Do not just ask to be patient

[sharifk]

I will start the thread with a parable that P. Senge has used in “The Fifth Discipline” to illustrate the impact of gradual changes:

If you place a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately try to scramble out. But if you place the frog in room temperature water, and don’t scare him, he’ll stay put. Now, if the pot sits on a heat source, and if you gradually turn up the temperature, something very interesting happens. As the temperature rises from 70 to 80 degrees F, the frog will do nothing. In fact, he will show every sign of enjoying himself. As the temperature gradually increases, the frog will become groggier and groggier, until he is unable to climb out of the pot. Though there is nothing restraining him, the frog will sit there and boil. Why? Because the frog’s internal apparatus for sensing threats to survival is geared to sudden changes in his environment, not to slow, gradual changes.

Although Senge uses this story to illustrate the impact of “gradual changes” to corporations and the importance of “trend analysis” to tackle the “gradual changes,” we can learn other things from it as well.

As I have stated in many threads, our numbers and quality of available talented players of today are many more and better than that of a few years back. But it almost seems that our Test teams of those days used to perform better (even if not a lot better) than the way our current Test team is performing. Another noticeable matter is that, whereas our young ODI team can consistently score over 200 against any top teams, our current Test team has been struggling to cross 100 sometimes. These tell me something about the mentality of the players of the current team. Since the young guys possess talents, what’s lacking is the mental ability to use their talents to the desired or even to the capable level. We should also remember that when 1, 2 or 3 players fail to perform, we can blame the failing player(s). But when everyone fails, our system must assume the responsibility. Therefore, it’s our system that’s inadvertently creating this mental inability that our talented players are failing. As there can be many reasons behind it, and I have stated a few in the “Do not point to wrong reasons” (http://www.banglacricket.com/alochon...ad.php?t=22419) thread, BCB must perform a root cause analysis to identify the appropriate reason(s). One possible reason can be that we are asking our players to alter their natural playing styles. For example, our old generation players weren’t confident enough nor did they have the necessary skills to win, so the players were asked to play extremely defensively and it was the natural style of the most players. So they performed to their potentials and there weren’t too many all out for 100 types of scores. But if we are asking our young talented players to play with the same style, which isn’t their natural style, we are asking them to alter their natural games and we are killing their intrinsic desires to win games. And that could provide very negative outcomes. I believe that we are succeeding in ODIs because we are allowing each player’s natural games in ODIs. However, without knowing inside facts, we can’t assume for sure that this is the case. If this is not the case, BCB must seek professional help from appropriate Psychologists.

In case the above scenario is true that our management is asking to alter our players’ natural playing styles, I would like to re-visit the above parable. Let’s just think that we would like to cook a live frog, whose instinct is to jump out of danger. Yet we would like the frog to remain in the water while cooking. Should we throw the frog in the boiling water, or should we put the frog in comfortable water before starting to cook? Patience and aggressiveness need to be treated as instinctive skills, and therefore they need to be taught using tools and methods and not by just stating to be patient or aggressive. If our management thinks that a player will need to improve a patience skill for a specific type of play, he should be provided with appropriate tools and technique so that over time, he can improve such skills. At no point, a player should be asked to change his playing style over night because due to the player’s instinct, he won’t be able to tolerate the change right away just the way a frog won’t be able to tolerate the boiling water and jump out of it. However, with appropriate methods and tools and given enough time, you can change a player’s attitude without damaging his confidence and other skills just the way you can cook a live frog by slowly increasing the temperature of the water. For this, a system must have performance measurement system and tools in place to measure each skill and quality of it quantitatively as I have written in this thread:

http://www.banglacricket.com/alochon...ad.php?t=22518

Once the quality elements can be captured, a baseline performance of each skill of each player needs to be identified. To identify true baseline, all players must be allowed to play with one’s natural style for the “reliability” and “validity” factors of the data. Improvements can only be made from this baseline. By calculating the current skill level of each player for an element, quality improvement can be measured and controlled as needed. Until a player has reached at the desired level, our selection process needs to select the appropriate individuals for the correct positions and skills. But we shouldn’t select a player of one style and just ask him to change his style or ask him to be patient or aggressive.

[DJ Sahastra]

All this is good for thesis/philosophy.

However, as far as i cricket goes, i'd say "Go out there and kick-azz".

In cricket, to play well is to play well. No amount of slow/fast/gradual/steep curve applies.

[sharifk]

Originally Posted by DJ Sahastra
All this is good for thesis/philosophy.

However, as far as i cricket goes, i'd say "Go out there and kick-azz".

In cricket, to play well is to play well. No amount of slow/fast/gradual/steep curve applies.

Only if "Go out there and kick-azz" is allowed.

BTW continual quality improvement is proven in sports and everywhere else.

[Baundule]

Banorer toilakto bash. 2 meter neme 1 meter othe and we call that improvement.

[sharifk]

Originally Posted by Baundule
Banorer toilakto bash. 2 meter neme 1 meter othe and we call that improvement.

How did you measure that? And are you talking about individual or team improvement?

[Baundule]

Originally Posted by sharifk
How did you measure that? And are you talking about individual or team improvement?

A national team playing tests should not be the place to allow for 'individual' improvement. Everything I care is the team's performance. No individual is important. Just keep the performers in the team. If someone is not performing, ask him to improve some where else and when he has improved enough, then call him.

If you say, we dont have those players who are matured enough to play tests and they need to 'improve' by playing, then we should not play tests actually. Of course, if we think, tests matches are just 'happy-go-lucky' stuffs, then I have nothing to say.

[Warlock]

Originally Posted by DJ Sahastra
All this is good for thesis/philosophy.

However, as far as i cricket goes, i'd say "Go out there and kick-azz".

In cricket, to play well is to play well. No amount of slow/fast/gradual/steep curve applies.

Hi DJ how are you doing man! I like your method.

[sharifk]

Originally Posted by Baundule
A national team playing tests should not be the place to allow for 'individual' improvement. Everything I care is the team's performance. No individual is important. Just keep the performers in the team. If someone is not performing, ask him to improve some where else and when he has improved enough, then call him.

If you say, we dont have those players who are matured enough to play tests and they need to 'improve' by playing, then we should not play tests actually. Of course, if we think, tests matches are just 'happy-go-lucky' stuffs, then I have nothing to say.

Yes, players should learn the basics before they get a chance to play for a national team. I have never said that national team is the place for all improvements. And you are right that in a team environment, individual focus shouldn't be allowed that can lead to selfishness. And I have explained a great deal of details in another thread about that. Having said all that improvement should never stop. Even players of national side can improve their individual and team performance without being selfish. What I have tried to do is to differentiate between the selection and development processes so that we don't pick one type of players and ask them to play another type.

[sharifk]

Originally Posted by Baundule
If you say, we dont have those players who are matured enough to play tests and they need to 'improve' by playing, then we should not play tests actually. Of course, if we think, tests matches are just 'happy-go-lucky' stuffs, then I have nothing to say.

I believe we have the skilled players, and it only appears that we don't have because we don't allow players to play their natural games. Even though national team players shouldn't be learning the basics while in a national side, but our young talented players can fine tune their skills from their mistakes if allowed to play their natural styles. For example, Mushfiq started aggresively in the second inning of the second test against SL, but he quickly adjusted. I believe we do have a few young talented players like Mushy who aren't even picked for the team.

[Baundule]

In playing test, commonsense is more important than talent. If I had the talent of Ashraful and I was playing for BD, I would have maintained a 50+ average.

Let them get matured first than drafting prematurely in the test arena. That destroys a player's career. In the long run, we miss the service of a 'could be' great player.

About non-performing players, just look at HB. He was the best batsman of BD team by a distance. After his terrible display in the World cup, both as a batsman and as a captain, he deserved a must break. In stead, he was given the captaincy in the India series. He was completely out of form and that continued. As a result, he lost all his confidence and in this series, this is showing truely badly.

HB is a stupid in terms of thinking and the selectors easily beat him in stupidity keeping a non-performer in the team. Who suffers the ultimate loss? The player himself and of course, the team as a whole.

[scoilaheez]

nice frog story!

[sharifk]

Originally Posted by Baundule
Let them get matured first than drafting prematurely in the test arena. That destroys a player's career. In the long run, we miss the service of a 'could be' great player.

In this thread, I am speaking of the scenario after the team selection. What I am saying is that after a player is selected for his talent of one style, we shouldn't ask or expect the player to play with another style. The selection process should pick the correct players of desired styles. So if we don't want or need a player to play with certain style, we shouldn't even pick players of that style.

However, I must respond about your concern that a player's career may get destroyed if he is picked at a young age. I don't fully agree with it because of several reasons. I will give one or two reasons here. Firstly, if a player is a truly talented one, he will survive. You can look at so many legendary players who have started their career at a very early age. Tendulkar is just one example. Even if we look at BD, you see Ash has survived. You may speak of Alok Kopali, but he is showing promise, and should be given a chance again as he is performing in the domestic tournaments. I believe if we have an appropriate transparent selection process, it will always choose the performing ones. And the young talented ones who fail in the national team can always come back through domestic performance. Secondly, if we know that we are producing a lot more talents today than what we used to produce before, then we shouldn't worry too much about wasting a few of today's talents as we may have even better talents in the coming years. What we should think is how to perform better using the best available talents of today. This way we don't have to depend on the old and not so skilled players like JO or Bashar.

[WarWolf]

Originally Posted by sharifk
Firstly, if a player is a truly talented one, he will survive. You can look at so many legendary players who have started their career at a very early age. Tendulkar is just one example. Even if we look at BD, you see Ash has survived.

Secondly, if we know that we are producing a lot more talents today than what we used to produce before, then we shouldn't worry too much about wasting a few of today's talents as we may have even better talents in the coming years.

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?

[One World]

There is no chance of people loosing interst in cricket in near future what may the internal selection structure we possess. The amount of money involved and the development structure in place with heavy patronage from ACB this process of inventing and upgrading talent pool will be bolstered day by day. Now the process of selection in Test matches (if not ODI's) definitely needs a parameterized well documented regulations and like in another thread it was mentioned a player must play a certain number of FC matches and show a legitimate average performance in his department with a healthy learning curve before being inserted as a member of the test team.

[tiger_omar]

Originally Posted by scoilaheez
nice frog story!

I honestly liked it too.

[Tigers_eye]

This team can cream the BD team five years back. Why can't we compete with the other nations then? Because they (other nations) have improved faster. All this techno help has put them in higher grounds. I will discuss a little more when I have time.

Thanks for the post Sharifk. There are much more to learn for many BC members and guests (the ones really matters).

Front page please.

[sharifk]

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
This team can cream the BD team five years back. Why can't we compete with the other nations then? Because they (other nations) have improved faster.

Good point.

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye

All this techno help has put them in higher grounds. I will discuss a little more when I have time.

Look forward to that. This forum sure can use it.

Originally Posted by Tigers_eye
Thanks for the post Sharifk. There are much more to learn for many BC members and guests (the ones really matters).

Front page please.

Thanks to you as well, Tigers_eye. As far as front page, it's up to the BC editors and/or management I guess.

[sharifk]

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.

[WarWolf]

Originally Posted by sharifk
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.

Only a few words. Australia is most succesful because they know the vaule of maturity in cricket.

[LateCut]

Enough said! Face it! We do not have talents. We have players with egos that are drummed up by eager news media and fans. Let us reapeat after me. "Ash does not have talent. Never had and never will". If Ash and the likes of him had talent, their bottom line (avarages) would have been higher. He is just trivially better than some of our other players.

[sharifk]

Originally Posted by WarWolf
Australia is most succesful because they know the vaule of maturity in cricket.

Along with many other things such as strategic planning, facilities, etc. I have never said any negative thing about maturity, but if maturity is the only criteria, Steve Waugh will still probably be playing cricket.

[sharifk]

Originally Posted by LateCut
Enough said! Face it! We do not have talents. We have players with egos that are drummed up by eager news media and fans. Let us reapeat after me. "Ash does not have talent. Never had and never will". If Ash and the likes of him had talent, their bottom line (avarages) would have been higher. He is just trivially better than some of our other players.

LateCut, sorry I can't repeat after you on that because first of all it's not true, and even if it was, saying it like that wouldn't help anything. What helps is using the best available resources the best way possible. We can't have it over night if we don't have what we want to have. But we can have what we want to or what we plan for with appropriate planning and gradual progress.