 |  | |
| SUBSCRIBE | |
 | |
| CURRENT ISSUE | |
| |
| |
| LETTER FROM THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF | |
| |
| MAIL OF THE WEEK | |
| |
| OFFTRACK | |
| |
| INDIASCOPE | |
| |
| EYECATCHERS | |
| |
| UPCOMING EVENTS | |
| |
| CURRENT ISSUE APRIL 09, 2007 |
| ICC CRICKET WORLD CUP 2007: CARIBBEAN DEBACLE |
 |
Now For The Hard Decisions | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By Sharda Ugra in Antigua | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is this really what the world thinks of our cricket team? The envy that a strong India generates has given way to something approaching the ranks of tongue-clucking sympathy in the Caribbean and scorn in the Anglo-Australian cricket world. Former West Indian captain Richie Richardson admits to disappointment, "I thought India had the best batting line up on paper. We all wanted India to go a little bit further. I can't work out what went wrong, lack of confidence maybe, or internal problems." It's like Indian cricket has been struck over the head with a blunt instrument and is trying to regain consciousness and comprehension. The questions are short, sharp and seek meaning from the muddle: What the...? But why? Now what? What the...?
The Australians, who set the benchmark in the field, have hired former American baseball pro Mike Young as their fielding coach. Their sessions work around improving 'balance and vision'. Sri Lanka, constitutionally, temperamentally much like the Indians, put in a minimum of an hour of fielding practice in every training session, concentrating on what captain Mahela Jayawardene calls, "the small things" in one-day cricket, every run-out, every half-chance taken puts you a step closer to winning." But let's not be harsh: the Indians did try, and not just the boring stuff like fielding practice. After losing to Bangladesh there were apparently attempts made to straighten out kinks in the cricketers' 'auras', to rid them of 'negative energies'. In keeping with the principles of pranic healing, the men in blue stood around a bowl of water where their bad vibes were flung in; they even tried collective prayer. It worked against Bermuda, but the gods needed more appeasement against Lanka. Okay, what the hell, let's be harsh: maybe what cricketing deities really wanted, guys, was more fight with the bat, ball, more signs of spirit and sweat on the field. But why? Captain Rahul Dravid and coach Greg Chappell have said it repeatedly: "We didn't play well. Yes, but why not? Here comes Indian cricket's now de rigueur fig leaf, hastily put into place after every big loss: our system stinks, you see. On the surface of it, a soothing explanation: the Indian team has no permanent manager, no media manager, no medical back up at home, its itinerary is far too crowded, selection is a minefield, players have not been paid their dues for more than half a year. But the system is merely the backdrop; it is not central to the plot of why India's team bombed in the World Cup. India bombed because they didn't hit the ground running. Dravid believes the 2003 format gave teams time to hit their stride unlike in 2007. Four years ago, despite putting up their best impersonation of struggling fish on a line of hooks, once the Cup began, India beat the teams they were expected to beat, losing only to Australia. In the last 11 months, India's batsmen have failed to bat out a full 50 overs in 12 of 17 ODIs outside home. They have won only three of those, beating West Indies twice and Bermuda once. Bishop saw it coming. He didn't rank India amongst his pick of four potential semi-finalists before the event: "I didn't feel from what I saw with India last year in the West Indies, Malaysia, Champions Trophy and South Africa that I fancied them doing well away from home." Former Sri Lankan wicket-keeper Ranjit Fernando stands back from making the linkage between systemic malaise and specific results. Whenever Sri Lanka loses, he says the same arguments are proffered. "What does a system have to do? At the very basic, produce three-four players a generation who can play for the country. Our systems-India's, Sri Lanka's-are far from perfect, but every generation, they produce those three-four players." Between May 2006 and the West Indies World Cup, despite a notoriously fractious Board, Sri Lanka ensured that its team played all its ODIs away from home. The one tournament scheduled on the island was washed out. Of course, the BCCI needs to overhaul how they run domestic cricket and how they manage the Indian team. But does the BCCI's blinkered inefficiency explain why India couldn't dismiss Bermuda for less than 156 and take 43.1 overs to do it? Or, heck, why it lost to Bangladesh? Now what?
A player said, "I feel for Rahul, it's hard when the team loses, even more so as captain. Rahul really tried to keep the team together, but it didn't work out." In the post-Lanka press conference, Dravid walked on the edge of composure, saying quickly that his tenure ended with the World Cup, so he was, in fact, no longer the captain. After an India defeat, Chappell had once produced this Zen-like epigram, "Nothing's a disaster." Specially called into the press conference, Chappell stonewalled questions with, "We just didn't play well," until an exasperated Caribbean journalist asked, "Coach, by saying that all the time, aren't you trying to shirk responsibility?" Half-protecting his own position, half-extending sympathy to his players, Chappell, who has aimed to coach and spread his gospel through the written press, tried to spread accountability and blame around, like it were marmalade on toast.
So Indian cricket has three choices: Plans A: Dravid and Chappell stay and four 'difficult' players go. Plan B: Chappell goes, Dravid stays and tries to reconnect with his squad and take another shot at the job with a coach who is more of a backroom worker and less of a ruckus-magnet. Plan C: Dravid and Chappell go as team leaders, India gets a new captain and the entire churning begins again. To many, Plan A might seem like the way forward: get rid of the old, the deadwood, start with the new. Going by the Dravid-Chappell record in man management, even if the selectors get rid of the spoilers, consistency or growth is not guaranteed. The players who the two men seem to prefer have either come undone (a la Irfan Pathan) or have been undercooked at the international level (Suresh Raina). This means one of them will have to go. At the moment, Dravid is far more valuable to the team than Chappell is; whether he is valuable as captain still or if he can rescue his leadership away from the looming presence of his first coach, is a call the selectors must take. What could rescue Dravid's captaincy is the fact that his succession is not as clear cut as it could be. Dravid's deputy and the front runner for the job, Tendulkar faces the wrath of public disappointment. Sehwag's return to form is tenuous and the outsider Yuvraj Singh is seen as too callow. There is, of course, another man, who has done the job before with some success, but declared since that captaincy doesn't excite him. Sourav Ganguly doesn't smile much these days, but surely the thought enters his head: what goes around, comes around.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Your team has a lot of ability, but lacks mental strength. They are babies in the mind."
"India is one of the excitement machines that heighten competition. As a coach I'm glad they are not here." 
"Every debacle has a silver lining. We have a young team and I have tremendous faith in them despite everything." 
"I did not feel from what I saw with India last year that I fancied them doing well away from home."
"Even England, where cricket originated, has not won the Cup but their players didn't face mindless protests." 
"India had the best batting line up. We wanted India to go a little bit further. I can't work out what went wrong." 
|
