NEWS
GROUNDS
COLUMNS
MATCH REPORTS
INTERVIEWS
ENEMY CAMP
GALLERY
SCHEDULE
FORUM

When the Best take care of the Rest

I was watching the New Zealand -West Indies ODI this morning. Just. Nothing better to do, nothing else which could keep me company during a dull Tuesday morning breakfast. Sure, I wasn't looking for excitement. Had I been looking for a humdinger, I would have had an early breakfast and watched a re-run of the India-Pakistan match. Now, that I couldn't do. Because I like to digest what I consume in the morning, and I don't think anything could have gone down well, with that particular one. Last evening, I had trouble enough taking in that miserable last ball defeat.

Hey, we did good. Not denying that. Problem is, we didn't do good enough. Now, that gets my goat.

However, as has been established, possibly, my goat is eminently gettable.

The purpose behind this talk of dullness, misery and goats is this. Increasingly, over the last few months, a thought recurs in my mind every time (which is often enough) India or West Indies lose a match. And the origin of this thought is Messrs. Lara and Tendulkar. Leaders of their tribe and pride of their nations.

Reason enough for them to be responsible (read burdened) men. Adding to this responsibility of leading, seems to be this permanent requirement to smile in the face of defeat. Not a personal defeat, because more often than not, it never really is that. But, given the reliance of their teams on them, it invariably is such that their failure to single handedly win a game has resulted in the failure of team.

Now, wouldn't you call that a pretty state of affairs for them that are touted to be the best of their generation, and amongst the games all time wonderfuls?

No. It's not what you think it is. I am not passing a comment or a judgment on whether they should lead, can lead or will lead. Enough has been said and written about that, and pretty well at that. Such documentation does not merit repetition, and I refuse to be guilty of that.

What has not been discussed though, at least overtly, is them that these champions lead. And, brand me a cribber if you must (and if you've waited this long!) but its not just once that I've felt that the biggest battle that these two have faced has not been from the other team, but their own.

Sachin/Lara didn't make a century today, and India/WI lost. Why are they captain? No, it's not they can't lead, but they're batting is being curbed, and we don't want to be deprived of that. They're great, so put the burden of captaincy on a lesser mortal, who's performance is not critical for the team, so the pressure of failure can't make him any worse or better.

How many times do we say this or hear this? It's almost a mantra, it's getting so tedious. Are we building a team here, or are we simply underlining, accepting and perpetuating the crime of depending on just one guy? The rationale for the failure of these teams is so blatantly accepted as the equivalent of the performance of their leaders (in this case) that it's no longer an issue that we change the situation.

Let's get real. It doesn't matter who leads these damn teams, strategy and planning be damned. Come on, what would Steve Waugh do with all the state-of-the-art technology and sharp strategists in the world, if at least 8 out of his 11, didn't deliver (one way or the other) in every game they played? A captain is not just as good as his team, but pretty damned near it. If Australia had been waiting for Waugh Jr to hit a century in every game they played, it would have been 6-0 all right, but not one they'd like to remember. And had Mark been captain, rather than Steve, I wonder what would have been the thought processes operating world over. Predictable, I'd say. Hey, get him off the position, and let him play his natural game.

But, the beauty of the Australian team is, that if one doesn't, the other will. Now, that's a team.

I'm not saying this because they won. I'm saying this is why they won. I could be wrong, but that's just my opinion, and who's to check it, given the way things worked out!!

Spare a thought to why it was so easy to not just remove Azhar from captaincy, but from the team itself. Because, he was no longer necessary for success. Or so it's felt. I have no opinion on this (that happens sometimes!). Had he still been as profilic as he was wont to be in better times, he would have been merely removed from captaincy to 'facilitate better batting'.

This would be the classic case of tackling an effect, and not a cause. Admittedly, the individual performance of a captain can be affected by the larger picture, and it is to be expected. He wants to lead from the front, do things right each time, and for mortals (no matter how great they be) this is not just impossible, it is also stressful. So, that's a good contention.

Having said that, if a captain (take Steve Waugh as example, who else?) who strides out knowing that more often than not, there is always a backup, or the guys have done most of the work already, he would obviously play with freedom and alacrity, in most situations. Not recklessly, or irreponsibly, but with the confidence of knowing that the team depends on him, as much as it does on each on of the team. It is inter-dependent, not dependent.

And, that can be a great feeling for a captain to have.

So, remove Sachin and Lara from captaincy. How is it helping the teams? Are they going to rely on Sachin or Lara less? No, in fact, now with the rejuvenation of spirits owing to freedom from the bondage of captaincy, the expectations will be as much, if not more.

Back to square one, aren't we?

I hope you realise that this is not a dissertation on the captaincy of the said individuals. Just highlighting an illusion that has been created around their captaincy being critical to the teams' performance. One should go to the root of the cause of the dismal 'team' effort that these nations deliver (generally). There is an occasional inspired effort, but that is more an exception, rather than the rule.

Nobody's happy when they lose. Not even nice guys! But, it requires guts and courage to look within, take hard decisions and stick to them. It is easy to get lost in, to use accounting parlance, 'window dressing' a situation. That's what losing oganisations do to their dismal balance sheets. Transfer numbers till such it presents a pretty picture to the shareholders, without really addressing reasons why the organisation did badly.

So would removing Sachin and putting Ganguly in be. A six monthly stint of window dressing. Azhar out, Sachin in. The 9 million market (for soap, shampoo, credit cards and cola) satisfied, and they'll still watch the game. Suddenly, everyone's unhappy again. Sachin out, Sourav in? Talk about quick decisions, the BCCI outdoes even the ICC.

Maybe, Sourav would make better captain, but there is only so much that his leadership skills can incrementally contribute to a team that has found it easy to lose. And, whatever solution, that he may provide, would and should only be a long term one. A short term success or failure is misleading, and relying on that as a parameter to judge future performance, does not augur well for a nation.

Whoever you put at the helm of any of the under performing nations, give that person a break, and allow him time to build a team. Don't disguise an inability to diagnose the problem, in irrelevant shuffles and hasty discards and unnecessary inclusions.

And, when you have the best at the helm (and here I speak in terms of skill), remember that it's tough enough to be the touchstone of success for a team and a nation. Irrespective of their official position in the team, they'll always be carrying a burden, till such time there are others willing to share it.

The Spare Crib/Abhilasha Khaitan