While I agree that the article makes some very cliche points that are not supported by data, the same can be said about your comment, which has already been poi

While I agree that the article makes some very cliche points that are not supported by data, the same can be said about your comment, which has already been pointed out by others. For example, the article mentions caste, buts fails to notice that most of the athletes are not affluent people from upper castes. The kids going into cricket are from relatively well off families who are able to afford kits. However, The archery team's top people are mostly from tribal backgrounds. Also most of the people in the wrestling and boxing teams are from lower-middle/working class OBC backgrounds. I'm assuming the same can be said for a lot of sports like track and field, weightlifting etc. (the exceptions being sports like tennis, badminton etc.) Sport does present a good opportunity for many people from poorer backgrounds, who are able get jobs in public sector companies, for their sporting achievements. So these athletes have plenty of motivation to do well, and follow their prescribed training in a disciplined manner. What needs to be examined is how effective the sports administration is in various levels in identifying and supporting the athletes. Going by the results, they are not effective at all. So logically they have to take most of the blame. Edit: Also the article mentions good things about India's achievements in cricket. There again we have a very mediocre team which has a very difficult time playing in unfamiliar conditions outside India. However, I have heard good things of late, so that may be changing. So there may be some truth to the statement that our country produces some very mediocre-middling sportsmen irrespective of the facilities given to them.