June 19, 2011

India's riches, Australia's need

One country lacks the young talent it needs to replenish its national side with, and the other has too many in the wings, waiting for the fading stars to leave
148

In Australia a debate is raging over selection following Simon Katich's controversial omission from the list of 25 contracted players. This argument highlights one area of major difference between two successful cricket nations, Australia and India.

As Australia currently go through a rebuilding phase, there's a need to inject youth into the Test side. However, the difficulty for the selectors is the paucity of talent among the youthful batting and spin-bowling prospects. The will has always been strong among Australian selection panels to move fading stars aside for young players with potential. However, apart from a few talented openers, there's precious little young batting talent hammering on the selectors' door.

In India the problem is of an entirely different hue: there's ample talent among the young batsmen, but there isn't the same will among the selectors to gradually phase out ageing stars. The Australian selection panel would be delighted to have to choose between talented young batsmen like Rohit Sharma, Virat Kohli, Suresh Raina, M Vijay and Cheteshwar Pujara. However, the Indian selectors are loath to move aside ageing stars to feed some of those younger players into the team. The odd opportunity those players have received in the Test side has come about through injury to an incumbent.

By being reluctant to blend youth with experience in the Test batting line-up over the last couple of years, the Indian selectors are risking two unsavoury outcomes. One, they will have to replace the three big names, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman, at approximately the same time. Two, they might find that when it comes time to rely on the new breed at Test level, they are not up to the task.

Often good young players who are left on the sidelines too long develop bad habits. They don't find it sufficiently challenging to continually play at a lower level, and consequently there is a tendency to become sloppy. Graeme Hick, a prodigious young talent, was forced to wait for Test selection while he qualified for England. By the time he arrived at the international level he was a flawed player through having constantly hammered lesser opposition.

This problem is exacerbated in India by the huge earnings young players can derive from playing in the IPL. Nothing diminishes desire and hunger in youth quicker than quickly acquired wealth. In such circumstances a young player can find it difficult to focus on maintaining a high standard.

Rohit Sharma is a player in danger of falling into this category. When I first saw him play ODIs in Australia in 2008, I felt he was the best of the young Indian batsmen. It's hard to fathom that at 24 he still hasn't played a Test. His talent is in danger of being under-utilised.

India have achieved plenty of recent success at Test level. However, the selection policy has smacked of making the most of today's talent, in the hope that if the future turns sour, that'll be a problem for the next panel to clean up.

By allowing young players to grow in confidence with guidance from a strong supporting cast, selectors can cater for the present and prepare for the future. A strong selection panel can achieve this aim, but only if the young talent exists.

While Australia may lust over some of India's young batting talent, the reverse is the case in fast bowling. Australia currently has a really good group of young fast bowlers - albeit some who are injury-prone - while India are desperately looking for someone to groom for the important role of Zaheer Khan's successor. In Josh Hazlewood, James Pattinson, Patrick Cummins and Mitchell Starc, Australia have a talented and varied group of quickies. That's the one shining light for the beleaguered selection panel. A good side can be built quickly around a strong attack.

These are two proud cricket nations who are used to success. Australia's is a lifelong craving, while India's has become an acquired taste. It'll be interesting to see which system prevails in the future in what is a fast-changing cricket world.

Former Australia captain Ian Chappell is now a cricket commentator and columnist

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on June 22, 2011, 1:14 GMT

    Re: Tigg.. Perhaps you would like to see the individual ranking of the players to suffice your queries. The world cup wining squad had 8 relatively less experienced and young players. out of which 6 players had not even crossed their 80th ODI and look at the current crops' performance. And short ball and bouncy tracks, its almost a myth now.. know why?? Cuz the team is nearly the best in all 3 formats of the game... and if they lacked the metal they would not be there.. And Srilankans always played great at home but had their problems away. Bt talk about the current form of India and the result of the recent away games, you surely will get your answers.

  • RD28 on June 21, 2011, 13:25 GMT

    Australia during it's peak had many of it's great players making debuts in there late 20 's and early 30 s like Haden and The Hussies, that's simply because Playing Aussies were too good to be replaced If I am not wrong the great Gilcrist only got to play @ age 28 after Ian Healy hanged up his boots, any one with equal to Gilli's talent would have made to into others teams at a very early age than him, young players always had to wait cos the shoes they had to fill were way too big, that does'nt mean they will loose there sheen if they are really talented as proved by Gilly, Hussies, Hayden .

  • jay57870 on June 21, 2011, 10:02 GMT

    Ian - Wrong again! The real problem: Both Chappell's hangups about this whole AGE issue! Simon Katich put it so succinctly: "He [Sachin Tendulkar] is an inspiration to all of us older guys, because he was written off a couple of years ago, ironically by one of our selectors, and the fact is he has proved him wrong." Recall Greg's abysmal record as India's coach: He antagonized older stars like Tendulkar, Ganguly, Kumble & Co; he even demoralized young guns like Zaheer, Sehwag, Harbhajan & Irfan Pathan! A total failure: Greg was fired in 2007. Soon Ian jumped into the (brother's) fray with his ill-advised dictum to Sachin to retire at 34! A false prophet: Wrong then; Wrong again now! Ian sounds like a broken record, with his lingering miscues about "ageing/fading stars" & "imminent" departures. Where's the evidence? Are Tendulkar, Dravid & Laxman all "fading"? How's he sure they'll quit "approx. the same time"? So when is Sachin's "imminent" retirement? All speculation. Talk is cheap.

  • jay57870 on June 21, 2011, 2:08 GMT

    Compare Australia's approach with India's. Look at Aussie veteran stars who've left prematurely: Warne, McGrath, Langer, Gilchrist and so on. Were they pushed out? Did they feel they were not wanted? Or did they get the strange "35-year Oz-itch" to go fishing? Whatever, it's evident this faulty hangup - "35+ & it's over" - is adversely affecting Australia's ability to sustain its top position. Some "retirees" have shown there's "plenty left in the tank" as evidenced by their IPL records, debunking yet another myth that 20-20 is a "young man's game." The reality: It's possible - with modern sports medicine, healthy diets, mind-body training, personal conditioning regimens, better protective gear - to prolong cricket careers to age 40 & beyond. Check out baseball & ice-hockey in USA: There are many superstars & hall-of-famers playing into their 40s with 20-year+ careers! Remember the great Don played productively till 40! The new normal could be 40-45! Stop playing the age card, Ian!

  • jay57870 on June 21, 2011, 1:53 GMT

    It's evident the Aussies, led by the Chappells & their ilk, are in denial. Look at Ian's contradictory arguments: 1) If there's a "paucity of (youthful batting) talent" then why axe a proven batsman in Katich? 2) If sidelined youngsters tend to "develop bad habits" then how did Michael Hussey so ably break into Tests at age 30 & also his brother David in ODIs? 3) If Indian selectors face a risky future in replacing elite veterans, then of what use are "India's riches"? Totally flawed logic, Ian! If at all, BCCI has done a remarkable job - apart from wisely axing Greg - of managing Team India. Its Mission: Build a large & varied roster patiently and rotate players sensibly. Strategy: Field a team around a strong nucleus of elder stars supported by a critical mass of rising stars & young guns. Upshot: A good mix of experience & youth, maturity & talent, mentoring & learning, leadership & teamwork, and (yes) coach & captain harmony! Result: India is at or near top in the game's 3 forms!

  • Zerg_Rush on June 21, 2011, 0:33 GMT

    Mr. Chappell, kindly go through ICC test rankings top ten players( especially Rank 1) before calling for Indian Senior players' head. 2 youngsters find place in Indian team even when all seniors are present and its enough exposure to young talent. You cannot get ride of top performers to make way for youngsters.

  • Tigg on June 20, 2011, 22:10 GMT

    Re: James Howlett.

    Constantly producing run machines? Maybe on your flat roads the new players are run machines but on anywhere with a bit of spice their technique is exposed. Look at Sri Lanka who are in a similar position (lots of high avg batsman who played in England and got found out).

    Nobody denies the class of Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman but the rest? Even Sehwag is very suspect against the rib tickler. Steyn got him consistently cheaply in the recent series. The modern Indian batsman cannot play the short ball, and the struggle against good swing bowling.

  • inswing on June 20, 2011, 20:08 GMT

    This has nothing to do with selection philosophies, it has to do with success. Players are replaced infrequently when the team is winning, and often when the it is losing. How many 18 or 20-year-olds go a chance to play for Australia in the last 15 years? Hardly any, because there were too many good players around, and the team was winning. The youth and blending business arises now only because the team has started losing. India wasn't that good and so many youngsters got their chances, including SRT at 16. Pak has given a lot of youngsters chances. Then people were writing articles that India and Pak should be more like Aus, with players seasoned and toughened in the domestic league, so they are fully ready when the arrive. Now the situation has partially reversed. Now people are writing articles that India should be like Aus and give young players a chance! Seniors should be dropped when they start underperforming consistently, not for the sake of change.

  • on June 20, 2011, 17:38 GMT

    Mr Ian Chappel

    I think you got answer today after watching how Mukund,Vijay and Kohli played.

    Hope you do not talk about retirement for quite sometime now

  • muthuthewaves on June 20, 2011, 16:40 GMT

    if someone sayin dravid to retire better u stop watchin cricket... U may be a new comer in watchin this game. He is a perfect stroke player. Replacin dravid place in test cricket is mission impossible. So v need him till he wish to play cricket. Not only him we need the likes of sachin laxman too.

  • on June 22, 2011, 1:14 GMT

    Re: Tigg.. Perhaps you would like to see the individual ranking of the players to suffice your queries. The world cup wining squad had 8 relatively less experienced and young players. out of which 6 players had not even crossed their 80th ODI and look at the current crops' performance. And short ball and bouncy tracks, its almost a myth now.. know why?? Cuz the team is nearly the best in all 3 formats of the game... and if they lacked the metal they would not be there.. And Srilankans always played great at home but had their problems away. Bt talk about the current form of India and the result of the recent away games, you surely will get your answers.

  • RD28 on June 21, 2011, 13:25 GMT

    Australia during it's peak had many of it's great players making debuts in there late 20 's and early 30 s like Haden and The Hussies, that's simply because Playing Aussies were too good to be replaced If I am not wrong the great Gilcrist only got to play @ age 28 after Ian Healy hanged up his boots, any one with equal to Gilli's talent would have made to into others teams at a very early age than him, young players always had to wait cos the shoes they had to fill were way too big, that does'nt mean they will loose there sheen if they are really talented as proved by Gilly, Hussies, Hayden .

  • jay57870 on June 21, 2011, 10:02 GMT

    Ian - Wrong again! The real problem: Both Chappell's hangups about this whole AGE issue! Simon Katich put it so succinctly: "He [Sachin Tendulkar] is an inspiration to all of us older guys, because he was written off a couple of years ago, ironically by one of our selectors, and the fact is he has proved him wrong." Recall Greg's abysmal record as India's coach: He antagonized older stars like Tendulkar, Ganguly, Kumble & Co; he even demoralized young guns like Zaheer, Sehwag, Harbhajan & Irfan Pathan! A total failure: Greg was fired in 2007. Soon Ian jumped into the (brother's) fray with his ill-advised dictum to Sachin to retire at 34! A false prophet: Wrong then; Wrong again now! Ian sounds like a broken record, with his lingering miscues about "ageing/fading stars" & "imminent" departures. Where's the evidence? Are Tendulkar, Dravid & Laxman all "fading"? How's he sure they'll quit "approx. the same time"? So when is Sachin's "imminent" retirement? All speculation. Talk is cheap.

  • jay57870 on June 21, 2011, 2:08 GMT

    Compare Australia's approach with India's. Look at Aussie veteran stars who've left prematurely: Warne, McGrath, Langer, Gilchrist and so on. Were they pushed out? Did they feel they were not wanted? Or did they get the strange "35-year Oz-itch" to go fishing? Whatever, it's evident this faulty hangup - "35+ & it's over" - is adversely affecting Australia's ability to sustain its top position. Some "retirees" have shown there's "plenty left in the tank" as evidenced by their IPL records, debunking yet another myth that 20-20 is a "young man's game." The reality: It's possible - with modern sports medicine, healthy diets, mind-body training, personal conditioning regimens, better protective gear - to prolong cricket careers to age 40 & beyond. Check out baseball & ice-hockey in USA: There are many superstars & hall-of-famers playing into their 40s with 20-year+ careers! Remember the great Don played productively till 40! The new normal could be 40-45! Stop playing the age card, Ian!

  • jay57870 on June 21, 2011, 1:53 GMT

    It's evident the Aussies, led by the Chappells & their ilk, are in denial. Look at Ian's contradictory arguments: 1) If there's a "paucity of (youthful batting) talent" then why axe a proven batsman in Katich? 2) If sidelined youngsters tend to "develop bad habits" then how did Michael Hussey so ably break into Tests at age 30 & also his brother David in ODIs? 3) If Indian selectors face a risky future in replacing elite veterans, then of what use are "India's riches"? Totally flawed logic, Ian! If at all, BCCI has done a remarkable job - apart from wisely axing Greg - of managing Team India. Its Mission: Build a large & varied roster patiently and rotate players sensibly. Strategy: Field a team around a strong nucleus of elder stars supported by a critical mass of rising stars & young guns. Upshot: A good mix of experience & youth, maturity & talent, mentoring & learning, leadership & teamwork, and (yes) coach & captain harmony! Result: India is at or near top in the game's 3 forms!

  • Zerg_Rush on June 21, 2011, 0:33 GMT

    Mr. Chappell, kindly go through ICC test rankings top ten players( especially Rank 1) before calling for Indian Senior players' head. 2 youngsters find place in Indian team even when all seniors are present and its enough exposure to young talent. You cannot get ride of top performers to make way for youngsters.

  • Tigg on June 20, 2011, 22:10 GMT

    Re: James Howlett.

    Constantly producing run machines? Maybe on your flat roads the new players are run machines but on anywhere with a bit of spice their technique is exposed. Look at Sri Lanka who are in a similar position (lots of high avg batsman who played in England and got found out).

    Nobody denies the class of Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman but the rest? Even Sehwag is very suspect against the rib tickler. Steyn got him consistently cheaply in the recent series. The modern Indian batsman cannot play the short ball, and the struggle against good swing bowling.

  • inswing on June 20, 2011, 20:08 GMT

    This has nothing to do with selection philosophies, it has to do with success. Players are replaced infrequently when the team is winning, and often when the it is losing. How many 18 or 20-year-olds go a chance to play for Australia in the last 15 years? Hardly any, because there were too many good players around, and the team was winning. The youth and blending business arises now only because the team has started losing. India wasn't that good and so many youngsters got their chances, including SRT at 16. Pak has given a lot of youngsters chances. Then people were writing articles that India and Pak should be more like Aus, with players seasoned and toughened in the domestic league, so they are fully ready when the arrive. Now the situation has partially reversed. Now people are writing articles that India should be like Aus and give young players a chance! Seniors should be dropped when they start underperforming consistently, not for the sake of change.

  • on June 20, 2011, 17:38 GMT

    Mr Ian Chappel

    I think you got answer today after watching how Mukund,Vijay and Kohli played.

    Hope you do not talk about retirement for quite sometime now

  • muthuthewaves on June 20, 2011, 16:40 GMT

    if someone sayin dravid to retire better u stop watchin cricket... U may be a new comer in watchin this game. He is a perfect stroke player. Replacin dravid place in test cricket is mission impossible. So v need him till he wish to play cricket. Not only him we need the likes of sachin laxman too.

  • IPSY on June 20, 2011, 14:26 GMT

    Mr Kamalakannan asked me to provide stats to prove that Sachin had a paltry average of '31' against the traditional teams after playing for over three and a half consecutive years . Here are the records: His decline began in Apr 2004 and ended in Jan 2008. The figs show: He played 27 matches (about 9 per year); batted in 44 innings (about 15 per year); scoring 959 runs; at an average of 31.75; with a 'single century' against SL of the traditional teams. During the time he batted in 6 innings against Aust; 11 against Eng; 14 against Pak; 9 against SA; and 5 against SL. He played none against WI or NZ. On the contrary, during that said time that they have been unfairly excusing his poor performance against world class competition on injury, he played three matches against Bagladesh scoring three huge centuries, including 248 n.o his highest score ever; and amassed an average of 179. He made his first 100 in 2008 against Aust after Glen and shane retired. It's mediocre stuff since then

  • on June 20, 2011, 13:51 GMT

    i would say mr. chappel is very single minded in his approach. I mean look at the past 3-4 years of indian cricket. we have been producing quality players and if sachin, dravid or laxman any of them retire it would not be all that huge a problem, cuz all those players have played enough domestic cricket to understand, how to play in test, the only thing that would be missing will be lack of international outings. but each and every player goes through that phase. I really dont understand why people are so concerned abt retirements (seems lyk a suggestion with each of his articles) and stuff , cuz players of the caliber of Sachin, Dravid n laxman know what they are doing. And indian selectors aren't that dumb, i mean we have been constantly producing run machines... and not to forget with so many players battling for their places in the team the compition wud always keep them on their toes...

  • JP_the_genius on June 20, 2011, 13:21 GMT

    Chappel Bros. are jealous of India. In fact, they don't want any south-asian nation to rule the cricket. India is not repeating the mistake of Australia of not giving any chance to youngsters. They are giving the chances. It is upto youngsters to prove their metal. Pujara has cemented his place partially. Let's see what the others do?

  • gorsi on June 20, 2011, 12:17 GMT

    LOLz... What are u saying mate !!! According to me indian team started rebuilding under ganguly and wright and only time time their performance has slipped since was when ur "Under Arm Bowling" brother came into indian fold.. look at the perfomances before he came and after he departed.. Sincere advise to all the Auzzies... Get rid of Chappels.. you guys still have a pretty competetive team (before there is no tym left)... and to Sachin he isnt like ur Ponting who thinks this team is owned by his father and wants to keep playing without doing nothing, sachin has only played in some significant tournaments off late (despite being in such form... u cant argue that or can you ?) just to give young lads a chance to play at the top level and he is such a legend coz he isnt scared abt his place... if Auzzies needed youth in the team they shud have dumped Ponting rather than Katich... in katich Ozies have lost a true fighter if they ever had one...

  • melvn on June 20, 2011, 11:58 GMT

    Its time for Dravid to quit, he has not been consistent for the last 3 or 4 years. Tendulkar & Laxman are in very fine form and they can continue for another 2 years ,if they are injury free. Poojara was very unlucky ,he didnt get much chance . Rohit should have been in the test squad and Raina doesnt look good in the longer version.

  • Saim93 on June 20, 2011, 11:37 GMT

    Chappel has the worst expert opinoion, in fact he shouldnt be considered an expert!

  • HariVenu on June 20, 2011, 10:49 GMT

    Chappel bros have been trying to undermine India for a long long time. One Chappell kicked VVS out of the team when he became India's coach. Zaheer Khan told recently how "fantastic" that under-arm-bowling Australian was to India's progress. The brother Chappell is not better !!!

  • tntn on June 20, 2011, 9:49 GMT

    Very well assessed! Spot on on the mass exit of senior pros. Australia saw that happen in '84 and recently in 2007. There have been struggles in rebuilding the team and dominating in both the occasions. India needs to alternate the seniors with the prospective replacements in tests and ensure a smoother handover and exit.

  • Ramesh-IT on June 20, 2011, 9:00 GMT

    Yes Mr.Chappel, this is what I expected from you. Another call for Sachin's head. Just because you retired at the age of 37, you think it is the retirement age for all players, similar to a cat which thinks the whole world goes dark if it closes its eyes. But who cares? Everyone knows Sachin has 2 more years of cricket left in him...

  • nag127 on June 20, 2011, 8:54 GMT

    Ganguly has retired nearly 2 years ago and no batsmen has taken his slot permanently. Then why talk about replacement for Sachin,Lazman and Dravid? If we try to throw them out of the team, v will be another australia.

  • on June 20, 2011, 7:14 GMT

    @cnksnk - you clearly aren't in touch with Austrailian cricket. Here is an article which states Australian problems better than any other http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/518824.html. Also, when a country has a population of a billion and play seriously only one sport it helps as the talent pool will never be depleted. Even in such a case a single injury to Zaheer Khan halves India's chances of winning a cricket match and in that sense the fact that India do not dominate cricket like Brazil (the only other comparable situation of a huge country dominated by a single sport) dominated football is still a disappointment. True, Brazil were heavily favoured in attack but their defence was hardly weak which cannot be said of India's bowling attack. The biggest problem for Australia was retirement of Kasprowicz Gillespie Lehmann Law Love Maher Harvey MacGill at the same time. These would have left a much bigger mark on Australian cricket than the international players'.

  • Dhoni_fan_from_a_dada_era on June 20, 2011, 6:47 GMT

    the only thing matters is talent pool. The kind of pool india has it is fair to say we will be churning out top quality players every year - not of quality like Sachin or Dravid...but surely of ganguly, gambhir's calibre and if there are significant amount of such players, the team would remain top class. If kohli or raina aren't upto the mark, mukund, pujara will be. and if they are not, then some under 19 player will stand up.

  • jithoosin on June 20, 2011, 6:35 GMT

    @cnksnk Exactly. I have felt it many times

  • Rajnish_Sachin on June 20, 2011, 6:17 GMT

    yeah, the problem with Indian cricket and these youngsters is that ears ago the spot that Ganguly vacated has stiill not been taken up by either Yuvraj, Raina or Pujara. murali Vijay has got enough chances (he is most likely to be dravid's replacement at 3) and he is consistently getting them. so there should not be any talks of phasing out the trio as long as no 6 position is vacant.if that had got filled up by now selectors would have thought of phasing out trio starting with dravid (agewise and formwise). personally i believe one should select the best 11 available on a given day. how would it feel to watch someone play knowing that he is not the best option available. and why worry so much abt the future. if we have players of the class of dravid, ganguly, sachin and laxman, they will some good even if they all have to start together.

  • on June 20, 2011, 5:52 GMT

    I wonder how long india can sustain their impressive run in tests without an effective attack. England tour would be a big moment to answer that

  • bonaku on June 20, 2011, 4:51 GMT

    Yes, we need to phase out dravid, sachin and laxman carefully. Other wise it will be a disater.

  • cnksnk on June 20, 2011, 4:47 GMT

    Interesting article. A few years ago - 2005 I think, when Australia were at their peak and India were still struggling to find their feet especially in Australia, I remember reading an article in Cric infor - was it by Ian ?? that Australia were able to produce hungery and ready to go talent as there were only 6 state sides and hence even getting into the state side meant hugh competition as one had to be in the top 70 cricketers in Australia even to play at state level. As against this India had around 20 odd teams in Ranji trophy and it was felt that most of the games were of little competition and value. Now it looks like having 20 odd teams has itse merits rathaer than 6 teams. It is important to note that most of India's new talent do not come from the traditional centres of Mumbai and Delhi but from lesser know regions like Saurastra, UP, Haryana etc.. Different models for differnt times ??

  • Godfather007 on June 20, 2011, 4:02 GMT

    There was a time when the Indians used to envy the Australian system of managing prodigious talents.That was of course when they were almost unbeatable.But a lot has happened since then and situation is altogether different now.This article by Ian Chappell completely reflects how desperate the Australians are to unearth some new talent.Apart from Usman Khawaja,Callum Ferguson,Phillip Hughes there aren't any young exciting batters in their domestic set up.Also the above mentioned are a bit overrated due to the fact that there isn't any talent coming up.In the spin bowling department the case isn't different either.Just look at the number of spinners the Aussies have tried after the retirement of Warne and a 36 year old mediocre leggie Bryce McGain broke into the team.Michael Beer was handed a debut who had pathetic domestic stats.The one thing that really excites me is their fast bowling group with 5-6 pacemen capable of hitting speeds over 90 mph.

  • Humdingers on June 20, 2011, 3:02 GMT

    Australia too have been guilty of not bringing in talent while the "seniors" were performing. During the Hayden, Langer, Gilchrist et all era - what happening to Brad Hodge, Matthew Elliot etc. There were several of these guys who were legends on the domestic scene that missed out. It is a fine balance. No one wants to change a winning team - but you risk a free-fall if you don't look to the future. Maybe - Ind and Aus can do a swap..some young batsmen for some young bowlers!

  • deegowd on June 20, 2011, 2:52 GMT

    I feel players with real hunger to excel will emerge from India's selection policy at the moment. Badri, for instance, was a very good batsman and should have probably made his debut atleast 3 years ago. But him being repeatedly ignored has meant that he is assessing himself every season and has been improving with every passing season. Same with Pujara. This makes them tougher and will prompt them to make every given opportunity count. There is always a chance that these players exert too much pressure on themselves whenever they get a chance and could mess up their limited chances, hence falling off the radar. But that's where the captain and the senior players come in. The youngsters in Indian cricket are in good hands of Dhoni, Sachin, Dravid and co. If India can unearth a genuine quick to support Zaheer, India could stay champions for some time.

  • Tomek on June 20, 2011, 2:43 GMT

    I agree with much of the article, but would like to put the idea out there that Australia's search for talent is too focussed on knowing there are 10+ world class 20-25 year olds willing to wait their turn. Shaun Marsh, Watson, Khawaja, Clarke, Ferguson, White, Paine. Top 7, world class? Yes. Comparable to Hayden thru to Gilchrist 6 years ago? Of course not, but those 7 guys will get you 400 regularly enough that mixed with a few of these bowling hopefuls we won't languish at 5 forever. Two of that top 7 I expect to go down as Australian greats, all of them have 7 years to burn, plus the rest. And in that time, maybe, the next crop will turn out. Stop looking for a bank of greats, it's a small nation, a sport that shares the limelight with 3-4 others and we'll probably never have an 11 like we did. And if we did what would be special about those guys? Good luck to those 7 I've mentioned. As soon as Hilditch is ditched we'll see Australia rebuild.

  • on June 20, 2011, 2:42 GMT

    "In Josh Hazlewood, James Pattinson, Patrick Cummins and Mitchell Starc, Australia have a talented and varied group of quickies."

    These guys have barely played first class cricket, let alone internationals. Far early to say if they will be any good at the top level. Seriously Cummins has 9 F/C wickets at 46 and no list A wickets over a combined total of 5 games, way to early to talk about him as the future of Australian cricket.

  • on June 20, 2011, 0:07 GMT

    The result of australian selection process is evident from the response of its own players...the mental frame of the players too must be groomed well to get the best out of them....And I think there is nothing wrong in giving some respect to your great players by giving them a decent opportunity to retire rather than throwing them out when you feel its time (rather than they feel its time)

  • Chris_Howard on June 19, 2011, 23:27 GMT

    Another very import analogy for India, and one I think Australia selectors may be wary of, is Australia's own fall because in their glory years, no young guys could crack a batting spot. All the young and mid-aged guys then grew old waiting, developed flaws, grew impatient, changed their game to chase the riches of T20. It's the single biggest reason our batting stocks are in a hole at the moment. We let the old guys play on too long thus removing the career path for the next generation. Where are all our 24 to 28 year old batting stars? Thru the 90s and 00's we have a mass of batsmen who didn't play enough Tests, if any. S Law, J Siddons, D Lehmann, M Love, D Hussey, B Hodge, M Klinger, P Jacques, C Rogers and so many more. Their lack of top level experience then robs the domestic level of both the experience international players can bring back, and more opportunities for young guys at domestic level. And, as each level stagnates, the problem mushrooms.

  • MinusZero on June 19, 2011, 23:06 GMT

    I think India wont be too affected by retiring batsmen. The problem is the bowling, they still lack genuine pace. Thats where they need to develop

  • on June 19, 2011, 21:32 GMT

    There has been no case of sachin not being in form. There was an injury prone time where he didnt perform or rather couldnt perform

  • on June 19, 2011, 21:17 GMT

    @IPSY

    Between 2004 and 2007 Sachin hardly played matches, he was having some serious injuries during that period. After WC and a succssful tri series at home, he got injured in mid of 2004 and ws in and out and returned to national side only in mid 2005. Then he was out in 2006 with tennis elbow and a shoulder surgery.. 2007 WC was a big failure for him . So there wasnt enuf matches to judge his talent and even then he was scoring centuries but not at his best rather not the way we have seen him batting. Def not an average of 31 as you said in tests.. prove ur wrds with some stats. But after 2007 WC we know what happened.. he never looked back after the WC

  • vj3478 on June 19, 2011, 21:02 GMT

    "India's Riches, Australia's need." AND "Australia's riches are India's NEED!!" Not even a single fast bowler from India was impressive in 2011 IPL who could have got a breakthrough by now coz of the "India's need" especially in the on-going WI series.

  • Triple_A on June 19, 2011, 20:24 GMT

    It is soooo easy for everyone to trash the national side, including people who have done nothing for their own country. These brainless "experts" should keep out of our affairs...let the selectors do as they find fit..India is doing well at the moment, and if in the future, we DO screw up, WE ( not you ) are allowed to blame ourselves.

  • voma on June 19, 2011, 19:38 GMT

    Graeme Hick played at a time when there were some absolutely superb fast bowlers around . Waquar younis , wasim akramm , curtly ambrose , courtney walsh , glen mcgrath and plenty of decent spinners to . He was never a flawed player , just not a brilliant player .

  • on June 19, 2011, 19:17 GMT

    I don't really understand why Australians think that anyone who is 35+ is no good and be pushed to the side. Why this fascination with age, ability is what matters. I live in the US and here there are many sports like in Baseball and NBA, and even in football players play in their 40s. Ability is what matters, if a player is better that a player that is sitting on the bench, he is playing. The attitude here in most sports teams is about winning today, not about trying to set it up for the future. Future is unpredictable, there could be injuries, loss of interest, attitude issues etc. Do you best to win today, we will worry about tomorrow after winning today. Australians have become over analytic and are over analyzing things, keep it simple. At the end of the day it is bat vs. ball game.

  • IPSY on June 19, 2011, 19:13 GMT

    Rahul Ramachandram, if you minus Sachin's performances against 'BANGLADESH' who had just been allowed (Nov. 2000) to play test cricket when Sachin's lean period began (Apr 2004 to Dec.2007) his average was just about 31 among the traditional teams. But if you admit he had a 'THREE YEAR' drought, don't you think that's too long to keep any tried and tested player while ignoring younger talented ones, who if given the chance could prove that they are as good? How do you all expect the young ones to prove themselves when you keep one old out-of-form one for so long? Ganguly was performing better than him when they asked him to retire - what injustice! I am not saying Tendulkar is not a good player, but remember the last world class bowling attack from any country ended significantly in Jan. 2007, when Glen Mc Grath and Shane Warne retired. Since then there has not been a creditable world class bowling attack in any country, while each traitional country had one why he was failing.

  • Aniruddha_K on June 19, 2011, 18:59 GMT

    According to the current Australian policy, Tendulkar's contract would have been terminated after the 2007 WC because he was 34 if Indian selectors would have adopted the same policy.As it turned out, Indian selectors were right in persisting with him.Yuvraj was given a good run in tests...I think Indian selectors are doing a very good job,the only questionable move being the inclusion of Dravid ahead of Pujara for the NZ series.Even then, RD made two 100s including a match winning 191 in the last test.And of course no one can so much as raise an eye brow over Tendulkar and Laxman's place in the team.The Australian team a few years back was great because of many outstanding individuals playing at the same time & had nothing to do with the selection policy. As for Rohit Sharma, only talent just isn't enough unless you have a sound temperament which the likes of Sehwag and Gambhir possess.He only has himself to blame for not being in the test team.

  • suyog86 on June 19, 2011, 18:29 GMT

    Ian, you need to get the facts right! In the current series (between WI and India)- three of India's regular senior batsmen (Sehwag, Gambhir and Tendulkar) and one regular senior bowler (Zaheer) aren't playing. This essentially provides ample opportunity for youngsters to show their prowess. And, Indian selectors have been regularly providing a place in team to many promising young players, in all formats of the game. I will in fact endorse a policy to pick the best players from the available bunch always, which I believe was your view some time ago.

  • on June 19, 2011, 18:26 GMT

    To replace Dravid,Laxman and Tendulkar, you need to groom youngsters like Raina,Rohit ,Kohli and Pujara as early as possible.

    Team Selection should be on the basis of current form of the players . Not only on the basis of achievements in paper.

  • on June 19, 2011, 17:56 GMT

    @KAIRAVA: That is a blatantly silly prediction. You simply assumed that NO Indian youngster will come through to the international arena in these 4 years... Moreover, you don't leave out Sehwag, Gambhir and Dhoni even in 4 years!

  • on June 19, 2011, 16:45 GMT

    People saying that Tendulkar hasn't done anything for Indian cricket, do not know enough about Indian cricket. Nobody has won more tests for India than Tendulkar. When did he average 31? In his three year lean period, he averages 45 in test cricket. Sachin will retire when he wants to. He's scoring so many runs, why should he retire?

  • on June 19, 2011, 16:39 GMT

    @Jerseyite...who the hell are you mate? cricinfo, please publish this. if you can allow people trash our hero, then let us respond at least.

  • kanishkazico on June 19, 2011, 16:36 GMT

    the 2 Chappel brothers are really jealous of Indian success, so they always try to give wrong suggestions to India. Please Chappel brothers mind your own business, worry about Australian decline, and stop worrying about India

  • bijusportsfan on June 19, 2011, 16:25 GMT

    Whilst I admit Mr. Chappell has a point, I do not agree with his idea altogether. I believe a team should be fielded with the intention of winning the match and so the best available players should be used. Youngsters have to force their way in the team based on their performance and not because they are young. In the same way, aging stars should be dropped if they are not playing well. I remember how a certain Dravid and Ganguly made their debuts in England. They both performed very well in their debut series in England and never looked back. There was no question of grooming them or slowly introducing them.The young players like Sharma, Raina, Pujara etc have had plenty of international exposure thanks to the IPL and ODI . If they are up to the mark when their time arrives, they should be up for it. There is no point in kicking players out when they are still the best available.

  • on June 19, 2011, 15:59 GMT

    Let IG look at his country's shamble first. He has no rights to talk about Hick and SRT.

  • wills123 on June 19, 2011, 15:44 GMT

    Well, I think Chappels only think about Indian Crickets problems, He should think why australia is in decline , they down to dust from No.1 team to a weak team like west Indies. Whereas India from 2007 first round exit from world cup to 2011 wprld cup champions and No.1 test side Now. we know how to make use of experienced and Young players. Australia now sacked one of their best recent player and keeping useless ponting in side and saying they want to rebuild the team for future :). Chappels is only jelous of Indian Progress and just comparing an evolving side with a side in desparate situation. Australia going to be in more problems. This is a useless artcle as always he is a critic of Indian legends whether they are young or old.

  • swarzi on June 19, 2011, 14:54 GMT

    Good article Ian. But I'm a little disappointed in you for not sticking to your guns when you called for the head of Tendulkar, after he had played nearly four consecutive years scoring 'one' creditable century at an average of 31 - you were right. Every other player in the world, including Bradman would have been dropped for such poor performance over such long period. At that time too, there were many players to replace him. In fact, the biggest victim of the fiasco was Uvraj Sing, a very talented player who was so frustrated that he almost gave up his game. He persevered however and came back to single handedly win the 2011 World Cup for India. But what was ironic, on the final day when Uvi had the cup secured, it was he we saw carrying Tendulkar on his shoulder as if Tendulkar was the hero of the tournament and not him (Uvi) - ridiculous! I don't think Tendulkar did anything in tests for India perse since, except to enhance his two records; while talented youths are left to waste

  • on June 19, 2011, 14:51 GMT

    @ Jerseyrite. Tendulkar should retire when he feels so; when he stops being amongst the current best Indian players.. Average of above 80 this year! Are you joking when you are asking about his retirement? Rahane, Pujara, Manish Pandey, Virat Kohli and Rohit Sharma are my picks for the batting future of the Test Team. I see Parthiv Patel totally incapable of being an International Wicketkeeper much less a batsman. Suresh Raina is the true reflection of IPL's effect on cricket. He is irresponsible and has a bad technique on challenging tracks against pace bowling. Badrinath will be 32 when the Big 3 retire and he is not so way ahead of others amongst him.

  • on June 19, 2011, 14:37 GMT

    Just because Rohit,Raina & Co. are bashing the likes of Sammy & Pollard on almost dead WI pitches,its time for the best to retire...!!!Don't the same youngsters look pathetic when they play on Live pitches against Steyn & Johnson.?The fact remains Dravid,Tendy & Laxman are too good to be replaced by Dhawan,Raina & Raydu...

  • on June 19, 2011, 14:35 GMT

    @Jerseyite who the hell is Federer ,has he achieved what Tendulkar has achieved or Messi has achieved or what Steffi Graf has achieved.

    Cricket is a different game and Tennis is a different game. PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE

  • Aussasinator on June 19, 2011, 14:34 GMT

    Coming to Chappel's key issue about India, India is not only able to unearth quality fast bowlers but is also unable to use the existing young ones well. An example is Umesh Yadav who bowls 140 plus but has not been given any exposure when he is able to generate pace. He should have been in the team for Windies and should be included for England. While India has batsmen like Rohit, Ajinkya Rahane, Ambati Rayudu, Pujara etc. who can easily fill the boots of the seniors in due course, its the fast bowling department which needs some cupboard stacking. Two more genuine quicks need to be identified in the ability levels of Yadav and systematically groomed through rotation over a two year period. Things will be understood better after the England tour, where , I fear, the Indian bowling will be truly exposed.

  • vikash_1010 on June 19, 2011, 14:29 GMT

    Im sorry Chappel who the hell are you to question Tendulkar and the other "fading" stars of India. Tendulkar is curently rated as the mumber 1 batsmen in Test cricket and you think he should make way for some one else. Why? Furthermore Laxman also had a great year in Test match cricket last year. India should field the best test match team, and on current form that includes Laxman, Tendulkar and Dravid.

    Also if you refer back a few years it was you who was saying that Tendulkar should retire after the 2007 world cup. You were wrong about that prediction too. Stick to talking about Australian cricket, you know nothing about India!

  • DaGameChanger on June 19, 2011, 13:52 GMT

    Two different cultures and two different selection policy. Australian one is based on merit and merit only with slight preference for youth while in India, they have much respect for seniority and experience once you have reach there. Actually, Australia have lost few good players due to their policy while India have stuck their guns with senors irrespective of their form. India believes form is temporary but class is permanent. India believe there is enough time for them to replace their seniors one by one and are in no hurry. Ultimate goal is to be # 1 team, irrespectively and for India, its working in their favor now. It has lot of do with kind of riches you have. Australia on other hand, needs is a stable team. Too miuch chopping/cropping going on and no youth player may reach the level of seniority.

  • KAIRAVA on June 19, 2011, 13:48 GMT

    The Indian test team of 2015: Abhinav MUKUND, Ajinkya RAHANE, Virat KOHLI, Rohit SHARMA, Cheteshwar PUJARA, Parthiv PATEL, Praveen KUMAR, Amit MISHRA, Munaf Patel, Ishant SHARMA.

  • harshalb on June 19, 2011, 13:39 GMT

    Ajinkya Rahane can be as attacking as Sehwag and play in middle if required. But with the current line up of Segwag and Gambhi he will not get a chance. However selectors have given plenty of chances to M.Vijay and brought in Mukund though Rahane should have been picked instead. In case of middle order Dravid, Laxman, Sacin will not retire on their own. As long as they are performing, others have to wait because no one can touch these guys.

  • KAIRAVA on June 19, 2011, 13:36 GMT

    My ideal playing XI for the 1st test would have been: Vijay/Mukund, Rahane, Dravid, Laxman, Rohit, Badrinath, Dhoni, Harbhajan, Praveen, Munaf, Ishant/Mishra.

  • KAIRAVA on June 19, 2011, 13:34 GMT

    Where is Ajinkya Rahane? The 23 year old Mumbai top-order batsmen with the world's 4th highest first class batting average of 67.72 with nearly 5000 runs and 17 hundreds is not even considered for selection in the 15 member test squad to the West Indies and instead "CSK" batsmen Raina & Mukund with comparatively inferior first class average are preferred. Mukund (avg: 59.41) is only 21 and also less experienced than Rahane. Agreed Pujara is injured but surely Rohit is the next available preferred bet over Raina. Raina is basically a lower order limited overs batsmen who can come & whack the ball in the final overs of the innings and has always faced problems with the short ball in his entire career. But players like Rohit have shown that they are pretty comfortable with the short pitch stuff, displayed the tendency to get themselves in, rotate strike & hit the odd ball or two in the over to the boundary. Rohit has a first class average of 60.37 whereas Raina is far-off with 43.15

  • cric-maestro on June 19, 2011, 13:17 GMT

    Well i strongly disagree wid what mr. chappell has written in the article....first of all, where was this article when langer,gilchrist,hayden,etc were playing in 2003-04...why dint they took their retirement then...indian cricket is going in the right direction bcos most of the youngsters are in the early 20's and they are getting brilliant exposure in odi n t20s as of now...the dominant phase of indian test side as #1 has just begun..how can anybody expect to just exclude the seniors who have been playing tremendously...and mr. chappell, be rest assured that a full strength team (not to mention the seniors) will be there downunder wen the series between ind-aus starts....india has already had enough of one chappell....no need to go far...ur suggestions might be welcomed by CA....will be very glad if CA selectors read this article and drop ponting whose form in the past 2 years have been terrifying...

  • Jerseyite on June 19, 2011, 13:05 GMT

    I am sure many die hard cricket fans will trash this article. But I don't think what Chappell is saying here is wrong.

    Okay, frankly, you guys when do you think Tendulkar should retire? When he turns 50? Its almost as if the entire India does not even want that question to be raised? All good things need to come to an end. When Roger Federer has been getting questions about the decline in his game since he turned 27, despite being an unquestionable genius, who the hell is Tendulkar? Has he accomplished more than Federer, who is arguably the greatest tennis player ever?

    Dravid - I can't believe he is still being picked. He scores at a strike rate of 25 even now, even against minnows. I am sure he will score some tons against the Windies and look good. David has to be axed. HE CANNOT GO TO AUSTRALIA. I know deep inside he wants to go. Dravid will be sorted out in England, mark my words. The English attack is superb and Dravid's failings will surface.

    All 3 should retire this year.

  • cric-maestro on June 19, 2011, 12:16 GMT

    Well i strongly disagree wid what mr. chappell has written in the article....first of all, where was this article when langer,gilchrist,hayden,etc were playing in 2003-04...why dint they took their retirement then...indian cricket is going in the right direction bcos most of the youngsters are in the early 20's and they are getting brilliant exposure in odi n t20s as of now...the dominant phase of indian test side as #1 has just begun..how can anybody expect to just exclude the seniors who have been playing tremendously...and mr. chappell, be rest assured that a full strength team (not to mention the seniors) will be there downunder wen the series between ind-aus starts....india has already had enough of one chappell....no need to go far...ur suggestions might be welcomed by CA....will be very glad if CA selectors read this article and drop ponting whose form in the past 2 years have been terrifying...

  • advait.vaishampayan on June 19, 2011, 12:01 GMT

    The problem of Australia's selection policy and India's selection dilemma is nicely put forth in the article. It is high time that India includes Rohit Sharma in a test side. He is an exceptional talent and he himself agreed along with Suresh raina that he has learned immensely by playing alongside with Sachin in Mumbai Indians team so it will be really good for him to share a dressing room with the test greats like Sachin, Rahul, VVS and learn more about the process of approaching the game. THe same should be the case with Raina and Kohli. Out of 8 tests that India will play against Australia and England in the near future, Rohit/Kohli/Raina should be at least a part of 2 tests each.

  • vishnumenon94 on June 19, 2011, 11:55 GMT

    i am stunned that akinkya rahane has not gone the oppurtunity to play for india in any form of the game, and i am very surprised he wasnt picked for the tour of west indies, he is undoubtedly more or less the best opener in domestic cricket in india, and his record is much more impressive than that of Mukund, who is also a very good player. i feel the selectors need to give this boy a chance, as he is not only an opener but can bat in the middle order also. i also like this artice ian :)

  • on June 19, 2011, 11:54 GMT

    Although it looks good in writing, practically, this is never going to happen. You drop any one of them, and all hell breaks loose. Selectors will become targets, every Tom, Dick and Harry will become a cricket expert and condemn it among other things.

  • intcamd on June 19, 2011, 11:36 GMT

    What is so clear and distressing is that more than a billion people are not able to produce even just a couple of decent pace bowlers. Not just now, but in the whole history. And we cant even give the excuse that is because they are all playing soccer or basketball or something else, or that there is no money. With the population numbers, the craze for cricket in the land, the amount of money getting thrown at the feet of even less-than-ordinary players, we should be producing tearaway quicks and bowlers that can spin like a top. Instead, all we have are Zaheer, and well Zaheer, with Bhajji showing up once a year on a friendly track.

  • Ashwintej on June 19, 2011, 11:21 GMT

    True comments from Chapell. I think India should not let the Big three retire all of a sudden. Before they retire the young batsmen such as Badrinath, Pujara, Kohli should play atleast 20-25 test matches. They should be groomed in such a way. Even talented players like Rayudu, Rohit, Ajinkya rahane should be included inthe squad. Iam sure that Raina is not fit for Test cricket. so Pujara, Badrinath, Kohli, Rayudu, Rohit are the guys who will take the responsiblilty of the Batting order along with openers Gautam, Abhinav mukund or Murali vijay,. Same is the case with the bowlers. Vinay kumar and the other pacers should play atleast 20-25 test matches before the retirement of Zaheer Khan. There is no difference whether Harbhajan plays or not because he is doing nothing special. The youngsters should be given chance to play along with seniors or else we should fear like Ian chappell.

  • RogerC on June 19, 2011, 11:16 GMT

    The obvious fact is that players have stopped to consider retirement when they are at peak. Gone are the days when Greg Chappell or Sunil Gavaskar retired when still playing good cricket. Guys like Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Ponting will need to be pushed out by selectors. They are smart and experienced enough to average out a test series and look good, so one can always argue that they can still play. But the sad fact is that they are destroying the opportunities for the next generation. I really admire Gilchrist for being an exception in this era of selfish cricketers. He was probably the last of the gentleman cricketers.

  • on June 19, 2011, 11:14 GMT

    People are too dismissive of talent, it's hard to get instant success. We definitely need Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli in the test team, along with Pujara and perhaps Rahane. Getting them in sometime this year, or early next year after the tours of England and Australia is very important.

  • Bharat_Ajax on June 19, 2011, 11:03 GMT

    Hi Ian,I think you have mad a good point saying that India is relying too much on its old aged players at test level,the same mistake which Australia has done with its players. But I dont totally agree with the point the India lacks quality players. Mate with a population of about 250 Million you have mentioned about 5 fast bowlers and to be frank 9 out of ten Australians do not even know there is a game called cricket.Trust me,I am saying this because I have been in Australia since the past 6 years and I know peoples taste.Its definitely not test or one day cricket(Ashes being an exception).Now coming to talent in India with a population of 1.25 billion and cricket being the only major game ,you can imagine how many super fast bowlers we can produce provided the selectors from the lowest level do their job honestly. If you still dont trust me please visit remote villages in India we you can find 9 Sachin Tendulkar's and 9 Wasim Akarams among 10.For these guys cricket is passion.

  • on June 19, 2011, 10:59 GMT

    i can't find out why all chappels have problems with indian board n selection.both of them think old men (i m not disrespecting sachin,dravid and VVS) should retire.that's what took ganguly out from the team

  • on June 19, 2011, 10:24 GMT

    I think Chappell should concentrate more on Australian side than rasing worries over the Indian side... While talking about Australia he is saying "A good side can be built quickly around a strong attack." then don't you think a good side can be built quickly around a strong batting line up, even after the retirement of three biggies?.

  • Rahul_78 on June 19, 2011, 10:23 GMT

    What Ian is pointing out here sounds good in theory but is not practical or very difficult to implement. For example take a look at Australia, when Gilchrist, langer,hayden, mcgrath, wanre were playing why CA did not phase them out and introduced youngsters in the team cause these guys were playing exceptional cricket till the end and decided to go out on their own terms. How do you keep VVS laxman out of the team for Rohit Sharma or Badri or Pujara when he has won test matches for India in last series? The mass exodus of class players has happened with great WI and OZ sides and will happen to Indian side as well but you just have to deal with it in best way possible. I am sure not only Indian fans but each and every cricket lover across the globe wants to savor the specter of each innings played by Sachin, Rahul and VVS till it lasts. Some times emotions and sentiments do defy sound logic.

  • on June 19, 2011, 10:05 GMT

    i always admire the comments made by sir ian chappel.i am a big of fan of his thinking and ideas.and on his this article also it is no different.indian future certainly in test cricket does not look that bright as it looks in one day cricket.more than the selectors it is the indian seniours trio will have to groom the young blend of indian batting and as far as the fast bowling is concerned ishant,sreesanth,irfan,rp singh,munaf,praveen etc have enough talent to play international cricket it is just that they have to keep themself fit and ready.

  • Dashgar on June 19, 2011, 9:47 GMT

    Ian Chappel is right here on both counts. India are in a situation a little like Australia were in 2007. They have a team filled with stars who are approaching the end of their careers. Now is the time to start bringing in the new so that they aren't left with 5-6 key players retiring within a year. I'm sure Australia wish now they had played some younger players around 2006-7 rather than persisting with Damien Martyn, Jason Gillespie and Andrew Symonds. India should retain most of their team but I think Rahul Dravid needs to be the next to go to give Pujara or Kohli a chance to make the number 3 spot their own while they still have the security of SRT and VVS behind them. Then coupled with a younger player at number 6 they should have 2 semi experience younger batsmen for when SRT and VVS retire.

  • VisBal on June 19, 2011, 9:44 GMT

    It is obvious that many who have been responding do not understand what Chappel is saying. He was not talking about cleaning shop, but more about a rotation policy to blood youngsters. The main focus of the article was a contrast in the cupboard stocks between Australia and India, and an enunciation of the reason why, though different they are similar. I am not sure how this can be interpreted to mean a wholesale clean out. Maybe people are just responding emotionally after seeing a few catch phrases.

    To those of you who say that playing well and consistently in Ranji Trophy is adequate preparation for Tests, the level of cricket is vastly different between the two. Also, success in Ranji is no guarantee of success in Tests. Kambli and Hirwani are prime examples. (Let us not talk about those who did very well in Ranji but were never considered forTests.)

  • aryasachin on June 19, 2011, 9:39 GMT

    sachin is currently no1 batsman............how one can think his retirement?he is god....i bet chappell give those comments at any city in india abt sachin........after that he will not write a single article

  • imirfan on June 19, 2011, 9:37 GMT

    I dont understand why so much showing off from indian crickiters. Even Ian chappel is convinced that Indian cricket is better then the best of the world. come on world cricket is not the same as it used to be no grace left in it.

  • on June 19, 2011, 9:13 GMT

    Well dravid hasn't been performing as well in the last 2 years, so he is replaceable, 38 so its time to play this series and then if one of the young guns can find form and knock up some hundreds then retire and give them a run while laxman and tendulkar are still there. Even when the 3 big guns go there is still sehwag and ghambir both of which are actually better then laxman anyway. Also Dhoni is a good batsman so there is 3 very good experiences players still around, then u fill the other 4 slots with Virat Kohli, Rohit Sharma, Rahane/pujara and Badrinath, they are good replacements but also in the wings are Vijay, Makund, Manoj Tiwary, Saurabh Tiwary.Plenty of options question is will they perform? Also please please please do not recall yuvraj singh to test side he has been tried 34 matches be4 and failed.

  • smudgeon on June 19, 2011, 8:58 GMT

    I'd be more concerned about India without Zaheer, rather than India without SRT/Laxman/Dravid. Plenty of good batsman in the wings, a never-ending line of spinners, but quicks (and particularly quicks who can adapt well to conditions outside the subcontinent) are very thin on the ground.

  • krazzyking on June 19, 2011, 8:55 GMT

    India's bowling isnt the greatest but it isnt the worst either... they are great swingers of the cricket ball... what the lack in pace; they make up with swing... wit munaf and Zaheer u even get precision. then Sreesanth can be an awesome bowler if he could gain some degree of consistency and ishat needs to rediscover and reammo himself... the spin is plenty

  • D-Train on June 19, 2011, 8:38 GMT

    Australia does have some promising young batsmen. The likes of Khawaja, Lynn, Maddinson are all young and have very good records. They are already proven run scorers. He didn't mention Faulkner as one of the promising bowlers. Dominated the Sheffield Shield with a bowling average of 17 last season. He also averaged 30 with the bat which is very very handy. Steve Smith was scoring prolifically before he played for Australia and everybody tried to turn him into a Shane Warne clone with his bowling. So we do have some good young talent, but the talent will go to waste if the selectors fail to begin employing some form of consistency in their selection policies.

  • Aussasinator on June 19, 2011, 8:36 GMT

    Australia should look to T20 and some other sport. Test cricket and ODi days are over for them. There are only two Australian obsessions which their statements betray - 1. Absolute jealousy over Indian players' financial earnings and the clout of BCCI on the commercial aspects of the game. 2. Envy over the persistence of senior players, esp Tendulkar, whom they seem hell bent to retire so as to enable a stale, rickety boned Ponting to somehow edge past the master's record. The second will not be achievable even if Sachin retires rightaway, while the first is the indispensable state of cricketing affairs in the world. And the whole of Australia's emerging sporting talent is getting attracted to T20/IPLwith a greedy, magnetic draw. Australian cricket will not rise again. The England side, on the other hand appears awesome and with the wherewithal to reach the top.

  • Baana on June 19, 2011, 8:10 GMT

    India is having a cool Captain & talents of mixed young & senior batsmen. A bit improvement needed in Fast bowlimg dept!! If it is happened, India can dominate world cricket for next 8-10 years.But India is just started the same!!

  • Jim1207 on June 19, 2011, 8:04 GMT

    In my opinion, When a person like Sharda could talk 5 articles about BCCI-bashing, a person of Ian's stature and knowledge can write hundreds of articles about retirements. Why do people always find a way to scold Ian Chappell?

  • CanTHeeRava on June 19, 2011, 7:57 GMT

    I agree with a previous comment that the future of Indian test batting looks as fragile as its bowling. Apart from Pujara (may be Kohli if is not after instant money) I don't see any upcoming batsman capable of handling Steyn, Morkel, the current English attack in England, and an aggressive Australian attack (as always) anywhere. Ian Chappell thinks that we should expose them before it is too late and we should not pass any judgement (as I have) on their capability before giving them a fair run. Well, you have to believe your eyes. I have watched enough cricket over the years to distinguish between a true test batsman and a person who can swing a stick. After Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman leave, Indian batting is left with too many sloggers. If Chappell thinks that Rohit Sharma (an inconsistent style statement) and Suresh Reina (just muscle every attack with no respect) have test potential, then I really wish that his words come true. Good for India. I doubt.

  • on June 19, 2011, 7:55 GMT

    @Kaze, who won the series mate? India did. The young team just relaxed at the end, which they shouldn't have done.

  • on June 19, 2011, 7:54 GMT

    Ian Chappell should be more worried about current status of Australian cricket than be concerned about what the Indian selectors are doing about Indian cricket. Just leave Indian cricket to their selectors/board. On balance, the Indian selectors/board are competent enough to do the right thing. But I am not too sure about the Australian selectors/Cricket Australia! They seem to make a mess of it at every turn! A case in point is the non-selection of Simon Katich as one of the 25 contract players. And the selection of a player with the nickname of "Pup" as the captain! Good luck to Australia!

  • sailendra_kuridi on June 19, 2011, 7:51 GMT

    cant quite agree with ian .. aus is not short of talent but its all about man management where they are finding it difficult ..

    and dravid,laxman,sachin cannot and shud not retire all of a sudden ..if thats d case that wud be the biggest error .. as of now no one is quite sure of apt replacement for each of them.. may be you wud say ..kohli , rohit , pujara are the ones .. but asking too much out of them!!

  • CandidIndian on June 19, 2011, 7:46 GMT

    Most of the things Ian Chapel mentioned in this article are correct.All thanks to Kirsten and Dhoni ,India used the rotation policy for more than two years, young players were given chances consistently and this lead to India winning the world cup.Similar kind of approach should be used in the tests also.However talented a batsman is he needs experience ,take the example of Laxman , he was not so good at start of his career but eventually with experience he became what he is now.So the point is when a batsman with pure class like Laxman took time to make it big its very likely that young Indian batsman like Pujara,Kohli,Rohit, Mukund etc needs to play some test matches consistently so that they have chance to be the replacement of SRT,Rahul and Laxman.Along with this,as right pointed out by Ian that India have the problem of not having quality fast bowlers apart from Zak at test level.Its very hard to find replacement of class players,who has replaced Ganguly and Kumble?

  • CricEshwar on June 19, 2011, 7:43 GMT

    It was generous of Chappell to commend India's pool of talent, but you could leave it at that. In an earlier comment someone mentioned about Hussey's wait and India's no 6 position is still open, which is absolutely true. What Chappell is talking is double standards. Youngsters are being given chances, the attitude of selectors with regards to younger talent is reasonable. In today's age of competitiveness it is hard for youngsters to prove their mettle in a very few opportunities, but thats how life is now and they are accepting it. We definitely have to lookout for the future but not by spoiling the current winning machine, and selectors are doing a decent job at that.

  • on June 19, 2011, 7:42 GMT

    hmmm... to an extent i agree with chappell... but i believe india r trying to avoid the mistakes made by cricket australia who had 3-4 big players leaving in and around the same time....

    india would have already planned for the exit of the big 3 in a phased manner.... i hear kirsten when he was around was already talking to dravid and sachin bout retiring... my guess... first to retire will be dravid... then sachin and finally vvs... and possibly year gap between each retirement... this would allow the seniors to stay on for a while to pass on the necessary skills and knowledge... while ensuring that there is not a big drop in performance...

  • JohnnyRook on June 19, 2011, 7:37 GMT

    After Ganguly was booted out by Chappell, so many players have played at no 6 position. Selectors had to resort back to him. After he retired, Yuvi, Raina, Badrinath, Pujara & Vijay have played. Rohit Sharma also would have debuted if not for a freak injury before toss. So WP Saha got the honors instead. Has any of them performed well enough to make that position his own. Sure selectors haven't given any of the them a long enough rope but the fact stays, it is stupid to retire your performers prematurely to make way for youngsters if one position is already open. And Rohit Sharma is a brilliant but super lazy fellow. Symonds(IPL teammate) and Gary Kirsten have said the same thing. He is one the players Kirsten told that he at 42 was fitter than them(I guess other 2 were Yuvi and Zaheer). He has played 65 ODIs, He is yet to be a regular in that, so he can forget about tests till he fixes his work ethic. By the way, is Australian way any different than this.

  • on June 19, 2011, 7:30 GMT

    Chappel has an excellent point the batsmen themselves should retire and do things which are in best interest of Indian cricket.

  • cyniket on June 19, 2011, 7:23 GMT

    Interesting point about the bowlers. I've heard Ian chappell say bowlers are the most important thing so many times over the years. I think he might be subtly suggesting that it won't be long before australia are back at the top.

  • frommoonman on June 19, 2011, 7:20 GMT

    Raina and Pujara were badly exposed in SA. Compare that to Sehwag who blasted a century on debut in SA. Different class altogether. Thank Indian Selectors for hanging on to SRT, RD and VVS for as long as they can possibly play because Rohit, Raina, Badri, Dhavan etc will be sitting ducks at Test Level. Only Kohli and may be Pujara has what it takes to succed at Test level. Vijay and Yuvi can be successfuly if they truly apply themselves. Beyond that it's all too dark for Indian Cricket at the moment.

  • OnlyKaps on June 19, 2011, 7:18 GMT

    I think all countries do this..West Indies hung on to their battery of quicks a couple of decades ago. Aus hung on to their seniors until 4 yrs ago. So did Sri lanka hang onto Jayasuriya and Murali and Vaas. Not justifying it, but its too tempting for selectors

    BTW, I dont think the cupboard is so bare in Australia. Shaun Marsh shd have been given a cap (regular) 2 yrs ago so shd Khwaja. David Hussey and Hodge shd have been regulars in the test squad, they were never given a sustained chance. and now regarded too old. Hilfie shd have had a chance earlier than he did. Hauritz and Steven Smith are still in and out while older spinners like Kreja are being toyed with . Hughes was mysteriously dropped when he shd have been preserved with .

  • ShardulJuyal on June 19, 2011, 7:18 GMT

    No sure if Ian thinks before writing anymore. Picking the case of Rohit Sharma instead of Cheteshwar Pujara or Virat Kohli. And why is he insistent on bringing new blood to the team at the cost of old guards? India needs VVS Sachin and Rahul. Also these are not the guys who wont skip a match or two to let the young ones play. Also the young generation can prove talent in ODI's. VVS and Dravid dont play them, and Sachin rarely does.

    A test team had to be 11 best players at the given day. No need for artificial push towards youth.

  • mystifen on June 19, 2011, 7:16 GMT

    Mr Chappell, you have carefully omitted any discussion about Australia's real problems. To get a place in the Indian team, a batsman has to prove that he is better than the current player, and being younger is just not enough. When a player does prove that, he is given his place, like in the case of Virat Kohli and Gautam Gambhir. Gambhi proved that he is better than Dravid at No. 3 in the ODI team, and was promptly given a regular place. Kohli proved himself to be better than the Raina and was given the place in the World Cup team. The World Cup winning team had only one player who was not sure of his place, Yuvraj Singh, and we all know how he turned out.

    India has grown from strength to strength over the past few years. Our next generation of test batsman are just not ready enough for the big stage. International test cricket is not a place to develop a youngster, its a place for the developed player to prove himself. This is where Australia has gone terribly wrong.

  • on June 19, 2011, 7:05 GMT

    Well, logically, Mr. Chappell has a point, but pragmatically, what would the selectors do? Ask VVS to retire after the year he's had in Tests? Tell Dravid that he should go an and make the next sacrifice (after he was booted out of the limited over's squad)? Sachin is anyway untouchable - for good reason - and will choose when and how he wants to leave (may that day be far far away!). What should the selection panel do?

  • pratit on June 19, 2011, 7:01 GMT

    How can chappel talk of replacing dravid,laxman or tendulkar?fact is ganguly vacated the no6 position 2 years back and that position is still open.let somebody cement his position at no6 and then we will talk about replacing the big 3.otherwise,there will be instability

  • ygkd on June 19, 2011, 6:54 GMT

    Further, longer-format mid-teen cricket at Aus pathway levels would also help young spinners. A team of 15y olds can bat through a 45 over innings 8 down easily and still manage to belt spinners off any sort of length to the stage where they are wary about turning it. Two bad overs and they're out of the attack. However, if the batting lineup had to turnup a second day with whatever wickets were left and continue for another 45 overs, they couldn't afford to belt the opposition spinners in that manner. Some circumspection would be required. Spinners not spot-droppers would suddenly have a chance to take perhaps more geniune wickets and not rely on run-rate to do it for them.

  • sparshithp on June 19, 2011, 6:50 GMT

    Now ina chappell is out to destroy indian Cricket by saying seniors shud be dropped.....Get a life chappell brothers , get a life !!

  • Kaze on June 19, 2011, 6:49 GMT

    Lol bench strength, this is a side that got beaten twice by a pathetic WI side missing Gayle.

  • amit1807kuwait on June 19, 2011, 6:44 GMT

    Why is Ian Chappell so worried about Rohit Sharma or other Indian youngsters yet to make their test debuts? Didn't Mike Hussey of Australia wait until he was 30 to get a test debut? The nonsense he churns out at times is simply unbelievable!

  • on June 19, 2011, 6:38 GMT

    We wouldn't know if there was a wunderkind batting prospect out there. Nor would it matter because they still wouldn't be selected if their face/gob didn't fit. The Australian selectors should be ashamed of themselves for so many reasons.

  • on June 19, 2011, 6:38 GMT

    hahahahahhahaha this is a joke right? ? ?

    Rohit has been tried how many times at ODI level with consistently making it? India's pace brigade has proven to be useless without Zaheer. As soon as SRT, Dravid, Laxman and then Sehwag retire, they'll fall from top spot quicker then Australia did.

  • D.V.C. on June 19, 2011, 6:28 GMT

    Rohit. Ian and Greg Chappell are two different people. They are brothers, but Ian has no say in selection at all. On TV Ian is always distancing himself from Greg.

  • on June 19, 2011, 6:19 GMT

    None of your business Chappel! Fix Australian issues or rather make them worse as you have done with so much success in past!

  • on June 19, 2011, 6:18 GMT

    I agree with a previous comment... Maybe India can have an A team play ... just like Australia did in the mid 90s

  • on June 19, 2011, 6:11 GMT

    I understand the point Mr.Chappel is trying to make, but the fact is that in India, there is huge pressure on selectors about handling the senior players in the side, and they do respect all seniors according to seniority, like Anil Kumble was handed captaincy after Rahul Dravid, while an australian panel would have gone for youth, to be more precise Dhoni or Sehwag..

    The younger batsmen need to prove that they "match" the class of the big guys in every opportunity because thats how stellar the performances of the Indian batsmen have been recently, so the youngsters will have to wait in the wings for them to retire unless they prove to be of the same class, if not better than those in this Indian team of several living legends...

  • josearamath on June 19, 2011, 6:05 GMT

    I cant agree with Ian chappell.May be he is trying to justify Greg Chappell's whims. Indias senior players are doing pretty well in test cricket at the moment.I think most of them are playing in their peak form .And senior players like Dravid and Laxman dont play in forms of cricket.This gives ample opportunity for youngsters to play international cricket.And they have been struggling against a weak team like WI.Give opportunity to players like Rohit ,Raina,etc to play ODIs against strong teams,if they are consistent replace struggling seniors with them.If India sack all the senior players and put in youngsters now we will be playing into the hands of other test teams.Even BD will be able to beat INDIA in tests..So please dont listen to Chappells...

  • Alexk400 on June 19, 2011, 6:05 GMT

    India is winning mainly because of Dhoni's captaincy and Sehwag "critical" runs. Sachin/Dravid are franchise players who produce most runs. Ausies always have above average bowlers. i think watson and michael clarke are similar with watson is more alround and more skilled , i think they should bat 5th and 6th and bring new opening batsman who play around ponting. they should drop hussey. Ya he can save few matches...why not drop him and go all out. why drop katich and keep hussey? Baffles me.

  • on June 19, 2011, 6:04 GMT

    Expected better input from Ian Chappell on this topic.. this article can be written by any cricket reporter. Any suggestions on how to manage Rohit sharma's talent?? every one has mentioned his name so much in the same line as waste, not fulfilled etc. that it seems that writers have doomed his fate and there is no hope.. Yes, IPL will make some players very rich and if they loose motivation after that , they didn't deserve to be in India team in first place.. Young guns need to bide their time as Hussy did..Stop expecting India selectors to be Hilditch.. In India, there is lot more respect to the time seniors have served to Indian cricket than Australians have for Katich and Ponting..

  • Alexk400 on June 19, 2011, 5:58 GMT

    I think the standard of Batting in India is higher. if you hit two double century successively in ranji will get you spot in Test automatically. You have to be better than aging sars. There is only one musical chaim spot number 5. Until that spot filled by youngsters raina or pujara , Selectors have a spot to experiment. Once that is sealed then pressure on other spot.

    Aussies has selection issue. Bad method. It needs to be gradual and whole house cleaning. What aussie lack is a Franchise player ( who can be backbone / production of most runs). Once ponting lost touch they do not have anyone. Michael hussey should have been dumped not katich. Blunder there. You bring player in 5 and 6 th spot and gradually move to opener spot if the kid is talented.

    i would move michael clarke to 6th spot. Because he is more of support role player. He will do well if he has to do less run production but critical runs.

    Greg chappel is ideal for teach young kids about techniques not selection.

  • on June 19, 2011, 5:46 GMT

    Dearest Indians, plz don't fall for this guys views.he talks rubbish.you don need 11 vacancies in a eleven member squad to groom youngsters.rite?.let the youngsters be battle ready before they announce themselves on the intl stage.we have sach,rahul n lax to groom the youngsters and then dhoni will take care of the utilisation part which he is damn good at.though i am not a fan of dravid,lax or sachin for that matter let the seniors take their own sweet time before they leave the game gracefully......after all they have done so much for indian cricket that we can rest the decision of their fate for them to handle.....till then don listen to aussie rubbish...and do not even remotely think "they may be correct after all".....go India go.....we are the champs...

  • on June 19, 2011, 5:41 GMT

    Oh ya, we need a strong selection panel that can leave the guys like Laxman and Sachin because they are aging like Simon Katich.

    Looks like you're inspired from your brother on 'selection policy'.

    No thank you. Keep the experiments for CA and leave Indian cricket for good.

  • on June 19, 2011, 5:40 GMT

    Again an article on retirement.I think Ian instead of beating the bushes should come forward and say that he dislikes Sachin to the core and want him to retire at the earliest.

    These kind of articles makes Cricinfo standard go down and will eventually become a tabloid.

    Hope Cricinfo raises its standard and stops these kind of articles which are not analytical but based on sheer personal bias and preconceived notions.

  • on June 19, 2011, 5:28 GMT

    A very welll writtten article. But that fact is that OZ do not pick their players till they are well into their 20s so Rohit Sharma not playing a test till he is 24 is not a big deal. But Kohli I feel is the real next big thing in world cricket.

  • jackyboy10 on June 19, 2011, 5:22 GMT

    Agree to Mr.Chappell that Australia is lacking batting talents at present. However in case of India it is still not the time to replace the batting giants. Because if India had followed Australia and dropped seniors, they would have succumbed to same condition as of Australia right now. The youngsters in India like Vijay, Pujara have been given enough chances and it is now totally clear that they are not in the same league with the greats. As Sachin, Dravid, Laxman will retire there will be irrecoverable loss in Indian batting and the current dominance of them in test will come to end. Till then please enjoy their batting prowess.

  • aryasachin on June 19, 2011, 5:21 GMT

    i request mr chappel pls shut up...what he thinks rohit sharma is talented but not a good batsman.he has scored runs against mediocre teams..u want to replace sachin dravid laxman with the waste batsmen like bijay badri rohit........u dont want to see india @ no 1,,,so u write these valueless articles so that if they retire india will fall down.....indias youngbatmen r not worthy playing 50 over match yet test match.........these great three's stay at international level will decide how much longer india will stay at top.

  • indianpunter on June 19, 2011, 5:18 GMT

    Ian, you have a point here, but as usual, all the indian fans will be on to you in a flash. To me, as an Indian, Rahul Dravid should have been dropped 3 yrs ago. He is now a liability. But i think Tendulkar can go on till the Australian summer and laxman maybe till 2012 end. That, in my book, would be the best scenario, given the circumstances. But, as with most indian cricketers, bar Ganguly and Gavaskar; no one ever retires in grace. The have to be dropped and lose the goodwill they earned in their career ( as is happening to RD). I just cannot fathom Dravid. This is a guy who is supposed to have a sharp cricketing brain. But when it comes to himself, he is in denial.

  • on June 19, 2011, 5:14 GMT

    All crap from chappel....

  • prashanthbm88 on June 19, 2011, 5:01 GMT

    wel Mr.Chappell has no better work to do. u knw australia is on the decline n india on the rise which ur not unable to digest. tats y u start debating abt indian team. even though our middle order is into late 30's vl still have viru gauti msd n uv/raina for long time. if required viru has always wantd to play @ 4 which he can do once Sachin retires. ur view in bowling is also wrong. v too have very good pacers lyk mithun, R.P Singh, etc but there is serious selection issues regarding selecting players from Karnataka. tat team possess vinay,mithun,manish n robbie. atleast 2 of these 4 can make it to atleast Odi's. mithun n pandey can also b blooded into tests.stop thinking abt india n just c how aussies suffer. when oz were in the prime they dint blood youngsters even in odi's n now india have given youngsters enuf exposure in intl ckt which can b translated into tests. infact the carribean tour presents atleast 2 slots in middle order for the youngsters. now just c how they play

  • on June 19, 2011, 5:01 GMT

    Article after article, Chappel keeps on desperately showering his wisdom about getting rid of India's 'ageing batsmen'. He's been trying since 2006, and like a resolute Aussie, still keeps trying. All the while, the Indian batting machine just keeps chugging along well oiled and healthy while the Australian one is falling apart.

  • shrikanthk on June 19, 2011, 4:48 GMT

    Interesting points. Makes you wonder whether Gilchrist would've been a better batsman if he had made his debut in the early nineties instead of having to wait in the wings for nearly 10 years.

    Having said that, there are several examples of very fine cricketers who have adapted well to international cricket after having spent several years scoring runs in the domestic circuit. Many of these examples are from Australia - Greg Chappell, Mark Waugh and Mike Hussey come to mind readily. I don't think their game suffered because of the amount of domestic cricket they played prior to entering the big league.

  • pvwadekar on June 19, 2011, 4:47 GMT

    Interesting article and Chappell makes some valid points. But if u look, the first class record of Kohli, Sharama, Pujara and Rahane..( all average above 55 and Suresh Raina is not cut out for test level) are starting to get better after playing 2-3 years of first class cricket. So no doubt the talent is indeed there, they still need to go through the domestic scene to get some runs, confidence, experience for 4 day cricket under their belt before they make the transition to the test level. Dravid will probably quit after the Australia series while Laxman will hang further for a year or so, but no idea about Tendulkar. So in the next 2 years or so they will be atleast couple of vacancies,so we need to start grooming these 4 to by giving them opportunities. WI series is a starts but this process needs to continue for a smooth transition.

  • spinkingKK on June 19, 2011, 4:41 GMT

    Well said and good comparison of the two contrasting situations. Inidan selectors should have dropped Dravid long ago. Dravid was a great performer, but when we look at his performance for the past 3 years closely, one will see that he wasn't performing well. He is also on the wrong side of the 30's and there were young players in the waiting. When Pujara replaced him in the batting order (coming in place of injured Laxman), he excelled in that position and that was the perfect opportunity for the selectors but they just don't do it and are now in the danger of having to deal with the mass retirement or mass axing of the under performers. Australian selectors should have never dropped a player like Katich. He may be old, but he hasn't played many test matches like Dravid or Ponting. Therefore, he still has plently of passion for the game and his body is behaving just fine. So, there was no need to drop him.

  • on June 19, 2011, 4:39 GMT

    Well, Sir! We have had enough trouble with the "Australian" methods of selection being applied here. In fact, we have only completed the rebuilding phase. Please let us alone. We are not unduly worried about what the other Chappell is doing over there so long as voices are not raised for the same laws being applied here.

  • skyeshwin on June 19, 2011, 4:38 GMT

    A very keenly judged article which shows the paucity of Indian fast bowling and Aussie batting in the coming future......

  • on June 19, 2011, 4:38 GMT

    Ian, you have literally taken the words out of my mouth. I've been going on about how we've been wasting talent for the past three years, and this is going to cause us some serious problems. The amount of time Rohit Sharma has at the crease when facing bowling above 140 km/h, you just know that he could be a real superstar. They once said he'd succeed Sachin and Sunny's great legacy, but that seems really distant. If I were selector, I might have to sit down with the Big 3 and say here's the plan. I wouldn't show them the door, but I'd try and say we have a plan in mind, what do you think? Somehow, doing that translates to being really ungrateful in the eye of Indian public. Ideally, Dravid will play his last series in England this summer and Laxman will play his last down under in December. But then you've got Sachin; I think he'll play through this year and call it a day in mid-2012. All this is speculation of course.

  • on June 19, 2011, 4:34 GMT

    So he skips providing any commentary on it altogether. How very convenient.

    Chappell's analyses (if this garbage comes under that category) have been consistently biased and shallow, and only demonstrate his penchant for lazy armchair consideration. As an experienced player and administrator, one would expect him to exhibit a bit more semblance of critical thinking.

  • on June 19, 2011, 4:32 GMT

    That fact was also conveniently overlooked- that even when selectors are dilly-dallying, the players are taking it upon themselves to be responsible for the future of the team. Rather than boot veterans from the team to blood the youngsters, it is best to include the youngsters in tour matches (which are going be aplenty in the India-Eng tour) so they get accustomed to foreign conditions and players. Cycling of bowlers is also being carried out at this point- letting Zaheer Khan partner with a multitude of 2nd and 3rd pacemen in different games (Sharma, Sreesanth, Patel, P Kumar). The spinners (Chawla, Ojha, Ashwin) are capable enough to play second fiddle to Harbhajan.

    Besides a perfunctory remark about Katich's expulsion from the Aus team, Chappell mentions nothing at all about the situation- refusing to take a stand on things that matter, as usual. As an establishment guy, he has much to lose by coming out against the board, and by opposing Katich, face criticism from everywhere.

  • on June 19, 2011, 4:32 GMT

    Hmmm....i wonder at times why there are so many articles on indian cricket. anyways, i don't think that india has a lot to choose from. Batting - YES but bowling is a poor sight. We are going to struggle in the West indies becoz w/o Zaheer, the indian bowling looks pathetically miserable and lack direction. No youngster in india probably wants to be a bowler. And test matches are won by bowlers. The bowling scenario in the country is indeed a very sorry affair!!!!

  • on June 19, 2011, 4:31 GMT

    India have the best team right now in my opinion in both formats of the game, edging ahead of SA and England in tests and Australia/SA in ODI but once Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman are gone their batting won't be the best in the world anymore and their bowling depends too much on Zaheer Khan with glimpses of good performances from Harbhajan singh and the rest. I see India facing the same problem in one or two years that Australia are facing right now.

  • uno.numero on June 19, 2011, 4:28 GMT

    and the other(India) has too many in the wings, waiting for the fading stars to leave... - This is what happens when you don't have a Chappell on your side. India suffered a lot when they had a Chappell. India knows how to treat it's players, young or old. India's old player isn't like Australia's old players who aren't performing much. They are contributing and proving their worth. Having them in the team provide stability and reliability. And they are a 'must have' along with couple of young players in the side. Is this another rant to argue why Tendulkar isn't retiring? Well Tendulkar is far better than any of the chappells.

  • on June 19, 2011, 4:26 GMT

    Besides the names of Josh Hazlewood, James Pattinson, Patrick Cummins and Mitchell Starc, the new young Australian quicks, there was nothing in this article that almost every reader at Cricinfo didn't know about Australia and India's soon-to-be predicament. Ian Chappell has yet again managed to play the role of Captain Obvious to perfection, when he isn't busy eating his own words. While he expresses astonishment at Rohit Sharma's yet-to-materialize Test debut (Chappell has anayltical skills? Shock!), he forgets to mention the fact that Sharma was about 15 minutes away from it before he sprained his ankle right at the start of a test match.

    True, it is indeed necessary to gradually phase out the older stars while grooming the new ones. However India's problem is its middle order is rock solid and in-form. Which is why Tendulkar should be commended for voluntarily stepping aside for the WI test tour in order to give the youngsters a chance (and spend more time with his family).

  • intcamd on June 19, 2011, 4:25 GMT

    Ian has a good point about IPL reducing the hunger levels for young players. Case in point, Ishant who burst on the scene, did well tormenting the Punter, got a million dollar deal, and has been a shadow of formerself since then.

  • sanchit720 on June 19, 2011, 4:24 GMT

    yeah axe sachin, dravid and vvs like what australian selection did to katich. how does he write an article about indian selection panel right after australian selection commited the mistake of their lifetime? we are the #1 Test team for a reason. Main reason is the experience of tendy, rahul and vvs, I agree we have a lot of young talent waiting, but who are they gonna replace? After all the senior guys have done enough for Indian cricket to have the luxury of retiring when they wish. Chappel needs to take a look at where australian cricket and australian selection is before commenting on the #1 team in the world.

  • on June 19, 2011, 3:57 GMT

    Given the present number of bench strength n the senior players, the BCCI can comfortably form three parallel professional cricket teams with equal balance; the hindrance here is the money-making attitude of the Board! BCCI might be the worlds richest cricket org, but still its a cricket org. Enough money earned; now please do not let young talent rot.

  • perl57 on June 19, 2011, 3:47 GMT

    Often it was mocked by Oz that Sachin, Sourav, Laxman, Dravid's talent was never scooped and that India had no answer after them. While for Sachin, there cannot be an answer in cricket, there are certainly better stars with even better temperment who are coming up. Its just that the attitude needs to be nurtured. Now look at Oz, they had McGrath and Warne who won 90% of the matches they played. When they played INdia, Warney became useless and McGrath single handedly did a lot of work with other fast bowlers. Under their shadow Lee, Gillespie came out but they left without doing anything great. Johnson, Doug are certainly raw talent but they just do not have in them to become that great. Batting wise, Oz is a disaster now. Lead by a captain who has flopped in 95% of the matches, really, is an enigma on the part of ACB to select such a hopeless captain. Lesson-> Do not mock someone that you become a part of it.

  • on June 19, 2011, 3:40 GMT

    It's hard to believe much of what Ian Chappell says these days. He is quite contradicting and has a different stand on most views almost overnight. I'd say most of Australia's selection woes are because of him, from trying to incorporate baseball techniques into Aus Cricket to suggesting Ricky Ponting should retire from the game.

  • ygkd on June 19, 2011, 3:33 GMT

    I firmly believe much can be done here in Australia to alter inter-league youth cricket to encourage longer innings. The likes of G Pollock & S Tendulkar when young got to make big scores on a regular basis. I see too many innings here cut artificially short. Some of this is about widenening the opportunities and fair enough. Some controls on how many overs a mid-teens bowler can deliver is eminently sensible. But mid-teens one day matches alone will not always deliver bats capable of quality innings. Split-innings two-day matches must be a priority, so that 90-100 overs rather than 45-50 is possible, if necessary spread over two weekends to get around club commitments etc. That way young bowlers' workloads are spread out and not excessive in any one day, but batting can be in for the long haul if the individual is up to it technically and temperamentally. The system as it is favours hitting or limited-shot-range all-rounders and selection I believe often shows this from the ground up.

  • on June 19, 2011, 3:18 GMT

    Ian's a lil too confident in India's young, up-and-coming generation... replacing SRT, Dravid, Laxman (Sehwage in a few more years) will take India a couple of years or more... and they will probably lose their loose hold on the No.1 Test Status, without a top-class bowling attack, batting lineup or fielding unit...

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on June 19, 2011, 3:18 GMT

    Ian's a lil too confident in India's young, up-and-coming generation... replacing SRT, Dravid, Laxman (Sehwage in a few more years) will take India a couple of years or more... and they will probably lose their loose hold on the No.1 Test Status, without a top-class bowling attack, batting lineup or fielding unit...

  • ygkd on June 19, 2011, 3:33 GMT

    I firmly believe much can be done here in Australia to alter inter-league youth cricket to encourage longer innings. The likes of G Pollock & S Tendulkar when young got to make big scores on a regular basis. I see too many innings here cut artificially short. Some of this is about widenening the opportunities and fair enough. Some controls on how many overs a mid-teens bowler can deliver is eminently sensible. But mid-teens one day matches alone will not always deliver bats capable of quality innings. Split-innings two-day matches must be a priority, so that 90-100 overs rather than 45-50 is possible, if necessary spread over two weekends to get around club commitments etc. That way young bowlers' workloads are spread out and not excessive in any one day, but batting can be in for the long haul if the individual is up to it technically and temperamentally. The system as it is favours hitting or limited-shot-range all-rounders and selection I believe often shows this from the ground up.

  • on June 19, 2011, 3:40 GMT

    It's hard to believe much of what Ian Chappell says these days. He is quite contradicting and has a different stand on most views almost overnight. I'd say most of Australia's selection woes are because of him, from trying to incorporate baseball techniques into Aus Cricket to suggesting Ricky Ponting should retire from the game.

  • perl57 on June 19, 2011, 3:47 GMT

    Often it was mocked by Oz that Sachin, Sourav, Laxman, Dravid's talent was never scooped and that India had no answer after them. While for Sachin, there cannot be an answer in cricket, there are certainly better stars with even better temperment who are coming up. Its just that the attitude needs to be nurtured. Now look at Oz, they had McGrath and Warne who won 90% of the matches they played. When they played INdia, Warney became useless and McGrath single handedly did a lot of work with other fast bowlers. Under their shadow Lee, Gillespie came out but they left without doing anything great. Johnson, Doug are certainly raw talent but they just do not have in them to become that great. Batting wise, Oz is a disaster now. Lead by a captain who has flopped in 95% of the matches, really, is an enigma on the part of ACB to select such a hopeless captain. Lesson-> Do not mock someone that you become a part of it.

  • on June 19, 2011, 3:57 GMT

    Given the present number of bench strength n the senior players, the BCCI can comfortably form three parallel professional cricket teams with equal balance; the hindrance here is the money-making attitude of the Board! BCCI might be the worlds richest cricket org, but still its a cricket org. Enough money earned; now please do not let young talent rot.

  • sanchit720 on June 19, 2011, 4:24 GMT

    yeah axe sachin, dravid and vvs like what australian selection did to katich. how does he write an article about indian selection panel right after australian selection commited the mistake of their lifetime? we are the #1 Test team for a reason. Main reason is the experience of tendy, rahul and vvs, I agree we have a lot of young talent waiting, but who are they gonna replace? After all the senior guys have done enough for Indian cricket to have the luxury of retiring when they wish. Chappel needs to take a look at where australian cricket and australian selection is before commenting on the #1 team in the world.

  • intcamd on June 19, 2011, 4:25 GMT

    Ian has a good point about IPL reducing the hunger levels for young players. Case in point, Ishant who burst on the scene, did well tormenting the Punter, got a million dollar deal, and has been a shadow of formerself since then.

  • on June 19, 2011, 4:26 GMT

    Besides the names of Josh Hazlewood, James Pattinson, Patrick Cummins and Mitchell Starc, the new young Australian quicks, there was nothing in this article that almost every reader at Cricinfo didn't know about Australia and India's soon-to-be predicament. Ian Chappell has yet again managed to play the role of Captain Obvious to perfection, when he isn't busy eating his own words. While he expresses astonishment at Rohit Sharma's yet-to-materialize Test debut (Chappell has anayltical skills? Shock!), he forgets to mention the fact that Sharma was about 15 minutes away from it before he sprained his ankle right at the start of a test match.

    True, it is indeed necessary to gradually phase out the older stars while grooming the new ones. However India's problem is its middle order is rock solid and in-form. Which is why Tendulkar should be commended for voluntarily stepping aside for the WI test tour in order to give the youngsters a chance (and spend more time with his family).

  • uno.numero on June 19, 2011, 4:28 GMT

    and the other(India) has too many in the wings, waiting for the fading stars to leave... - This is what happens when you don't have a Chappell on your side. India suffered a lot when they had a Chappell. India knows how to treat it's players, young or old. India's old player isn't like Australia's old players who aren't performing much. They are contributing and proving their worth. Having them in the team provide stability and reliability. And they are a 'must have' along with couple of young players in the side. Is this another rant to argue why Tendulkar isn't retiring? Well Tendulkar is far better than any of the chappells.

  • on June 19, 2011, 4:31 GMT

    India have the best team right now in my opinion in both formats of the game, edging ahead of SA and England in tests and Australia/SA in ODI but once Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman are gone their batting won't be the best in the world anymore and their bowling depends too much on Zaheer Khan with glimpses of good performances from Harbhajan singh and the rest. I see India facing the same problem in one or two years that Australia are facing right now.