IPL and Indian cricket's renaissance

[Bun]

IPL has been lambasted generally in all forums (except for really hardcore fan forums), and perhaps there is a reason for the same.

But if one takes notice of the Indian team in the last 3 years, from 2008 onwards, they've been on a meteoric rise, in both ODIs and tests, a rise which has culminated in them winning the WC, no.1 in both tests and ODIs.

Is it just coincidental that this has spanned exactly the same age as that of the IPL? People have been talking how IPL is detrimental to other formats, particularly tests, but records of the Indian team suggest otherwise.

Thoughts?

[vcs]

I trace the emergence of the new mentally strong India to their chase of 387 against England in Chennai. Never underestimate the psychological boost of a good chase. Said at the time that it would take Indian cricket to the next level, like Australia's win against Pakistan in Hobart '99 did for them.

[Bun]

Originally Posted by vcs

I trace the emergence of the new mentally strong India to their chase of 387 against England in Chennai. Never underestimate the psychological boost of a good chase. Said at the time that it would take Indian cricket to the next level, like Australia's win against Pakistan in Hobart '99 did for them.

I think if one goes back sufficiently to the past, I'd say the Natwest 2002 final can be really marked as a pointer the real turnaround in the mental aspect. Was a wonderful win, and perhaps the first time India won without a significant Sachin contribution, and also without much help from other big guns.

But I do agree that 387 chase was solid, and also injected a lot of confidence into "Can do from anywhere" attitude.

[Dissector]

Co-relation doesn't imply causation.

The idea that the IPL helped India become the no.1 test team is pretty far-fetched. Logically you might expect the IPL to help India become a stronger TT team but it hasn't happened so far with early exits in both the TT world cups after the IPL. Probably the IPL has helped players like Raina and therefore helped this world cup campaign a bit but hardly in a massive way.

As for India's test performance of the last few years there are plenty of good explanations: Dhoni's captaincy, Sachin's return to form, Zak's emergence as a top-class bowler which have nothing to do with the IPL.

[Bun]

Originally Posted by Dissector

Co-relation doesn't imply causation.

The idea that the IPL helped India become the no.1 test team is pretty far-fetched. Logically you might expect the IPL to help India become a stronger TT team but it hasn't happened so far with early exits in both the TT world cups after the IPL. Probably the IPL has helped players like Raina and therefore helped this world cup campaign a bit but hardly in a massive way.

As for India's test performance of the last few years there are plenty of good explanations: Dhoni's captaincy, Sachin's return to form, Zak's emergence as a top-class bowler which have nothing to do with the IPL.

Fair point. I agree there may be nil corelation between the two. But that is another point I am trying to emphasise upon, does IPL has "any" effect on other formats? Is it hurting other formats? Or is it just something which exists in a space of it's own?

Personally I believe T20s in IPL helped Sachin maintain his fitness far more manageably, and his form without having to go through the hard routine of 35 ODIs a year.

[social]

Originally Posted by Bun

IPL has been lambasted generally in all forums (except for really hardcore fan forums), and perhaps there is a reason for the same.

But if one takes notice of the Indian team in the last 3 years, from 2008 onwards, they've been on a meteoric rise, in both ODIs and tests, a rise which has culminated in them winning the WC, no.1 in both tests and ODIs.

Is it just coincidental that this has spanned exactly the same age as that of the IPL? People have been talking how IPL is detrimental to other formats, particularly tests, but records of the Indian team suggest otherwise.

Thoughts?

Retirement of Oz greats and the fact that SA cant draw on their full talent base is the reason

IPL or otherwise, India wouldnt be in the contest if that hadnt happened

[keeper]

One of my lad's coaches was explaining to me yesterday how T20 has rejuvenated Tendulkar. Aside from this I think India's performance in ODIs and tests roughly correlates to the quality of their players and the quality of competition (with the field having bunched).

T20 has had some influence outside of it's own format but not sure India have particularly gained form it relatively to other countries.

If we're talking about the calmness with which India were able to chase down a tricky target then it would be wise I think to look at the age range of the team as a factor. Look at the core of key players who are between 29 and 32 - Sehwag, Gambhir, Dhoni, Y Singh, H Singh, Khan. Experience and maturity but still at their physical peaks.

And yes, I know I've used the words 'Harbhajan Singh' and 'maturity' in the same sentence but you get my meaning I hope.

[dhillon28]

2001 2nd test at Eden Gardens- beating one of the best teams of all time in the middle of their hottest streak from an impossible situation- after this performance, India always had an expectation that it is only a matter of time before we will reach the pinnacle of world cricket

[Bun]

Originally Posted by social

Retirement of Oz greats and the fact that SA cant draw on their full talent base is the reason

IPL or otherwise, India wouldnt be in the contest if that hadnt happened

That is bit of over simplification in my opinion.

1. Australia's dominance is once in a generation kind of thing. Perhaps once in a century affair when 5-6 exceptionally talented individuals happen to share the same dressing room for a decade. It happened to Windies once, and look where are they now, and it happened to Australia. There is no shame in saying India did benefit from not having to play a team stuffed with McGrath, Warne, and other legends, but to say that was the only reason for their success is just too much a shallow argument.

2. Lol SA. Have they ever won a knockout in a WC? What is this talk about "not able to draw in their talent base"/

[BoyBrumby]

Not sure the IPL has been universally lambasted as it goes, either.

The people who knock it are generally the same ones who get cases of the vapours at the very mention of 20/20.

&, pedantic point as it is, renaissance roughly translates as "rebirth"; I don't think even the most one-eyed Indian fan would claim to ever have had things quite so good as they are now.

What's most interesting to me is if this is the peak of the team's achievements or the beginning of a dynasty like the Windies and the Aussies before them. A lot (pretty much all, in fact) of the key players are north of 30.

[shankar]

Another important reason is that the WI team of of 80's didnt continue dominating world cricket.

[social]

Originally Posted by Bun

That is bit of over simplification in my opinion.

1. Australia's dominance is once in a generation kind of thing. Perhaps once in a century affair when 5-6 exceptionally talented individuals happen to share the same dressing room for a decade. It happened to Windies once, and look where are they now, and it happened to Australia. There is no shame in saying India did benefit from not having to play a team stuffed with McGrath, Warne, and other legends, but to say that was the only reason for their success is just too much a shallow argument.

2. Lol SA. Have they ever won a knockout in a WC? What is this talk about "not able to draw in their talent base"/

You do know that KP, Trott etc etc etc were born and bred in SA?

SA has by far the most talented player base in the world at present but cant draw on all of them for a variety of reasons

[Bun]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Not sure the IPL has been universally lambasted as it goes, either.

The people who knock it are generally the same ones who get cases of the vapours at the very mention of 20/20.

&, pedantic point as it is, renaissance roughly translates as "rebirth"; I don't think even the most one-eyed Indian fan would claim to ever have had things quite so good as they are now.

What's most interesting to me is if this is the peak of the team's achievements or the beginning of a dynasty like the Windies and the Aussies before them. A lot (pretty much all, in fact) of the key players are north of 30.

Thanks so much for the lesson BoyBrumby. Fair point on the "renaissance" thing, as unless we have solid proof that cricket indeed existed some millenia back and India indeed used to dominate it

I don't think this is the start of any kind of a dynastic run that WI and Aus enjoyed, but if they continue to perform like this for another 4-5 years, they can claim their own era. Not an era of dominance, but just being the best among equals.

[Bun]

Originally Posted by social

You do know that KP, Trott etc etc etc were born and bred in SA?

SA has by far the most talented player base in the world at present but cant draw on all of them for a variety of reasons

And what exactly did England do with KP and Trott in their team in the WC? :kick:

And to think about it in the first place KP left SA because he was not good enough to be counted in.

Or are you implying mere presence of KP and Trott instead of AB devilliers and Duminy would've seen SA torpedoing into the WC? Out of curiosity, did they suffer from the same malaise in 92, 96, 99, 07 as well? (I don't have much knowledge about SA cricket)

[vcs]

SA could have used Trott in the middle-order TBH. Any team could find a place for him at the moment, gun batsman. But yeah, SA need to get out of their own way before embarking on world domination. Their Test record after 2008 isn't all that great TBH, and the choking malaise in important ODIs is still very much there.