Champions League Expanded from Eight to Twelve Teams

[Athlai]

Smithcambrian
PreSmith
SusuSmith
or
Smithdear

The first personally.

[jeevan]

Have to agree with Aussie. Given that most Indian players see international duty by the time they're 21 or 22, there's not a 5 year or 7 year track FC record to go by.

Dhoni at 24 and Dravid at 23 when they first played internationally are almost the late bloomers among the recent bunch of players. Every one else I can think of (incl Laxman & Ganguly) were in by 22.

[biased indian]

Originally Posted by Athlai

Smithcambrian
PreSmith
SusuSmith
or
Smithdear

The first personally.

Precamith

[aussie]

Originally Posted by Smith

1. Sehwag had almost 3k runs in just 3 years of domestic cricket @ 60 when he debuted. The fact that he debuted at No. 6 is no undermining of his skills. Remember even Ricky Ponting was a No. 6 batsman for a big part of his initial career.

2. a.So, just because India could not find a solid opening combination means the entire First class structure is dead?.

In Indian cricket history, in over 70 years only Gavaskar, Sehwag, Merchant, Shastri, Engineer, Sidhu, Srikkanth, Mankad, Roy, Chauhan (spell check), Gaekwad have had success as openers.

Only Gavaskar is truly considered great. Blokes like Mankad & Shastri although successfull where makeshift.

In an Indian All-time XI you would only consider Gavaskar, Sehwag, Mankad & Merchat as your options, which clearly shows that historically openers have been a problem for India. I thought this was obvious.

Originally Posted by Smith

How about then saying the Aussie First class system is defunct because they are unable to find a good spinner after Warne?.

Since 1876 Australia WC spinners have been O'Reilly, Grimmett, Benaud & Warne. So its not a case as if producing great leg-spinners has been a regularity in Australian cricket.

So this has zero relevance to India's FC structure which is average in many area's. Since genereally Australia FC system is strong, if it wasn't they wouldn't have dominated test cricket over various times in test cricket history.

Originally Posted by Smith

How about saying the English First Class structure is **** because they are yet to unearth a genuinely world class batsman in the last two decades except for the borrowed talent from South Africa?.

True. But the problem with England FC structure, is a grassroots problems TBH, in that flare players like Lara, Tendy, Ponting, Richards aren't nutured from young. Even the most average players who get to test level i.e Crawley, Hick etc have a FC runs behind them before they get selected.

You would never see an English batsman or bowler debut like @ 19 like Asian nations.

Originally Posted by Smith

How about the South African structure being called inept because they are not able to find a spinner of the quality they had in plenty before the dark days of the 70s and 80s?.

Haa. Got your history wrong dawgy. Before being banned in 1970, SA WC spinners where Tayfield & Faulker, plus you could give a shout out to Reggie Schwartz & Bert Volger (spell checks). But basically thats about 2 in 80 years.

In the 20 year isolation they had Allan Kourie & Denys Hobson. Who where pretty good.

Yes since re-admission no WC spinner. But SA FC cricket since about the 1960s in Currie cup cricket has always been strong, no comparison to India yo.

Originally Posted by Smith

2. b. That Sehwag made opening his slot points more to his adaptability.

More so luck, because up until his hundred @ Perth 07/08. Many still reckoned he was a major FTB & would get worked out by good bowling attacks.

Originally Posted by Smith

There is no doubt that had we possessed a player like Murali Vijay when Sehwag made his debut, he would still be playing at No.6, and perhaps moved up the order just like Ponting did.

Debatable. Vijay did look good in the last test match vs Australia, but so did Darren Ganga in back 2 back test hundreds vs Aus in 03. Not saying Ganga is a better player/same level as Vijay....but i dont such a example is valid, when we haven't really seen Vijay play much

If you want to look back in hindsight like that. Circa 2001/02, i still reckon India may have risked opening with Sehwag.

Originally Posted by Smith

You conveniently forget that Simon Katich, who had such a brilliant second coming, is also a "converted" opener. Does his continued selection means Aussies don't have the FC structure to produce quality openers?.

Australia do have good openers currently. Jaques & Rogers who could make teams like NZ, SRI, PAK, WI & SA/ENG (jaques) right now.

Katich opening shows his versatily. If he was batting in the middle order even he would still be making runs, because his record breaking FC season for NSW was not as an opener.

Originally Posted by Smith

Jaffer never had a good time a stretch anytime during his career. He was continually getting selected despite his obvious shortcomings because Bombay, his team, has a big political influence in the BCCI. All of Jaffer's knocks had come on flat beds and he never ever looked convincing against any top quality attacks.

I dont know about the behind the scenes stuff. But i was under the idea that he got back into the Indian team vs ENG 06 on the back of big domestic runs for years, after being drop 4 year earlier. The Indian on this site ATT, had no issue with him.

Yes for the period he made runs it was againts poor attacks on flat decks. But it was a good enough purple patch (similar to what Gambhir is in right now) before he did fail in AUS, he was backed ahead of Sehwag.

Originally Posted by Smith

With Gambhir, the picture is different. After he was dropped, he went back to domestic cricket and grilled out big tons, adapted to the T20 format and made a big impact there, got selected in ODIs and made his mark there also, and got finally called into the test squad where he just destroyed the Australian, the No.1 team, attack. When that was done, people called him he was good just in subcontinent, on cue came the sterling performances in New Zealand. There is hardly anything you can find fault with his performances over the last few years (Since 2007 to be precise), and he is miles away from Jaffer..

- The Australian attack was inexperienced, in Indian condtions, injury raved & poorly structured by the selectors.

Lee was coming off an injury, Johnson although bowled better than his figures suggested was not the same bowler he was not same bowler he was not. Clark got his elbow injury during the series, McGain injured, Krejza not selected earlier & White's crazy selection.

Not saying better selection could have made Australia win. But months out before, it was always likely that Australia where going to loose in India really. So that Australian attack Gambhir destroyed in Indian conditions isn't nothing to go crazy about.


In NZ, although the Kiwis fought. The attack didn't have much penetration, the wickets where flat. Jaffer would have done the same.

Only thing the praise Gambhir about is his batting in SRI, which proves he is a fantastic player of spin really. He still has not yet faced a top-attack in testing conditions.

Originally Posted by Smith

He is in the team for his wicket keeping and that is precisely why he is batting at No. 7 in tests. His record there is not as flash as ODIs, but that points out more to his extremely brilliant ODI record than a terrible test record. His average of 38 is still very good for a guy batting at No.7 especially when the 6 above him are no shmucks (well, except Yuvraj of course). If you are hinting at calling Dhoni a failure in tests, and find some absurd logic to link it to the FC structure then you are not making any sense. Actually I would consider Dhoni as the posterboy of the success of Indian FC system. For a kid who languished in the rural hinterlands of Jharkand, one of the poorest states in India, and who was just another guy in a billion about 7 years back, he could have ended up being just another face. To his credit he persevered and performed, and despite Jharkand being a Division 2 team perennially, he got selected just due to his performances in the domestic tournaments.

All im saying with Dhoni is that his test match batting credentials is way behind that of his ODI performances. Againts good bowling attacks in testing conditions he is still very likely to be a walking wicket as was shown in AUS 07/08 & to a level in ENG 07.

If lets say Irfan Pathan had evolved into a top young all-rounder today. It would be crazy to bat Dhoni in the top 6. Since India are highly unlikely to get a Gilchrist, Sanga, Stewart etc like performances like out of him in tests with the blade.


I admit, i was not thinking when i linked that to his FC performances. But actually your brought him up, so weirdly you kind of dragged me into commenting on him.

My main argument is as you would have read above with Silentstriker, is that IND FC structure along with those of WI, NZ, SRI, PAK are not sound like AUS, ENG, WI & SA. Thats why they are have never been able to dominate test cricket in the game's history.

NOTE: With West Indies FC structure i am referring to modern day of course.

Originally Posted by Smith

So what is the point you are making? What about Ishant Sharma who came up through the same conditions and is now one of the best pace bowlers in test cricket?.

In 70 odd years Indian have produced 1 truly great fast-bowler.

The preparation of pitches to suit the spinners has been a detriment to top-fast bowlers being produced. This is like obvious yo...

Originally Posted by Smith

Your strange logic of linking players' performances in selected part of their career and linking it to overall direness of Indian FC system is abysmally poor when it comes to making sense. So I do not want to press you on further here.

See above...

Originally Posted by Smith

Of course, he could have become a Hazan Raza. But he did not right? The same is true for any FC structure on the face of earth right?

Look at Phil Hughes, assume he goes, god forbid, the Kambli way, would you call it a failure of the Aussie FC system?.

No. All that can be said is that he was worked out overtime. He came into the Australia team based on solid FC performances, Australia 95% of the time pick players on solid FC performances, rather than raw talent.

If Tendy was Australian he would not have debuted at 16.

Also looking at the examples also of past Australian openers like Langer, Hayden. You could say the strenght of the FC system enabled them to go back to FC cricket after their intial failures & come back strong. You don't see Indian doing that...

Originally Posted by Smith

FC system is designed to throw up a bunch of potentials and not the finished product. Because a player is never the finished product ever during his career. He is constantly learning, adapting, and improving himself.

Yes. But the you can't throw up a kid into the big leagues over & over like what Indian & other nations have been doing for years & expect it to lead to you to success in test cricket. It wont work.

[chaminda_00]

You can't really have a go at a country of picking players on talent or ODI/T20 performances when they are playing as well as they are now. To an extent Australia and South Africa have done similar things. The likes of De Villiars, Duminy, Steyn, Smith, Boucher, Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Ponting, Johnson, Siddle, Lee, McGarth, Warne, Clarke and Hughes were all basically picked on talent when other more experience FC players were overlooked.

Yeah there are other likes Hussey, Langer, Hayden, Katich, Clark, Prince and Amla that were picked on the back of lots of FC runs and wickets. But large percentage of top line International players were picked intially on talent, or runs in the shorter form.

The counter arguement is the performances of guys like Vandort, Chamara Silva, Hick and Ramps who were picked after a mount of FC runs and failed. Balance is the key. India probably go overboard on talent, but they are moving more towards FC/domestic performances over just talent.