What a difference a year makes

England’s opening partnerships haven’t been too bad:

43
69
76
0

Average of 47 there; which beats out Tendulkar/Ganguly’s 45 [15, 113, 35, 17]

Given the ODI experience of Cook and Prior, I don’t think we should be too harsh.

Well, Soulberry, better fielding sides won’t have the Indian batting line-up

Yes, I think two-three years down the line England could well have three number sevens, and be able to play a stumper for his keeping

Fantasy XI for the First Ashes Test of 2009:

Cook, Trescothick, Vaughan*, Pietersen, Collingwood, Bopara, Flintoff, Broad, Rashid, Read†, Anderson.

(Waits for the abuse from the MP fan club – or, knowing cricket blogs, a mega-post explaining why Robert Key should be there )

It”s a pity India don’t field well or they would be a real powerhouse. Someone said something about India not having a tradition of contact sports, so they have never learnt to field well. Perhaps they have too much charisma and glamour to fling themselves into advertising boards?

There isn’t one factor one can pin-point for India’s generally average fielding.

I am not sure if it is just the rough and tumble aspect of it. Rough and tumble sports, and lifestyle, is the norm in the countryside. Indian cricket is only recently beginning to include players from beyond the Metros.

In the metros, life is different. First off, there aren’t enough places to play a game. Then, if anyone takes up sports at all seriously, as a career prospect, it is they who will probably have lesser access to the better facilities and training avenues. Sports still is looked upon among the large middle class as a luxury – ok to play when one is young, but must have training in “regular” fields to survive thereon. For those above all this, sports is just another quaint aspect of their lifestyle. For those who survive to play from below the economic divide, sports is salvation…the key to all that ailed their generations. What would one such who makes it to the big league do?

Mostly it is an individual choice. Very few among the WC ‘83 team of India were average fielders. Sandeep Patil and Kirti Azad may be the only ones who were average, and that too is being uncharitable to Kirti Azad – a person I have played against at club level many years ago. The rest were competent or brilliant fielders topped by Kapil, Srikkanth, Kirmani behind the stumps, Gavaskar and Vengsarkar in the slips (which reminds me of the famous close-in cordon India had in the early 70’s), Yashpal Sharma who was brilliant in the covers and outfield, Roger Binny who was more than competent…etc.

The point is these guys came up with far lesser opportunities and background where “posh” was a factor. Nearly all of them came from humble backgrounds, metros – which had spaces then…so I am not sure it is one factor at play here.

Mostly of individual choice according to me and yes, a combination of factors exist that determines a child’s approach to the sports in India.

Believe you me, it is one of the biggest debates raging in India/Indian forums/blogs! Useful points come out too from there.

An example – Homer’s http://dopaisekatamasha.blogspot.com/2007/08/on-fielding.html

There are many threads to this effect on the Beeb as well.

@William

I have played Kabaddi at the national level and I have fielded on the scruffy outfields of Mumbai and trust me Kabaddi fields are made for diving compared to those outfields.

Forget diving, you’d be lucky to escape without a ball jumping out of the rough and smacking you in the face

Of course given the amount of money that the BCCI has, there should be no excuse for bad outfields!