Yes I agree. Our middle order has been a mess for almost 2 years and it has yet to be fixed. That itself should have been a sackable offence for shastri and co. Poor planning altogether.
ICC Cricket World Cup 2019
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Bunch of pessimists the lot of you. I think we'll do well. I see form being a bigger issue than class, and I am hopeful the long format gives them enough time. We have 6-7 terrific players.
Ee sala cup namde.
Ee sala cup namde.
Good to see Smith finding himself out there. Class is permanent.
How many men did England lose? Things must be bad when you need Paul fecking Collingwood in the field.
India's like the PSG of cricket.
Urgh what?
For all the resources they have (massive talent pool, richest board, world class/best T20 league and influx of money) they still won't win the world cup.
How does all of that equate to success? Money is barely going to make a huge difference and as for tournaments:
2007 T20 - winners
2009 CT - group stages
2010 T20 - group stages
2011 WC - winners
2012 T20 - 2nd group stages
2013 CT - winners
2014 T20 - runners up
2015 WC - semi finals
2016 T20 - semi finals
2017 CT - runners up
I doubt any team has gotten close to our record in tournaments over the last 10-12 years.
It's not like we can buy Steven Smith from Australia and play him at four. Doesn't matter how good the median player is(which is what most of what you typed translates to), it's the best 11 that wins tournaments, and that is down to circumstance as much as infrastructure.
There’s no clear winner as far as I can see. All teams have a shot to get to the semis except for probably Sri Lanka and Afghanistan. And then luck plays a huge role.
I like how England have kept this like a match and not used more than 11 players . Players should be used to playing situations
This English side remains me 92 English side,lot of hype around them before the Tournament and favourite to win it etc.
It’s the kit isn’t it?
Once again Ali plays a shot he doesn't need to. 
Moeen annoys me so much, feel like one of the reasons they have picked Dawson is to send a message to Moeen . Could be dropped by the second half of the tournament if he continues like this
Think there's some bottling going on there imo. Money does make a big difference btw. Turning raw talents like Bumrah, Kohli etc into the world class complete packages they are today involves player development.
Idk what you mean by circumstance. Either way, if New Zealend win the world cup, is it not more impressive than India winning it? I think it is. A team like India not making top 4 would be a proper disaster.
Windies to win and spark a cricket revival there 
Archer & Rashid to bat
This is nonsense. You ever been to India? Most of these guys grew up playing with bare minimum facilities. The above results illustrates their determination and ability in spite of being at a disadvantage in life.
And no, New Zealand winning wouldn't be that impressive.
And you included Kohli? What a joke.
I'm in the Rahane camp as well. The lack of a no. 4 is going to feck us. The top three fall early against swing most of the times, I would love to have an in form Rahane walking in at 2 down.
Lokesh Rahul doesn't seem to have the mentality to improve. He has clear flaws in his game which haven't been overcome for a while. I would pick even Pant or DK over him.
I hope our openers struggle in the warm up games and play silly shots. I want the law of averages to be on our side when the going gets tough. A classy Rohit ton would be great in the semifinals or finals.
If I were to put money on us, I'd say a semi final loss to England or Australia with a batting collapse after losing the toss.
Lokesh Rahul doesn't seem to have the mentality to improve. He has clear flaws in his game which haven't been overcome for a while. I would pick even Pant or DK over him.
I hope our openers struggle in the warm up games and play silly shots. I want the law of averages to be on our side when the going gets tough. A classy Rohit ton would be great in the semifinals or finals.
If I were to put money on us, I'd say a semi final loss to England or Australia with a batting collapse after losing the toss.
Do you even know the circumstances in which Kohli rose to fame? Do you know where Bumrah comes from? Or Dhoni?
If anything, players fight against poverty to rise to fame. You cannot make a living in this country by playing cricket. The national team starters and squad players give you the wrong idea. The top 100 players in the country who make insane money through BCCI contracts, IPL, advertising, et al. After that, the future is bleak. Directly one rung below the national team, the top Ranji players (basically the next 200-odd best players in the country) make about 5-8 lakhs a year at best through match-based contracts. The Ranji squad players, say the next 200 best players, make hardly half of that since they don't get the appearance based income. After that, the players fiercely battle for part time low-paying government jobs which come from the sports quota. Jobs which at best pay out around 2-3 lakhs per annum, and drop as low as 1 lakh per annum. And remember, most of the income for all of them dries out after they retire from cricket.
Let me put it this way - if you're not in the top 500 male cricketers in India, you will struggle to make more than 2,00,000/- INR per annum, which directly converted equates to about 2500 GBP. There are more than 100 cricket academies in Hyderabad alone. If I approximate that by population of the top 25 cities, there are at least 15,000 cricket academies in the country. I'll make a stupid assumption that only 1 person chooses cricket as a career from each academy (there are way way many more people who sacrifice their prime years trying to make it), that still means only 3% of the pro cricketers in India make more than 2500 GBP per annum. The rest? Well, we don't have a minimum wage, so you can imagine. Needless to say, it is far far worse for women. Most people don't even know who Mithila Raj is.
My point is this - only the tiniest fraction makes insane money in this country after choosing cricket as a career. The rest struggle very badly, and still make the choice from the poorest of backgrounds because in India, cricket is a religion of its own. The top 1% take 99% of the money, and the remaining 99% of the players fight for the scraps. Money is not our strength, it is our handicap. If Indian cricketers were paid as much as their English or Australian counterparts in the lower tiers of the game, then we'd be a different beast altogether. We'd be winning World Cups for fun. So would Pakistan, if they had the money.
When I was 16, I had the chance to kickstart a career as a keeper for my district team, but my parents and I chose not to go down that road because of money. I know how that story ends 99,999 times of 1,00,000. You have no idea what you're talking about.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/628049.html
http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1123792/who-gets-paid-what-in-cricket
Erm yes I have? What's that got to do with anything. You're blinded by your support so not going to bother arguing. I personally think New Zealend winning would be extremely impressive and a lot of experts would agree.
Well, lets call it a superstition of mine. I do think a good batsman will bounce back from a poor run of games with, well, a good run of games. It might be irrational and illogical, but I firmly believe in it like a fool.
True. Yes the population is high but that doesn't mean the infrastructure is good. Frankly it's a clueless as hell post. As long as the IPL money isn't filtered into grassroots then it's worthless.
Do you even know the circumstances in which Kohli rose to fame? Do you know where Bumrah comes from? Or Dhoni?
If anything, players fight against poverty to rise to fame. You cannot make a living in this country by playing cricket. The national team starters and squad players give you the wrong idea. The top 100 players in the country who make insane money through BCCI contracts, IPL, advertising, et al. After that, the future is bleak. Directly one rung below the national team, the top Ranji players (basically the next 200-odd best players in the country) make about 5-8 lakhs a year at best through match-based contracts. The Ranji squad players, say the next 200 best players, make hardly half of that since they don't get the appearance based income. After that, the players fiercely battle for part time low-paying government jobs which come from the sports quota. Jobs which at best pay out around 2-3 lakhs per annum, and drop as low as 1 lakh per annum. And remember, most of the income for all of them dries out after they retire from cricket.
Let me put it this way - if you're not in the top 500 male cricketers in India, you will struggle to make more than 2,00,000/- INR per annum, which directly converted equates to about 2500 GBP. There are more than 100 cricket academies in Hyderabad alone. If I approximate that by population of the top 25 cities, there are at least 15,000 cricket academies in the country. I'll make a stupid assumption that only 1 person chooses cricket as a career from each academy (there are way way many more people who sacrifice their prime years trying to make it), that still means only 3% of the pro cricketers in India make more than 2500 GBP per annum. The rest? Well, we don't have a minimum wage, so you can imagine. Needless to say, it is far far worse for women. Most people don't even know who Mithila Raj is.
My point is this - only the tiniest fraction makes insane money in this country after choosing cricket as a career. The rest struggle very badly, and still make the choice from the poorest of backgrounds because in India, cricket is a religion of its own. The top 1% take 99% of the money, and the remaining 99% of the players fight for the scraps. Money is not our strength, it is our handicap. If Indian cricketers were paid as much as their English or Australian counterparts in the lower tiers of the game, then we'd be a different beast altogether. We'd be winning World Cups for fun. So would Pakistan, if they had the money.
When I was 16, I had the chance to kickstart a career as a keeper for my district team, but my parents and I chose not to go down that road because of money. I know how that story ends 99,999 times of 1,00,000. You have no idea what you're talking about.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/628049.html
http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1123792/who-gets-paid-what-in-cricket
You are speaking as if England, Australia, SA, are common fodder. Even the rest had top phases over last years.
I'm not blinded by my support. You're somehow arguing that BCCI being rich somehow translates into the national teams success. Our board is corrupt to feck, that money goes to their pockets. Watch the Prithvi Shaw documentary and then tell me the difference money has made to his development. These guys graft from a very young ages with little to no support.
Yes, the IPL has allowed us to expose younger players to the pressures of a higher level of cricket but don't forget our greedy shit board doesnt allow any players to play in any other league. So why dont you apply that arguement to other teams? Guys from Australia, South Africa and West Indies play in far more T20 tournaments so surely that'd help them?
As for New Zealand, why would you be impressed? I'd be impressed if West Indies won the tournament given the ongoing issues with their board. But New Zealand, what would be so impressive about them winning? Being a small nation?
@Gandalf Greyhame , I read that wall of text but I was well aware of most of that (not the figures obviously). You're arguing about something totally different. Take the top 100 Indian players. In that pool of a 100 players, India has a massive advantage in terms of structure and maturity than arguably any other team. That's where IPL and money comes into play.
You're responding to me as if I am suggesting the players themselves should be disappointed in their talent. The journey to make it to the top 100 is rough, so not sure why you're telling me that.
For that final eleven, India has a clear advantage in their selection. Not even sure why you're so defensive about this. A country of a billion plus cricket lovers offers more to the national team than Kiwis.
It's like I said Brazil has an advantage over soccer loving Scotland and you lecture me on how difficult it was for Adriano to burst onto the scene.
You're responding to me as if I am suggesting the players themselves should be disappointed in their talent. The journey to make it to the top 100 is rough, so not sure why you're telling me that.
For that final eleven, India has a clear advantage in their selection. Not even sure why you're so defensive about this. A country of a billion plus cricket lovers offers more to the national team than Kiwis.
It's like I said Brazil has an advantage over soccer loving Scotland and you lecture me on how difficult it was for Adriano to burst onto the scene.
England is similar. Aussies have a different advantage in pure quality. SA does have difficulty imo in terms of talent.
How did he look whilst batting? Looked very rusty in IPL although T20 isn't his Forte. If him and Warner can get back their form then
Clearly you havent read everything. Yes, I argued that it is far more difficult for an 'Adriano' to burst through, but the link to the articles also shows how that Adriano, even after breaking through, makes less than his counterparts.
As for IPL money, the you do realize that the likes of Steve Smith and Ben Stokes benefit more from it than, say, Rishabh Pant?
I'll use my same example of Brazil soccer vs Scotland. I'm sure Brazilians are also corrupt to the core but the advantage remains. Money isn't a direct correlation to success but it plays a huge hand.
The growth of BCCI, financially, has coincided with India's team in terms of quality. Is that just a coincidence? The team turning into a consistent top4 team since, the IPL -- also a coincidence?
New Zealand is a small nation with a small talent people. Kiwis do the best they can with what they have. Yes, I would be impressed if they own the world cup and you know it too. Every expert would label it as very impressive.
PSG reference is a misguided comment. India has a proven talent resource pool and has won trophies while being one of the dominant teams last couple of years across different formats.
Winning WC is no joke to be fair but India will be among top 4 teams.
@shamans
You said four things:
The massive talent pool - how do you know? Thats just an assumption you've made based on the countries population. If the resources aren't available, then what can you do with talent?
Rich board - well if the board wasn't corrupt, I'd give you to this.
T20 league - there are plenty of leagues our players dont participate in.
Money - any proof to show its correctly invested. My recent ventures into country would illustrate the money stays in the pockets of those who "earn" it.
You said four things:
The massive talent pool - how do you know? Thats just an assumption you've made based on the countries population. If the resources aren't available, then what can you do with talent?
Rich board - well if the board wasn't corrupt, I'd give you to this.
T20 league - there are plenty of leagues our players dont participate in.
Money - any proof to show its correctly invested. My recent ventures into country would illustrate the money stays in the pockets of those who "earn" it.
You're not going to agree so what's the point of arguing? Yes I believe in all those four things. You don't.
To be fair, has anyone ever agreed with someone else in a debate.
Brazil is a better example than PSG I would say. You have to remember that kids in New Zealand get better nutrition and play a range of sports as part of their schooling and not to mention get support from cricketing boards.
In the subcontinent its almost a choice between playing sports or earning a good living.
India does have a massive talent pool though, it's stupid to deny otherwise. The country is cricket mad.
Ipl has also had a very good effect on your team, giving exposure to younger crickets earlier and I am guessing more crickets are earning a better income now than before.
@shamans
Just go to India and open your eyes. The common folk there don't have the resources or facilities to make it to the top level. Listen to stories about players such as Tendulkar, Harbhajan, Kohli and Shaw where everything was against them yet they made it to the level from the sheer determination to make it there.
Just go to India and open your eyes. The common folk there don't have the resources or facilities to make it to the top level. Listen to stories about players such as Tendulkar, Harbhajan, Kohli and Shaw where everything was against them yet they made it to the level from the sheer determination to make it there.