zimcricketforums.com

They all seem very cut up by the omission from the T20s.
But by ZC travesty levels this is one of the lower crimes.
But I guess players want to play.
There are some further thoughts though.
Why did the oldest of the fab 4 survive the cut?
Especially when it wasn’t a long time ago people thought he didn’t make the team on merit. He does, but people questioned it.
Secondly, this could be about cash.
Someone mentioned that BTs newer contract was structured against games played?
If that theory is true that could explain everything really, because he could’ve signed the contract with the understanding that he would be selected for those matches, and they’re probably more of those matches the normal one dayers.
It also explains something Sean said about messing with the team’s livelihood when he quit and was reinstated

I just think they should have never retired 2 specific players. That's where they got it wrong. It should have been a rotation policy. I have watched a few T20i's this year and almost every single country is rotating in that format. Some countries are even sending 3rd string teams. Even when the likes of India visit us they rotate.

If we honestly look at the European tour, 2 players greatly benefited. Ngarava and Shumba. If BT and Raza had played and Blessing wasn't injured initially, they would have never been put in pressure situations like what happened. We always complain that our domestic structure is weak. As much as I disagreed with how they did it, the idea is correct.

Bubble fatigue players a huge role too. They were in a bubble for 3 weeks before they left, then on tour for 6 weeks. Imagine being in your mid-30s, away from your family for 2 months only for you to play 2 games and get 1 washed out.

T20s are going to be the most played format going forward. Cricket is changing. You can already see it with how a player who started his career last year (Wes) has played twice as many T20 as he has ODIs. We barely play test cricket too so banning somebody from T20s is semi-retiring them these days.

No one has an unquestionable right to being selected in any team,
I’d like to think this isn’t the sole reason why the troublesome 3 are booting off about Rajput.

There has to be more to the story

Lots of intricate theories about why the dislike for Rajput but maybe it’s just simple? That he’s a shit coach and 4 hugely talented experienced players dislike him, learn nothing from him, and don’t want to spend their time being told what to do by someone they don’t respect?

That goes for the assistant coaches too.


Their current coaching contracts end on Thursday. Let’s see what happens next.

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 8:52 am

They all seem very cut up by the omission from the T20s.
But by ZC travesty levels this is one of the lower crimes.
But I guess players want to play.
There are some further thoughts though.
Why did the oldest of the fab 4 survive the cut?
Especially when it wasn’t a long time ago people thought he didn’t make the team on merit. He does, but people questioned it.
Secondly, this could be about cash.
Someone mentioned that BTs newer contract was structured against games played?
If that theory is true that could explain everything really, because he could’ve signed the contract with the understanding that he would be selected for those matches, and they’re probably more of those matches the normal one dayers.
It also explains something Sean said about messing with the team’s livelihood when he quit and was reinstated

As I understand it player contracts are up for renewal in October and the offer being made to BT going forward was significantly reduced (again) on the basis that he won’t be playing T20’s and therefore deserved a lower salary.
Probably the same for Raza and/or Williams.

It’s a clever way to slash the ZC salary costs.....

ZIMDOGGY wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 8:52 am

They all seem very cut up by the omission from the T20s.
But by ZC travesty levels this is one of the lower crimes.
But I guess players want to play.
There are some further thoughts though.
Why did the oldest of the fab 4 survive the cut?
Especially when it wasn’t a long time ago people thought he didn’t make the team on merit. He does, but people questioned it.
Secondly, this could be about cash.
Someone mentioned that BTs newer contract was structured against games played?
If that theory is true that could explain everything really, because he could’ve signed the contract with the understanding that he would be selected for those matches, and they’re probably more of those matches the normal one dayers.
It also explains something Sean said about messing with the team’s livelihood when he quit and was reinstated

Wasnt around then but why did people question Ervine`s place? He has underperformed imo but who could have possibly replaced him back then? His domestic stats are pretty good.

The more I think about it, the more it looks like Rajput is more of a collateral damage as the big four, for some reason, don't want to train their guns directly on ZC itself or even towards Masakadza. Or they are tactically using Rajput's name as a way to make their displeasure felt about ZC. At worst, Rajput could be an incompetent yes-man for ZC. Why should that drive players to retirement - the target should be ZC, isn't it?

Unless there are no concrete issues mentioned attributable to Rajput and Rajput alone and not ZC, how could one just assume everything is wrong with Rajput? I'm willing to change this stance, but for now, it looks like an ugly mudslinging between the fab 4 and a few at ZC and Rajput seems to be caught in this crossfire.

P.S. Not saying this as an Indian and I have no idea if Rajput has contributed anything at all towards the growth of cricketers in Zim anyway, but to make him look like a villain without clearly stating how he has directly contributed to this disaffection among the seniors, or not waiting for him to put forth his side of the story (if at all) just does not sound correct.

CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:09 pm

The more I think about it, the more it looks like Rajput is more of a collateral damage as the big four, for some reason, don't want to train their guns directly on ZC itself or even towards Masakadza. Or they are tactically using Rajput's name as a way to make their displeasure felt about ZC. At worst, Rajput could be an incompetent yes-man for ZC. Why should that drive players to retirement - the target should be ZC, isn't it?

Unless there are no concrete issues mentioned attributable to Rajput and Rajput alone and not ZC, how could one just assume everything is wrong with Rajput? I'm willing to change this stance, but for now, it looks like an ugly mudslinging between the fab 4 and a few at ZC and Rajput seems to be caught in this crossfire.

P.S. Not saying this as an Indian and I have no idea if Rajput has contributed anything at all towards the growth of cricketers in Zim anyway, but to make him look like a villain without clearly stating how he has directly contributed to this disaffection among the seniors, or not waiting for him to put forth his side of the story (if at all) just does not sound correct.

I guess if you ignore the results of his tenure and the words from Willow about how he has created a bad culture within the team that has resulted in plenty of back chatter and decisions being made to undermine the squad, then you have a point.

You're not wrong about the root cause being ZC, but Rajput has not done his job. He has not bettered the team, nor has he done anything significant to develop them. The young players who came through were always going to come through, he has just been fortunate to be the coach at the time of it happening.

Your last paragraph is telling.

zimbos_05 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:45 pm

Your last paragraph is telling.

Not sure I got that. All I meant was, I would have said the same thing if the guy was a Whatmore or a Klusener or whoever else it was.

CrimsonAvenger wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:44 am

zimbos_05 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:45 pm

Your last paragraph is telling.

Not sure I got that. All I meant was, I would have said the same thing if the guy was a Whatmore or a Klusener or whoever else it was.

You mention that you have no idea, but then take a stance on it defending Rajput.

I think it was clear from Willos initial retirement how he has affected morale. He clearly said that the manager has disenfranchised players and created a disharmonious environment.

If anything, Rajputs record as Zim coach is enough to be fired.