To win a cricket match, you require one of two things - at least. The first is a phenomenal performance by an individual. In the present scenario, I don't see anyone in the present team being in the right form to produce such a performance. The second option is a team performance that covers our own inadequacies and exposes the opponents. Jayasuriya has been patchy against India and Zaheer especially. Tharanga is a bit of stand and deliver player. Jayawardene struggled to gain fluency against Bermuda as well. The real danger is Sangakkara; if he gets going, the only way to get him out is to wait for him to commit a mistake. I do not necessarily see SL's bowling as being anything more than consistent. If one magic ball to one of our batsmen causes our downfall then the others should commit suicide. On the other hand, we lack top order consistency and, contrary to reason as this might sound, Uthappa has experience facing up to Maharoof and Malinga and should be in the top order. The one change from Bermuda's match would be Harbhajan in for Kumble, since there are a number of left handers in SL's lineup. We then have to ensure that we cover our fielding inadequacy with extra runs and expose SL's inadequacy against good swing bowling and collapsing under pressure. This does not sound straightforward given our current form, but looks much more likely than a single glorious performance.
However, if we do contrive to lose tomorrow, I won't be shedding tears because a team ridden with superiority complex, shambolic attitude and a lack of any regiment deserves to suffer. Also, it will teach a lesson to all those advertisers and television channels who've made our lives such hell by running nonsensical and idiotic cricket shows and sections. I know someone might say "then why watch those channels"; the problem is any channel you turn on has the rubbish blaring out.
All in all, I know we've underperformed and lack basic cricketing skills required at the highest levels. However, I also hope that all those 250-odd wickets or million-odd run records mean something in tomorrow's match.
On an honestly unrelated note, I fear for Greg Chappell, should we lose tomorrow :).. Alright, it was a pun!!
RE:What does it take to win??!!
by on Mar 22, 2007 10:08 PM Permalink
hi everybody, i know about indian team very well. everybody have to look india's previous results and statics in series as well as world cup. in that way india can make a place in super 8 of this world cup. it is sure that india will win against sri lanka but two things they have to take in mind that one is kartik will be in for the place of sehwag eventhough sehwag played well against bermuda, but we dont forget that country was bermuda, second thing is that every indian could not understand why agarkar is inside the 11 players, he must be eliminated by srisanth. also if possible, last option is irfan will be in place of robin Uthappa. thank you best luck india
RE:What does it take to win??!!
by Abhi on Mar 22, 2007 10:11 PM Permalink
jayasuriya has been most vulnerable against agarkar who has taken jayasuriya's scalp most among india's bowlers. wake up and see the reality besides teaching yourself how to play cricket. You fool.
RE:What does it take to win??!!
by Cricket Lover on Mar 22, 2007 10:06 PM Permalink
Good thoughts Chiradeep. I couldn't agree more. In fact, to take your thinking a bit further, I would like to investigate the motivations that drive an Indian cricketer. Lets start with the basic premise that cricketers are in cricket to make money. Today isn't like earlier times (or like teams from Ireland and Bermuda) where cricketers play to enjoy themselves and entertain the crowds. They are in it for the money. And lets not be judgemental on that since these guys have given up other fulfilling and steady careers in order to devote their minds and bodies to making money by playing cricket. They aren't different from us guys who are making money as professionals, entrepreneurs, businessmen etc. With that out of the way, lets examine how modern day cricketers make moeny. In countries like Australia and South Africa, there is a strong domestic structure that pays handsomely anyone who decides to play well for his club. It is these who make it to the international team where too the structure allows them to earn good money that is linked to their performance (e.g. the Cricket Australia's A, B, C categorisation system). The message here is very clear - you want to earn money then earn it by playing well, otherwise you are out. In India (and Pakistan) a cricketer is bestowed demi-god status and thus companies ambush him for his brand value. Thus, as long as the brand persists the cricketer earns money by appearing in ads. The incentive here is to maintain the brand (mainly through well timed good performances that keep the public happy) and the cash keeps flowing in. In effect, for the subcontinental players the incentive is linked to brand value that is weakly linked to on-field performance. For others incentive is directly linked to performance. As a case in contrasts, assume a Shane Warne existed in India. He would have no brand value because of his off-field misdemeanours and thus would be unpopular with the public. In Australia, he is a revered (and one of the highest earning) star because he is a genius on field. Shane Warne would not have survived in India
