when Dhoni's captain, they win more often too.

Anyway, on Dravid as an ODI player. My issue with him is that he often put too much pressure on the lower order to score quickly from ball one and caused it to cave in. There is a usefulness to players who can play that kind of innings and bat through, but just as often they're a liability. The fact that he kept wicket makes it a bit unfair of me to call him poor- as an all-rounder he's a reasonable inclusion- but for me he actually lost quite a few games for India by scoring too slowly (a pet peeve of mine in ODIs). Kumar Sangakkara sometimes does the same for Sri Lanka, Jacques Kallis has got a horribly unfair reputation for being selfish because he did it a bit for South Africa. It's not limited to Dravid.

Personally i think players who have to go outside their natural game to score at a strike rate of over 50 are a liability in ODIs. Particularly these days, pitches mean a side is rarely in danger of being bowled out (on a minefield, where anything over 200 would be a good score, Dravid would be useful. But such pitches have become almost unheard of in ODIs of late.) I'm not saying everyone needs to be a slogger, but i can't see any place for a player like Dravid unless the lineup is especially weak. He puts far too much pressure on other players to carry the burden of strike rate.

 

[Shri]

Symonds is a **** too, it doesn't justify Harbhajan's behavior for me. I'm a huge fan of Dhoni's captaincy, and i stated why earlier in the thread- he tries things. You very rarely see his side bowl without a plan, and that alone makes all bowlers much more effective. Besides, it's hard to argue with results. Not only are their performances visibly vastly improved when Dhoni's captain, they win more often too.

Anyway, on Dravid as an ODI player. My issue with him is that he often put too much pressure on the lower order to score quickly from ball one and caused it to cave in. There is a usefulness to players who can play that kind of innings and bat through, but just as often they're a liability. The fact that he kept wicket makes it a bit unfair of me to call him poor- as an all-rounder he's a reasonable inclusion- but for me he actually lost quite a few games for India by scoring too slowly (a pet peeve of mine in ODIs). Kumar Sangakkara sometimes does the same for Sri Lanka, Jacques Kallis has got a horribly unfair reputation for being selfish because he did it a bit for South Africa. It's not limited to Dravid.

Personally i think players who have to go outside their natural game to score at a strike rate of over 50 are a liability in ODIs. Particularly these days, pitches mean a side is rarely in danger of being bowled out (on a minefield, where anything over 200 would be a good score, Dravid would be useful. But such pitches have become almost unheard of in ODIs of late.) I'm not saying everyone needs to be a slogger, but i can't see any place for a player like Dravid unless the lineup is especially weak. He puts far too much pressure on other players to carry the burden of strike rate.

He changed his ODI batting approach around 2004 and became a great finisher along with Yuvraj at the lower middle order at that time. I agree that he put too much pressure on the batsmen when he used to bat at 3 earlier in his career. But most of the times in the later part of his career, he gave the strike to attacking batsmen successfully with his well placed singles. He knew his limitations as an ODI player and used it to good effect imo.

 

[honestbharani]

Symonds is a **** too, it doesn't justify Harbhajan's behavior for me. I'm a huge fan of Dhoni's captaincy, and i stated why earlier in the thread- he tries things. You very rarely see his side bowl without a plan, and that alone makes all bowlers much more effective. Besides, it's hard to argue with results. Not only are their performances visibly vastly improved when Dhoni's captain, they win more often too.

Anyway, on Dravid as an ODI player. My issue with him is that he often put too much pressure on the lower order to score quickly from ball one and caused it to cave in. There is a usefulness to players who can play that kind of innings and bat through, but just as often they're a liability. The fact that he kept wicket makes it a bit unfair of me to call him poor- as an all-rounder he's a reasonable inclusion- but for me he actually lost quite a few games for India by scoring too slowly (a pet peeve of mine in ODIs). Kumar Sangakkara sometimes does the same for Sri Lanka, Jacques Kallis has got a horribly unfair reputation for being selfish because he did it a bit for South Africa. It's not limited to Dravid.

Personally i think players who have to go outside their natural game to score at a strike rate of over 50 are a liability in ODIs. Particularly these days, pitches mean a side is rarely in danger of being bowled out (on a minefield, where anything over 200 would be a good score, Dravid would be useful. But such pitches have become almost unheard of in ODIs of late.) I'm not saying everyone needs to be a slogger, but i can't see any place for a player like Dravid unless the lineup is especially weak. He puts far too much pressure on other players to carry the burden of strike rate.

I never meant to justify Bhajji's behaviour though... Only that in the thread where the matter came up, you said something like the men who knew him personally also didn't think he was anything good and I pointed out that there are quite a few who don't think that way who do know him very well, without exactly being his friends...


As long as you think they are equally bad, that is fine with me because I happen to think the same..


And as for Dravid, as Metallics said, since Ganguly took over as captain and Dravid started keeping wickets around 2002, he has reinvented himself as an ODI batsman and was easily one of the better batsmen in the ODI side for us and perhaps one of the better ODI #5 going around in world cricket at that time.. Agree that he was pretty mediocre before that though.


In fact, while rating Dravid in ODIs, even I seem to forget that earlier phase of his career... We should certainly consider that too when rating the man now that his ODI career is all but over..

 

[G.I.Joe]

Dravid finishing off chases in ODIs around the time of the 2004 Pakistan tour was epic.

 

[oitoitoi]

Dravid finishing off chases in ODIs around the time of the 2004 Pakistan tour was epic.

AWTA, for a couple of years he was the best finisher in the game. He certainly can cut loose when the mood takes him, anyone remember that 21 ball 50? I've never seen him smile that much! Dravid can score quickly because he knows his areas and he knows what shots he has. I also remember a 50 ball 90 (I think) on the last England tour.

EDIT: it was a 92* off 63 balls at Bristol, still pretty impressive mind.

 

[James]

Cricket Web - Features: India in New Zealand 2008-09