Is India's success in the last 20 years in cricket due to a much improved system or pure talent?

[Savak]

Wanted to hear the thoughts of Indian posters over here

Ever since Ganguly took over the Indian team in 2000, he transformed the side and changed the entire brand of Cricket played by the entire team and India beat an ATG Australian team in India 2-1 at home, drew 1-1 in England in 2002 and drew 1-1 in Australia in 2003, beat Pakistan 2-1 in 2004 and reached the final of the 2003 WC. That reign also saw the emergence of players like Sehwag, Yuvraj, Kaif, Zaheer Khan, Ashish Neha, Harbhajan Singh, M S Dhoni, Irfan Pathan

Under Dravid India won in WI, won in England, beat Pakistan in Pakistan, beat Sri Lanka at home

Then under Dhoni we saw India win the 2007 T-20 WC, India winning all of their home series almost, India winning the ODI WC, maintaining the number 1 test ranking and under Dhoni we saw the emergence of players like Kohli, Rohit Sharma, Ishant Sharma, Chestwar Pujara, Rohit Sharma, Shikhar Dhawan, Mohammad Shami, Umesh Yadav, Ravi Ashwin

Under Kohli India has won in Australia for the first time and we have seen the emergence of Prithvi Shaw, Risabh Pant, Bhumra

I wonder whether the successes that India has enjoyed in the last 20 years has been the result of a superb, much improved domestic cricket structure, system and the results of gigantic amounts of money pumped into the system. Or is it simply the result of the tremendous fortune that India has just been blessed and lucky to have had their best talent pool in the last 20 years compared to previous periods in their history.

No one has too many issues with Australia's domestic structure, maybe the quality of the structure has gone down rapidly in the last few years but you can also clearly tell that their is a massive talent deficit in Australian Cricket atm.

Pakistan on the other hand neither has a good domestic cricket structure nor do they have any talent at all at this point in time to speak off.

 

[jnaveen1980]

It should have been much much better but for politics, influence.

 

[geraltofrivia]

$$$. Indian economy still has 40-50 years left to grow before growth rates stall to first world 2-3% so the team will keep getting better and better.

 

[ab041937]

One very important thing that happened during Ganguly’s era was separation of regional politics from team selection & appointment of John Wright as coach. Before that entire team used to be saddled with players from Ranji trophy winning state. I remember at one time there were upto 7/8 players from Karnataka or Tamil Nadu playing in Indian team. Ganguly & Wright made team selection lot more transparent. This allowed players like Dhoni, Raina in the team. Plus IPL has played a huge role. First, it allowed new talents to emerge. Secondly, playing alongside/against top players helped them grow in confidence.

 

[AMSS]

The vegetarian diet has helped.

 

[par]

The vegetarian diet has helped.

Finally

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Facilities and increase in literacy levels have created more awareness + opportunities.

 

[BreadPakoda]

Improved system.

Talent was always there.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Dear Savak,

Mumbai alone has won 41 Ranji trophies since 1932. That alone gives you an idea of the domination of few major cities in a huge country like India.

Since the turn of the century, Cricket has spread rapidly to tier 2-3 towns and rural India.

You would have noticed modern Indian cricketers aren’t as fluent in English and are quite paendooo unlike the 90s middle class gentlemen brigade.

A paendooo would throw himself hard to grab opportunity and that’s he new Indian cricket for you.

What these new players lack in class and intellect they cover with their sheer will to compete and win.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Nothing works without a system.

You can have all the talent in the world, but a system is necessary to churn out the polished product.

You think Federer, Nadal, Messi, C. Ronaldo, heck even Carrie Underwood would have reached the heights of success if there wasn't any system in place?

Talent is necessary to enter the pool of players.

Polishing that pool into something world class is dependent on a system, its strengths, its weaknesses and its ability to be compete with systems worldwide in anything.

There hasn't been a single sportsperson or a successful billionaire in the world who got lucky because he was talented.

All of them are products of a system whether we like it or not.

Its delusional to think that talent can fall off trees and if put in real match scenarios will be just as successful without any implementation of a system.

 

[Hasan123]

Both. They have talanted players coming through a good system which is the perfect recipe .

 

[Bhaijaan]

Nothing works without a system.

You can have all the talent in the world, but a system is necessary to churn out the polished product.

You think Federer, Nadal, Messi, C. Ronaldo, heck even Carrie Underwood would have reached the heights of success if there wasn't any system in place?

Talent is necessary to enter the pool of players.

Polishing that pool into something world class is dependent on a system, its strengths, its weaknesses and its ability to be compete with systems worldwide in anything.

There hasn't been a single sportsperson or a successful billionaire in the world who got lucky because he was talented.

All of them are products of a system whether we like it or not.

Its delusional to think that talent can fall off trees and if put in real match scenarios will be just as successful without any implementation of a system.

Immy Khan made Pakistan the greatest cricket nation in the late 80s to 90s DESPITE the system.

In football, poor African nations smash SAARC teams on regular basis despite more money invested on football in India.

Raw talent and passion for the game counts a lot otherwise only the top economies would be dominating every game.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Immy Khan made Pakistan the greatest cricket nation in the late 80s to 90s DESPITE the system.

In football, poor African nations smash SAARC teams on regular basis despite more money invested on football in India.

Raw talent and passion for the game counts a lot otherwise only the top economies would be dominating every game.

Wrong.

Imran Khan developed his own SYSTEM which was to handpick players and groom them.

If talent was all it takes, then why doesnt Imran churn out 11 of them by his wand ?

And dont give me the nonsense that he has to fix the country first.

If there is no need for system, why dont African nations top the Olympics because of raw talent?



One could argue that Wasim and Waqar would have been discovered albeit at a later stage even if Imran Khan hadnt found them in the system.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

To be fair, India has had the batting power since the time immemorial.

It was all about bowling not clicking.

 

[happydavy]

Three things happened to India, fortunately one after another - Ganguly, Dhoni and Kohli!

Batting talent was never the issue, but Ganguly leveraged that to such a level where despite ordinary bowling, india started winning away matches consistently. All said and done, consistency of Tkar, Sehwag, Dravid and Laxman to put imposing totals was quite stellar. Dhoni took team's ODI form to a different level and with Yuvraj took responsibility to close matches. Kohli is a different beast all together who neither cares about the quality of bowlers or batsmen, he with his own passion and heart, only wants to win.

 

[asifp]

Number 1 reason is that they respect domestic cricket and select players on merit.

Their selectors dont feel like they have some magic genie like Inzi and can predict how well a player will perform while ignoring domestic stats.

If Fawad Alam, Usman S, Saud S and Saad Ali were Indians, they would all be selected by now. They dumped Raina and Rohit S for test matches, yet we refused to dump Azhar and Asad

 

[happydavy]

And let's not get carried away by system or BCCI, you look closely and you will realise it's as ordinary as it gets. Look at the team playing today and be your own judge - the system finds Rayadu and Dinesh Karthik as players worthy of places in playing XI.

 

[Sarwar89]

Let's clarify one thing. India has lost Test Series on Home soil 2000, 2004 and 2012. Thrice in 18 years.

However before that they were unbeaten on home turf for 13 straight years 1987-2000. They did win 2-0 in England in 1986. Won Benson and Hedges cup in 1985 and World Cup 1983. Plus drew a tense 0-0 series in Australia 1985.

So this is just over hype that Ganguly and his successors made India team great.
They were never really that weak even before Ganguly.

Reached World cup semi finals of 1987 and 1996. in 1992 was a poor show no doubt. And if my memory serves me well they did win Asia cup in 1995 and some tri series victory of strong south africa (titans) in 1996.

Only their away form was not up to the mark from 1987-2000. But at home they were good.

India's away wins in england and west indies 1971 were far greater than 2001 home win over Australia.
Pakistan in 2004 was a rubbish team. But win is a win and Dravid did lose test series in Pakistan in 2006.

2007 world cup was a disaster.

So let's not dimish pre indian teams of 2000's and over hype post 2000 teams.

 

[Pakhs]

Talent and other teams going down. Nothing to do with economy etc. India always had a good team and now the likes of Australia, SA and Pakistan have lesser teams than in the past.

 

[Snak3eye5]

While India had good leaders every decade like Ganguly, , Dhoni and Kohli. Pakistan went from Imran, Wasim , Waqar, Inzamam, Misbah and Sarfaraz. What a massive decline in leadership.

 

[happydavy]

Let's clarify one thing. India has lost Test Series on Home soil 2000, 2004 and 2012. Thrice in 18 years.

However before that they were unbeaten on home turf for 13 straight years 1987-2000. They did win 2-0 in England in 1986. Won Benson and Hedges cup in 1985 and World Cup 1983. Plus drew a tense 0-0 series in Australia 1985.

So this is just over hype that Ganguly and his successors made India team great.
They were never really that weak even before Ganguly.

Reached World cup semi finals of 1987 and 1996. in 1992 was a poor show no doubt. And if my memory serves me well they did win Asia cup in 1995 and some tri series victory of strong south africa (titans) in 1996.

Only their away form was not up to the mark from 1987-2000. But at home they were good.

India's away wins in england and west indies 1971 were far greater than 2001 home win over Australia.
Pakistan in 2004 was a rubbish team. But win is a win and Dravid did lose test series in Pakistan in 2006.

2007 world cup was a disaster.

So let's not dimish pre indian teams of 2000's and over hype post 2000 teams.

Its justified to some extent as the 90s decade was more or less a disaster for India when touring abroad. Not that many team used to win abroad anyway, but India didn't use to give any fight at all. It used to be all about Tendulkar scoring a century, Srinath taking 3 wickets in his first spell and the rest 9 players twiddling their thumbs doing absolutely nothing. 70s and 80s were fairly decent for India, starting from 2 series victories in WI and England in less than 4 months. 90s is when the pain started and it wasn't about losing, it was about giving no fight in tough situations.

 

[Shandarchowka]

India's success is due to Virat Kohli and MS Dhoni, two stalwarts. Before that India was an average team and even after them they will be average.

 

[Wonderwoman]

India's success is due to Virat Kohli and MS Dhoni, two stalwarts. Before that India was an average team and even after them they will be average.

India's average player like Pujara, Bumrah are plenty above the mediocrity of your toasty game!

 

[amax]

Dear Savak,

Mumbai alone has won 41 Ranji trophies since 1932. That alone gives you an idea of the domination of few major cities in a huge country like India.

Since the turn of the century, Cricket has spread rapidly to tier 2-3 towns and rural India.

You would have noticed modern Indian cricketers aren’t as fluent in English and are quite paendooo unlike the 90s middle class gentlemen brigade.

A paendooo would throw himself hard to grab opportunity and that’s he new Indian cricket for you.

What these new players lack in class and intellect they cover with their sheer will to compete and win.

this is the reason I think as well, India is getting lots of Fast Bowlers because of cricket reaching rural areas.

 

[mesmerizer85]

Apart from all of this I believe Indian players have the passion to win which reflects in their body language. Their batsmen, bowlers and fielders give their 100% no matter what. One more thing to note here is that unlike PAK team which is dominated by players from one province, India has the best players from different provinces which leaves out politics and disarray in the team.

 

[Mp812]

Much improved talent identification and training and nurturing talent system. Just look at amount of A tours guys like mayank ,pant, gill, vihari , krunal, sirah had in last 1 year both abroad and in India . Then there is ipl to experience crowd pressure against world best players in franchises rubbing shoulders as coaches, Teammates and opponents

 

[rudra]

Money meeting talent.
Some fine and dedicated coaches at lower levels.
Superstar role models.

 

[latecut]

The system is definitely there in good working order. An Indian first class player is today far better cared for than in the past. In olden days, Indian cricketers (even test cricketers) were on their own. They had to get their benefit match organised and the ticket sales of that benefit match would go to him. This concept of benefir match has gone out of fashion. An Indian player earns so much that he no longer has to worry about financial matters.

Those who think that there is no system and good players are coming on their own, think again. Players are these days coming from places and backgrounds which had no cricket playing culture. For instance, a player like Dhoni would never have come up in 1970s or 1980s.

 

[geraltofrivia]

The system is definitely there in good working order. An Indian first class player is today far better cared for than in the past. In olden days, Indian cricketers (even test cricketers) were on their own. They had to get their benefit match organised and the ticket sales of that benefit match would go to him. This concept of benefir match has gone out of fashion. An Indian player earns so much that he no longer has to worry about financial matters.

Those who think that there is no system and good players are coming on their own, think again. Players are these days coming from places and backgrounds which had no cricket playing culture. For instance, a player like Dhoni would never have come up in 1970s or 1980s.

Dhoni, Bumrah, Pandya, Shami, Kuldeep, Jadeja, Pujara etc

 

[mystical man]

Wanted to hear the thoughts of Indian posters over here

Ever since Ganguly took over the Indian team in 2000, he transformed the side and changed the entire brand of Cricket played by the entire team and India beat an ATG Australian team in India 2-1 at home, drew 1-1 in England in 2002 and drew 1-1 in Australia in 2003, beat Pakistan 2-1 in 2004 and reached the final of the 2003 WC. That reign also saw the emergence of players like Sehwag, Yuvraj, Kaif, Zaheer Khan, Ashish Neha, Harbhajan Singh, M S Dhoni, Irfan Pathan

Under Dravid India won in WI, won in England, beat Pakistan in Pakistan, beat Sri Lanka at home

Then under Dhoni we saw India win the 2007 T-20 WC, India winning all of their home series almost, India winning the ODI WC, maintaining the number 1 test ranking and under Dhoni we saw the emergence of players like Kohli, Rohit Sharma, Ishant Sharma, Chestwar Pujara, Rohit Sharma, Shikhar Dhawan, Mohammad Shami, Umesh Yadav, Ravi Ashwin

Under Kohli India has won in Australia for the first time and we have seen the emergence of Prithvi Shaw, Risabh Pant, Bhumra

I wonder whether the successes that India has enjoyed in the last 20 years has been the result of a superb, much improved domestic cricket structure, system and the results of gigantic amounts of money pumped into the system. Or is it simply the result of the tremendous fortune that India has just been blessed and lucky to have had their best talent pool in the last 20 years compared to previous periods in their history.

No one has too many issues with Australia's domestic structure, maybe the quality of the structure has gone down rapidly in the last few years but you can also clearly tell that their is a massive talent deficit in Australian Cricket atm.

Pakistan on the other hand neither has a good domestic cricket structure nor do they have any talent at all at this point in time to speak off.

I can say that they are the best team to come out of transition by loosing plenty of key players, but they are far from being a dominant side like the windies of the 80s and Australia of the 90s....

 

[Savak]

The system is definitely there in good working order. An Indian first class player is today far better cared for than in the past. In olden days, Indian cricketers (even test cricketers) were on their own. They had to get their benefit match organised and the ticket sales of that benefit match would go to him. This concept of benefir match has gone out of fashion. An Indian player earns so much that he no longer has to worry about financial matters.

Those who think that there is no system and good players are coming on their own, think again. Players are these days coming from places and backgrounds which had no cricket playing culture. For instance, a player like Dhoni would never have come up in 1970s or 1980s.

Does the BCCI have a good pension scheme for players who represented India from the 50's to the 90's? I wonder if they feel slighted to see how much Indian players get paid today.

Did Indian players in the past have to do jobs for commercial organizations while playing for their regional sides in the past?

 

[geraltofrivia]

I can say that they are the best team to come out of transition by loosing plenty of key players, but they are far from being a dominant side like the windies of the 80s and Australia of the 90s....

I think they are right now at the level of Australia of the 90s - top side but still loses a few series/matches especially away. Australia of the 2000s is the scary one - won everywhere home/away in the 2000s.

Australia 90s lost a few times in India, against WI, a series in Pak, SL etc.
2000s is when they had Hayden, peak Ponting, Gilchrist etc along with McGrath and Warne, last of the Waughs etc. 1990s had Allan Border, McDermott, Boon, Dean Jones in the beginning and then Taylor, Slater etc.

 

[big_gamer007]

It's about the economy.. The country is growing, the talent pool increases and you can polish the talent..

Earlier majority of India was poor, kids were malnutritioned.. So even if talent was there it could not be nurtured properly.. Going forward it will only get better and better.. Hopefully in next 10 years we will see Indian cricket similar to like Basketball in America that top 50 best players will be Indians..

Let's wait and watch.

 

[Banter]

Does the BCCI have a good pension scheme for players who represented India from the 50's to the 90's? I wonder if they feel slighted to see how much Indian players get paid today.

A very generous pension scheme.

Did Indian players in the past have to do jobs for commercial organizations while playing for their regional sides in the past?

Yes, most players, Ranji and national, still get jobs under 'sports quota' from either public sector companies like Railways, State Bank, Air India etc or corporations like India Cements and others.

 

[Virat_Kohli_fan]

It's a combination of multiple things - but the most important factor would be the game growing to rural areas, the urban kids do not have the physique to match the SENA countries. The exciting (and sad I suppose) thing is that we are very very far from reaching the true potential. If the SC nations had the economy and the structure of the SENA countries India C and Pakistan B would probably be superior to the first teams put out by SENA nations.

 

[fitCricFan]

Its a combination of everything but the biggest factor has been the monies. With that resources have been made available to regions which could never imagine to have a cricket ground, let alone the playing kits.

Player's are given incentive's to perform at every level which provides the motivation to succeed. Talent alone rarely triumphs and has to be identified, nurtured and promoted. Besides with the world's largest pool of people, there is no dearth of youngster's who want to step in the footsteps of their cricketing idols. The cricket revamp started somewhere around 2005 and they are reaping the reward's now with enough folks lined up to probably build 5 or 6 cricket teams right now, if they had to.

PCB not only lacks the resources but also the will to implement & execute the infrastructure required for for promoting cricket. We can criticize our players as much as we want but unless they have the motive and incentive to see the game as a career and take pride in playing for PK instead of themselves, it will always be the same ol same ol.

 

[Snak3eye5]

Apart from all of this I believe Indian players have the passion to win which reflects in their body language. Their batsmen, bowlers and fielders give their 100% no matter what. One more thing to note here is that unlike PAK team which is dominated by players from one province, India has the best players from different provinces which leaves out politics and disarray in the team.

This sums it up nicely. Indian scouts go all over the country looking for talent whether its in some village you've never heard off or some big city. Point in case is that they're pretty business minded in their approach in picking players regardless of what state theyre from and groom that talent.

 

[PakLFC]

Both of the said factors have benefited Indian Cricket. They have also worked on the diet and fitness of the team unlike our boys who are still in 1980's mode.

 

[todfod 11]

Indias dimestic structure is far far better then pakistan and thry put in a lot of hard work as well. Plus being in natiinal team brings a lot of money for them as well. Pakistan doesnt have that money. people playing in domestic structure do not earn enough. Plus the menatlity is very different as well. Pakistani player think they have achieved everything just by being selected for the national team on the other hand indian cricketers think it as the first step and they double their hard work as they want to achieve more on a global stage.
Players like Ahmed shehzad umer akmal had the talent but just playing for pakistan team they thought they have achieved enough and were satisfied just by being in the national team.

 

[Buffet]

Just because India in 90s had poor bowling unit for away conditions, we can't simply say that India before 00s was always poor. Didn't India win test series in Eng, WI etc in 70s?

 

[bala977]

Just because India in 90s had poor bowling unit for away conditions, we can't simply say that India before 00s was always poor. Didn't India win test series in Eng, WI etc in 70s?

That was mostly due to our spin trio of Bedi, Chandra and Venkatragavan. In fact, there was a test match in England where Sunil Gavaskar opened the bowling as the team was stacked with spinners.

 

[geraltofrivia]

It's about the economy.. The country is growing, the talent pool increases and you can polish the talent..

Earlier majority of India was poor, kids were malnutritioned.. So even if talent was there it could not be nurtured properly.. Going forward it will only get better and better.. Hopefully in next 10 years we will see Indian cricket similar to like Basketball in America that top 50 best players will be Indians..

Let's wait and watch.

10 is too early. Should be there in 20. By the mid late 2030s we will be where China is now.

 

[iPakistani]

A country that has over a billion people and it's national sport is Cricket is definitely not going to struggle in finding players.

 

[MP2011]

A country that has over a billion people and it's national sport is Cricket is definitely not going to struggle in finding players.

India has always been overpopulated but it never enjoyed the success it is enjoying now. Why?

Besides, I don't have accurate numbers but close to 40% of our population lives below poverty line who always remains concerned where his next meal is going to come from.

Do you think this population will have ever heard about what cricket is?

 

[Balthazar]

India was always good in Cricket irrespective of the era. We were always tough to beat in our home and we always did well in World tournaments. Now that the system has refined it's methods, more talented players are coming through. The only thing that is holding us back is our selections. If we could work on that, I don't see Indian Cricket declining ever in the future.

 

[saintgrace]

BCCI is holding back Indian cricket with corruption, nepotism, zone politics. Privatization of BCCI would help a lot. IPL frenchies are better picking talents and grooming them than stupid BCCI.

 

[Ab Fan]

It has been a great performance for India all-in-all except the phase 2011-2014 perhaps.

India's cricket history however is underrated. India certainly had their share of moments in 70s and have also produced legendary players in past, the likes of Sunil Gavaskar, Kapil Dev and great players like Mohinder Amarnath, Gundappa Vishwanath and ofcourse the spin trio.

 

[hitthestump]

Money + huge talent pool + hard work ethic = success, and India has it all. Cricket has simply evolved now from past era's where fitness wasn't as important as raw talent and there's no going back. There's a reason why in all of the successful teams the captains look like toned athletes whilst ours resembles a teletubby. Unless the majority of Pakistanis can adjust to the demands of modern cricket by implementing the above formula we will become the next West Indies.