MATCH REPORTS
STAT SHEET
DIARY
OTHER SPORTS
SLIDE SHOW
PEOPLE
DEAR REDIFF

What ails Indian Cricket?

When I started following Indian cricket, as a kid some twenty years ago, it used to be a popular refrain that India could be a really strong cricket playing country, if only it had the right support. At that time, the solution to all our cricketing problems were three: corporate sponsorship such that cricket could be treated as a genuine profession by young men, greater exposure to international matches, and involvement of former cricketers in the administration of the game.

If one looks at cricket in India today, most of the above supports are available. Sponsorship is not really a problem -- a good cricketer can get rich playing the game, and youngsters from all over the country are attracted to the game. No one would complain about exposure to international matches; we seem to have too many, and not too little, of international engagements. As far as the involvement of former cricketers are concerned, well, we have them in all areas. Former cricketers are part of the selection committee as well as other 'important' committees of the Cricket Board, the team has a coach who is a former player, and the we have quite a few as expert commentators. Yet, we are not the best, far from it.

It is not as if the team is particularly bad. In the current list of players, we have the core of a strong team. A winning combination can normally be made around 5-6 above-average players. Sure, the team is not a 'dream team' which will win all matches against all comers. But it definitely has the ability to win more matches, both Tests and ODIs, than it loses. So, why are we losing so regularly?

If one follows all the expert comments and discussions closely, the following seem to be the issues:

- The team selection and the selection process
- The issue of captaincy
- Administration

Team Selection: Are there significant problems with the team composition? We will need to look at Tests and ODIs separately. I have listed below the playing XI in 6 tests played over 1996-1997, beginning with Tendulkar's first test as a captain.

v. Australia	v SA in Ind	v SA in SA	v WI in WI	v SL in SL	v SL in Ind
Rathore	Raman	Raman	VVS Laxman	Mongia	Mongia
Mongia	Mongia	Rathore	N Sidhu	N Sidhu	N Sidhu
Ganguly	Ganguly	Ganguly	Dravid	Dravid	Dravid
Tendulkar	Tendulkar	Tendulkar	Tendulkar	Tendulkar	Ganguly
Azharuddin	Azharuddin	Azharuddin	Azharuddin	Azharuddin	Tendulkar
Dravid	Dravid	Dravid	Ganguly	Ganguly	Azharuddin
S Joshi	S Joshi	Mongia	Mongia	Chauhan	Chauhan
A Kapoor	A Kapoor	A Kumble	A Kumble	A Kumble	A Kumble
A Kumble	A Kumble	D Johnson	Kuruvilla	Kuruvilla	Kuruvilla
D Johnson	Srinath	Srinath	Ganesh	Kulkarni	Srinath
V Prasad	V Prasad	V Prasad	V Prasad	V Prasad	V Prasad

Barring injury, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid, Azharuddin, Mongia, Srinath, Prasad and Kumble have been regulars. With Sidhu back in the opener's slot since the West Indies series, the team has basically experimented with two slots -- spinner and medium-pacer. I don't think the team suffers from instability. For a team which in this period has won only three Tests, lost 4 and drawn innumerable others, the team has too much stability!

Yet, the only major problem with the team, as it stands today, is that we still do not have spinners of proven quality, especially with Chauhan sidelined (more about this a little later) and Kumble a spent force. There are other smaller issues -- Kuruvilla has performed the role of a third seamer only with limited success, and we still need a fast bowler to support Srinath and Prasad. Also, with 4 regular middle order batsmen, the team needs to play Mongia as the opener if it has to play with 5 bowlers. Maybe if we had a quality allrounder, this issue could addressed. But these problems are not weakening the team substantially. If we are not winning Tests in spite of a reasonable team, the fault must be somewhere else.

Team composition is definitely an issue in ODIs. This is something I had discussed in detail in my previous article, A Time to Experiment. While we have experimented, and rightly so, in ODIs, the experimentation could have been better. The team essentially lacks two quality allrounders. No amount of playing around with the batting order and substituting one bowler with another is going to cover this basic weakness.

Bad-mouthing the selectors is the easiest thing to do. The current bunch of selectors call it upon themselves with their ham handed ways. Yet, I am not sure that the poor performance of the team is entirely due to selectorial mistakes. The Test team selection has been mostly right. There are only a few selection errors that one can think of. The selection of Noel David for the West Indies tour was the first. The replacement of Srinath should ideally have been a pace bowler, if not a quality spinner or an allrounder. David is neither. The second mistake seems to have been the hasty recall of Kumble in the current series with Sri Lanka. It would have opened up a slot for trying a new spinner. I must, however, add that this is hindsight at its best -- Kumble, at that time, seemed to have earned a recall.

The selection of the team for ODIs is a different story altogether. The criticism of the selectors in the selection of the ODI teams is mostly justified. Look at the changes which were made after the Sharjah debacle: Laxman, Mongia, Bahutule, Kanitkar, Mohanty and Harvinder for Dravid, Kambli, Karim, Prasad, Kuruvilla and Kumble. There are only two which can be considered justified -- Bahutule for Kumble and Mohanty for Kuruvilla. Kanitkar's inclusion could be justified if he was a part of the playing XI, the team does need allrounders. Enough has been said already about the other changes.

The question that comes to mind is how have the same bunch of selectors done a reasonable job with the test team and goofed up on the selection of the ODI team. Part of the answer lies in the fact that the ex-cricketers in the selection committee have little experience of ODI cricket. (Desai and Bannerjee have definitely not played ODI cricket in its developed form, I'm not sure about Yadav). This also explains the ridiculous suggestions about the batting order these guys have been making recently.

The issue of captaincy: There are essentially two questions that we need to answer. Should Tendulkar have remained the captain? Was Azharuddin the best choice if Tendulkar was to be replaced?

Linked to the question of Tendulkar's captaincy is the question of the extent of the captain's responsibility to team performance. By all reckoning, Tendulkar's captaincy has not been successful. The results have been mostly adverse, his leadership on the field has been adequate at best, there have been too many controversies and his batting, in the ODIs at least, has been affected.

Is it mostly Tendulkar's fault? Definitely not. Yet, as captain of a team which carries national aspirations with it every time it steps on the field, Tendulkar cannot escape responsibility for a disastrous year. He might have done better with the right team and right combination. But as things stand today, the 'right' team will not be very different from any one of the combinations that we have had in the last one year. We have heard 'accountability' being mentioned by everyone with respect to the selectors. It applies as much to the captain of the team. Tendulkar has had a longish run at the helm. The team has performed poorly. Those are the facts. Will change of captaincy change the fortunes of the team? The jury, as they say, is still out on this.

The question of Tendulkar's replacement is an interesting one. Given the amount of cricket played these days, the regular members of the team get little chance to play domestic cricket. Thus, players like Ganguly, Dravid, Jadeja, etc. have had limited experience of actually captaining a team. In such a situation, who will make a good captain will always be a difficult question to answer (unless you want to bring in a non-regular player as captain, a step which has its own demerits).

Is Azharuddin the best choice? The reason why we have so much of debate is because it is such a difficult question to answer. But in the current scenario, it is not so much a question of whether he is the best choice, he is the only choice.

Administration: The controversy over Chauhan was just what Indian cricket didn't need right now. There are two things that the BCCI could have done on receipt of the letter from ICC. It could have chosen the Sri Lankan way -- the umpire will be the judge and who are you to dictate things to me… a very macho thing to do which would have gladdened the hearts of a lot of us.

But what if, on the advice of the ICC, the umpires had chosen to watch Chauhan closely and called him for chucking? Or what if, under the close scrutiny, Chauhan had ended up focusing on his own action and not on taking wickets, as had happened when he first made his comeback into international cricket?

The popular course of action is not always wise.

The course of action that the Board has chosen has a better chance of Chauhan staging a comeback, and is better for the team's interests. He has the advantage of not having been called by any umpire in any match and can make a confident comeback when the technical committee clears him. The team is saved a possible problem of carrying a passenger in the team.

We need to, however, hold the Board responsible for a number of goof-ups. But that is another story, for another day.