-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Like us?
Chappell resigns as Indian cricket coach
- Thread starter umang_mehta
- Start date
- Replies 17
- Views 4,024
I never really understood the hoi polloi about the ads, how long does it take to make an ad ?..a few days maybe.After that they play it incessantly, player gets his money, deal done.So what. If cricket happens to be the only sport, that this country can get by decently with (or has done so in the recent past), what is the problem ?How does ads ads negatively affect things, oh it might piss off the more junior players that have yet to prove themselves but other than that....for a sport that this country is so rabid about, i would have thought there would be far more posts in this thread, but i guess most ppl's idea of sports here is what you do with a game console 
umm. most ad contracts would have appearance clauses. and as we have read in reports, they even end up pressurizing senior players to favor certain younger players. 
it was almost hinted that dravid supported sehwag due to some common sponsors. just a rumor.
it was almost hinted that dravid supported sehwag due to some common sponsors. just a rumor. Even some ad contract had some clauses like "you get paid more for longer the duration u bat irrespective of how much runs u score".This is what BCCI opposed.
But nothing is going to change ..its true..total system he kharab hayi
But nothing is going to change ..its true..total system he kharab hayi
The longer a batsmen is at the wickets, the better for the team right ?..not to mention the batsman, himself.I still maintain, ads can only incentivise a player to play better, better he does, more he makes.Not seeing a conflict of interest here.Unless its put forward that the sponsors are making the players do the wrong thing at the wrong time, but i feel these profesional players ought to know better than that. No sponsor would want to see the team lose, just so they could get little more exposure, its a non-sensical argument, why settle for 10 or 50 minutes more when you could potentially see hours longer when the steam progresses to the later stages of the tournament.
The longer a batsmen is at the wickets, the better for the team right ?[/b]
Gavaskar failed to carry over his success as a Test batsman to the ODI format. He could not adjust to the pace required in an ODI, and struggled throughout his career. In one of his notorious ODI performances in 1975, he scored 36 not out off 174 balls as an opener with just one Four in reply to England's 334 in 60 overs. Indian team's total contribution turned out to be 132 for 3 in 60 overs. It was alleged that Gavaskar deliberately performed poorly in that match, due to his annoyance with the promotion of Srinivas Venkataraghavan to captaincy. He later claimed that he could not adjust to the pace of the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Gavaskar#Controversies
the game has changed. staying at the pitch is not going to help anyone if you don't score.
but then the problem with the indian team is that they do not even last 50 overs most of the time. so i guess, staying on the crease would be good for them.
Gavaskar failed to carry over his success as a Test batsman to the ODI format. He could not adjust to the pace required in an ODI, and struggled throughout his career. In one of his notorious ODI performances in 1975, he scored 36 not out off 174 balls as an opener with just one Four in reply to England's 334 in 60 overs. Indian team's total contribution turned out to be 132 for 3 in 60 overs. It was alleged that Gavaskar deliberately performed poorly in that match, due to his annoyance with the promotion of Srinivas Venkataraghavan to captaincy. He later claimed that he could not adjust to the pace of the game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Gavaskar#Controversies
the game has changed. staying at the pitch is not going to help anyone if you don't score.
but then the problem with the indian team is that they do not even last 50 overs most of the time. so i guess, staying on the crease would be good for them.
