• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Did India Waste Their Talent

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
I've been watching cricket for almost 20 years and for much of that time Australia have been a clear division above the rest. Certainly since about 1996 anyway, but when we look back in another 10-15 years I think many will look at the great individual talent India has had, with the bat certainly, but never really made it work as a unit as they should.

If you look at the Aussies in the past 15 years they have had-

Mark Waugh
Steve Waugh
Mark Taylor
Matt Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Michael Slater
Damien Martyn
Adam Gilchrist

But India have been the only team to match or even pass them on pure talent-

Tendulka
Dravid
Ganguly
Sehwag
Azharuddin
Laxman
Dhoni
and more I have no doubt forgot

They even had two genuinly world class spinners in Kumble and Singh (although Australia destroy them in the seam bowling department).

As an Englishman who has spent years watching us get trounced off the Aussies, I was always a wee bit disappointed India with their great raw ingrediants did not do more for themselves in the period.

First post by the way, hope everyone is good. :happy:
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Welcome to CW. :)

Surely the disparity between the results of the two countries is primarily down to the quality of developmental/domestic systems in place. And, as you've acknowledged, Australia's pace resources have always been better than those of India's. Considering that they were ahead back then, in that regard, it's no surprise that they've stayed ahead.

Waste of talent? In a sense, I suppose. But I'd be interested to hear from more knowledgeable posters what the reasons are for such a disparity in the strength of domestic cricket. Some would appear to be obvious, but surely India's domestic cricket should be a lot stronger than it is, given how much money is available.
 

Cruxdude

International Debutant
The thing with the Indian batting talent is that most were not at their peak in the 90s. Dravid made his debut in 96 but it was not till 1999 and later that he became the wall that he is now.

Laxman of the 90s was a sad case. He used to plunder the domestic attacks but the only position he ever got was that of an opener and he was constantly under pressure because of some crappy selectors. Azhar was not a great player outside the subcontinent.

Sehwag came much later. Ganguly was a decent test batsman nothing more. The rest of the batsmen who made up the Indian batting weren't much. Sidhu outside India bad. Manjrekar was decent but nowhere near a great. Mongia as an opener was always a fail.

So for most of the 90s the team was full of poor batsmen or batsmen who were finding their feet in international cricket.

There is nothing to be written about the Indian bowlers. It was embarrassing watching India bowl overseas.

Tendulkar alone was the reason India watched cricket in the 90s.
 

Cruxdude

International Debutant
Thought the post was about India of the 90s.

India in the 2000s has been solid in batting and only recently has got the fire power in the bowling to bowl out teams regularly. Pundits may say a lot about India's bowling but this is the best shape it has been in. If we had had this attack since the early 2000s the results could have been better.
 

Cruxdude

International Debutant
Almost 2500 runs at about 50, with 7 hundreds and 12 fifties in 32 matches. Probably a bit harsh to call him just "decent".
Yeah my judgement of him is being coloured by his batting when he was a captain. But Sachin and a young Ganguly with no bowling to speak of was never going to win many matches.
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
I hear what you say about the domestic game, but it's not as if India have not produced the raw talent needed despite those differences. Even their individual batting averages compare well but they seemed to lack the fundamental unity of the Aussies (who had a spirit more comparable to a Rugby team) and it was a lack of unity, or passion, or will, or something that meant they never climbed to the top.

Shame really, most of the Indian batsman I named would probably make an all time England XI.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah my judgement of him is being coloured by his batting when he was a captain. But Sachin and a young Ganguly with no bowling to speak of was never going to win many matches.
And while the bowling has improved, India still does not produce quality fast bowlers at the same rate and level of Australia. Needless to say. The difference in conditions may just have something to do with it though.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I hear what you say about the domestic game, but it's not as if India have not produced the raw talent needed despite those differences.
On the contrary, no matter how talented players are, if the system is not in place to develop them those players are always unlikely to become Test class. Talent is just one piece in the puzzle.

It's a similar problem to West Indies, where abundance of talent cannot overcome the glaring inadequacies in administration and development.
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
Thought the post was about India of the 90s.

India in the 2000s has been solid in batting and only recently has got the fire power in the bowling to bowl out teams regularly. Pundits may say a lot about India's bowling but this is the best shape it has been in. If we had had this attack since the early 2000s the results could have been better.

This generation of India players now, old and less old. They overlap in the same way Warne overlapped with Clarke and Ponting with Waugh etc. You'd be lucky to find a team where everyone was the same age.
 

Cruxdude

International Debutant
And while the bowling has improved, India still does not produce quality fast bowlers at the same rate and level of Australia. Needless to say. The difference in conditions may just have something to do with it though.
Yeah true and I don't see India doing that also in the future. But I will be happy with an Ishant in full flow, Zaheer at his canny best and Sreesanth like he bowled against Srilanka.
 

Cruxdude

International Debutant
This generation of India players now, old and less old. They overlap in the same way Warne overlapped with Clarke and Ponting with Waugh etc. You'd be lucky to find a team where everyone was the same age.
True. But I am confident we will have some good batsmen in the future too. The domestic scene for batsmen is pretty promising.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Ishant in full flow, Zaheer at his canny best and Sreesanth like he bowled against Srilanka.
Unfortunately none of those things happen very often. And there's also no genuine depth behind that inconsistent pack, which may be considered even more disconcerting.
 

GuyFromLancs

State Vice-Captain
Unfortunately none of those things happen very often. And there's also no genuine depth behind that inconsistent pack, which may be considered even more disconcerting.
Very true. In my near two decades watching test cricket i've yet to see India produce one real world class seamer. Not even Sinrath fitted this bracket.

Numerous great batsmen, 1 great spinner, another very good one, 0 top class seamers. What would India have done even for someone of Vaas' ability and longevity in the past 15 years?
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Australia did have much greater depth, but I think you answered this question yourself by mentioning the bowlers. Fielding too. Never forget the fielding.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
Bowling. It's always bowling.

Fielding, not really. I mean it's nice but it's nowhere near enough to account for anywhere close to the difference. Catching is what is essential in Tests, not ground fielding, and while no Australia, India have been OK most of the time.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bowling. It's always bowling.

Fielding, not really. I mean it's nice but it's nowhere near enough to account for anywhere close to the difference. Catching is what is essential in Tests, not ground fielding, and while no Australia, India have been OK most of the time.
Was just about to post about the recent series here with Pakistan til I read the totality of your post mate. I think fielding in general can reflect the sharpness or otherwise or a side mentally, but yes it's all about catching..
 
Last edited:

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bowling. It's always bowling.

Fielding, not really. I mean it's nice but it's nowhere near enough to account for anywhere close to the difference. Catching is what is essential in Tests, not ground fielding, and while no Australia, India have been OK most of the time.
Ground fielding is seriously overrated sometimes. Outside the subcontinent slips are about 100x more important than the rest of the field. On the subcontinent it's merely about 10 or 15x.

It's all a potent mix though. Compare batting against Australia in the 90s to batting against India in the 90s, and it's much harder for a lot more reasons than just the superior bowling.
 

Top