Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WarWolf
I don't agree with you, sorry. About your first point, Tendulkar is not an example, he is an exception. Though he came to international cricket at a very early age, he already had good experience of first class cricket. Ash might have survived, but only managed to survive, not to contribute much.
Producing a lot of talent doesn't mean we afford to waste them. If you fail to handle those talents, you will see in very near future not a single talent is coming. Kids will lose interest in cricket. We surely don't want this. Do we?
|
WarWolf, you sure don't have to agree. And thanks for your comments.
I am not sure if you are measuring maturity by age, but I don't think Tendulkar is just one exception. Bradman started at 20, Lara started at 21, etc. Anyway it's natural that the players of international sides that have been playing tests for generations will start playing for the national side when they are fully ready because they have enough experienced ones. Even then you will see that these teams do recognize the exceptional talents at young age, and those talents aren't denied their chances. Yet, when we don't have any experienced ones that can do any better than some of our younger ones, we do deny their chances because we are too careful that we may waste their talents. What if we have better talents in the coming years, and some of our current talented ones aren't allowed to play now, won't these talents of today be wasted all together? It's like you don't want to spend your saved up $40K for a brain tumor treatment, which may cost $50K, because you are saving it for a possible worse days in the future. Well, what else can be worse, if you don't survive for those worse days? What I think is that if we are to think for our future, instead of saving our current talented pool, we should focus on a system that can continuously produce more and more talents so that we don't have to worry about using the best available ones of today.