CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:01 pm
Yeah, one should either have a solid domestic record (like, say, Ervine when he broke through) or should be oozing with potential so that we ignore domestic record and just pick them (like a Musakanda or a Madhevere) and see how it goes.
Taking the same comparison, it would be like picking a Mayank Agarwal with loads of domestic runs and a Shubman Gill with talent and potential in India's case. Both good choices, and how selection should weigh things. Not saying it is all hunky dory in BCCI's case, but indication of a good thought process in these examples.
In case of ZC, we simply don't seem to have a Mayank Agarwal or a Manish Pandey among the playing community. Simple as that. So, for us, the flavour of the season becomes the guy we try out. Roy Kaia, hence, seems deserving of a chance for being significantly ahead of others. For the Gill comparison, we are looking at Madhevere, Shumba, etc. Let us see how that one turns out. Given that the first type are definitely absent, we can only hope for the second type to succeed...
The difference would be, India actually coach and develop the players, whether it is a player performing in FC, or has the talent and potential and gets thrust in. We don't do that. We see a guy do well domestically for a few games and then put him in the international team, and expect miracles to happen.
We don't train players at domestic level to be ready for international cricket. That is what should be happening. Then when they get picked for int cricket, we should still be developing and coaching them. Getting them to learn the game at that level by not just playing, but putting in the hours in training, watching the other teams, and doing some theory.