What's new

India - The new chokers in town?

This population theory is absurd. Especially Pakistan fans should not use that. They are the second most populated cricketing nation. Got thrashed by Australia 12 Tests in a row where a smaller country England has done far better. Afghanistan with very poor access was able to produce two or three top flight LOI spinners. Same way small island produced a great spinner Murali. You don't need like 1000 people in a team to play this. Just 11 people. If each country is allowed to send 10 teams then this population theory works in favor of over-populated countries.
 
This population theory is absurd. Especially Pakistan fans should not use that. They are the second most populated cricketing nation. Got thrashed by Australia 12 Tests in a row where a smaller country England has done far better. Afghanistan with very poor access was able to produce two or three top flight LOI spinners. Same way small island produced a great spinner Murali. You don't need like 1000 people in a team to play this. Just 11 people. If each country is allowed to send 10 teams then this population theory works in favor of over-populated countries.

It’s not absurd. The population ‘theory’ is used to explain the choice available. You expect in a country that is 6-7 times of Pakistan and where cricket has been booming for the last decade, the amount of choice and resources should produce quality players and results. It hasn’t.

England is a smaller country but cricket is not the most favorite sport.

Pakistan didn’t have international domestic cricket for 10 years. Just now we are getting our resources back.

NZ and SL are nations that are admired by most - NZ esp 5 million people where cricket isn’t even the most popular sport, and they are competing well. SL was made highly competitive in 80s and 90s by Pakistan playing SL many times and they improved their game.

Afghanistan has spinners but that’s it. They are still minnows and mental midgets. Having good spinners is hardly an evidence of a competitive team. Pakistan has had a history of good bowlers, it doesn’t mean we are awesome.


At the end of the day, results matter. Strictly from a resource, and pool of potential players available, India should be winning every match they play.

But they are lacking in leadership. That’s the only reason they’re failing but no one can touch Kohli.
 
Women's World Cup 2017 final should be added too. They were in the box seat.

And Women's World T20 semi 2018 where they were unbeaten in the group stages but failed to win the semi.
 
It’s not absurd. The population ‘theory’ is used to explain the choice available. You expect in a country that is 6-7 times of Pakistan and where cricket has been booming for the last decade, the amount of choice and resources should produce quality players and results. It hasn’t.

England is a smaller country but cricket is not the most favorite sport.

Pakistan didn’t have international domestic cricket for 10 years. Just now we are getting our resources back.

NZ and SL are nations that are admired by most - NZ esp 5 million people where cricket isn’t even the most popular sport, and they are competing well. SL was made highly competitive in 80s and 90s by Pakistan playing SL many times and they improved their game.

Afghanistan has spinners but that’s it. They are still minnows and mental midgets. Having good spinners is hardly an evidence of a competitive team. Pakistan has had a history of good bowlers, it doesn’t mean we are awesome.


At the end of the day, results matter. Strictly from a resource, and pool of potential players available, India should be winning every match they play.

But they are lacking in leadership. That’s the only reason they’re failing but no one can touch Kohli.

That is a poor explanation to support your theory. Can you explain why Pakistan lost to Ireland in 2007 world cup? Can you apply your population theory, popularity of sports theory there? THey even had you on the mat in the Test match. Explain why Pakistan lost to BD in 1999. Keny has beaten West Indies. Ireland has beaten England. BD beat England in 2011. In cricket on a given day anybody can beat anybody in a LOI format especially in knock out. Your consistency is rewarded upto knockout. After that it is purely circumstantial. Pakistan is the second most populated country in the cricketing world. Check their record for the last several years. So while you are laughing at India you should laugh at Pakistan as well.
 
That is a poor explanation to support your theory. Can you explain why Pakistan lost to Ireland in 2007 world cup? Can you apply your population theory, popularity of sports theory there? THey even had you on the mat in the Test match. Explain why Pakistan lost to BD in 1999. Keny has beaten West Indies. Ireland has beaten England. BD beat England in 2011. In cricket on a given day anybody can beat anybody in a LOI format especially in knock out. Your consistency is rewarded upto knockout. After that it is purely circumstantial. Pakistan is the second most populated country in the cricketing world. Check their record for the last several years. So while you are laughing at India you should laugh at Pakistan as well.
My explanation may appear poor to you that’s simply because of your poor comprehension, inability to objectively understand facts and logic and unwavering bias. :)

Thanks
 
My explanation may appear poor to you that’s simply because of your poor comprehension, inability to objectively understand facts and logic and unwavering bias. :)

Thanks

You didn't answer my questions. Expected. Going by your theory Pakistan should never lose to any side that is less populated and with less cricketing culture. That is the definition of absurd theory.
 
Why is Switzerland with the tax exemptions & richness not standing first in all sports 🤔
 
First step to recovery is acceptance, then comes admission. By living in denial we will face many such heartbreaks, BCCI needs to take this seriously and start looking for solutions.
 
It’s not absurd. The population ‘theory’ is used to explain the choice available. You expect in a country that is 6-7 times of Pakistan and where cricket has been booming for the last decade, the amount of choice and resources should produce quality players and results. It hasn’t.

England is a smaller country but cricket is not the most favorite sport.

Pakistan didn’t have international domestic cricket for 10 years. Just now we are getting our resources back.

NZ and SL are nations that are admired by most - NZ esp 5 million people where cricket isn’t even the most popular sport, and they are competing well. SL was made highly competitive in 80s and 90s by Pakistan playing SL many times and they improved their game.

Afghanistan has spinners but that’s it. They are still minnows and mental midgets. Having good spinners is hardly an evidence of a competitive team. Pakistan has had a history of good bowlers, it doesn’t mean we are awesome.


At the end of the day, results matter. Strictly from a resource, and pool of potential players available, India should be winning every match they play.

But they are lacking in leadership. That’s the only reason they’re failing but no one can touch Kohli.

india had plenty of talent. But that's not the only aspect that matters.

Average indian is still not wealthy enough to play an elitist sport like cricket. India is still a 3rd world country. australia and SENA countries in general have far better facilities, better infrastructure, better resources and the GDP per capita is far higher. To dominate in an a elitist sport you need to be wealthy. The average indian also lacks acces to a proper diet, nutriton and training methods.

India are doing fine. India are number 1 in teststests the past 4 years. They have dominated 8 or 9 years as the number 1 test team post 2000. More than good enough.

India dint win enough icc titles yet. However, India did dominate in 2010 era in terms of overall wins / series wins etc.

things have changed post ipl. India have 1 world cup and 1 champions trophy. World cup happens every 4 years. Honestly india always does well enough to reach semis and finals. That reflects their quality. They just have issues in KO stages. KO stages are a lottery. any team can show up and win a one off game.

Besides a lot goes behind the scenes. Favoritism, nepotism, political based selections. Unlike australia and England, India don't often pick their best players due to the aforementioned issues which is pervasive amongst the desi nations particularly india and Pakistan. Until these issues are ironed out, India will continue to choke in semi finals and finals.

Despite all these setbacks india are still a world class team and are doing just fine. Would be a worry only if they dint make semis or finals.

Favourites don't always win the world cup. Cricket was heading towards a downward slope in england. So icc concocted a plan to ensure cricket remains popular in England. Hence they won the title albeit a fluke in the final. Not saying they dint play well over the past 4 years. They absolutely did however everything was lined up perfectly for them to finally see gold in odi cricket.

Given their resources, facilities and infrastructure you would expect them to dominate in a lot of sports but England are pretty mediocre in most team sports barring rugby and cricket. Football they do alright from Time to time due to a lot of Imported players which again is also an added luxury by the way.
 
I don't follow U-19s but India's lack of trophies in recent times doesn't reflect the strength of their team. That is usually the qualification for being a choker ( a la SA) so I guess they are. If they keep up their consistency in ODIs you would imagine they would eventually get some trophies but if not, hey ho. I personally don't think trophies in knockout tournaments are the pinnacle of sporting achievement because they don't necessarily reflect how a team has been playing over a long period of time.
 
As far as T20s are concerned I don't think that India has tactically figured out how to play them. They're overly defensive in their batting approach which is why other teams have been better
 
India reaches the finals/ semifinals and then "choke". Others choke in the group stage itself.:gayle
 
India 1.3 billion people and only one sport as India's national sport, lol.

Australia a population of 23 million and there are quite a few sports played in Australia, LOL.

Yet we have Indians bragging how great their ****** teams are. LOL
 
We are a big time choker in ICC tournaments.

Mens team:
2014 t20 WC- Chocked in finals...Sangakkara owned us.

2015 WC - Wont call it a choke as we were underdogs but Kohli surely choked big time against MJ. A lot was ecpected from him after good start by openers.

2016 T20 WC - Andre Russell murdered us in undeserving semi finals. Undeserving bcoz we should not even be in semi if Mushy didnt had that epic brain dead moment.

2017 CT Final - Fakhar Zaman royally thrashed us. Kohli & Rohit choked while chasing.

2019 WC semi - Perhaps the biggest of all chokes.

Womens team is following its counterparts as well. Choked at Lords in WC Finals and now chocked in T20 WC Final.

It appears to me that India is a mid cart cricket team who can win Asia cups after Asia cups but ICC trophies are too much of an ask.
 
India 1.3 billion people and only one sport as India's national sport, lol.

Australia a population of 23 million and there are quite a few sports played in Australia, LOL.

Yet we have Indians bragging how great their ****** teams are. LOL

Absolutely true, it's astonishing how Australia are always so competitive
 
India has a very big population but it doesn't mean it has the pedigree to win competitions.It has to do with facilities and physical and mental strength.There is no way Indians can compete with well built Americans,Australians etc.
 
India has a very big population but it doesn't mean it has the pedigree to win competitions.It has to do with facilities and physical and mental strength.There is no way Indians can compete with well built Americans,Australians etc.

lol ofcourse they can. India have the physical ability but they are still a 3rd world country with poor diet and nutrition. When the economy grows stronger you will see india win more often. GDP is too low compared to Australia for example. Too many dimwits here think population will just magically win you titles.

India lack facilities, infrastructure, proper diet and nutrition etc. Sport is not even a priority for most Indians in general.
India also have caste system which suppresses plenty of talent. Political based selections destabilizes the team selection process too.

Indian economy is getting stronger and we are seeing some changes post Ipl introduction. Only a matter of time before they start winning ICC tournaments again. Even with poor diets Indians were able to win titles in the past lol. Just imagine if they actually trained hard with dedication and proper nutrition. They are world number 1 in test cricket.

they last won in 2011. Next world cup is in India. They could win you know?

Australians have a sporting culture because they can actually afford to play the sport. Average indian can't afford to play an elitist sport like cricket.
 
It gives me great pride to see what a country which is a 1/4 of the size of Mumbai has achieved in cricket. This is a sport our best athletes usually give up to play rugby or rugby league.

If we had 1/1,000th of the wealth BCCI had we'd have multiple world titles.
 
Last edited:
It gives me great pride to see what a country which is a 1/4 of the size of Mumbai has achieved in cricket. This is a sport our best athletes usually give up to play rugby or rugby league.

If we had 1/1,000th of the wealth BCCI had we'd have multiple world titles.

but your country is wealthy, has far better facilities and standard of living is way higher. Average indian can't afford to play an expensive sport like cricket. Some of the players lived in tents.

I know Whittaker the mma champion came from boarding house but that's fighting.
 
but your country is wealthy, has far better facilities and standard of living is way higher. Average indian can't afford to play an expensive sport like cricket. Some of the players lived in tents.

I know Whittaker the mma champion came from boarding house but that's fighting.

Yet you see hundreds of millions of kids play cricket on the streets... And then you have millions sign up to play club cricket.

In NZ that number would be under 40,000..
 
Last edited:
Yet you see hundreds of millions of kids play cricket on the streets... And then you have millions sign up to play club cricket.

In NZ that number would be under 40,000..
Dude, playing gully cricket on streets doesn't mean jack unless you have quality training with good infrastructure. Even the crappiest cricketer in Newzealand won’t have to live in a goddamn tent like Yashaswi Jaiswal who is a freaking prodigy.
Rich countries like Australia and Newzealand always have upper-hand in sports over third-world countries like India and Pakistan no matter how big their population is.
 
Yet you see hundreds of millions of kids play cricket on the streets... And then you have millions sign up to play club cricket.

In NZ that number would be under 40,000..

yea but you don't have caste system, quotas and other nepotist sh*t that interferes with the selection process. Millions never sign up to play cricket. Like I said the average indian can't afford to play an elitist sport like cricket. You have to be rich in India to even be able to afford the gear. There are no scholarship offers for the less privileged.

So yes new zealand has far more advantages overall. India just has the population. Plyaing street cricket is not the same as club cricket. Many play street cricket. Doesn't mean they can afford to play proper club cricket.

School system will only allow you to finish your degree on a scholarships. You don't get scholarships to represent your state. You need the right contacts.

For a 3rd world country india has done pretty well.
 
Dude, playing gully cricket on streets doesn't mean jack unless you have quality training with good infrastructure. Even the crappiest cricketer in Newzealand won’t have to live in a goddamn tent like Yashaswi Jaiswal who is a freaking prodigy.
Rich countries like Australia and Newzealand always have upper-hand in sports over third-world countries like India and Pakistan no matter how big their population is.

this is the truth. Too many stubborn people don't want to accept the truth. Most of the cricketers don't even have access the proper diet and nutrition let alone facilities. Rofl at these idiots comparing the standard of living between both countries. Just wait till indian economy gets stronger, then you will see the real power of india in sports.

Indian hockey is getting better every year. Why? number 3 or 4 now. India is finally offering the funds to hockey boards and it's slowly paying dividends.
 
Dude, playing gully cricket on streets doesn't mean jack unless you have quality training with good infrastructure. Even the crappiest cricketer in Newzealand won’t have to live in a goddamn tent like Yashaswi Jaiswal who is a freaking prodigy.
Rich countries like Australia and Newzealand always have upper-hand in sports over third-world countries like India and Pakistan no matter how big their population is.
That means squat when majority of the country doesn't care about watching or playing cricket.

Most people wouldn't be able to recognize Kane Williamson on the street.
 
Last edited:
This population theory is absurd. Especially Pakistan fans should not use that. They are the second most populated cricketing nation. Got thrashed by Australia 12 Tests in a row where a smaller country England has done far better. Afghanistan with very poor access was able to produce two or three top flight LOI spinners. Same way small island produced a great spinner Murali. You don't need like 1000 people in a team to play this. Just 11 people. If each country is allowed to send 10 teams then this population theory works in favor of over-populated countries.

Population theory is not absurd. Just answer a simple question if you can. Why is BCCI so rich? Why is cricket so popular in India? Who makes it successful? I am sure in each answer you will be forced to mention the word 'population'.

May be you have not seen posts of arrogant indian fans here who were claiming to field 3 indian teams in World Cricket. I have even read posts of some IPL fans who said that india can survive without international cricket and can create 6 teams which can compete against each other. We can't even produce a decent wicket keeper batsman and a middle order batsman and we talk about creating 6 teams. LOL.

Now coming to Pakistan, yes they are second when it comes to population but how many series have they played in Pakistan in the last 2 decades? You want them to produce Pakistani cricketers by playing in front of empty stadiums in UAE. Even with this much going on in their country they have not gone down and keeps reminding that talent in Pakistan still exist.

BCCI is rich because of population. They are lucky. :inti
 
BCCI is rich because of population. They are lucky. :inti

Yes BCCI is rich, but they cannot reproduce & create offsprings who can play cricket in the future, players have to come from the same poor mass population! Only BCCI (and their players once settled) can get richer...
 
India will keep producing baters who can only bat in India and never going to produce a genuine fast bowler. They will always be better at home but will fail abroad miserably.
 
That means squat when majority of the country doesn't care about watching or playing cricket.

Most people wouldn't be able to recognize Kane Williamson on the street.

lot of people recognize top cricketers. It's am elitist sport and both australia have a good school system.


India has done well with their limited resources barring talent. They lack everything else especially infrastructure and facilities. Being a 3rd world country doesn't help. Disparity between rich and poor is huge.
 
Yes BCCI is rich, but they cannot reproduce & create offsprings who can play cricket in the future, players have to come from the same poor mass population! Only BCCI (and their players once settled) can get richer...

India has more wins in australia and south africa compared to pakistan. india actually play bounce well. They can't play swing. Pakistani players play county which indian board won't allow. That's the only reason why pakistan have a better record vs England and n.z
 
India has the resources but they cannot produce good cricketers from 1.3bn. Its about the good system and proper coaching.
 
Chokers they may be at the moment, but if they continue to reach the fag end of major ICC tourneys, only a matter of time they get some trophies in their cabinet. So I won't be too worried if I was them.
 
Yes BCCI is rich, but they cannot reproduce & create offsprings who can play cricket in the future, players have to come from the same poor mass population! Only BCCI (and their players once settled) can get richer...

Lol what? I don't know if it was you or someother IPL fan but in one of the thread you/that guy said that IPL is the reason BCCI is getting rich and that is also because of Indian population. Also it has opened the door for other youngsters in India to take up cricket as a career and parents are also encouraging that. Everyone associated with IPL was getting rich. IPL was also the talent hunting league for India so why are you now saying that cricketers will come from the same poor mass population? Has IPL flopped? Or have you realised now that IPL is indeed a circus league? :inti
 
south africa were number 1 in tests for 34 months. That's better than winning the world cup. World number 1 in tests is the real deal. Real cricket.

Yes, I agree however you need to check how many series has India payed abroad and won as cpmpare to SA when they were number 1.
 
Yes, I agree however you need to check how many series has India payed abroad and won as cpmpare to SA when they were number 1.

true but they drew roo many tests at home and away. Also lost at home to Aussies and the English. That's the only reason why I am skeptical. No doubt one of the greatest teams ever at their best though.

I would rate them on par with 2000 era Aussies. Should Virat's india win in England or draw vs Aussies this year then I would put them on par with Smith's saffers.
 
true but they drew roo many tests at home and away. Also lost at home to Aussies and the English. That's the only reason why I am skeptical. No doubt one of the greatest teams ever at their best though.

I would rate them on par with 2000 era Aussies. Should Virat's india win in England or draw vs Aussies this year then I would put them on par with Smith's saffers.

I would take drawing away from home than getting thrashed. Basically, drawing tells you that you competed well rather than losing.
 
I would take drawing away from home than getting thrashed. Basically, drawing tells you that you competed well rather than losing.


so winning the h2h 4-2 overall(home and away) including home and away is less than a 2-1 victory just because you win away?

I get that you need to be solid in all conditions to be a great team but shouldn't you be able to crush teams at home instead of drawing often?

I see your point though. I mean thrashing teams at home does feel nice but scraping wins at home or drawing and winning away is deemed a greater achievement purely because it's harder to win in foreign conditions?

what if some teams win more away than at home? That's still a sign of weakness in my opinion.

You got to have balance. They lacked that a little bit because they drew too often at home.

Still easily top 2/3 greatest sides of all time no doubt.
 
Its becoming systematic now. Mens team, under 19 and now womens. They dont seem to know when they are playing a elimination game. Womens team to be frank was lucky to be in final, would have likely lost to England and saved some face from what they called that performance in the final.
 
Semis/Finals are still some achievements considering some teams keep getting kicked out of league stages itself.
 
They are not chokers, far from it. However, they have been considerably unlucky.

Yuvraj chose the WT20 2014 final to play his worst innings for India. He struggled to put bat on all for 20 deliveries which completely killed India’s momentum.

On any other day, he would have been dismissed in less than 5 balls considering his horrible form.

WT20 2016 semi-final, Simmons was dismissed off a no-ball.

Champions Trophy 2017 Final - Fakhar no ball

World Cup 2019 semifinal - the rain delay changed the momentum and tempo of the game. If the match was completed on the same day, India would have won.

They were the best team in all of these tournaments, but luck deserted them in key moments.

Every team needs a bit of luck to win a tournament. India had Thar extra slice of luck in WT20 2007, World Cup 2011 and Champions Trophy 2013.

Thanks for the good laughs, but thats not how cricket or sports work.

No balls don't mean bad luck, it means poor execution by the bowler. It's not a legal delivery. It's actually lucky for the fielding side if the batsman is given out and the decision isn't overturned.

Same thing applies if a batsman is playing "bad" and doesn't get out earlier. It's lack of execution by the player and ultimately the team.

Otherwise according to your analysis, luck can be applied to everything. If only the batsman had selected a different shot, now he would have the momentum to score big .. or if only the bowler pitched the ball at a slightly different angle he would have got the wicket.

Absolute nonsense, but again thanks for the good laugh.
 
Early day's they might play final of icc test championship but the way they lost the first test their are certainly looking to choke again
 
In ICC tournaments? I agree. Their best ever ODI side lost a semi-final to NZ, who were a great team but nowhere near as loaded with top talents as India. That is indeed a choke.

In this last test match they did not choke because they were never in a winning position in the first place.
 
In ICC tournaments? I agree. Their best ever ODI side lost a semi-final to NZ, who were a great team but nowhere near as loaded with top talents as India. That is indeed a choke.

How is a team with Kedar Jhadav, Dinesh Karthik etc. "the best ever ODI side"?
 
How is a team with Kedar Jhadav, Dinesh Karthik etc. "the best ever ODI side"?

It's also a side that includes Kohli, one of the best batsmen of all time, Sharma, one of the greatest ODI openers of all time...possibly the best batting performer in world cup history, Pandya, one of the best strikers going and useful all rounder, Bumrah who will likely go don as India's bets ever pace bowler and at the time highlighted as the best in ODIs (I was reading the posts on this site at the time, I know how he was rated), Dhoni an Indian top 5 who when retired was labelled on here as the best DI cricketer ever (and on cricinfo) etc etc.

Even if you don't think it was the best Indian ODI side ever, it is up there and rated at the time better than the kiwis who only made 239....and Dhoni could not understand how to pace the chase. Credit to Jadeja for hitting out but everyone else folded like a house of cards. That is literally the definition of choking.
 
It's also a side that includes Kohli, one of the best batsmen of all time, Sharma, one of the greatest ODI openers of all time...possibly the best batting performer in world cup history, Pandya, one of the best strikers going and useful all rounder, Bumrah who will likely go don as India's bets ever pace bowler and at the time highlighted as the best in ODIs (I was reading the posts on this site at the time, I know how he was rated), Dhoni an Indian top 5 who when retired was labelled on here as the best DI cricketer ever (and on cricinfo) etc etc.

Even if you don't think it was the best Indian ODI side ever, it is up there and rated at the time better than the kiwis who only made 239....and Dhoni could not understand how to pace the chase. Credit to Jadeja for hitting out but everyone else folded like a house of cards. That is literally the definition of choking.

We always had great openers ,we have done well only when we have great middle order.
 
In ICC tournaments? I agree. Their best ever ODI side lost a semi-final to NZ, who were a great team but nowhere near as loaded with top talents as India. That is indeed a choke.
Best ever? Lol, matlab kuch bhi? So many passengers in that team, nowhere near our best ever team!
 
India - Most Talented Team for some, but not that many trophies?

So India's best generation of cricketers is playing for almost a decade now. Two GOAT ODI batsman who will make it to the All Time ODI team even.

One of the best pace attack they ever had.

The best LOI captain in the shape of MS Dhoni.

Yet they have failed to win anything apart from that Champions Trophy. Why?

For all the mediocrity even Pakistan and WI have won a trophy or two the recent years.

Surely this generation of Indian team deserves to have a few trophies to there name to be remembered like Australia or WI of the past or will they end up like SA having ABdV, Kallis, Steyn and Faf but winning nothing.
 
This choker nonsense is absurd.

Both India and South Africa have won multiple test series in Australia and have been consistently ranked no.1 in last decade. So, they can't be termed as chokers.

WT20 is not a relevant tournament and can't hold a candle to test series wins which is why West Indies aren't rated as one of the top 6 cricket playing nations.
 
This choker nonsense is absurd.

Both India and South Africa have won multiple test series in Australia and have been consistently ranked no.1 in last decade. So, they can't be termed as chokers.

WT20 is not a relevant tournament and can't hold a candle to test series wins which is why West Indies aren't rated as one of the top 6 cricket playing nations.

South Africa is the poster child for choking. They had arguably one of the greatest teams of all time with legendary players, yet they failed multiple times in tournaments more often than not because of their own undoing.
India aren't as big of chokers but the fact that they haven't won a major ICC tournament since 2013 with this dominant of a team (arguably their strongest side ever) is a pretty good argument that they are. 2017 and 2019 showed how their best players failed to show up, similar to South Africa

The difference between them and Aus of the 2000s was that Aus had that killer instinct and win at all costs attitude that won them all their tournaments and made them the most dominant side of all time
 
This choker nonsense is absurd.

Both India and South Africa have won multiple test series in Australia and have been consistently ranked no.1 in last decade. So, they can't be termed as chokers.

WT20 is not a relevant tournament and can't hold a candle to test series wins which is why West Indies aren't rated as one of the top 6 cricket playing nations.

With the exception of Pakistan the top 4 in T20Is is pretty much the top 4 for test and ODI cricket. Windies aren't even gunners in the T20 format and never have been. Winning a tournament doesn't make you a top side. But if you're a top side that wins Bilaterals and "unimportant matches" but loses a tournament it's a choke
 
Think two sets of cricket fans exist in world cricket and there exists a culture gap between the two. One set view LOI success as the greatest success, this is more common in the subcontinent.

Other love Test cricket more than anything else and place it at the pinnacle. Most of English and Australian fans belong to the second category. The first set of fans would view South Africa as perennial chokers and an unsuccessful team. But most test cricket fans would appreciate South Africa for being the third best ever team in Test cricket history.

I personally dig the ODI world cup, couldn't give a toss about the WT20 or any other LOI tournament. And simply love Test cricket more than anything else. If someone gave me two choices, one being winners of the 2019 WC and other being winning the recent test series in Australia and that I could pick only one, I would gladly pick the latter every day of the week. So, in that sense, I would remember this Indian team for winning two consecutive test series in Australia, which is no a mean feat irrespective of what strength Australia are. Although I think this current Indian team would've underperformed if they don't win any more overseas test series.
 
For the record, if India and Pakistan played regular Test cricket, I would definitely rate a test series win against Pakistan over a WT20 win.
 
Absurd as it gets. Our selections have been atrocious. Yuvraj in the World T20, 3 spinners and 3 wicketkeepers in yhe World Cup squad that included guys like DK and a well past it Dhoni . We just didnt have the players to win the World Cup and it was pointed out by many fans for atleast 2 years before the World Cup even on PP for that matter.

I consider CT '17 final to be a massive choke though. No excuses for losing to Pakistan of all ODI teans.
 
Think two sets of cricket fans exist in world cricket and there exists a culture gap between the two. One set view LOI success as the greatest success, this is more common in the subcontinent.

Other love Test cricket more than anything else and place it at the pinnacle. Most of English and Australian fans belong to the second category. The first set of fans would view South Africa as perennial chokers and an unsuccessful team. But most test cricket fans would appreciate South Africa for being the third best ever team in Test cricket history.

I personally dig the ODI world cup, couldn't give a toss about the WT20 or any other LOI tournament. And simply love Test cricket more than anything else. If someone gave me two choices, one being winners of the 2019 WC and other being winning the recent test series in Australia and that I could pick only one, I would gladly pick the latter every day of the week. So, in that sense, I would remember this Indian team for winning two consecutive test series in Australia, which is no a mean feat irrespective of what strength Australia are. Although I think this current Indian team would've underperformed if they don't win any more overseas test series.

South Africa being chokers is a unanimously acknowledged thing though. From commentators to the cricketers themselves. Everybody knows who carries the chokers tag...and for good reason.
Even if you take WT20s out of the equation South Africa is a huge choker team and has good history of bottling wins they should have had, particularly in the ODI WC.

The ODI WC which is the pinnacle of cricket triumph (barring the Ashes) holds more weight than a Test series win and South Africa have crumbled under expectations and pressures. Even more so because of faults of their own in that format.

ABDv, Steyn and Morkel wouldn't be crying if they got displaced from the number 1 test spot but they did cry when they lost the ODI WC SF in 2015.
 
The ODI WC which is the pinnacle of cricket triumph (barring the Ashes) holds more weight than a Test series win and South Africa have crumbled under expectations and pressures. Even more so because of faults of their own in that format.

This is a subjective opinion though. Most English fans didn't care about the World cup until they won one and even now, I bet most English fans care more about winning the Ashes than a world cup.

I personally would have the recent test series win in Aus anyday over a world cup win, because that test series will be remembered for the ages like the 2005 Ashes series. Sure people remember all the World cup winners too, but was the 2015 WC as memorable as the 2005 Ashes? I'm not sure.

ABDv, Steyn and Morkel wouldn't be crying if they got displaced from the number 1 test spot but they did cry when they lost the ODI WC SF in 2015.

This is not a like for like comparison. Test cricket doesn't have a knockout tournament like LOI cricket and until recently, didn't have a multi tournament trophy until the recently inaugurated WTC. Test cricket is more about the slow burn of the game, the building of the narrative and everything leading towards a final day which can be action packed till the last minute or be dull. Point is, you don't get instant gratification like the LOI cricket and if you want that, Test cricket is not for you. Ben Stokes cried too when he lost the WT20 final for England, are you going to say that the WT20 is superior to Test cricket too? I think Stokes will remember the Headingley innings the most when he retires from the game. Test cricket is what creates lasting legacies for teams and cricketers, not LOI cricket.
 
This is a subjective opinion though. Most English fans didn't care about the World cup until they won one and even now, I bet most English fans care more about winning the Ashes than a world cup.

I personally would have the recent test series win in Aus anyday over a world cup win, because that test series will be remembered for the ages like the 2005 Ashes series. Sure people remember all the World cup winners too, but was the 2015 WC as memorable as the 2005 Ashes? I'm not sure.



This is not a like for like comparison. Test cricket doesn't have a knockout tournament like LOI cricket and until recently, didn't have a multi tournament trophy until the recently inaugurated WTC. Test cricket is more about the slow burn of the game, the building of the narrative and everything leading towards a final day which can be action packed till the last minute or be dull. Point is, you don't get instant gratification like the LOI cricket and if you want that, Test cricket is not for you. Ben Stokes cried too when he lost the WT20 final for England, are you going to say that the WT20 is superior to Test cricket too? I think Stokes will remember the Headingley innings the most when he retires from the game. Test cricket is what creates lasting legacies for teams and cricketers, not LOI cricket.


Like I said "barring the Ashes"- most England players and fans in particular would take an Ashes win over a worldcup win.

BUT outside England and maybe Aus, every other cricketing nation INCLUDING the players will take a Worldcup victory as their biggest triumph.
Some test series may be memorable sure and one could argue test match cricket at it's best is the greatest form of the game. But that takes absolutely nothing away from the value of an ODI WC.

You CANNOT say test cricket alone creates lasting legacies for teams and cricketers because that is simply not true. There's a reason people still talk about Kapils 83' WC victory. Without it cricket wouldn't be even close to as popular as it is in India right now. The 2011 worldcup is iconic in the minds of Indian fans. SRT's dream was to win the worldcup, something he chased after for 20 years and he himself admits his career would not have been as complete without it. There's a reason why people still remember Australia winning the WC 3 times in a row. Without the 96 WC victory SL cricket or Ranatunga would not have been looked at the same. You name Clive LLoyd and the first thing that comes in your mind is his '75 WC performance. Imran Khan comes out of retirement just to win the WC in 92' and cricket fans will remember him most for that.

You CANNOT tell me with a straight face that LOI cricket does not define team or player legacy. Test cricket may too but so does the ODI WC.

The comparison with 2005 Ashes doesn't make sense simply because 2015 wasn't as exciting a tournament. Not because the winner of individual performances didn't matter.

The reason ABDv wants to come back is so that he can win that elusive WorldCup. It is the pinnacle for those outside England cricket, no matter how much of a test purist you want to be. (and yes I prefer good test cricket myself over an LOI series).

SouthAfrica bottling it at the biggest stage is choking, yes, especially when they are considered favourites to win it most of the time and crumble due to the stupidest mistakes.
 
Like I said "barring the Ashes"- most England players and fans in particular would take an Ashes win over a worldcup win.

BUT outside England and maybe Aus, every other cricketing nation INCLUDING the players will take a Worldcup victory as their biggest triumph.
Some test series may be memorable sure and one could argue test match cricket at it's best is the greatest form of the game. But that takes absolutely nothing away from the value of an ODI WC.

You CANNOT say test cricket alone creates lasting legacies for teams and cricketers because that is simply not true. There's a reason people still talk about Kapils 83' WC victory. Without it cricket wouldn't be even close to as popular as it is in India right now. The 2011 worldcup is iconic in the minds of Indian fans. SRT's dream was to win the worldcup, something he chased after for 20 years and he himself admits his career would not have been as complete without it. There's a reason why people still remember Australia winning the WC 3 times in a row. Without the 96 WC victory SL cricket or Ranatunga would not have been looked at the same. You name Clive LLoyd and the first thing that comes in your mind is his '75 WC performance. Imran Khan comes out of retirement just to win the WC in 92' and cricket fans will remember him most for that.

You CANNOT tell me with a straight face that LOI cricket does not define team or player legacy. Test cricket may too but so does the ODI WC.

The comparison with 2005 Ashes doesn't make sense simply because 2015 wasn't as exciting a tournament. Not because the winner of individual performances didn't matter.

The reason ABDv wants to come back is so that he can win that elusive WorldCup. It is the pinnacle for those outside England cricket, no matter how much of a test purist you want to be. (and yes I prefer good test cricket myself over an LOI series).

SouthAfrica bottling it at the biggest stage is choking, yes, especially when they are considered favourites to win it most of the time and crumble due to the stupidest mistakes.

LOI cricket certainly adds legacy to cricketers but at the end of the day, Test cricket is what defines the legacy of a cricketer the most.

Most of the cricketers you mentioned were also good to great test cricketers. Take one cricketer who mostly played Test cricket and another cricketer who mostly played ODI/T20 cricket and ask yourself who has a better legacy. Jason Roy will never have the same legacy in cricket as Alastair Cook, despite both of them being great English openers in their respective formats.
 
LOI cricket certainly adds legacy to cricketers but at the end of the day, Test cricket is what defines the legacy of a cricketer the most.

Most of the cricketers you mentioned were also good to great test cricketers. Take one cricketer who mostly played Test cricket and another cricketer who mostly played ODI/T20 cricket and ask yourself who has a better legacy. Jason Roy will never have the same legacy in cricket as Alastair Cook, despite both of them being great English openers in their respective formats.

How about a player like Yuvraj Singh who was a bang average player in test cricket but won his team a worldcup. People will always remember him as the man who won India it's first WC in years. His whole career is defined from his LOI exploits.
Dhoni, although took his team to number 1 in tests is known more for his WC victory. He was an average player in test cricket too but people remember him for his LOI exploits more.

You mention LOI cricket as not creating lasting legacies for teams too which got debunked as soon as I mentioned 1983 and 1996.

A cricketer's ultimate is almost always the worldcup (Barring the Ashes). Without it there's a lot left to be desired
 
South Africa is the poster child for choking. They had arguably one of the greatest teams of all time with legendary players, yet they failed multiple times in tournaments more often than not because of their own undoing.
India aren't as big of chokers but the fact that they haven't won a major ICC tournament since 2013 with this dominant of a team (arguably their strongest side ever) is a pretty good argument that they are. 2017 and 2019 showed how their best players failed to show up, similar to South Africa

The difference between them and Aus of the 2000s was that Aus had that killer instinct and win at all costs attitude that won them all their tournaments and made them the most dominant side of all time

And that's why I won't put Rohit in same league as Tendulkar or Viv or Ponting or Kohli or ABDV in ODIs. He had luxury of Kohli too who himself is a GOAT in ODIs so more tournament wins were expected from them and also Rohit doesn't have a career ODI average of 50 which is a minimum benchmark in ODIs in this era.
 
Last edited:
The point about test cricket defining legacy and what not is is deviating from the point.
The importance of an ODI WC has always been there and doesn't make it any less than Test cricket.

To choke is to lose in those must win crunch games and fail in those crunch situations and failures become more so apparent when playing in the biggest tournament cricket has so far. And unlike test cricket there is no chance at a draw. Even before the match starts they KNOW it's either win or lose.
 
South Africa have been unlucky, they should have won in 1992, 1999 and 2015( semis).
 
And that's why I won't put Rohit in same league as Tendulkar or Viv or Ponting or Kohli or ABDV in ODIs. He had luxury of Kohli too who himself is a GOAT in ODIs so more tournament wins were expected from them and also Rohit doesn't have a career ODI average of 50 which is a minimum benchmark in ODIs in this era.

Big players choke in the crunch moments too. it doesn't make them any less of a player. Some just aren't able to perform. Sachin failed a lot on the big occasions too.
 
<B>Big players choke in the crunch moments too. it doesn't make them any less of a player</B>. Some just aren't able to perform. Sachin failed a lot on the big occasions too.

And is there any criteria for that? Or simply go by perception which can be deceiving too?
 
South Africa have been unlucky, they should have won in 1992, 1999 and 2015( semis).

I don't think it's unlucky. Unlucky is NZ who were denied by the 'bat of god' in 2019 now.
The only WC failure which was truly unlucky and ** was the 92 WC and really not a fault of their own

99 was really where they got the chokers tag; they were the best team and lost only due to Klusner's stupidity. Aus wouldnt even have been in the semis if it wasn't for Gibbs dropping Waugh.
03- Strong team, Favourites in their own backyard, Failed to understand the DL method and blocked the last ball instead of getting the single and going for the win. It was hilariously bad
2011- Lost 8/64 chasing a small target on a flat pitch
2015- Missed runouts and lapses in the field.

They had it coming almost all the time. Great team. Great players. Legacy defining players. But at the end of the day. They were chokers
 
India No-Ball chokers in ICC Events; Bowling No-balls in crucial ICC Events

ICC T20 World Cup 2016, Semi Final

Hardik Pandya and Ravi Ashwin bowled No balls to lendl Simmons. He would end up defeating India in the semi final and kicking them out

ICC Champions Trophy 2017, Final

Jasprit Bumrah had taken the wicket of Fakhar Zaman earlier but he had bowled a no ball. Fakhar would score a century and defeat India

ICC Women's World Cup 2022, Group match


Deepti Sharma bowled a no ball when South Africa needed 3 from 2 balls. South Africa won the match and India was eliminated.


Why do India(men and women) teams end up choking by bowling no balls at such crucial moments?
 
No ball troubled us a lot in past few ICC events. I think our players get touch too nervous in crucial moments and oversteps.
 
No ball troubled us a lot in past few ICC events. I think our players get touch too nervous in crucial moments and oversteps.

It seems for men, low quality and less competitive IPL is surely not helping them prepare for big tournament matches.

Women cricketers can be excused though. :inti
 
Post the Virat Kohli era, the elite Indians have become the land of test purists now. With so many decades of experience of cricket behind us, we understand the value of traditional rules and structures and believe that one must insist on absolute adherence of the same.

Test cricket is the soul of cricket and while there is no doubt that the Indian current team in limited overs are full of chokers but we are proud of reviving Test Cricket and as such reviving the soul of cricket by setting the standards of this format highly competitive and entertaining in India.
 
Team India's hopes of making it to the final of the ongoing Asia Cup received a severe dent as the Rohit Sharma-led side stumbled to a six-wicket loss against Sri Lanka in the Super 4 stage at the Dubai International Stadium. As a result of this defeat, India are now dependent on both Afghanistan and Sri Lanka in order to make the final. Both Sri Lanka and Afghanistan need to beat Pakistan and India needs to get the better of Afghanistan by a decent margin to make it to the final on the basis of a better net run rate.

After the loss against Sri Lanka, Rohit addressed a press conference where he spoke about whether Team India should start worrying and whether the side is lagging behind in multi-nation tournaments of late.

"I don't think we are lagging behind anywhere (in multi-nation tournaments). The quality is there within the team, I think somewhere down the line, when there is a multi-nation tournament, pressure is more. In bilaterals, you play 3-5 matches against a single opponent, there you have the chance to read the mindset of the opposition. But when you play tournaments like World Cup, Asia Cup, the challenge is in playing against different teams," said Rohit.

"We have talked about this in our dressing room, we have talked about how we can stay ahead of the game. Unfortunately, we did not go to the semifinals of the T20 World Cup last year, we have lost two matches here in Asia Cup. But it is a challenge for us, every player on our team knows the challenge. But if you look at our history in ICC tournaments, you can see that we have played semi-finals, final and we have also won the final in the past. I do not think, we need to think too much about it. Our work is to help players understand how to make better decisions under pressure situations," he added.

When asked whether the team has any reason to start worrying, Rohit said: "There is no worry. If you lose two matches, it does not mean that you start worrying. In our dressing room, such talks don't take place. We have played many matches after the World Cup and we have won so many, just because we have lost these two matches in the Asia Cup, I do not think there is a reason to worry. Experienced batters get out and experienced bowlers are taken for runs, this all is normal and it keeps happening."

"I do not think we should start worrying. Bhuvneshwar Kumar has been playing for so many years, he has won so many matches for us at the death. 1-2 bad games do not mean that we start judging him," he added.

Talking about the match against Sri Lanka, India posted 173/8 in 20 overs, owing to a 72-run knock by skipper Rohit. However, India were unable to defend the target and Sri Lanka got over the line with six wickets in hand and one ball to spare.

"Our team is almost 95 per cent settled. There are just a few changes that will happen. That's about it, talking about experiments, we wanted to try out some different things. If you look at the combination that we have been playing before the start of the Asia Cup, it was with four seamers, two spinners and the second spinner was an all-rounder. But I always wanted to try and find answers on what happens if you play with three seamers," said Rohit.

"When you are playing games like these, against quality opposition, you have to challenge yourself. We just wanted to try and see what happens if we play three seamers, in hindsight, the fourth seamer that was here was not available for selection for the last two games because he was sick. There are a lot of questions that we need to answer, we found some answers in the last few series. After this, we have two more series to play, I do not know when the team will be announced for World Cup, till then it is not announced, we can certainly try a few more players," he added.

NDTV
 
We are a horrible T20 side.
We are a horrible side in all formats of the game, cue us not winning a single world trophy in close to a decade now.

Only format we are remotely good at is test cricket, a format in which there are hardly any world trophies being played. The only trophy of this format which was played, we aptly lost it.
 
Back
Top