In the subcontinent, its the politicians who run the game at all the levels, which is not the case in australia, england, newzealand or southafrica - where ex cricketers are part of the system that runs the cricket bodies. The subcontinent politicians spell doom for the deserving cricketers by selecting their kins or related ones, thus depriving the real talent from reaching the top. Many a talent give up because of pure frustration and those who fight the system are shown the door. Its the system which should prevent politicians from running the Cricket bodies and make way for Ex Cricketers who could help locate and nurture the real talent and further groom them into senior players. But it looks impossible as most of the State Associations are run by politicians or by some cricketers who are their croonies. Its a sad story in the subcontinent which may never be eradicated. The British Raj and its Divide & Rule Administration Policy to help select few is the root cause of all problems

This might not be a norm but I played school cricket starting at the age of 12. Between the age of 16-18 I had to prepare for two school board exams and it highly affected my cricket. I think the importance of getting a proper education is so much in countries like India that ultimately the progress of young cricketers is severely shunted for those years. Well, I would like to know if fellow subcontinental citizens feel the same.

micheal this is on eof best pieces that can be written from sub continent point of view. one more thing may be is these u-19 tournaments are bit overrated . and when india-pakistan win them we automatically expect them to graduate to next level and then they ruthlessly exposed ..b

i quite agree that the fact that a core group of 50-60 cricketers being selected and nurtured in aus is the reason for them coming out really polished in senior cricket. If matches were to held between the sixth XI of india and aus, india would be firm favorites.

plus, in india (a developing country), a lot more emphasis is given to studies as the means of earning money. parents especially dont really see anything apart from studying at good colleges as the means of getting good jobs. so as the 10th class exams come around (age 15 or 16), lots of children give up games and concentrate on studies and doing well in the board exams. and then there is +2 (which is the time of preparation for getting into IITs and medical etc) where anything apart from studying is frowned upon.
i dont know for sure but this probably wont be the case in aus.

Don't forget even Australia have a relatively small population (21 million) compared to most other cricket-playing nations and cricket must also compete with footy, rugby league, union, soccer, swimming and every other sport played under the sun.

Great article Michael. I have always marveled at these same facts and I think I have an answer for you. What you saw at the Gymkhana could be seen all over the subcontinent.The real question is whether that 12 year old doosra bowling kid would ever play for even his district team. Although his talent suggests he might do it, but his parents might think otherwise. Come 15 years of age and he will be sucked into the Indian examination system and will be forced to become an engineer or a doctor. By this time he is 18 or 19 and he has missed the golden years of developing his game. I don't know how many Sachins we have lost just because they had no time to play the game. In India people rarely get the chance to make a career in sports cause if they fail a gloomy future awaits them. Combine this with the non existent culture to play outdoor sports and we could see the problem. Things seem to be changing rapidly but I suppose it is some time before we can see ourselves as a sporting nation!

I think as Tompo has said, we are tiny in population compared to the aisian countries so it's not that much of a suprise they have so many talented youngsters plus alot of kids are playing three or four different sports at a time in australia and alot don't focus on a paticular sport until later on. Mitch Marsh is a great example, he has had to choose between playing cricket or playing Aussie rules which he is extremely talented at.

There might be more talent in the sub-continent,when it comes to cricket,compared to the non Asian countries,however,the key point is how the talent is nurtured as the kids grow up.I don't think sports is encouraged,as it should be,in India compared to countries like Australia or England.I believe that this is the reason as to why the gap in the bridge,if any,gets reduced when it comes to natural talent.

Great article Michael. I have always marveled at these same facts and I think I have an answer for you. What you saw at the Gymkhana could be seen all over the subcontinent.The real question is whether that 12 year old doosra bowling kid would ever play for even his district team. Although his talent suggests he might do it, but his parents might think otherwise. Come 15 years of age and he will be sucked into the Indian examination system and will be forced to become an engineer or a doctor. By this time he is 18 or 19 and he has missed the golden years of developing his game. I don't know how many Sachins we have lost just because they had no time to play the game. In India people rarely get the chance to make a career in sports cause if they fail a gloomy future awaits them. Combine this with the non existent culture to play outdoor sports and we could see the problem. Things seem to be changing rapidly but I suppose it is some time before we can see ourselves as a sporting nation

I am from Pakistan and totally agree with the views given by others from subcontinent. The main reasons for this steep downfall from U15 to over 19 cricket levels in Pakistan are following

1) There is too much politics in sports in under developed countries. People see the money and try to get the administrator's job by hook or by crook. Once they are in the job, they bring their kins into the team so they can go on foreign tours . These players and the administrators form a corrupt group that prevents good players from making into the first team.

2)Boys are bread winners of the family and they are required to get good jobs by the time they are 23. So parents don't encourage them to take up sports owing to all the politics in sports and knowing that talent alone won't guarantee anything. They need some strong backing within the administration. So if they don't have that, they can't get into the first team and can't make good money. So better do something thats guarantees a good job.

I was a cricketer myself during my school days & my dad saw me one day batting for my school team & said u certainly have the talent but remember only 11 players get to play from the whole country, so i prefer u concentrate on studies, finish graduation, then think abt playin cricket. Do i need say more.

Its the economics. At under 15 level the boys in subcontinent have nothing to fear, they don't worry about their future or other stuff. But as soon as the graduate from high school, the life sea changes for them. Income worries how to support their families. In this all the talent is lost. Of-course games governing bodies can do more by identifying the talent at this level and giving them scholarships that can support them and their families. Esp. India should have some support system for these boys considering the amount the board earns.

Austrlia has always had an eye for talent identification, but feel they are starting to spread their sporting prowess too thin these days. They try to win at everything with ever tighter resource contraints against a background of a small population, competing interests and other nations becoming more competitive (plus many other nations having a far greater population base to work with). NZ has always been the standout in terms of what they can achieve with so little, with one great player bringing the rest along for the ride (eg Hadlee, Crowe, Fleming, Vetorri). On another note, there is a danger of Australia losing some interest in the development of young talent, with far greater focus (including political) focused (correctly in my opinion) now being given to sustainable economic productivity and the associated academic and/or networking (not sporting) requirements.

Until 15 are u free birds in subcontinent, taken as small children entitled to paly. and then you come in to the next level where your priorities are school, do a lot of household things and help your father at job, and you are left with very little time for sport or at least for organised sport. Major population lives in rural areas and there is no way that children can develope their talent there so they play for fun only. In west sport is found only in organised form and you will never find children playing cricket on their own without any club. Thats why you will find very few national players in india or pakistan coming from rural areas. Even in urban areas its only 10% of the population who can afford the proper cricket gear and pay for joining the organised sport. So in my views potential population for organised cricket in india is not much more then what they have in England.

90% of kids in western countries play organised sport and 90% of kids in subcontinent play unorganised sport. In unorganised sport u learn things on your own but to a specific level and then there comes a full stop. In organised club sport u may learn slowly but with the help of coaches and through matches against other organised clubs, you go on to acheive higher levels. Bloggers do mention teh burden of schools but its only a part of it. In subcontinental society children have to do a lot of household work to help their parents as there arent so many gadgets and appliences to make the life so easy as in the west. Many kids have to help there fathers on work too. As u grow ur financial needs grow too and u are not left with money for sports. I have gown in pakistan myself and seen my kids grow in west, so i have experienced it all. I can name a thousend things being different in subcontinent which take u away from sport as you touch the age of 16.

How about we focus on the question of what happens to the Australian boys? The vast majority of Australia's best cricketers are nutured in the country where from ages 12 and up the boys play against men in the local competitions. Hazelwood has just left this environment last year. Marsh is a different case having been around test teams throughout his childhood when his father coached Australia. Exposure to adult influence at a young age has definate advantages. I think you'll find young boys with talent in regional NSW, Queensland etc are similar to the asian boys you described in the article.

So one thing is clear, as stated in your blog, that non-asians catch up to subcontinent talent. However, we need to examine what areas they beat us in. I think it used to be really all other areas ie fast bowling, batting, fielding. I would say that subcontinent always kept the edge on spin bowling barring some expections such as Shane Warne etc. Lines are blurring now for fast bowling as Pakistan keep producing top line fast bowlers as good or better than any non-asian country. That tells me that at the core, the difference is in physical capabilities/anatomy. Non-asians are generally bigger, faster and hence better athletes. That in turn gives them better mental edge that eventually shows up as they age. There are other factors such as better systems, just the belief of past winning etc that cobmines to keep the non-asians winning. But asians are catching up physically and probably in next 10 year or so, game may be domintated by asians comprehensively. So I beleive.

Hi, I would take this 'phenomenon' a little further and it stems from what my dad would have called playing a game, to what an Aussie dad would call becoming a proffessional sportsman. In Asian households, cricket is a game (the word is used almost in a derogatory sense), in the UK, Australia it is a sport to be taken seriously. This is especially the case where illiteracy and poverty are NOT prevalent. The middle classes in the sub-continent don't want their kids playing games - as has been mentioned by other bloggers, they want them to become doctors and engineers. The poorer households are more interested in their children becoming of working age, so they can contribute to putting food on the table - I know its almost cliched, but its reality!
Then there is the matter of sheer volume - as you have pointed out, there are thousands of little Saqlains and Sachins, but only a few Academy slots and scouts to correctly ID and nurture and due to corruption and incompetence, they mess up.

I have similar observations in academics. An average fouth grader in India, is able to solve a complex math problem and put it neatly on paper. The reading levels are way higher for fourth graders in India, compared to US kids of the same age. However, when it comes to college, the students in US leap frog and stay ahead. Whether it is sports or academics, I attribute the following reasons for excellence at college level in US 1. A commitment for excellence at universities (academics, arts and sports) 2. Opportunity to pursue the kids true dreams 3. Excellent facilities and support system be it be lab equipment or sports equipment 4. The most important of all - There is a negative feedback to the kid in the form of excessive criticism in India. This includes coaches, parents, the relatives, teachers and what not. This weighs on the kid heavily once he reaches 16 or 17.

The main difference between Australia and sub-continent is that when the children of sub-continent reach the age of 18 they are expected to get admission in a proper university if they have to survive in the competitive world. They have to leave cricket and everything else in order to make sure their future is secured.

Mike, thanks for this great article. You have raised some interesting questions. Firstly there is a big....or I should say.....BIGGGGGGGGGGGGG gap between the raw talent on the cricketing streets of Lahore or Mumbai or Columbo....and the national playing 11. The cricket boards, selectors, adminstrators.....so much so....that ground staff.....are politically appointed personnel. Their aim.....to make money for themselves...either by hook or crook...and get their kith and kin involved as well in any aspect of the game. How then, can you expect the playing 11 to represent the nation's best. There's no talent hunt, grooming or coaching. On the contrary there is talent manipulation, derision and mock.
Now on the subject if Aus/NZ would do well in the subcontinent....yes they would..because 25 trained and talented men....will always be better than hundreds of my sons and cousins and nephews....who will always be representing my country....without any shame on a loss or acountability..

i fully agree with gomakant . The most talented players never come to represent thier countries as the politician get their own in the teams as favour(cash /kind) to get elected.

The Indian kids are better developed because they play only one game-cricket- and hence can fully focus their attentions on it. In Australia, there is a plethora of games for a 12-year old to play.

vey good article i think if we want to go one step ahead we should give proper expsure to small childs of games

Good article Michael, I read somewhere of a similar problem with Japanese and American baseballers. At the very young level of pee wee's (12 and under) the Japanese kids murder the American kids. Apparently this is the case till around the age of 17 to 18 when all of a sudden the American kids turn the tables and start winning games against the Japanese kids.The story go's that the asian kids mature faster and at a younger age to the western kids and as such as a younger age group are stronger, faster etc.
Eventually the western kids catch up and because they are usually bigger the tables turn in their favour. Maybe the same thing is going on here. Australia is western country and India, Pakistan etc are asian. I was watching Australia vs Sri lanka today and the Australian kids are huge next to the Sri Lankan kids, not just height but in overall build and development and at time temperment as well. Maybe the diet has something to do with it.Size doesn't always matter but it can't hurt.

Micheal Marsh is a talent and he is the son of geof marsh,a potential personality in cricket australia but can anybody ensure his chance of playing in national team without being tested properly, I guess not.As australia is a successful team,there is no room for a rookie unless a mayhem has occured.But in case of Pakistan,the picture is different.I think the domestic T20 tournaments like IPL,Big bash make this u-19 players a good sportsman as they are exposed to a bigger level.Previously many players got frustrated by not getting the chance to play for national team but now they have many options.In Bangladesh,there are lot of u-19 players who have huge talent but the governing bodies create opportunity for them under some restrictions.There are nephotism as well as political pressure but still the picture is not that much murky. In India these players are becoming star through IPL.

The problem with the West Indies cricket is much more dire than any of the major cricketing nations. With a total population of approx.6-7 mil. and close proximity to the USA, it has become very difficult for cricket as a sport to be competing with non traditional Caribbean sports like basketball. The constant infighting among the regional politicians, seeking influence within their constituencies, has further damaged the integrity of the sport. Some parts of the Caribbean are even thinking of going it alone, which I do not think is plausible. Jamaica, with a population of 2.8 mil.,is the most populated of the cricket playing territories in the Caribbean. Until there is a solution, I do not see West Indies cricket being back on track soon.

what you have witnessed in the streets of pakistan and india is a raw talent but it not been polished and neither have these kids learned discipline whereby there are required to change their style of play according to the situation . the kids learning the game in the western world are taught proper technique and the importance of reading a game and how to adapt,this training then comes into its own on the bigger stage. sadly the asian lads will keep on playing like amateurs even when they have graduated to the senior level. take Afridi as an example, nearly three hundred ODI's and he still has no idea how to build an innings it's either 6 next time !!

great article: I have seen and played bowlers bowling reverse swinging yorkers with tennis ball. I guess the problem is that all these naturally talented players play maximum cricket till the age of 16, when they are generally free from responsibilities. After that, real life and responsibilities take over. Never forget, they all belong to an under-developed world where funding for sports is not a priority. More than 90% of crickt playing kids do not have the facility of playing cricket with proper cricket ball and kit.

I would say gaurav has got it right,though that might not be the only problem. Till the age of 14,i was considered a very good bowler.But after that, the need to do well in board exams and get into an engineering or medical college becomes the sole purpose in life for most of us.In England, if u fail in sports you can always do something else and earn well and most importantly it is accepted in society. In India, your relatives will say lots of things about you having wasted your life and so on. This mentality might change but i dont think it is happening anytime soon.
So,here i am, a 24 year old computer nerd, who writes software all day and well into the night and cant run more than 100 metres without needing a half hour rest and a gallon of water. But my family is happy because i earn a lot of money.
With the BCCI pouring in more money for domestic cricket and films like 3 idiots exposing how dumb an average indian life is,i am hoping we will be a sporting nation to reckon with soon

Michael I don't believe that Asia and Other Nations of the developed countries have better cricketers at junior level. I think its more to do with the training for example the great Don practiced with a gold ball and a wicket as a bat. Similar the likes of Viv Richards practiced in beaches, street walks where the instinctive talents were built up. Asian kid probably would find it difficult to play cricket on those conditions and the cream will survive those tough preperation hurdles if they are set. To think that the don himself looked at Sachin as a close example of his playing days makes me think the sport is universal despite environmental diferences. Personally I have experience both Australian and Asian Schoolboy Cricket I know the training produces the best of each player with good competition in the field as well.

Someone has to mention the well known fact that many junior players from the sub-continent are several years older than they claim and so they peak at a younger age.
Afridi for instance claims to be 29 but those who knew him from his school days say that he is about 4 years older. So when he made his debut at 16, he was closer to being 20 and peaked soon after.

really good observation and a great blog. never thought about that. As far as the reasons go, some people have already mentioned it. economics primarily and physical fitness. Also I feel with a lesser cohort its much easier to identify and nuture the talent(as daft as it may sound).

Excellent article. The problem is multifold in Pakistan. As some one pointed out, the politics, nepotism and corruption of the Board in Pakistan has a lot to be blamed about. Lack of proper coaching at school level causes young players to develop faulty techniques which become permanent with time. When the competition is really tough at the senior level, small deficiencies of the basics may be the difference between victory and defeat. Like dropped catches, missed run outs and poor foot work in the recent Sydney test. Lack of good facilities is another problem for Pakistani youth. Providing a good sports ground is the last priority of the government. On individual level, the culture of a healthy life style with going to the gym and working out properly does not exist. So at 19 or 20, the excellent fitness, sound basic techniques and tough mentality polished by a superb system created on merit makes the difference for Australia.

Most of the teen agers in a class will go into other professions and only a few will go on to become cricketers no matter how good they are. This happens all over the world including Australia. The system has to be good enough to identify those few and train them properly and let the merit decide who deserves to represent their country at the top level rather than nepotism or politits.

Thought provoking article Michael. Sri Lanka has probably the best school cricketing structure in the world. The schools provide the players for the clubs and the national team. There was a period when the likes of Anura Tennekoon, Aravinda de Silva and Arjuna Ranatunga to name a few made it to the national team directly as schoolboys. Competition being high we have seen very few of these examples recently though Chandimal and Thrimanne who are just out of school were in the squad for the TRi-series in Bangladesh. Of the present lot, it is quite possible that Bhanuka Rajapakse and Buddika will make the grade very soon. One feature that differentiates the youngsters from the sub-continent with the others is that boys between 17 and 19 years are much bigger made and probably more mature than their counterparts from outside the sub-continent. This is evident in the morphology of the players, especially the fast bowlers. The sub-continentals supplement their handicap with supple wrists.

Nice article Michael. Regarding Pakistani perspective, there are few things worth mentioning. First, as highlighted by various comments here, for my parents generation, now in their 70's, education takes precedence. Hence quite a few talents lost. Second, what I believe happens in Australian system when say a youngster is picked up at the age of 16, is that they put emphasis on the training and fitness besides with the natural talent of a player. Combine that with a system mostly based on merit and by the time that kid turns 18-19, he has already been through a tough system and develops more rapidly.
In short, Pakistani players = natural talent thanks to a street smart system + an average cricketing structure. Australian = average talent (no doubt natural talent is there, but we are talking more generally) + sophisticated system. Both cases produces world class players. Looking forward to the final of U19 world cup :)

Age division cricket in India especially, for quite sometime seems to be the talent pool that the selectors are looking at and for this I will go all the way to the first U19 WC held in 1989. Till then it was first class cricket that fed the senior national team. Why did it change.... I dont know but change it did. What has happened with that is many youngsters are getting into the senior sides without a good and firm grounding at first class level. The examples are too many to put here but Irfan Pathan comes to mind immediately of the recent lot and Rohit Sharma to name another. How did Ajit agarkar manage to get into the team... because of his performance in an U 19 tour to Pakistan. First class cricket is the best training ground for these youngsters and get to play professionals in various stages of development of the game. U 19 is still age level cricket and thus a restricted set. I am cutting this post for want of space but the point on the interest in the sub continent is quite

Another thing is come board exams in class x and class XII, we have poor quality teachers in India and private schools where they only want to increase their students to make more money. So students are left to teach themselves and in board exams their is rampant cheating so schools can claim good board results and more students join the schools and schools make more money.. good grades equal food on the table. Also there are no coaches to teach any game, or poor quality coaches. Food is also lacking. there is bullying in schools.

Perhaps the none sub-continent folks get stronger and more physically fit after they reach certain age. Where as kids from the Sub-continent due to inferior diet and living conditions do not grow as strong and fit.

Gaurav has hit the nail on the head, i think. In the ages of 16-19, you make the choice of career and thanks to parental and societal pressures, most of the talented kids give up sports for mundane pursuits like engineering, and doctoring or commerce or something else. On the other hand, its at this very age that the aussie kids probably get maximum encouragement to concentrate on sports if they are really good at it. Hence they manage to draw level by the age of 19 or so.
One thing that I am unable to understand is it is often repeated that the australian domestic structure is very much superior to any other in the world and that is why the consistently produce world-beating cricketers. If that is the case, why do you say a 7th indian XI will be far better than an aussie one. I do realise that the australian population is only as much as a couple of indian metropolitans so this seems logical, then why the superiority of the domestic level?

That's a great article, Micheal. I completely agree with what Gomakant, Udit and Gaurav have put forward as potential reasons for the divergence. In addition, I'd like to postulate the following reasons:
1) Physical strength (you already touched upon this in your article).
2) Attitude towards fitness: I'm going to go out on a limb and state that in my opinion, the general attitude towards fitness and willingness to put in the hard toil in India is way behind that in places like Australia. I can tell you from personal experience that most kids in India queue up to bat, but are less enthusiastic about fast bowling. If at all, they take to bowling, it would be spin bowling. And you can see that attitude play out even at the senior level, where India has always had good batsman (albeit more so on home pitches - but that's a different discussion around how pitches are prepared in India), but struggles to find real fast bowlers of the kind churned out by Australia.

I'd never considered the final years of secondary schooling to have such an impact on national cricket squads, but the comments above seem to indicate so. In Australian private schools, for example, it is often compulsory to play sport for your school on the weekends right up to the final year of secondary school - most Australian teenagers are used to balancing school with sports, whereas this doesn't seem to be the case with Indian students.

I would like to echo the feelings expressed in some of the above comments regarding the "common subcontinent culture". I am originally from Pakistan and cannot agree more with the fact that around ages 14 to 19, the importance to achieve academic performance and excellence suddenly becomes a tremendous priority and this fact is strongly forced into us by not only our parents but also the close relatives and this potentially becomes an overwhelming barrier in preventing the growth and enhancement of any sport like activity including cricket.

There are many reasons for this kind of differences:
1.When youre about 10-13 in sub-continent, you have limited creational and sports choices. Cricket is definitely #1, and everyone wants to be part of #1. Can you say the same thing about this age group in football or other sports comparing them with Western kids?
2.When youre about 16-19 in sub-continent, youre thinking of career choices, and if you know that you wont make it to the top for any reason (political, social, family or competition), you are not as passionate as you were 5-7 years ago.
I feel that there is v little guidance or career coaching for this age group in sub-continent. This also shows in our approach even in the field - lack of temparament, organizatrional, managerial skills etc. People who are still playing after 19 or so at the top level lack professional attitude.
3. If youre a Westerner above 18, you generally have a professional attitide, no matter what youre doing. It comes from the carrer counsleing.

I agree with the one of the previous comments posted by Udit. That is exacly what happens.

Cricket is the favorite past in the subcontinent and whenever kids get the time they play it with 100 % concentration and devotion while for kids in Australia 12-15 years of age it is just another game. But by the time they reach the age of 16 they have finally decided that they want to be professional cricketers and this professionalism is what makes them the champions. At the same time (16-19 years) kids in subcontinent are worried by the thought of getting good grades which will eventually decide their profession for them.

Australia's small population becomes a blessing for them as the government can better nurture the few talented kids that they have.

In short, while talented kids in other countries like Australia, Newzealand etc, are filtered through to the upper levels, talented kids in subcontinent scatter to other fields.

Very interesting topic Michael. I think the main reason for the difference is the sporting culture in Australia and the sheer number of sports available to kids. As a young kid in Australia you rarely ever know what sport you want to specialise in and as a result, a typical kid will try many sports. Subcontinent kids have cricket or maybe hockey - that's it. Mitchell Marsh is a good example. He was good at many sports, and even now he could switch to Australian rules and has been pressured to by the AFL. Karmichael Hunt, the rugby league international, is switching to AFL and is also a mean basketball player if rumours are true. I think it's true with the Aussie cricketers too. They would probably beat any other international cricket team in a randomly chosen sport. So I think it's a case of Aussie kids not really specialising their skills until a coach spots their talent and locks them into one sport. They are SPORTSMEN first and then trained to be cricketers second.

Michael you are rights about Australia's Under 19 WC history. They won the first one held in Australia and their only other win was in NZ in 2002 (by the way that was a very talented team). Their performances in the events held on the sub continent has been dismal.

Great article. I've noticed that in Australia, the Australians from sub-continent backrounds are much better at the junior level in terms of technique and knowledge of the game. However, being first generation migrants there is a strong push for these children to focus on education to set up their futures, which see many reduce their cricket playing or drop out from the game completely at ages 16-19. Most parents have migrated to Australia to escape their difficult lives abroad and their kids feel guilty that they are focussing on cricket which will unlikely be their source of income in the future. There are also many instances throughout a season where these kids/young adults cannot attend training or miss a match due to family committments, religous occassions, exams, etc which are looked down upon in Australia as not being committed enough. At premier club level these cultural differences see these players constantly dropped to lower grades and they eventually leave to play socially

Great Article Mr. Jeh. This was something I always felt too. I have some pointers....

1. No good system to take this talent to next level. Agreed, BCCI is richest cricket board, but that doesn't guarantee rich ideas. And they don't seem to be in a hurry to develop one. Good inter-school/college competitions are vital. The fan base should identify their teams and should follow them. We do not telecast these games on TV. Even the Ranji games are not telecasted on TV (not sure if they started doing in recent times)
2. Academic pressure is the prime reason. Indian parents do not see any future in sports.
3. Indians have smaller body frames and cannot produce tear-away fast bowlers or cannot sustain for longer periods. You need them to win games (esp Test matches).

.. (continued)
You will think I am on drugs too, if I say that we have great soccer talent. As a kid, we used to play this game with so much passion and skill. I mean the dodges, deft passes, bicycle kicks, banana kicks etc. And I used to think "what else do you need to take this talent to next level". Much after this, I saw the 1986 World Cup soccer on TV. This was the first time I was watching International Soccer games, and I would relate that to the talent we had back in school....same style, same skill, same talent, but at a much younger age. So what’s that missing?? Well, the answers are above. At least we now have money in Cricket.

Is there not perhaps something to be read into the slightly arbitrary nature of birth certificates in the subcontinent? Shahid Afridi, for example, is 29 according to Cricinfo, but Osman Sammaiuddin believes him to be closer to 33-34. A few years extra at U-19 level would be critical. An aussie U-19 squad would expect to be annihilated by an aussie U-21 squad. This perhaps helps to account for why the subcontinental teams are typically strong at U-19 level but don't seem to take the step at open age. Might also explain why Pakistan are doing well in New Zealand, in conditions they aren't suited to. As for junior development, the kind of inability to sit still that aussie juniors have might also account for their better feilding as they get older. Rather than be content to spend an afternoon scoring, or waiting to bat, they just want to be playing. A game of footy while you wait would help your cricket more than sitting waiting to bat.

1. I do believe that World Cup being held in NZ plays in Australia's favor
2. Don't forget that cricket is a team sport. A very well disciplined team will much more consistent and dangerous than a talented but ill-disciplined team. This is just a theory but I think that in subcontinent, there isn't enough focus on performing as a team.

You're kidding right? Of course a 6th or 7th eleven from India should beat Australia, they have 1.2 billion people compared to 21 million, and on top of that Cricket is basically the only sport India play at a competitive level. Australian youngsters often choose between cricket, Australian Rules football, Rugby, Rugby league, basketball and soccer.

gomakant mentions a very good point. Another thing that is totally missing in India is appreciating the talent that an individual possesses and spending time/money to nurture that talent. Only a few priveleged individuals get that opportinity. One hopes the richest cricket board would read this article and take appropriate remedial measures.

In India its all about giving money or knowing a official in the Cricket Boards of each state. I know so many clubs who fix matches with owners of the other club for money. System is flawed. Nothing can be done about it. And also if you compare the ratio of the population and the no. of boys who want to represent their country in India vs Australia, it would be low in Aus and an almost equal to 1 in India. Which is why so many boys want to concentrate in school rather than in cricket. Because everyone is talented and they know its tuf to make it to the top level given the circumstances.

I agree with Michael that junior club cricket in Australia can be of a very ordinary standard. My knowledge of junior cricket is restricted to Sydney, where good 9-year-olds play 40 overs per side representative matches and graduate to 60 overs per side at 13yo. The standard is at times stunning. Many of these players graduate to the Sydney grade competition (from which the NSW team is selected) when they are no longer eligible for under-age teams; it is not unusual for first grade teams to have a 16 or 17yo player in the team regularly. So good young players can get to play regular high level hard cricket. In addition, 4 of the 5 NSW players in the current U19 Aust team come originally from regional NSW. In these areas good young players tend to play against adults earlier than in Sydney and there are fewer distractions- there is no surf in Bendemeer, Josh Hazlewood's home town.

Australia might not have the depth, but it does have a well structured path to the top.

I don't think it really has anything to do with the study aspect, as mentioned. Most of the examples of this are Indian ones, but the article highlights Asian nations (Bang, Pak & SL). What about the education systems in these countries? Not the same?
The education examination system in AUS starts at the same time as the ones in these countries, I would suggest, as someone who has studied and played at 1st Grade level in Sydney, that most players have a balance between study and cricket. That is generally what brings out the best in most people. Many of the AUS cricketers have degrees or qualifications in other professions.
The other factors to consider are the superior facilities and technology that AUS cricketers are exposed to in this age bracket. Generally it is at this age group that these exterior factors make greater differences than at the younger age.

Gaurav's point about an 'outdoor sports' culture potentially has some leverage also.

Perhaps the Aussie youngsters mature later, but blossom more fully into men. While the Sub-continental youths retain a type of innocence (not immaturity) into adulthood that makes it difficult for them to compete with these tough and independent Aussies. If we look at the IPL, the best players are invariably Australian. Look at the Champions league - the same again. Afridi noted recently that the Big Bash was of a higher quality than the IPL, and the Champions league bears this out. If you took a sixth or seventh string Australian side and put them up against any other team, they would abolish them. How many fast bowlers can they unearth in a year? They are simply a stronger minded, stronger bodied people. Another factor is that if you put any caliber of Australian player in a green and gold jersey, he will find the mettle deep within himself to perform well above his class. At the same time the subcontinental men will be holding hands and comparing their new sneakers.

Dear Anonymous,
How dare you imply that education is not as important in Aus as it is in India! Over one million students are enrolled at higher education institutions with over 776,000 being locals and the rest international.

Maybe us Aussies are just capable of doing 2 things at once - study and play sport.

I used to play cricket for Asghar Ali Shah cricket club (a club that Afridi, Sohail Khan etc. played for) when I was 14 we played in a under 16 tournament against other big clubs of Karachi, and we won that year. There was a cash prize for the last four teams but even though we won we never got it. We later found out a few of the club administrators had taken it. Not that we played specifically for money but playing 4 day matches in the middle of July with tempratures around 30 to 40 centigrade and finding out we didn't get what we deserved was infuriating. After that most of the team left the club , some joined other cricket clubs while most, like me, quit playing altogether. And as Udit pointed out from late teens sub continent kids have to concentrate on studies, parents want their kids to be doctors, engineers or accountants not first class cricketers. While Australia, New Zealand, England etc have sports scholarships Pakistan and Indian students have nothing of the kind.

I suppose it must all come down the the quality of coaching in Australia and England.

I want to make an observation, though. Why is it that a team's or individual's talent is only talked about after the team or player has played very badly? I was watching Rabian Engelbrecht get hit for about 20 runs in an over a couple of days ago and the commentators were saying how talented he was. It must be true, but why didn't they talk about the (surely equal)talent of other players who'd performed much better? We've been hearing for years how much talent there is in Bangladesh. But they hardly ever win. And you described the talent-rich (in soccer terms) townships in South Africa, but when was the last time South Africa did anything? They certainly wouldn't have qualified for the WC if they weren't hosting it. It's almost like talent is talked about when the commentator or whoever else wants to say something nice, but they can't say anything nice about the performance itself.

Having seen both worlds(been in Aus for ~5 yrs), played cricket in both countries I'd like to share my experiences. I dreamed to play for India (like every other Indian boy growing up does). By the time I was 12 I could immitate every international fast bowler's action at the time and was probably the quickest in my age group at inter school level. I was pretty good in studies as well, as much as I wanted I wasn't daring enough to go full monty towards cricket and chose(forced?) to concentrate on studies instead. Few of my mates who kept on going ended up being fringe state players(at best) and guys who had good political/financial backing got given opportunities and some of them played for India later on.Point I'm making here is this is the time(~15-16 yrs) when you lose quite a %age of good talent in India whereas here in Australia u probably are in a dev. squad by this age(if u r gud and keen enuf) & there is a clear(albeit difficult) path in front of u should u choose to tread it.

Athleticism is a big differentiator, and the lifestyle that the kids are brought up under develops that athletic outlook to sports. Being talented in the technical aspects of the game is one thing and performing on the field in all aspects of the game is another and strength and stamina of the players from the subcontinent are far behind the rest of the world which is not their fault as their lifestyle is not a outdoor lifestyle and physical activity is limited to the sport or the training for it, but in the rest of the world physical activity is the way of life and strength and stamina are built in from a very young age and the social security under which they grow up means that they can afford to do that mind full of the fact that they might end up as tradies which provides them with an excellent lifestyle and livelihood.

Excellent thought-provoking article. I don't know subcontinental cultures well enough, but the comments above plus my own experience in Australia suggest to me that there is an important socio-economic difference. The bulk of privileged Australian private school children never kick on in sports after age 14 either and most first class players are from less privileged parts of Australian society. I'm just speculating, but would I be somewhere close to the mark to say that non-privileged subcontinental children find it hard to get picked for representative teams and the privileged ones who do soon turn to other occupations at a more advanced age? The strength in Australia has to be that there is little such discrimination early allowing the socio-economically bottom 80% (who are still wealthy in internaitonal terms) to kick on without the distraction of studies & other pressures. What do you think? I hope I haven't offended anyone by straying onto this socio-economic terrain.

Good Article,the presumption by some of your respondants that it's education that stops good young indian players going on to play for their country is rubbish. Cricket clubs Australia wide have one wish besides winning their local premiership and that is to produce an Australian test cricketer. Your 1st class clubs do no not look for the talent like the Australian clubs do.
I think the current Victorian side has 7 members from rural victoria not the city & four of them are doing university degrees. The big danger is that future Indian players will be indentified from the IPL & not from the grass root level. If we were to see the next Shane Warne in a local park playing park cricket he would be looked after in both an educational & cricket sense to get the best out of them. He would be placed in the appropriate age group team & monitored to see that he continues to improve. In both education & cricket if you don't want to do the work you won't succeed. It's all in the system...

the reason is simple..what do indian kids do after they come out of school....try to become an engineer, doctor..etc but what does an aussie kid do after he is out of school...pick up a field which he likes or he feels he is good at....not just cricket its the story with every sport...u play only in school days and that too for a very little time when compared to children in US, UK AUS etc and after school, just forget about sports...may be these days , changing middle class scenario in india may be offering a slight hope for the future of indian sports...

I agree with Michael as how Australia plans and develops 25-50 cricketers after 19 years of age and train and groom them to be absolutely physically and mentally fit for international standards of cricket. Also Australian players rely more on team work and physical ability than natural individual talent. Furthermore, genetically Australians are stronger, supremely fit and far better athletes than subcontinent cricketers. Subcontinent cricketers may be more talented individually and artistic, but they lack common sense, inferior athletes and lack situational awareness where Australians are trained to use their mind, common sense and use superior physical ability to overwhelm their opposition. Let's face it, for this reason alone, Australia will win many more international trophies and championships than subcontinent teams ever will.

I think the answer, Mr. Jeh, lies in the treacherous passage between wild conjecture and educated guess that is assuming Australia produces more athletic kids per capita than any subcontinental nation.

i too used to play for my school when i lived in bhubaneshwar. i was a very promising batsmen. people used to always compliment me for my footwork. i was captain and opener for the team and my coach always used to tell me that if i apply myself, i may very well make it big one day. then came along the boards. i got to 9th standard and my parents said enough of this nonsense, my boards are coming up an a year and i need to study. from then onwards i got so sucked into studies that i could never return to cricket. now looking back at those days, i really wish that i could go back in time and pursue my passion.

Hi,
Great article. I wonder how much schooling is an issue. There is undoubtably lots of talented cricketers in Australia who drop out because of studies as well. I think that there is a lot of competition for other summer sports plus leisure in Australia. I couldn't play cricket in Summer because we usually travelled through summer and I was forever missing games, and then the footy season started so I missed the finals every year. I have read a lot of articles on the "Pakspin" blog and the comments are always involving comments regarding "corrupt" officials. So whilst I know that cronyism exists in Australia, it appears to me to be rife in the sub-continent. It would be an interesting tournament though - the U19s 7th XI!

One of the reasons why cricket is so strong in Aust. is the structure of the towns and villages, let alone the cities. You go to any country town in Aust. - no matter how small - and in the centre of that town will be a reasonably well kept field with a cricket pitch in the middle, with fences over 60m away from the pitch. In any sizeable country town (of say 5000 pop.), there will be a senior and junior cricket association, with 3 or 4 grades of 8 teams each. Such a town would probably have 2 turf pitches, and up to 10 other fields with synthetic pitches laid over concrete (one of the reasons why Australia consistently produces batsmen confident with short pitched bowling). This is grassroots cricket in Aust.
As for the gap at a young age, I don't think that it is as great as you suggest. Sure, the youngsters of the sub-continet seem to grasp the concept of bowling correctly much earlier than in Aust. However, you will often see young batsmen in Aust. with good batting technique.

I run a University cricket club (in Aussie) and field many enquiries from new students from the sub continent to join our club. When we trial them many have never played a game on a proper pitch or played in an organised team environment. All their cricket has been played on the parks and streets. They don't get to hone their skills in a competitive team environment on proper pitches like the Aussie kids do. The age group 15 to 19 is where a player can go from being average to playing top level cricket. I would suggest that during these years the good players playing proper competition on proper pitches will develop better than the sub continent kids still playing in the parks.

Its Talent Vs Structure when u talk of Pakistan Vs Australia ...australia maynot be as talented as Pakis but defiinitely they are more organized and systematic...no matter who goes out or come in the Basic team theme (Performance,Dedication,Discipline) remains same.which is missing from Subcontinent Cricket.they are talented to greater extent but lack discipline and structure.
looking forward for the result of Under 19 Finals.
All the best to both team.As they are worlds apart.its like Rocky vs Ali ...

Physique is another factor; The average Indian does not grow to be as tall or as broad as the average caucasian or carribean. In this age group, the caucasians develop a better physique that counters the skill levels better. It is also a moot point whether India or Pakistan can ever know their best XI players. Yuvraj Singh and Mohd.Kaif were the stars of the U-19 victory in 2000. M.S.Dhoni was not even in the reckoning. U 19 is just that; An approximation to real contests between people who are still evolving.

A couple of things we need to remember, when a youngster in the Indian subcontinent says he is 14 and plays under-15 cricket, he is most likely at least 16. Lots of kids and parents lie about age to play at a lower level and schools and universities dont question it since they win trophies.
When it comes to patience, the demand for resources (ground, coaches, bats, pads, stumps) is so high that kids learn to wait for their turn and be patient. That is the case for pretty much everything else in life as well.
In many cases, the kids who grow up to be successful senior cricketers are the ones with rich parents who can support the kids for a good while or the parents who are so poor, they have nothing to lose when letting their kids "waste" time on cricket.
Has anybody noticed another interesting fact - the good batsmen are usually kids of well-to-do parents while the bowlers invariably come from poorer backgrounds.

I play club cricket in England, and we have many youngsters in the men's teams from an early age. Around 12-15, the British Asian kids are light-years ahead in ability, skills and performance, but by 18-20 they have barely improved, if at all. In comparison the "white" kids seem to grow and develop at a much faster rate, despite all of them receiving the same level of coaching and training. I can't think of any explanation, either why one group are better in the early years, or why the other group catches up to them so rapidly in later years. Perhaps one simply peaks earlier than another?

You're right about the Australian system spitting out those unfit for battle. Once identified, the ethic is to consistently justify the promise through sheer grit and discipline - however rudimentary at that stage compared to their subcontinental couterparts. The trick at that stage is to nullify problem areas and not run with the raw, almost naive, suicidal approach extravagantly talented Pakistanis display along with a complete lack of mental fortitude. In that transitory period, a 17 year old from Perth stakes his claim by forsaking the rush to glory for a hard grind. They all have the shots, when or whether to play them is the difference. The Indian and Srilankan systems recognise as much and instill a healthy balance between expressing oneself and temperance. Pakistani cricket has no history of hard graft to reach for which is all too apparent as it goes from being a talented(and often over-aged)bunch of boys to fully grown comedy troupe, spoiling a Boxing Day viewing near you.

What is even more amazing is the fact that Australia should almost certainly be further ahead at U19 level considering the amount of talent lost to the football codes. Almost every talented 18 year old youngster in the southern states will chose AFL over cricket. Mitch Marsh was an exception to this rule thankfully. Most only chose football however because of the amount of positions available when compared with cricket. Hopefully the money T20 leauges are creating may bring back some of that talent to cricket. I dont think however we will ever be able to have the sort of talent the subcontinent produces at the younger ages because there is simply not the devotion to the game in Australia, whereas cricket is really the only thing most of those kids in India etc have to do.

Good article. Part of it is perhaps athletic ability and strength. The photo of Mitchell Marsh alongside the Pakistan under 19 captain is a case in point-Marsh appears to be half a meter taller and more importantly, far more athletic and stronger. Better natural athletic ability? Or perhaps better conditioning?

Coaching makes a difference. The sub-continent has the talent but their players all to often struggle with basics-fielding, running between wickets, hitting a constant line and length, bowling to a field, rotating the strike. As has been pointed out, the elite few in Aus especially are identified early and receive high quality coaching. A streamlined system also means the best age group players progress.

Aus and NZ especially, but also South Africa on occasion, have a large amount of fight in them, and this starts early in their sporting life, something which isn't always evident in the more talented sub-continent teams and players.

A couple of fundamental ideas, from an Australian perspective.
Firstly, I don't think that (in very general terms) "non-Asians" physically mature as early as "Asians". (Or perhaps I am being too easily fooled by Pakistan's - for example - age nomination practices. Is Aamer really 17?? If so, wow.)
Also, Australian kids who are good at sport play all sports when they are young. So, at 13-15, they might be naturally talented at cricket, but have not spent the time to refine their techniques or appreciation of the game to the same extent. By the time they are 17 or 18, they have probably decided on their sport of choice, and can properly concentrate on playing it properly. Mitch Marsh, for example, (probably our best u/19 prospect) was still recently weighing up whether to play professional cricket or professional AFL football, and dividing his time between them. And studies. (Okay the studies bit was a joke.)

Thanks for the article. As an Aussie of course I enjoy the success that comes mostly I think from a very good structure - but who could fail to appreciate the brilliance of cricketers from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and just this week a 200 test partnership from Bangladesh? It is inevitable and something to look forward to that countries on the subcontinent with 10, 20 or 50 times our population will move past us with more economic development and the better nutrition and support that comes with that: and hopefully with less political interference in the game. Meanwhile in my own area of inner Sydney there is nothing better than seeing Anglo, subcontinental, African, Arabic, Chinese, indigenous australian and kids from other backgrounds all playing this great game together in the spirit of cricket.

Cricket in the sub-continent has a commercial element...kids at 17-18 do have tough time keeping their heads steady with INR 100k to 200k in their bank accounts for that matter leave that age look at what happened to a one Vinod Ganpat Kambli the story was when BCCI was still getting the taste of big money and payment disputes just around subsided in Indian Cricket...somewhere down the line you will find a lot of young cricketers making their careers "Kamblied"...these are in short the Macaulay Culkin's of Cricketing in Sub-Continent

I think Australia is so successful because we are a much more competitive culture. We have a better climate, better facilities, better coaching a better work ethic. Many countries, including India, South Africa and England celebrate drawn matches and series, in Australia, they are treated as failures and we try harder to win the next time. We are in a rebuilding phase and yet are highly competitive and it could be argued deserve to be ranked higher than no. 3, once India loses its Tendulkars, Dravids, Laxmans, etc, they will crash and burn, quite a few of the South Africans are about to apply for the pension, and England is hardly a young side! As for Pakistan producing the best fast bowlers in the world, dream on. I think another area that Australia is vastly superior is fielding. Its natural for our guys to be able to throw stronger and harder, and our catching is awesome. I'm sorry to all the NZ fans, but, your cricket side are underachievers. They should be as good as England!

Good article. I ask the same question, in a slightly different way, every time Pakistani U19 team does well in these tournaments.
How do sub continent teams, especially Pakistan (have consistently made to final rounds of WC),perform so well in U19 tournaments and cannot produce same results in Test cricket. After all the pondering one word comes to mind about sub continent teams, especially about Pakistan. WASTEFUL!
It hardly happens in Australia that an exceptional player at school level is ignored. He is followed and nurtured all the way until he can fulfill his potential. In Pakistan on the other hand there are numerous examples of exceptional teenager making debuts in Test and then never to come back again. In Pakistan even U19 players find it hard to make transition to the next level. It has everything to do with system, boards and governments and very little to do with general health or mentality. Or probably general athleticism and mentality is also product of the system!

What my friends from sub-continent said is absolutely true. I, myself was a talented cricketer during my U19s but I wasn't given the proper support from my guardians who feels that I should concentrate on my studies rather than on sports. Even during our university games the selections were done based upon regions not based upon talents. Selectors had to be bribed in order to be a part of the team. If such scenarios prevail how can an individual from a middle class family ever think of becoming a cricketer no matter how talented he is.

In Trinidad it is the same, many talented youngsters can be seen playing their own games, unbelievable spinners great natural talent. However as they get older and they have to learn the technicalities of the game and have to work opponents out, they fade away. The physical trainig is also almost non-existent. They excel in a non-restrictive situation but as soon as they have to play in a disciplined structure or league their "game" disappears. Most of the time they lack discipline, they get involved in cricket that uses tennis balls, which allows throwing, bowling technique and batting technique goes down the drain. It all comes down to natural talent being defeated by discipline.

And thats why IPL has changed the way the game will be looked at by Indian parents. So many more people can make a living out of playing cricket now and parents would be more willing to send their kids to play cricket! See after 4-5 years, the Indian U-19 teams would be a lot better

good article. I tend to agree with the general assessment here. Both things happen - Australian teams pick up, Asian teams (certainly for Pakistan I know) slow down. If today, the Pakistani system becomes less politicised, more predicatble and focussed on cricket than saving their jobs and graces, if they pick up, as you say 60 odd boys on sheer talent between 13-16 and "nurture" them, "groom" them, they will be very hard to beat by the aussies. The only reason why the Asian teams still make it to the top (sometimes) in big-time cricket, is just raw talent and their own hard work with a bit of luck. If anything, the board is quite a hinderance to that talent.

Interesting article, I think most of the comments have pretty much covered all the possible reasons why this is the case. Additionally, it's not just the pressure that asian kids get from family/society to do well at school ages 15-19, the workload itself is an extreme. I did my schooling in the UK and compared to what all my cousins in India went through it was a cake walk. These kids were at school from 8 to 3,4 or 5. After that they would all have to go to private tutors, then when they finally get home, their parents would make them study some more. It's not just the time they had to put into it but also the level at which they're studying. The maths they're doing at year 10 I was doing in year 12. I'm not saying their education system is not without it's flaws, anything but, the truth of the matter is that there is no sense of balance and hence no chance of them developing on the obvious skill and passion for the game most of these kids have.

Excellent article. I personally can speak from an Australian perspective, and I think you're spot on with a couple of points. Firstly, I think that when young Australian cricketers get to about 15-16, they are earmarked as talented and often get some of the best coaching available to advance their cricket, where as in the subcontinent, I'm assuming that a lot of similarly talented youngsters either can't afford that opportunity or get passed over because of the sheer number of youngsters. I've also played grade cricket in Sydney, and the toughness of that form of cricket definitely weeds out the weak characters from the strong. This grit and determination learned from a young age allows the senior Australian sides to win matches often on sheer force of will rather than superior cricket, which can often be the difference in tight games. Again, an excellent article.

Discipline, if i had to say it in a single word.
and temperament, if it were two.
and team spirit, as if we needed a third!

Echoing some of the above comments, in Australia there is a wider diversity of sports played, so youngsters in that 12 year old bracket may have a lot of breadth across multiple sports, but less depth in relation to a single sport. As they get older they start making decisions about which sport(s) to pursue, and whittle down their choices based on their natural talent and interest, resulting in only 1 or 2 "sports of choice". Those skills learned in the junior years are more about eye-hand co-ordination and motor-skills than refined techniques per se, and these broad skills are transferable regardless of which sporting disciple they end up pursuing.

Interesting article, Michael, but, as far as Australia is concerned, I think you've overlooked a very important factor. Outside of school cricket there are a number very strong and competitive club levels of cricket. It's my experience that many youngsters don't learn their cricket in schools but in clubs. The clubs provide not only the coaching and encouragement that is often missing in schools but add a social dimension to the playing of cricket.

I do agree that the populous countries like India and Pakistan seem to suffer from many youngsters disappearing once work and careers beckon. I suspect that there may be relics of a class system at work which works against some youngsters. After all that kind of hurdle was a part of English cricket until recent times ... perhaps some of the sub-continent readers might comment on that.

Until teenage years, kids mainly play sports for fun without real attention to detail. At 15 most kids are playing upto 6 sports a year and dont have the time to focus on a particular sport. By 18 we tend to have decided which 2 sports we like playing (or if elite ability one sport), so we can focus on that sport. Australian culture expects our young to take their time learning our sport, where most cricketers dont play State until early 20's and International until mid/late 20s.
Australia & other western countries have older players on average, playing for upto 10 years (some exceptions like Warne, Border, Steve Waugh, etc), whereas India & others have players entering as early as 18-19 (some 17), but very few make it past 30. Thus both have roughly 10 years, but subcontinent start internationally early, so their under-X teams are going to be stronger. But in the end, the real achievement isnt under-X comps, its the Senior side that counts.

Excellent, thought-provoking article, Michael. I believe performance in cricket, as in most things, is the product of talent and work ethic. At young ages, talent is the dominant factor, but as you get older and the competiton intensifies, the role of work ethic becomes dominant. Asian teams, especially Pakistan, suffer from an abysmal work ethic. The culture of the developing world is all about short-cuts. Pakistani players take the easy way out by coasting on their talent while the non-Asian players work hard at their game. The value of talent is over-rated, and at the top level it can only take you so far. There is a recent bestseller "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell which presents an absorbing discussion on this topic.

To all those who think we (Indians) are kidding when we say that our parents force us to Academic excellence, you just have to look at the number of professionals (read Engineers, Doctors etc) India churns out, year after year, so much so that we have now saturated Colleges/Universities in countries like USA, UK, Aus (heard about Indian students attacked everyday). Is there an IT company which has no Indian? (Its a different issue that Indians have not developed a software product such as Oracle, SAP, or an OS like Windows. That needs different skill - Leadership n vision)

Now, there is no gratification when I say we are good (forced into) in Academics. It only indicates that we, as a society, traditionally lacked in the area of sports. Our economic status does not allow us to indulge in sports. We, Indians, are traditionally passive n lack aggression (just look at our history).

Hope, the growing economy of India changes all this.

a couple of ppl on this post have metnoned bat how teams have done with respect to population of their countriers. Sri Lanka havent donen too badly either. we have the sma e population as australia, but we also have faced alot more problems than australia as well such as the tsunami and the civil war which ended recently. i think we have done very well to produce the cricketers we have despite these problems. i wud also lyk to point out that we do not get to select talent from all the provinces in the.country.

Basically these Australian, Nz And English are plain hypocrites, When sub continental bowlers started reverse swing it was cheating and when they did it, it was art. When our teams are the champions of shorter formats, Its not real cricket, When they do they are the best team, When our teams become #1 Test team, Then they are considered not the 'real' #1, but then their team is legendary. When our young players comes of age they doubt their ages while in their case its all system. Shame on you all Australians and English people here. You are such a big losers

Extremely interesting article. The reasons for the "capabilities gap" at junior level, and its reversal at senior level, are to my mind 4 fold.

(1) In Asia, cricket is the only sport where one can make big money, or even good money. In Australia, most top level sports pay well. Ergo, lads are incentivized early to focus on cricket.

(2) Tougher living conditions force Asian lads to grow up (mature) faster, they become tougher and more accepting of pain, physical and mental. The Aussie lads grow into men, psychologically, a few years later.

(3) Corruption. Essentially, the UK and Aus are fair societies. Asia is rife with cronyism. You have to know someone to get something. 65% of both India and Pakistan are rural, these poor lads have neither contacts or resources to make it big.

(4) Work ethic. We are not an athletic people. Even those of us who are big (6ft +) are lazy, and unwilling to hurl around the field. This blunts any natural edge in talent we may have.

I'd put it down to a process of sporting osmosis.

Every young Australian sportsperson, regardless of which sport they play, has grown up watching elite sport played in many and varied forms.

A young Australian cricketer will have learned a lot about what constitutes a winning mentality by watching, say, AFL. A young soccer player will have learned about dedication and will to win by watching, for example, the Aussie cricket or netball teams. Rugby players have watched Australian successes at the Olympics...

This sporting culture feeds back upon itself.

The nations of the sub-continent don't excel at sports other than cricket, so they can't learn any lessons from them.

The same thing applies to the Aussie TV commentary. Although it can be biased, 90% of the commentary team are former Test captains who know what it takes to win. Young Aussie cricketers have grown up on a televised diet of this stuff.