Indian skipper to have greater say in tour schedules

Prem Panicker

Board of Control for Cricket in India secretary Jagmohan Dalmiya recently announced that henceforth, the Indian cricket manager and captain will be given the right to inspect tour schedules before they are finalised.

And a very good thing, that is, too.

Dalmiya made the point that this decision was not to be construed as fixing a fault in the scheduling of the just completed Indian tour of South Africa - but the conclusion is inescapable that said schedule was finalised by a person or persons who has neither the knowledge of what an international cricket tour entails, nor yet the ability to empathise with the needs of the players.

While it is nobody's - at least, not mine - case that India lost the Tests in South Africa purely because of erroneous scheduling, it needs to be said that the schedule definitely did contribute to the disastrous showing of the Indian team, most especially in the first Test at Durban.

Consider this - the Indian team arrives in South Africa on December 20, plays a three day game at Port Elizabeth between December 21-23, then takes on South Africa in the first Test at Durban between December 26-30, then plays the second Test at Cape Town between January 2-6.

When the Board approved the schedule, did it think for a moment of the fact that a team touring a foreign country needs time to get acclimatised, to adjust to light and weather and pitch conditions before embarking on a Test series?

Compare this schedule with the one that the ACB and the UCBSA worked out for the Australian tour of South Africa: Arrival Feb 11, one day game on Feb 13, three day game between Feb 15-17, one day game on Feb 19, three day game between Feb 21-23, one day game on Feb 25 and then the first Test at Johannesburg.

And mind, even after the first Test, Australia plays one three day game (March 7-9) and one one day game on March 11 before playing the second Test.

Why does this schedule, strenuous as it sounds, make more cricketing sense than the one laid down for India? Simple - before the first Test, Mark Taylor and his men get 9 days of actual cricket to get acclimatised. And these nine days include two three day games, permitting the Aussie skipper to try out different permutations both in batting and bowling, and thus come closer to having the best, and most in-form, side for the first Test.

India's cricketing woes do not end there. Immediately after the South African tour ended with the SBI ODI final on February 13, the players flew off to neighbouring Zimbabwe for two more one day games on February 15 and 17. A couple of festival games were scheduled for Bermuda as well, but fortunately better sense prevailed and those games, at least, were called off - giving the Indian side an opportunity to spend a week, at the least, at home before taking off again for a tough three-month tour of the West Indies.

So what are these two games in Zimbabwe all about, anyway? Ostensibly, they are meant to encourage cricket in Zimbabwe. And yes, the stated intention is laudable - Zimbabwe, as a relatively new entrant to the fraternity of Test-playing nations, needs to get as many matches as possible against the other nations. Firstly to hone their cricketing skills and to develop by competing against the senior sides and, more importantly, because matches played on Zimbabwe soil will enhance interest among the local populace and, hopefully, spur more youngsters into taking to the game.

But if that was the intention, then the right thing to do would be to schedule a full tour, with say three Tests and three or five one dayers, to that country at the earliest opportunity. I mean, precisely how is Zimbabwean cricket supposed to develop thanks to the visit of a jaded, bored Indian side going through the motions for two days, their minds not really on the game but the prospect of returning to their homes if only for a brief while?

Another point merits mention - India's tour of South Africa lasted from December 21 to February 13. And it is inevitable that after a tour of almost two months, the side will be carrying its quota of injuries - Javagal Srinath, to name one, has been carrying the burden of main strike bowler despite a shoulder injury, and Sachin Tendulkar himself has been nursing a torn rib cartilege - does anyone seriously expect these two, and the other Indians, to really strain themselves in these two one-day games, more so given a tough tour of the West Indies to follow immediately thereafter?

So what really lies behind this tour? The simple, single reason is ambition. Dalmiya himself is contesting July's election to chairmanship of the ICC, and he needs the support of as many of the cricketing nations, both full and associate, as he can get. And the BCCI, as a whole, nurtures ambitions of becoming the next cricketing superpower, taking over from England. And hence this sudden desire to develop the game in the marginal countries - by scheduling no-account games in countries like Zimbabwe and Bermuda, the BCCI is in actual fact giving the host nation a chance to earn money at the gates and through advertising, in the hope that the financial bounty will make the boards of the host nations more favourably inclined to India's own ambitions.

Should cricketers be pawned for the sake of administrators' power politics, however?

Look at the South African attitude in this regard - recognising the immense value of Allan Donald to the side (and mind you, South Africa has an assembly line of fast bowlers to call on, unlike India), the UCBSA has already put in motion plans to prolong Donald's cricketing life by ensuring his financial stability, making certain that he does not play unnecessary amounts of cricket (including forays into the English county circuit) - all aimed at ensuring that the premier strike bowler is not jaded when he turns out for his country.

We, meanwhile, blithely continue to run our cricketers into the ground, with tour following tour, match following match (already, 13 Tests and over 17 ODIs have been scheduled for the next season, beginning August, and there is more on the anvil).

What we are risking is a situation similar to those faced by players like Richie Richardson (who sat out the Indian tour of 1995 with stress fatigue), Curtley Ambrose, whose injuries and layoffs in recent times have been too numerous to count, and such - and it is high time this aspect of India's cricketing calendar is given the attention due to it.

Interestingly, the first part of the tour to the West Indies, spanning three months and five Tests besides four one-day internationals, is almost a reprise of the South African experience. Arrival February 24, a one-day game two days later, then a three day game between February 28 and March 3, and the first Test immediately thereafter, between March 6-10. And with no practise game in between, in which to allow the Indians to work on defeciencies spotted during the first Test, they play the second between March 14-18. Then a three-day game, then two more Tests on the trot... and so on...

And after the fifth Test, what happens? One practise match on April 24. The first ODI on April 26. And the second one on the very next day, April 27.

Defies all logic, that - and yet that is what we get.

It is in this context that Dalmiya's statement, that in future the captain and cricket manager will have a chance to look at tour schedules before they are finalised, makes sense. Hopefully, though, it won't be a matter of merely presenting the captain and manager with a fait accompli, allowing them to have a "look", and then finalising it regardless of suggestions/objections.

It is about time the board began making the interests of players its first priority - in fact, it is about time the international fraternity of cricketers formed a players' union, as has been recently mooted by the likes of Courtney Walsh, Hansie Cronje and Mark Taylor.

Postscript: When news reached India that international players such as Cronje, Taylor and Walsh had mooted a players' union, guess what the immediate reaction from the BCCI was? "Such a union is not needed by Indian players, because they have the BCCI to look after their interests!"

Indeed? You could have fooled me...