NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

One more post-mortem

Talent, Anyone??!

So many things have been said and written about the disastrous Indian tour of Australia. Post-mortems, passionate recommendations, angry outbursts and utter resignations have been seen from Indian cricket fans all over the world. Here is a different angle to the whole scenario.

Almost everybody these days talks about being aggressive, playing with fire, being hungry to win and so on. The truth is, cricket in India is very raw and almost every big name the game has seen from our country has been a product of sheer talent and not of a system that has Ricky Ponting bat with a pulse detector wrist band that monitors his pulse rate on a very hot Aussie summer day.

There are certain harsh realities that can never be changed and it is deep rooted in the culture of the individuals who play the game. It is very easy for a certain Armchair Expert to say Glenn McGrath and Javagal Srinath are comparable in terms of sheer talent in delivering the ball but not in their foul mouthing. It is easy to say that Indian cricketers don't have the fire in their eyes to decimate opponents. A certain Bobby Simpson can comment that Indian cricketers are soft spoken by nature and that transcends to the cricket field. But ultimately, what matters most is whether you play front foot or back foot to a delivery or whether to pitch the ball up or pitch it short.

Every team has their own way of playing the game and it is not fair to expect the Indians to play it the Aussie way. We play it in our own fashion, we don't play with the opponent's minds, we never analyse our opponents to outwit them, our physical fitness is never going to improve no matter who trains us and our sense of arrogance for being in the top 11 out of million cricketers in the country will never vanish. Our pitches are never going to get as seamy and bouncy as the Australian ones (I've being hearing about preparing fast wickets for the last 10 years with no results) and our batsmen will never be completely equipped to play in those pitches. But that doesn't mean we cannot be consistent match winners. Words like lack of toughness, heart, character, pride, gumption have all been mentioned out there, but the harsh reality my friend, is lack of enough talent.

A supremely talented Indian team almost beat the Aussies in the third Test series in 1985-86, finally ending up with a good looking 0-0 draw. We cannot hope for Tendulkars and Gangulys to be born once every few years; preparing a strong set of 20 players is the key to success and unless our cricketing system changes, we have to hope and pray for more Tendulkars and Gangulys.

'A tale of two captains' has the Armchair Expert talk about the difference between Steve Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar. To quote our friend: "Waugh found a way to rally his players around him. He talked to his players. Or rather, listened to them. And heard what they told him. Learnt that he needed to let his players fly free, show them he had faith. Set them goals, then back them to deliver. Not try and do it all himself. And put more pressure on himself under the mistaken belief that he would be lightening the load on his team."

Since when has the Australian Cricket Board started letting an armchair expert get into the Australian dressing room, leave alone Steve Waugh's mind. The reality folks, the difference between these two captains is the difference between Glenn McGrath and Srinath, Michael Slater and Devang Gandhi, Shane Warne and Anil Kumble, Damien Fleming and Venky Prasad.

Almost the same Aussie team visited us two years ago and found no answer to our willow. The pure ingredient for a successful captain is a winning team. Comparing Steve Waugh and Sachin Tendulkar as captains when both of them are managing two completely different teams in terms of talent is like comparing apples and oranges. Tossing the ball to Greg Blewett is as disastrous as tossing it to Ganguly, but the difference is we handed our wickets with a cherry coating to Blewy and they took advantage of Ganguly!

Let's talk about one of the most successful Indian teams - the team of 1983 through 1987. You had players like Yashpal Sharma, Ashok Malhotra, Jimmy Amarnath, Dilip Vengsarkar, Sandeep Patil, Madan Lal, Roger Binny, are all highly talented in their own respect. But how many of these guys have shown you a so-called aggressive body language. A stocky looking guy like Yashpal Sharma, standing in deep cover, gave you an impression that he doesn't give a damn if Vivian Richards hit the next ball for a four or a six. But it was the same Yashpal who played that match-winning knock against England in the 1983 World Cup semis.

The point is, it is hypocritical to say that the 1983 team played with lot of heart and the current team lacks aggression. I think the bottom line is the 1983 team was a cohesive unit, played percentage cricket and, above all, they had the players who could deliver.

Every sportsman has the urge to win, I am positive every current Indian cricketer considers it an honour to be playing cricket for his country. It's immature to brand them as a bunch of people who have no eagerness to win and lack the pride in playing for their country.

Here are some reasons why the mid eighties team did well. The top ingredient in a winning team is the team itself, I mean the players who play for that team. Krish Srikkanth, Yashpal Sharma, Ashok Malhotra, Ravi Shastri are not the most stylish and technically sound batsmen like Saurav Ganguly or Rahul Dravid. Roger Binny, Madanlal, Chetan Sharma and Sunil Valson come nowhere close to the speed of Javagal Srinath. But the reason the former players clicked was because they played percentage cricket. On any given day you could expect at least two of them to chip in with 50 runs each, and the others 20, 30 runs each. You could bet on Binny, Madanlal and Co. bowling line and length for 10 consecutive overs.

Let's compare that with the current Indian team. It's got three of the best contemporary batsmen, one of them probably the best the game has ever seen. And therein lies the key. We play the game of 11 players with a team of three. No matter how extraordinary these three are, they don't have a backup to fall on if they were to fail in any match.

Let's first talk about Test cricket. To rewind back to the start of the Australian tour, we first got it wrong by a poor team selection. The selectors did not send the best 16 players in India. Period! Makes you wonder about the job description of those five men with the responsibility of picking the best 16 out of thousands of cricketers. If the job is as easy as picking eight out of 16 based on past performances and the other eight based on sheer statistics from Ranji Trophy, hell Jaywant Lele can do it. Here lies the bottom line, the only way Test matches are won is by bowling the opposition out twice, and we don't have the armour to bowl out a top class Australian outfit twice in their backyard.

Or may be we would, if Srinath produces a dream spell and Kumble delivers a superlative effort. But the back-up plan must have been to put a solid batting performance to at least give the bowlers a chance to either win the game or draw the game. The need of the hour was a strong batting line-up. But who do the selectors select for a tough Australian tour? Gandhi as an opener and Kanitkar, V V S Laxman, Bharadwaj as our middle order. That was when we actually lost the series, way before it even started. No matter how mentally tough these abovementioned players are, no matter how hungry they are, no matter how much heart and character they show, they simply don't have the talent to withstand quality bowling.

Do these selectors actually watch these players bat, analyse their technique by playing tapes and then decide? If they did, Gandhi, Kanitkar and Bharadwaj should have been automatic exclusions for Australia. The following is the best possible 16 that I'd have come up with if I were the chief selector.

Six batsmen in Ramesh, Dravid, Jacob Martin, Sachin Tendulkar, Saurav Ganguly and Mohammad Azharuddin, with V V S Laxman and Robin Singh to back them up. Four bowlers in Srinath, Prasad, Agarkar and Sunil Joshi, with Kumaran, Mohanty and Kumble to back them up. Mongia would have been my wicket-keeper.

Let me first justify my team. It is surprising why nobody in the management came up with the idea to open with Dravid during the tour. After all, he was walking in within five minutes of the start of our innings. He was made to open the last time we visited South Africa and he came out with flying colours. Agreed we cannot go with makeshift openers and have to find a permanent solution. Agreed we cannot open with Dravid abroad and say a Gandhi, to name one, to open at home. But this was not the time; we visit Australia once in a decade and we had to perform well to be worthy of being called a top Test-playing nation.

Dravid might not have been among runs this series, but he did spend quiet a bit of time at the crease. And that's exactly what was needed for Sachin and Ganguly to bat without pressure. Time and again Sachin was staring at McGrath and co within the first half an hour. Ramesh is a fluent strokeplayer and Dravid could have played around him and that might have given us a good start.

Coming to our No. 3, I cannot help laughing at our selectors for picking Jacob Martin for the one-day team and not the Test team. This lad has the right technique to play the sheet anchor. Look at the Australian No 3, Justin Langer. He takes pride in modeling himself after his captain and doesn't mind making 'ugly runs' as long as he occupies a lot of time at the crease. He doesn't have the classic cover drive nor the straight drive but he makes those ugly runs. He was blooded first against the mighty West Indies in the early nineties and it has paid off in the long run. He provides the right platform for the Waughs and Pontings to launch their innings.

We get too carried away by a great, stylish strokeplay from someone like V V S Laxman, but what's actually needed is a resolute defense at No 3. Watching Martin, one fails to understand why a batsman whose head is right behind the ball, bat and pad close together is not in the Test team. Of course, if Martin were to have failed miserably, we always had V V S to fall back on and he would have made 166 in 180 balls, right??

Azhar should have been in the team just for his experience. There certainly is a possibility that he could have performed terribly, but you have to back his experience. It's okay to blood these youngsters at home where they would get away with a flop show as the big guns would fire to put up a good total. Down Under, Sachin, Dravid and Ganguly were under enough stress themselves to earn their runs; it was absolutely important for Azhar to be in the team to score a few runs (at least more than what Gandhi, Kanitkar and Bharadwaj managed together).

Coming to Laxman, that 166 in Sydney is one reason why he should at least be in the 16. And Robin Singh to me should walk into the current Indian team or for that matter into an Indian team of any time without any questions. The man is a lion, a sheer fighter, grits his teeth and protects his wickets and doesn't let go of any opportunity to be positive and take control.

Mongia, like it or not, is the best 'keeper we have. And honestly, if a batting line-up of six guys cannot do the job with the bat, there is no point in expecting the 'keeper to score the runs. Wicket-keeping is the most under appreciated job in cricket and it is as difficult to 'keep' as it is to bowl or bat. Make no mistake, a good wicket-keeper like Mongia makes a valuable contribution by converting half chances into catches. No less than Ian Healy thinks very highly of Mongia and he is far better than M S K Prasad as a 'keeper.

After the first Test match, it must have been obvious to the team management that Kumble wasn't going to do the voodoo trick for them this series. The Australians were handling him with ease and Anil wasn't getting any assistance from the pitch. But this is where our culture can be changed a little. I am sure Kumble's exclusion never even occurred to anyone as he is an 'automatic' choice. If a certain Mark Waugh or a Shane Warne is not an automatic choice for Australia, why is Kumble one?

The Aussies if anything are a little shaky against spin (which they exhibited against Saqlain in that Hobart match) and Sunil Joshi could have been among wickets. Prasad, again is another 'automatic' choice in the Indian team for reasons unknown. Indian cricket doesn't owe anything to its players for performing better in some matches. Agreed Prasad has bowled wonderfully in some matches over the past few years. But Indian cricket doesn't have to show its gratitude for a good performance by making him play every single game irrespective of current form. If Prasad doesn't do the job, it should go to Kumaran or Mohanty and the same is true with Kumble.

Let's talk about Srinath for a minute. The major difference between Glenn McGrath and Javagal Srinath is not the @#$#@#$ that McGrath mouths and not their desire to perform. Both I am sure have the desire to succeed and it doesn't need a glare at the batsman or a @#$%&* !!! It needs persistence. McGrath bowls a staggering 82 % of his deliveries on the good length or just short of it and just a shade outside the off stump, no matter if he got clobbered the previous ball or the batsman defended solidly. Let's not talk about the minds of these bowlers, because none of us frankly knows what they are thinking at any particular time. Let's not make judgements about Srinath's lack of aggression, everybody has their own way of showing aggression and even if he isn't, well, we cannot change it now mates!!

What Sri lacks is patience. He cannot bowl more than two balls in the same line and length at a time. If he doesn't get wickets, he starts trying other stuff that he is not very good at. In the process, he gets mauled and the batsmen never looks back again. The Armchair Expert got it right when he said Sri doesn't possess an away swinger nor the reverse swing and doesn't have too much variety. It's also true that as the ball gets older, Sri's bag of weapons gets empty soon. This is when the McGrath line and length helps you get wickets.

I thought the turning point of the just-concluded series came when McGrath tied down Sachin and Dravid for almost two hours on the second day of the first Test. That's how you get into the heads of top batsmen and not by trying other stuff that you don't know. McGrath plays totally within his limitations and that is something Sri will have to learn.

Sure mental toughness plays a huge part in today's cricket, but mental toughness is not about looking hungry for a win or uttering a mouthful if a batsman belts you. Mental toughness is about being positive, about never giving up and above all, never to be panicky. It's the Aussie way to have Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting go hammer and tongs when they are reeling at 53 for 4. It might have paid off, it might not have, but the Indians shouldn't help them by bowling Ganguly and Agarkar instead of Srinath and Kumble. That's mental toughness.

At the same time, mental toughness is not about making Sachin and Dravid do the same thing that Waugh and Ponting did at 10 for 2 as the Australians would finally have their way. Mental toughness is about constantly searching for runs instead of a blind defense for two hours. Of course, you cannot help but feel sorry for Sachin and Dravid, as right below them, they were looking at Kanitkar, Bharadwaj and a tail that will give Bedi, Prasanna, Chandra a run for their money when it comes to batting.

That to me, is the difference between positive approach and negative approach. It's true that we, the Indian cricket fans hold this team too close to our hearts. And our hearts bleed every time our team loses without a courageous fight that Laxman exhibited the other day in Sydney. We spend a lot of our emotions, time, energy and money discussing the team, watching the team play, sharing our happiness when the team wins and shedding a tear when it loses. Our days and lives are made and are made happier watching Sachin clinically dispatch Glenn McGrath to the cover boundary or shrugging off his verbal outburst as a true sportsman.

We shared Sachin's grief and tears when he looked up the sky for his father after scoring that century against Kenya. Living in different parts of the World (in my case the West coast of USA), we wake up at odd times of the night, sacrifice our sleep and watch Srinath sprint towards Saeed Anwar without a blink of our eye lashes. But we should have realistic expectations from this team. It's probably the presence of Sachin or Ganguly or Srinath that elevates us to these huge expectations. But my request to you all out there is to look at our team objectively and not overrate it. With the kind of team we went to Australia with, it's unfair to expect them to have performed any better than they did.

Of course, we ran into probably one of the best outfits cricket has ever seen - a team that is on par with Clive Lloyd's West Indies and Don Bradman's invincibles in terms of sheer talent! It's quite possible that we would've been beaten even if the best possible eleven had played them. It took a while for Steve Waugh's team to get there and with an honest effort and a supportive administration, the Indian cricket team might reach there one day. Until then, I'll keep my fingers crossed and continue to sacrifice my sleep to watch our guys play.....