Back

|

Start

Team 2003 versus Team 2007: Which is better?

And now for the wild cards: In 2003, though Parthiv Patel was officially the wicket-keeper, India in the interests of balance had Dravid keeping throughout the tournament, while Patel failed to get a single game.

On this front, there is a radical change: MS Dhoni holds his place as a key ingredient of the middle order, and will therefore keep through the tournament, barring injuries.

Similarly, Irfan Pathan comes in as another wild card. At his peak, he is a third or fourth seaming option who can bat with skill in the late middle order; in this role, he effectively provides a bridge between Dhoni and the tail.

If fit and in form, his presence helps the team balance immeasurably, as his inclusion at number seven can strengthen the bowling by giving the team one more regular seamer, without simultaneously weakening the batting.

In this sense - again, fitness and form permitting - he will perform the role Dravid played in the 2003 WC.

Add to this the one imponderable: no one knows how the Caribbean wickets for the WC, all of which are being relayed, will play. The thinking, not just by India but by all teams, appears to be that they will be fast, flat and true - but that is nothing more, or less, than mere guesswork at this stage, since the wickets are yet to be really tested.

They could as easily turn out to be under- or over-prepared; they could mirror the kind of wickets India had during the Champions' Trophy last year. In either case, spinners and not seamers could come into their own (this factor again raises the question of whether Kumble was the better pick ahead of the more attacking Ramesh Powar).

There is one aspect in which the team of 2007 is distinctly weaker than that of 2003 vintage: the fielding. While the seniors have become four years older and that much slower, Sehwag, a `junior' then and an integral part of the fielding effort, has become not merely older, but less fit than he was in 2003.

Again, two of the three young guns - Kaif and Mongia -- who manned the infield have dropped out; the only one of the inner troika left is Yuvraj Singh, who after his comeback latched on to one spectacular catch in the series against the West Indies, but has since been clutching his back and making pained noises.

So, that in sum is the team: `experience' is the watchword the selectors have used; `attrition' is a word that seems equally apt in the circumstances.

A team, theoretically, needs to be greater than the sum of its parts. Now you know the parts, you know how they fit. So tell us - is this team better, or worse, than the one of 2003 vintage? Could the selectors have picked any differently? And finally, crucially, do you think this team has the potential to repeat, if not better, the performance of the 2003 squad? Tell us.