Why it Hurts; Why it Happened; and Where to go from here

A year ago this week, India surrendered abjectly in a morning of madness to an Andrew Flintoff – inspired England team in Mumbai, losing a test that was there for the draw and thereby allowing a sub-strength England team to draw a series they should have lost. It was one of the most depressing days of my now quarter-century long India viewing career, though it was explained away as one of those that happens all the time in Indian cricket – the blip, the moment of madness, one of those things that happens in sport, especially when confronted by an unusually inspired opposition. What made that defeat palatable was that the team was in the midst of a golden one-day run, winning 20 games out of 24, chasing successfully a record 18 consecutive times. The team might still have been on the make in Tests, but in the shorter version of the game, it looked like the Chappell – Dravid combination had gotten it exactly right – big wins against Sri Lanka, in Pakistan, and against England; a hard fought draw against the outstanding South Africans. It seemed clear that India, along with Australia and South Africa, were one of the three clear favorites for the World Cup; and Chappell, after all, pointed out that it was to build this team towards the World Cup that he had been appointed.

In the year since, the Test scenario has been less bleak – a creditable draw in the West Indies, a famous win in Johannesburg – but the one-day picture now lies in shambles with a first-round exit from the World Cup. Sure, it’s only a game, but it hurts.

Why it Hurts

This isn’t the first time India has underperformed in a World Cup. Indeed, since we won the World Cup, it has happened consistently in every alternate tournament – a semi-final run in 87 destroyed by one terrible performance against England, then abject failure in 92; a semi-final run destroyed by one terrible performance against Sri Lanka in 96, followed by abject failure in 99; a run to the finals destroyed by one terrible performance against Australia in 03, followed by abject failure this year. I think we can safely predict a semi-final run in four years time, ended by a terrible performance against South Africa. And then abject failure in 2015.

In 92 and 99, however, all the familiar reasons could be trotted out. Amateurish coaching; parochial team selections; an absence of any kind of domestic structure in place that made it difficult to prepare players for the rigors of playing abroad on sporty pitches; teams that were always still “coming together”; lack of experience under pressure.

Why it hurts this time is that none of those excuses holds anymore. Ever since the move to foreign coaches in 2000, coaching has been anything but amateurish. One can quibble with Chappell’s occasionally quixotic experiments, but no one can fault him for being anything but professional. The selection committee, while still honorary and operating on zonal lines, also cannot be faulted. I still think they missed a beat by not including Laxman (on which more below), but for the most part, this was a sensible team, the best that could have been selected, a good blend of youth and experience, and, as Chappell kept insisting in his interviews, the “team that India wanted”. The BCCI remains a corrupt money making machine, but the present dispensation under Sharad Pawar has done much for the domestic game, including preparing sporting pitches (look at how fast bowlers prosper in domestic cricket nowadays), giving the domestic tournaments glamour and media exposure (so that someone like Robin Uthappa immediately came into the limelight for his strong Ranji performances, and couldn’t be overlooked as could have happened so easily in the past), and instituting a very strong under-19 and India A structure that allows many aspiring players international exposure in a variety of global venues before they are ever selected to play for India. And this team has been relatively stable for nearly 7 years now, so there is no question of it still “coming together”. Or of it lacking experience, being the most experienced team in the tournament with well over 2000 one-day games under its collective belt.

That’s why it hurts so much. This is what Chappell and Dravid were appointed for and working towards. This is what we had missed so narrowly four years ago, but were ready to make amends for now by going all the way. This is what so many great players in this team, the Tendulkars, Kumbles, Dravids and Gangulys, had never had in their illustrious careers, and wanted before riding off into the sunset. We had the form, winning 6 of the 8 games coming into the tournament, and both warm-ups in convincing fashion (unlike in 2003, when we had been decimated in New Zealand just before the World Cup). We had more recent experience of West Indian conditions than any other touring team in the Cup. We had the right blend of youth and experience. Sure, we didn’t have the best fielding side, or great all-rounders; but those were supposed to be deficiencies that would be exposed by Australia and South Africa, not by Bangladesh (whom we have only ever lost to once before) or Sri Lanka (whom we had beaten 9 times out of the last 11 meetings, and so should have had a vice-like psychological advantage over). This shouldn’t have happened; and having happened once against Bangladesh, shouldn’t have happened against Sri Lanka. There are no excuses.

Why it Happened

This becomes an extremely difficult question to answer, given that we had the resources, a balanced and experienced side, a clever captain and coach working in synergy with each other, good momentum going into the tournament. That is why it is so imperative that we answer it – we cannot afford to dismiss this performance as a freak aberration and move on with things in the hope that it gets better. I would like to suggest five reasons below as to why it happened, four having to do with personnel and one with preparation.

1. Preparation – in many ways, our horrendous tour of New Zealand in 2003 proved a blessing in disguise. The bowlers, who prospered on that tour, got into a very nice rhythm as a consequence; for the batsmen, after the green tops of New Zealand, South African pitches were a cakewalk – lots of bounce, for sure, but far less lateral movement. This year also, we were, according to the ICC tours program, supposed to go to New Zealand. But the BCCI cancelled it in one of its many acts of unilateral defiance (their attitude towards the ICC is increasingly like George Bush’s towards the UN, with the similar consequences that come from such arrogance and hubris). The argument was that a poor showing in New Zealand would hurt the team’s morale. But morale and momentum are only as good as the last win anyway. As it happens, the 8 one-day games organized instead in India proved meaningless as preparation. Meanwhile, Sri Lanka did go to New Zealand, fought hard against a good team, won some and lost some, but came out of it a far better team, and one more capable of succeeding under pressure in West Indian conditions. Moral of the story – one can build up paper tigers all one wants, but all the contrived dress rehearsals in the world aren’t going to prepare you for the real world unless you’re willing to play the tough teams in tough conditions as part of preparation. By refusing to go to New Zealand, BCCI effectively shot itself and the team’s preparations in the foot.

2. Leadership – clearly, there was a failure of leadership here, and both captain and coach have to be held accountable. Dravid, in my mind, has been a very good captain tactically – better than any captain I have seen for India other than Ganguly. But he clearly didn’t have that X-factor that Ganguly did – the ability to motivate others to play beyond themselves when the time came to do so. Similarly, Chappell, for all the computer programs and accent on “process”, didn’t live and breathe Indian cricket the way John Wright did – he was a professional, getting paid to do a job, and he did the job he was paid to do on the terms he was asked to do it. Wright, clearly, went further than that, and imprinted his personality on the team, and was himself shaped by it. When Wright was coach, the players were playing for him as much as themselves or their country, and that helped to bring out that little bit extra. The ones that Chappell backed – Suresh Raina being the prime example – ultimately failed to justify his faith in them; while the ones that Chappell chopped and changed and fiddled around with – Sehwag, Pathan, Kaif, Laxman – all went into losses of form and confidence, two of them failing to make the World Cup squad, one making it but not getting a game even when there was a crying need for all-rounders, the fourth making it by the skin of his teeth only because of his captain’s insistence. The two biggest successes of the past few months, Ganguly and Zaheer, made it back to the team and succeeded in spite of Chappell rather than because of him. All in all, his tenure as coach has to be seen as a failure – even the likes of Kapil Dev could have produced this sort of outcome.

3. Personnel 1 – the absence of Laxman: I had said when the World Cup team was selected that we would pay for the decision to leave Laxman out of the squad, and so we did. Here was our batting line-up getting decimated by other South Asian bowling attacks, while one of the best Indian batsmen of all time, a man who has stood up to the Aussies like virtually no other, was cooling his heels in Hyderabad. Robin Uthappa, his hot rod in form replacement, found that there was quite a difference between being a flat-track bully and opening against experienced (or even inexperienced) opposition in a World Cup. What we needed against Sri Lanka was one partnership, one person to give Dravid the support he needed. The number of times Laxman has been that person in either form of the game is innumerable. Small changes in personnel make big differences, and I maintain that the effect of not selecting Laxman made the difference between a first-round exit and qualification for the super-8s at the very least. And of course, had we qualified, it would have been a whole different tournament for us, with anything being possible. The justification that Laxman’s fielding was what was keeping him out was always spurious, given that even without Laxman we verged between the mediocre and the comical in the field.

4. Personnel 2 – the difference between us and Sri Lanka: At the end of the day, the game against Sri Lanka was of two evenly matched teams. The one person who imprinted his magic and made a difference was, of course, Murali, and great players do that. But Murali’s effect was even more stark because of the performance it stacked against – that of Harbhajan Singh. While Murali teased and tormented, producing two stunning deliveries to get Sehwag and Dhoni in addition to a stunning catch to dismiss Ganguly, Bhajji never looked like getting a wicket. Worse, he never looked like wanting to get a wicket, never changing his line of attack or varying his flight or trying anything that might make the Lankans think a bit. It almost seemed like he had settled on 0-50 from the start – but that is what change bowlers like Sehwag and Tendulkar settle for, not someone who is supposed to be your major strike bowler. In the process, he allowed the crucial partnership between Chamara Silva and Tillakaratne Dilshan to take root – another quick wicket at that stage and Sri Lanka would have struggled to reach 220, which would have made it a whole different ball game. Unfortunately, this thought doesn’t seem to have occurred to Bhajji. This hasn’t been a one-off problem – for some time now, Bhajji seems to have sacrificed any pretense to being an attacking bowler, trying instead to just through tight spells of 0/30 and satisfying himself with economy rates. In a one-day game, for a front line spinner, 2/50 is a far better outcome than 0/30; and when you are trying for 0/30 against a team that plays spin as well as the Lankans, you’re bound to end up with 0/50. This follows his prolonged wicket drought at the start of last year, when the Pakistanis decimated him and even England handled him with ease while struggling against every other Indian bowler. Kumble’s poor record against Sri Lanka might have warranted Bhajji’s inclusion ahead of him for this game; but on the whole, I don’t see how we can consider Bhajji to be Kumble’s long-term replacement unless he radically overhauls his bowling and his attitude. Certainly, I think Ramesh Powar looks a far better off-spinner to me in terms of his willingness to always look for wickets. Bhajji, as the biggest failure with the ball in the two games that mattered, has to be held seriously accountable for our early exit. Sure, Ganguly, Tendulkar and Dhoni also failed against Sri Lanka; but so did Jayasuriya, Jayawardene and Sangakkara. If Murali made the difference between the two teams, so too did Bhajji.

5. Personnel 3 – the difference between 2007 and 2003: India, in fact, found itself in an identical situation to this game’s in 2003, against Pakistan, when we were set a challenging 274 to win. Targets like that require one person to absolutely impose himself on the situation, and the difference between our campaign in 2003 and that this year was Tendulkar’s evisceration of Akhtar and Waqar on that occasion, and his third ball dismissal on this one. Sure, the ball that did him this time was outstanding; but I think the difference in the two performances indicates just how far Sachin has fallen over the past 4 years. In the two games that mattered, Sachin managed 7 runs off 29 balls – that is a colossal failure by any standards. And it follows a year of colossal failures – an average of 26 in Tests, not much better in ODIs. Most importantly, when it has mattered, Sachin has come a cropper – not just these two crucial World Cup games, but also in the Cape Town test, when he produced that painful 14 to surrender the initiative to Paul Harris and the South Africans. To take solace in the fact that he managed 50 against Bermuda, or occasionally manages a good score in inconsequential games, is an insult to his genius as much as anything else. I think we should come to terms with the fact that Sachin is, at best, in the twilight of his career – at worst, he’s already finished. Certainly, this World Cup should have mattered to him more than most, and his singular failure to rise to the occasion the way he did 4 years ago had everything to do with India’s early exit.

Where to go from here

1. Given the points made above, it is clear that we need a change in leadership, both on the captaincy and coach fronts. Let us consider coach first, and captain in the next point. Chappell has to go as coach, but I do not see any obvious Indians as his replacement. At the same time, there is no point getting a foreign coach for the sake of getting a foreign coach. Chappell’s example has shown that professionalism and computer programs do not alone make a coach successful in a sub-continental context (just as Woolmer’s failure with Pakistan also showed). What we need is a foreign coach who values substance over style; who has had a winning record with teams in the past; and who ideally has some experience of sub-continental coaching. For me, the person who fits the bill on all three counts without a doubt is Dav Whatmore, and poaching him from the Bangladeshis would be ideal for Indian cricket. Whatmore converted a talented bunch of Sri Lankans who completely lacked self-belief in 1994 into world champions in 1996; he is managing similar sorts of transformations with the far less talented Bangladesh side. Whether he would want to move from these relatively low pressure engagements to the brutal pressure of coaching India is an open question; but he is the coach who can make India a World Cup winning side. (Let us remember that Woolmer, for all his theoretical acumen, never took South Africa to a World Cup even though the Proteas were arguably the best team on paper through the second half of the 1990s. Similarly, Chappell for all his theories has never even led South Australia to a Sheffield Shied title. What we need is not reputation in name, but in performance). The Indian team will now be one in a period of transition, and that should give Whatmore an incentive and a challenge to come in and make a difference.

In addition, I would appoint Venkatesh Prasad as bowling coach. A number of top teams now have bowling coaches, and they have been seen to make a difference. It is particularly important in a team such as India’s that has a number of talented young bowlers coming through the ranks who need to be properly nurtured. Prasad has been seriously gaining accreditation as a coach since his retirement from international cricket, and has proved an inspirational coach for Karnataka, taking them from a plate league team to super league semi-finalists in the Ranji Trophy in just a year. I think he would be an attractive long-term option as India coach, but am not sure that this is the right time – I wonder how much authority he could exercise over the likes of Tendulkar and Ganguly, whom he played under as an India player. But in 2011 or 2012, absolutely.

2. As for captain, I think it is Dravid’s interest and India’s that we move on to a new captain. Here, there are two possible directions we can go in, and those are indicated by looking at the experience of three prominent teams that failed in 2003 – South Africa, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The Lankans somehow reached the semi-finals then, but they were pretty awful; they were helped by the fact that Pakistan, West Indies and South Africa were even worse; and New Zealand had pretty much written themselves out of the equation by forfeiting their game against Kenya. Pakistan turned in a tepid performance in the Super Six, which led to the end of Waqar Younis’s captaincy and career; and South Africa, led by the extremely likeable Shaun Pollock, failed even to make the Super Six on home ground. Pakistan went in one direction, handing over the reins to Inzamam-ul-Haq, who was already 33, had been their biggest failure of that World Cup with 19 runs in 6 innings, and who was clearly not a strategist, just (at best) someone who could lead by example. Sri Lanka and South Africa, in spite of being led by their best players (Jayasuriya and Pollock, both immensely respected) decided to go in the direction of youth, ending up with Graeme Smith and Mahela Jayawardene (though the Lankans went for a while with the genial Marvan Attapattu, who was respected enough, but didn’t have the ruthlessness that has marked Jayawardene’s tenure). Both decisions were gambles – Smith was just 21, in a team full of senior players amongst whom he needed to earn his respect; Mahela had always been the talented player who hadn’t quite ever fulfilled his potential as a batsman. Both were bets on potential rather than (in Pakistan’s case) reputation and past performance; both were decisions for the future, suggestion a long-term transformation rather than just a change of guard from one person to another. Both the Lankans and the Proteas have gone through some tough times over the last 4 years; but importantly, they are far better teams now than they were 4 years ago, and the chance of this World Cup seeing a Sri Lanka – South Africa final is quite realistic. India had indeed shown similar foresight after 1999 when Ganguly was given the reins of captaincy as a long term plan to transform the team – and it was, in retrospect, a spectacular success. The time for a similar sort of change has come now.

My big fear, in this regard, is that the Indian selectors will remove Dravid from the captaincy because they have to be seen to be doing something, but play safe and replace him with Sachin, who is the current deputy. That would precisely be the sort of move Pakistan made with Inzy; 4 years later, Pakistan have plunged depths unimaginable even in the midst of their terrible 2003 campaign. Sure, there have been good moments, even inspired ones, in between; but this was never a long-term decision, and its shortsightedness over time has been borne out. To go back to Sachin, who was never a good captain at the best of times, when his very place in the side should be in question, would be the worst sort of backward looking decision when something quite different is what is required.

Who would be a Smith / Jayawardene type appointment? I think the obvious choice is Yuvraj Singh. The talent is undoubted, and he has shown that talent now in both forms of the game. He is intelligent, focused and aggressive, and has the ability to get under the opposition’s skin as player or captain in the manner that Smith, Jayawardene or Ganguly can. Going back to Ganguly is the other option, but he himself is showing no interest in the captaincy, and in the long term that too is a retrogressive move. And as his deputy, I would go with Mahendra Dhoni. He was a disappointment in this World Cup, no doubt, but his talent is phenomenal, and he thinks and talks a very good game. A good vice-captain is an essential part of the leadership team, and Dravid’s vice-captaincy had a huge amount to do with the success of the Wright-Ganguly partnership. Dravid never got similar support from either Sehwag or Sachin as his vice-captain. A leadership quartet of Whatmore-Prasad-Yuvraj-Dhoni, I think, is what is needed for India at the moment, with the wise heads of Dravid, Ganguly and Laxman to rely on for support.

There is one other parenthetic point to make here. Pollock and Jayasuriya, stripped of the captaincy, proceeded over the next 4 years to play some of the best cricket of their lives. They are both in their late 30s, and may yet be two of the players of this tournament. I see Dravid, relieved of the captaincy, as capable of playing such a role as well. While I definitely think this is Sachin’s last World Cup, I see no reason why it should be Dravid’s. How nice it would be if he could yet lift a World Cup as the senior statesman of the side in four years time. It certainly won’t happen if he continues to be burdened with the captaincy.

3. Drop Tendulkar – For all the reasons mentioned above, I think it is time to drop Tendulkar from the team. In terms of immediate form, his is virtually absent – at best, he turns in sporadic performances in unimportant games. And this has indeed been the pattern for well over a year now – I would say the last innings of real substance he played was his double century in Sydney now more than 3 years ago. There are now more than adequate replacements for him in both forms of the game. In ODIs, I think Laxman would be far more adept at playing the role Sachin was assigned in the World Cup, of coming in at 3 or 4 and playing the role of sheet anchor around which the middle order could build. If one is looking for younger legs or better fielders, then that is a role that could equally be played by the deeply committed Mohammad Kaif (in indifferent form himself, but no worse than Sachin’s) or by the impressive young Dinesh Karthik, who is a real long-term prospect. In Test matches, Yuvraj is Sachin’s obvious replacement, and it would be a travesty to keep him out of the 11 just to protect Sachin’s place. (Indeed, Yuvraj should not just be in the 11, he should be leading the 11). The one big series that Sachin missed last year, in the West Indies, was the one series in which we acquitted ourselves best – his absence was absolutely not felt in the Test matches, and Kaif filled in for him admirably. When he played against South Africa, we struggled; when he played earlier in the year against England, he was the weakest link in the middle order. His reflexes have slowed, but more importantly he seems to be to be past his best mentally – the ability to rise to the big occasion just doesn’t seem to exist anymore. For his own sake, I wish he would retire gracefully at this point rather than prolong his agony or force the selectors to take tough (and near impossible) decisions to sack him. But if he doesn’t decide to go, then they must adopt the Australian policy of dealing with everyone on merit; if Sachin really does have the hunger to come back and play more international cricket, let him fight his way back and prove that hunger the way Ganguly and Zaheer have done. But we cannot afford to carry Sachin just on reputation, and I do not think we can afford to have him in the team on this summer’s crucial tour of England given his performances of the last 18 months to two years.

4. Selections – think of balance between youth and experience: One of the knee-jerk reactions that I fear is that the selectors will go the opposite route of the status quo and turn blindly to youth. This is already indicated by Sharad Pawar’s comments. Let us remember that just a couple of months ago in South Africa, the youth oriented policy of Chappell was derided as veterans like Ganguly and Laxman were drafted in; now hopefully it won’t be a blind swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction. The four clear failures in the World Cup were Tendulkar, Harbhajan, Dhoni and Uthappa. Of these, Sachin is past his best, Bhajji has failed for far too long, but Dhoni and Uthappa are enormously talented players who now need to be nurtured and persisted with. Now with the urgency of the World Cup out of the way, I think Irfan Pathan too needs to be benched and sent back to the domestic game to sort himself out over a period of time – I cannot see him performing in England or Australia in this frame of mind. With Sachin, Bhajji and Pathan out of the equation, these are the people I think we should focus on:

i. The veterans: Any good team requires veterans to guide it, and with tough tours of England and Australia in store, experience is going to be vital. As I said, I think Sachin is finished, but Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman and (in Tests) Kumble are still an integral part of the team (Kumble I suspect will announce his retirement from one-days now as he has suggested he will). I can see the first three potentially playing another World Cup if they stay fit and mentally strong. Kumble has always been a calming presence; Ganguly and Dravid have mentored many a youngster in this side; and Laxman has been a quintessential team player; so I see all of them potentially playing important roles in a period of transition. It would be unfortunate if they were blindly dispensed with for the sake of clearing the cupboard.

ii. The current leadership generation: It is now time for those that Ganguly and Wright invested in to lead the team out of the mess they are in and back to being a top team again. Yuvraj and Dhoni, as I’ve said, are my men to do so; but equally crucial are Sehwag and Mohammad Kaif with the bat, and Zaheer and Agarkar with the ball (though it looks like Agarkar has found his niche primarily as a one-day specialist). And of course, Wasim Jaffer for Test matches, who has established himself at the top of the order with his performances in the West Indies and South Africa. There are two others of this generation that I would add to the mix as people to consider. The first is Laxmipaty Balaji, who is without a doubt the best stock bowler in India when fit. For some reason, he has never settled in one-day cricket, but he is an outstanding bowler in the longer version of the game. A seam attack of Zaheer, Sreesanth and Balaji in England, with Munaf backing them up, would be an extremely versatile one, and the sooner he gets back to full fitness the better for us. The second is Hemang Badani, one of the “twenty-first century” one-day cricketers that Wright identified along with Yuvraj and Kaif. Badani has been beset by injuries of late, and cannot be an automatic selection in the side. But his ability to rotate the strike, chip in with a few overs, play the middle to late overs with a calm head, and his brilliant fielding all mean that he needs to be back in the picture. He is still only 28, and potentially has a lot to offer Indian cricket yet.

iii. Those on the fringes – consistent performers: Of those who haven’t established themselves in the Indian side, I would much prefer to take a close look at those who have been on the domestic circuit for a while rather than those who shine on the under-19 stage. As was evidenced with Suresh Raina, the transition from under-19 to international cricket is far too steep; a couple of good years in domestic cricket is a crucial part of the transition phase. The people I would put in this category are: Ramesh Powar, who I think has to be our number 1 one-day spinner, but who I think is a better support bowler to Kumble than Bhajji is in Test matches as well; Subramaniam Badrinath, a technically solid and consistent batsman and brilliant fielder; and Ranadeb Bose, who was simply outstanding in the Ranji trophy this year, has been so for over 4 years now, and definitely deserves consideration at a higher stage. He is a wicket to wicket bowler who will enjoy bowling in English conditions, and is someone I would definitely consider for this summer’s engagements. (One remarkable piece of trivia about him is that he hasn’t bowled a single no-ball in first class cricket, in well over 10,000 deliveries that he has sent down). I would also add Amit Mishra to this list – we do need to groom a successor to Kumble, and the lack of depth in spin bowling in the country once you get beyond Kumble, Bhajji and Powar is frightening. Mishra is a genuine leggie, and a big turner of the ball, in addition to being a useful bat and brilliant fielder; so someone I would at least put back on the fringes of the team. And as the desperate search for all-rounders continues, surely the hard-hitting Joginder Sharma needs to be in the picture, at least as part of the “A” team.

iv. Youngsters – I would be very careful about youngsters, and not fast-track too many people straight from under-19s to the big league. Some of those we have seen of late, such as VRV Singh, Piyush Chawla and of course Suresh Raina, all still seem too raw to me. Sreesanth and Munaf are the two youngsters who have already established themselves in the team, Sreesanth more in Tests and Munaf more in one-dayers, and they need to nurtured and cared for properly. Dinesh Karthik, I think, is the Real McCoy – he will put pressure on Dhoni for the keeper’s spot, but in any case I think is good enough to be part of the picture in both forms of the game. His commitment, temperament and enthusiasm are exemplary, and he is extremely mature for someone just 21. Robin Uthappa hasn’t yet shown that maturity, but he is a terrific talent, and has come off a phenomenal domestic season. We need to look at him carefully. The only other youngster I would add to this list has also come off a phenomenal domestic season, and that is Bengal’s Manoj Tiwary, a batting all-rounder who can bowl leg-spin. Ganguly calls Tiwary “the future of Indian cricket”, and if there is one person I want to see more of soon, it is this young lad. There are others to think about here, especially Karnataka’s Chandrasekhar Raghu, who is a classy middle-order batsman who bowls off-spin and could be someone to look out for over time, but they all need to do more before they come under serious consideration.

My “new look” Indian one-day team:

1. Sourav Ganguly
2. Virendra Sehwag
3. V.V.S. Laxman
4. Yuvraj Singh ©
5. Rahul Dravid
6. Mahendra Dhoni (V) (W)
7. Dinesh Karthik
8. Ramesh Powar
9. Ajit Agarkar
10. Zaheer Khan
11. Munaf Patel

Reserves:

12. Mohammad Kaif
13. Robin Uthappa
14. Manoj Tiwary
15. S. Sreesanth

My “new look” Indian test team:

1. Wasim Jaffer
2. Virendra Sehwag
3. V.V.S. Laxman
4. Rahul Dravid
5. Sourav Ganguly
6. Yuvraj Singh ©
7. Mahendra Dhoni (V) (W)
8. Zaheer Khan
9. Anil Kumble
10. Laxmipaty Balaji
11. S. Sreesanth

Reserves:

12. Mohammad Kaif
13. Dinesh Karthik (W)
14. Munaf Patel
15. Ranadeb Bose
16. Ramesh Powar

India ‘A’

1. Akash Chopra
2. Gautam Gambhir
3. Subramaniam Badrinath
4. Hemang Badani ©
5. Chandrasekhar Raghu
6. Suresh Raina
7. Parthiv Patel (W)
8. Joginder Sharma
9. Amit Mishra
10. VRV Singh
11. R.P. Singh

India - Bangladesh thoughts

It is a little hard to be rational about cricketing events over the last 48 hours, and in the context of Bob Woolmer’s tragic death cricket seems a bit pointless anyway. But here goes anyway:

First of all, if one isn’t a partisan supporter, then one has to admit that Bangladesh’s win was terrific for world cricket. They played a virtually flawless game, but also played with considerable flair. Mashrafe Mortaza bowled with pace and accuracy; he was brilliantly supported by Syed Rasel and the left-arm spinners; the fielding was enthusiastic; and the young batsmen Tamim Islam, Mushfiqur Rahman and Sakin ul-Hasan were all most impressive. This wasn’t a one-off win like the one they affected against Pakistan in 1999, but rather a sign of a consistently improving team that has perhaps finally arrived.

Enough, however, of neutrality, and on now to rage. True, Bangladesh played a perfect game. True, they probably had the better of the pitch conditions (though that was because of Dravid’s flawed decision to bat first). And true, Rahman survived a plumb lbw decision off Sachin when the score was 115, and he and Hasan added another 50 before they were separated, Rahman staying till the end – 115 for 4 would have been a very different story. But such is the gulf of experience between the two teams that it shouldn’t have to hang on excuses such as these. 191 was a pathetic performance in the first place, showing again that when there’s juice in the wicket, this famed batting line-up is just a bunch of paper tigers. Indeed, I would rank this as one of the four or five worst Indian performances I have ever seen – on par with the 1996 semi-final or the 1999 collapse against Zimbabwe in a crucial Super-6 game or the Mumbai madness on the final day of the 3rd Test against England last year. This was astonishingly poor stuff.

Indeed, other than Ganguly and Yuvraj with the bat, and to some extent Zaheer and Munaf with the ball, everyone was culpable. The most culpable of them all, of course, was Sehwag. I can understand the logic of sending him to open to run into some form – I had indeed advocated it. But at some point, the enormous faith that Dravid has put in him needs to be repaid. He let Dravid down at Cape Town; he failed in the two warm-up games; he played a terrible shot here. I can understand players falling to high-risk shots that are on given the ball – a top-edged cut to third man off a short ball outside off, an attempted cross-batted pull to something short outside off, slog-sweeps that top-edge, attempted glory shots over long on or long off that don’t quite make it – but who in his right mind tries to pull a length ball that has pitched on the off-stump from a bowler who’s bowling at 140+ kph when you have only faced 5 balls on a pitch that has juice in it when you know this is a World Cup and your team needs you to run into form as a senior player? It is now almost two years to the day since Sehwag has made a one-day 100; he has been given two warm-up games and the first game here to pull himself into some kind of form; but now it’s the real deal, and enough is enough. His World Cup needs to be over, and he needs a good year in the wilderness to sort himself out with his game and in his head. Let him value the India cap before he wears it again.

If Sehwag was the biggest villain, the others weren’t far behind. This was Robin Uthappa’s chance to establish himself, but instead he fell to a soft shot outside off. Sachin has turned into a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde performer – brilliant one day, terrible the next, and his weakness against even mediocre left arm-spin is turning into a real problem for India. Even the normally reliable Dravid tried playing across the line any number of times instead of playing straight and milking the bowling, and he made any number of questionable captaincy decisions – starting with the toss, but also the way he held Munaf and Zaheer back to the end when we needed wickets badly and they seemed the only ones likely to take any. Dhoni, of course, fell to a tame shot at a crucial stage, though really, he should have been batting at 3 or 4 – he has spent hardly any time in the middle for the last month, and asking him to come in at the death and adjust immediately to the conditions was another piece of poor captaincy from Dravid. Agarkar of course has been janus-faced throughout his career, and this was one of those days when he got up on the wrong side of bed, throwing in the periodic pressure-releasing ball and never looking threatening. Harbhajan too at no point looked likely to get a wicket. Most egregious was the way both Agarkar and Bhajji threw their wickets away. These are two people who know how to bat, they are not genuine tail enders. India had just lost 3 wickets for a run. At this point, playing sensibly and batting through the 50 overs was of prime importance. Zak and Munaf showed that by playing straight and getting into line, even tail enders could survive. Had either of them hung in there, we could have managed another 25 runs – and 215, in my mind, would have been too much for Bangladesh to chase. One can blame the main batsmen for not doing their day job, but nos. 8 and 9 are absolutely important to one-day teams these days – for South Africa, these positions are occupied by Shaun Pollock and Andrew Hall, for instance – and they are needed precisely to rescue teams from situations like this, which even the best batting line-ups land up in once every 5 or 6 games. Their shots were every bit as rotten and culpable as Sehwag’s.

I think there is a case for all 4 people on the bench to get into the team now. Pathan absolutely should have played against Bangladesh anyway – we are going to need his all-round skills as the tournament progresses (if it progresses for us at all); he showed some signs of form and confidence against the West Indies in the warm-up; and if Sehwag can be given endless chances to run into form, I don’t see why Pathan, who’s far more integral to the balance of the team, shouldn’t be similarly encouraged. Crucially, if you consider them head to head, even an out of form Pathan is good for 4 or 5 overs, which is what we can depend on from Sehwag anyway; and Pathan, even during his lean patch, has looked a far better batsman than Sehwag has. If we were playing our 7 best batsmen, Pathan would be one of them and Sehwag wouldn’t. And Kumble I think needs to play ahead of Bhajji. His experience is crucial given the situation we’re in, and frankly, I think his speared flippers could have been match-winning yesterday, given the tendency of the Bangladesh batsmen to play the spinners across the line from in front of the stumps.

Equally, though, Sreesanth and Karthik need to play. I would much rather have Sreesanth in for Agarkar’s lackluster display; meanwhile, Karthik has all the talent of Uthappa, but has shown far greater temperament under pressure. His fielding will also be a crucial aspect. Most importantly, India looked lackluster against Bangladesh, and Sreesanth and Karthik provide a spirit and dynamism that was badly lacking.

It’s still possible to get into the Super-8s with a convincing win against Sri Lanka, though I’m not going to stick my neck out given my record so far. (The only thing I’ve gotten right is England’s defeat, but I guess their defeats are always predictable). The team has to remember going in that they have won 8 of their last 10 encounters against the Lankans. There is no excuse at this point for losing – certainly not pressure. This is the most experienced team in the Cup; a team that has more experience of West Indian conditions than any other touring team having played here last year; a team that has had a professional coaching structure in place for more than 5 years now; and a team that (unlike in 2003, when the World Cup was preceded by that disastrous tour of New Zealand) is actually coming into the tournament backed by some good results. Sri Lanka are a very good team, but for a team that claims so much for itself as this Indian team does, there is no justification for hiding behind that fact. Come next Friday, these guys need to show us what they’re really capable of.

West Indies - Pakistan thoughts

I must say that I was thoroughly disappointed with the way Pakistan played the first game against the West Indies. It is true that they were coming into this tournament undercooked, with a hiding in South Africa and the absence of Akhtar, Asif, Afridi and Razzaq. Still, Pakistan are often at their most dangerous when least is expected of them, and I expected more from them than they provided.

What this means, I think, is that Pakistan is now most dangerous. Given the form of some of the other teams in the tournament, the game against the West Indies was one they needed to win, and making it to the semi-finals from here on will be a tough call. But it would be a brave person who writes them off. Especially once Shahid Afridi becomes available, it could be a different ball game. Afridi’s form has been ordinary, but on small West Indian grounds, his big hitting could become a real factor; not to mention his valuable bowling skills.

The conventional wisdom is that the Pakistanis were outplayed by a West Indian team that really played an outstanding game. Indeed, I have read some reporters say that on the basis of this game, the West Indies have a realistic chance of going all the way. That would have been hyperbole even if the West Indians had played an outstanding game – after all, consistency has been their big question. But they didn’t play an outstanding game, and what should really concern Pakistan is that they lost to a team that was, in fact, quite ordinary. The Pakistani top order played some dreadful shots, but indeed all the West Indian batsmen bar Chanderpaul got out to poor shots. The West Indian bowling was monotonous military medium – only South Africa’s is as one-dimensional, but the quality of the South African bowlers is far superior. And the fielding, while good and probably saving about 15 runs, was nothing like what Pakistan will face against Australia, South Africa or New Zealand.

Pakistan will blame their poor top order performance, but that wasn’t what cost them this game. Rather, it was the following three things:

1. One of Pakistan’s real strengths is their all-round depth. They have 5 genuine all-rounders in their 15 – Malik, Hafeez, Afridi, Mahmood and Arafat. India, with an out of form Pathan as their only all-rounder, would kill for depth like that. Afridi, of course, was unavailable, but what were two priceless all-rounders doing on the bench when Pakistan knew their top order was vulnerable, and needed to compensate with batting depth? At least Azhar Mahmood should have played – a genuinely underrated swing bowler, he would have ideal for these conditions, and would have been worth 30 at no. 8 – how much Shoaib Malik would have enjoyed that sort of company! Naved-ul-Hasan is no no. 8, and playing him ahead of Mahmood was a travesty. (As Kamran Abbasi points out in his blog, if Pakistan really wanted their four best bowlers, then Mohammad Sami should have played ahead of Naved anyway). On a wicket where every other bowler found some purchase, Naved was both toothless and wayward. That Bob Woolmer would play him in such a crucial match is beyond me. (And we criticize Chappell for being quixotic!). Meanwhile, Woolmer goes off and publishes post-match analysis for the media – is that what a coach should be doing in the middle of a tournament? Could you imagine John Wright doing that during India’s 2003 campaign? How utterly unprofessional, and how on earth can the Pakistani board tolerate this? (One of the remarkable things Woolmer said on cricinfo was that his “favorite” team to win this World Cup was South Africa – and you’re coaching who, exactly???).

2. The fielding, while not as terrible as I’ve sometimes seen from Pakistan, was pretty bad, led by Danish Kaneria’s comic ineptness. Even without being electric, the West Indies stole 15 runs over Pakistan in that department alone.

3. The running in between wickets. Yousuf and Inzamam could be credited for their steady partnership, but to me it is remarkable that a 60-run partnership would have not a single 2 or 3 – only singles and boundaries. And there were many on offer. Forget the Australians, even Ganguly and Laxman, had they been batting together, would have converted at least 15 of those singles into easy twos. Sure, Inzy is poor between wickets, but that sort of attitude really costs you in the end.

54 runs might seem a big margin, but really this is all it boils down to – 30 runs because of stupid selection that saw two all-rounders sitting on the bench; 15 runs because of poor fielding (make that differential 50 against Aus, SA or NZ); 15 runs at least because of the long and meandering Inzy-Yousuf partnership. The bad shots were bad, but they didn’t constitute the difference between the two teams. Team selection, fielding, running in between the wickets – wasn’t it to improve just these three things that the Pakistani board is spending tens of thousands of dollars on Bob Woolmer?

Two cents on the games to come. I don’t see how England can beat New Zealand tomorrow given the way the latter has been playing. Meanwhile, India take on Bangladesh on Saturday – should be an easy game, but not one to take lightly, and crucial in terms of getting some key people into form. Some key points in my mind for that game in terms of strategy:

1. We desperately need Sehwag in form, so he must open. Even if he plays down the order in later games, it’s important he gets some face time with the new ball. There are two more games for him to strike form before the big games, so he really needs to spend as much time in the middle as possible.

2. Not too many batsmen got a bat in the warm-up games, and it’s important they do in the next games. Most important of all is Dhoni, whose form holds one of the keys to India’s performance. So I would move him up to 4, behind Sehwag, Ganguly and Sachin.

3. Dravid must bat at 5 – on Saturday, and throughout the tournament. It’s his best position, and he’s the best no. 5 in the world. I really hope he doesn’t move up to no. 3 as he has been wont to do on occasion.

4. Pathan is the other key player who needs two games. He’s the only all-rounder we have, and we need him in a groove. So definitely him at 7, with Yuvraj at 6. That means no place for the youngsters Uthappa and Karthik, but I don’t mind; both at least got some time in the middle against the West Indies, and at this point it’s crucial for the seniors to get into their groove.

5. Finally, I would rest Zaheer and give Sreesanth a game. This might seem risky, but there are a number of reasons to do it. First, because even without Zak, a seam attack of Agarkar, Munaf and Sreesanth (with Pathan backing them up) can be a handful for Bangladesh. Second, because Sreesanth is a rhythm bowler, and we need him to have some match time to get his groove, given how fragile Zak, Agarkar and Munaf are physically and temperamentally. I don’t want Sreesanth coming in cold to a key Super 8 game, having only played in the nets for the preceding 6 weeks. And third, Zaheer is too important to us as the tournament progresses, so I wouldn’t risk him getting injured against the minnows.

So my team would be: Sehwag, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Dhoni, Dravid, Yuvraj, Pathan, Harbhajan, Agarkar, Sreesanth, Munaf