In defence of Kapil

First of all, a confession -- I used to be a fan of Kapil, the cricketer. Up until he assumed managerial duties and became self-appointed spokesperson for the virtues of mother's milk, its role in shaping a fellow's cricketing skill, moral rectitude and what not; I even respected him as a leader and person. That, of course, is ancient history, but I haven't ceased to appreciate his value to those rather mediocre teams he played on. So, when rediff carried an article that went overboard in belittling Kapil's cricketing achievements (and written by a dude whose name appears in the periodic table of elements, I could swear), there was little choice but to shoot off a rebuttal.

The point of contention seems to be that Kapil overstayed his welcome. That, in doing so, he blocked the ascent to the throne of its deserving heir - Srinath. Perhaps, even that he hurt Indian cricket by playing as long as he did. Those claims, if I may borrow half a phrase from George W. Bush, are major league baloney.

I admit that Kapil, the bowler, was spent as a major force -- if he ever was one -- by 1983. That he might have retired sooner, had it not been for the record. That he ought not to be mentioned on the same terms as Imran, or even Botham. But those aren't what the selectors must go by -- it's whether he was still good for a place on the team. And he most certainly was.

Consider the facts. Prior to England's tour of India in '92-93, Srinath had played 9 Tests, bagging 25 wickets at 38.8 runs apiece. In the blue corner (wearing gold trunks and all that kind of thing), you had Kapil, with merely 400 wickets from 120 Tests, at 30 runs per wicket. Just as importantly, in his previous 10 Tests (starting with Srinath's debut) Kapil had claimed 36 wickets at 28 runs apiece. Close call, you say? Well, how about this -- Kapil had also scored a 100 and 2 fifties in those 10 Tests. Let's put that baby to rest, OK ?

Let's instead give ourselves the benefit of hindsight. After all, what's the point in following sports if one doesn't indulge in fervent second-guessing?

In his last 11 Tests, Kapil only claimed 22 wickets, though he averaged just 26 runs per wicket. Most of these matches were played in the subcontinent. Kumble and Raju were the main weapons, with Kapil and Prabhakar only serving to see the shine off the new ball. India went on to win 8 of those 11 matches (one being a total wash-out), so the duo can't have done too bad a job.

Besides, consider this -- when Srinath assumed the mantle following Kapil's retirement, he claimed 24 wickets in his next 9 Tests at 35 runs apiece. Not exactly stellar. India's record was for the period was 2-2 with 5 draws including a washout. Not as if the team did better with Srinath than it did with Kapil. As a matter of fact, it did worse.

So why the bitterness over Kapil's non-retirement? Why the anger over Srinath's noninclusion ?

Actually, why even assume the choice was between Kapil and Srinath? Given Kapil's retirement, of course, selecting Srinath was a no-brainer, but who is to say Srinath for Chauhan would not have been a more appropriate transaction ?

Mail -----