The Industrial Era saw the predominance of the Specialists in the workplace. The focus was on maximizing the production, which required in depth knowledge of the task on hand and the technical skills that go with it.
Later on, at some stage, there was a gradual shift to the generalists. Maybe the development of Management Science had something to do with it. People were cross trained so that we had jacks of all trades, who were masters at none, running the organizations for a long, long time.
This was the norm not only in the Private Sector but also in the Government sector. The IAS officers of India managed everything under the sun, from Districts, to sports, to Industry, to mining, to Nations Finance and even were the preferred choice to head Public Sector Organizations. A guy, who was a middle level IAS officer in the Agricultural Ministry would be posted as head of State Road Transport Corporation. Is it any wonder most Public Sector Undertakings have gone down the drain?
We have seen the strange scenario of IT companies recruiting Engineering students, en masse, irrespective of their stream of education in the College? After a few years, a mechanical engineer, so selected will be totally unfit to take up a job in the field of Mechanical Engineering. Education and job has absolutely no relevance, leading to the chaos that is seen in the organizations these days, and also one of the biggest reasons for employee attrition.
I was reminded of the above, while reminiscing about the World Cup past. No team that depended on bits and pieces players (with the freak exception of India in 1983, whose victory was an absolute fluke) have won the World Cup. West Indies of 1975 and 1983 had a legendary batting line up, backed by a set of world class fast bowlers. You wouldn't want to be chasing any target against Roberts, Holding, Garner and Marshall. The very thought scares you.
Australia, winners of 1987 had a strong batting line up Boon, Marsh, Jones, Border, Valetta, two world class all rounders in Steve Waugh and Simon O'Donnel, and the bowling was led by McDermot, Reid and May. Both Waugh and Simon could get into the team as either batsman or bowler alone, and can never be considered as also ran players.
Imran's Pakistan won the 1992 world cup with a quality balanced team - Aameer Sohail, Rameez Raja, Javed, Salim Malik, Inzamam, Ijaz Ahmed as batsmen, wonderful all rounders in Imran Khan and Wasim Akram, backed by Aquib Javed and Mushtaq in the bowling department. Add to it the fighting wicket keeper Moin Khan. All specialists and no wonder they won the cup hands down.
Srilanka won 1996 using their batting might - Jayasurya, Kaluwathirana, Gurusinghe, Aravinda Desilva, Tilakaratne, Mahanama and Arjuna Ranatunga could chase any target down. But don't forget, they had a good bowling attack in Murali, Dharmasena and Vaas, but still the depended on their batting.
Australia dominated in the next three world cups and had a phenomenal batting line up led by Gilchrist, Waugh, Hayden and Ponting. They also had McGarth and the redoubtable Shane Warne in their ranks.
India in 2011 again depended on their strong batting - Sehwag, Sachin, Gambhir, Raina, Kohli, Yuvraj and Dhoni. This covered up for their relatively weaker bowling led by Zaheer and Harbhajan. But since the tournament was in India, batting dominated.
The interesting take away from the above is that it doesn't pay to take generalist bits and pieces players, if you want to win the World Cup. England had tried this with disastrous results in the past, and continue to do so. Ditto New Zealand, though they have had a rethink this time around.
History is against it. They why-oh-why is India carrying these below average neither batsman nor bowler players like Stuart Binny, Axar Patel, Ravindra Jadeja or even Ravichandran Ashwin. And we don't have a strong batting as a cover for them.
I don't see us going beyond Quarter Finals, and we don't deserve to, on form or on talent or on selection.
The most balanced side is South Africa. They have quality batsmen in AB Devillers, Amla and De Plaussis, and a world class bowling attack led by Steyn and Mornie Morkel and a wily coach in Kirsten. My money is on them. This is their best chance to win for a long time, and I hope they do.
And on form, New Zealand could be a finalist.
India in 2011 again depended on their strong batting - Sehwag, Sachin, Gambhir, Raina, Kohli, Yuvraj and Dhoni. This covered up for their relatively weaker bowling led by Zaheer and Harbhajan. But since the tournament was in India, batting dominated.
The interesting take away from the above is that it doesn't pay to take generalist bits and pieces players, if you want to win the World Cup. England had tried this with disastrous results in the past, and continue to do so. Ditto New Zealand, though they have had a rethink this time around.
History is against it. They why-oh-why is India carrying these below average neither batsman nor bowler players like Stuart Binny, Axar Patel, Ravindra Jadeja or even Ravichandran Ashwin. And we don't have a strong batting as a cover for them.
I don't see us going beyond Quarter Finals, and we don't deserve to, on form or on talent or on selection.
The most balanced side is South Africa. They have quality batsmen in AB Devillers, Amla and De Plaussis, and a world class bowling attack led by Steyn and Mornie Morkel and a wily coach in Kirsten. My money is on them. This is their best chance to win for a long time, and I hope they do.
And on form, New Zealand could be a finalist.
