Two dubious selections

John Wright mentioned in his book about coaching India that one of the major problems with India’s selection practices is that while most people in the team select themselves, the last one or two spots often end up being selected on dubious grounds – whether it is the personal favorite of a selector, or on a zonal basis, or whatever. This observation has yet again been proven true in the Indian team selections for the ODIs in Sri Lanka and the Champions Trophy. The two selections that I am taking issue with are those of Pragyan Ojha over Piyush Chawla, and Virat Kohli over Subramaniam Badrinath. Neither of these are major selections – there is a good chance that neither Ojha nor Kohli will get much game-time in the two series, which is why these selections also fly under the radar screen of the media. And I have nothing against Ojha and Kohli themselves – the former has been a consistent domestic performer, while the latter has showcased his talent at the under-19 level. It is what these selections signify in the larger scheme of things that worries me. Of course, that assumes that the selectors have a larger scheme of things in mind, which I doubt very much.

Ojha v Chawla

My problem is not with the selection of Ojha per se, but about the way in which we have gone about mishandling our spin bowling resources. The reality of the situation is as follows: the one indisputably world class spinner we have is Anil Kumble. He has already retired from one-dayers, and probably has a year or two of Test cricket left in him at best. Beyond him, the cupboard is remarkably bare. Harbhajan Singh will fill his shoes, but over the past decade he has disappointed more often than not. He manages to keep things quiet in one-dayers, and very occasionally turns in a strong Test performance. But having him lead the Test spin attack, while probably the best option we have, will be an impoverishment once Kumble retires. Indeed, I would rate Bhajji below a number of spinners in world cricket. He is certainly far inferior to Panesar, Vettori and the two Sri Lankans; and probably on par with Danish Kaneria, another underperformer who is capable of much more than he has delivered.

While young Indian seamers are coming through the ranks at the rate of knots, the same is not the case with our spinners. Nonetheless, there are four spinners who are good enough to play international cricket, and who have proved this, all of whom are better bets in my mind than Ojha, for both forms of the game. But consider the way our selectors have dealt with them over the past year.

First, it was Ramesh Powar and Piyush Chawla who were paired together in the one-dayers in England last year. Powar had come off a fine couple of seasons in the Ranji Trophy; Chawla had been identified as a long-term prospect and was being groomed. Both were spectacular successes. Indeed, it could be argued that they were virtually the only silver linings in an otherwise disappointing one-day series. (The only other bright spots were Dravid’s brilliant 60-ball 90 in Bristol, and Uthappa’s match-winning 47 at Edgbaston. Dravid was promptly dropped from the one-day scheme of things after this series, while Uthappa has done literally nothing of note since then). Powar, quite simply, was beautiful. His bowling harkened back to earlier days and the likes of Prasanna – classical loop and flight, the ability to hold the ball in the air, tempting the batsmen into big shots and indiscretions. England never really figured him out, and even if he didn’t get wickets he was very difficult to take for runs. Chawla, meanwhile, impressed, not just with his bowling (googly looked potent, the leg-break still needed work but had potential), but even more with his temperament. Hence, both were dropped, and Vengsarkar further said that Powar was dropped because he needed to “become a better bowler” (whatever that meant). So much for constructive criticism. This was clearly a huge blow to Powar’s confidence, and since then his bowling even for Mumbai has been ordinary. In one fell swoop, the selectors managed to destroy the confidence of the only off-spinner who can realistically give Bhajji a run for his money in India (and in my mind, he is a better off-spinner than Bhajji is).

Instead, Bhajji and Murali Kartik were brought in against the Aussies. The former was steady, while the latter was simply outstanding, bowling India to victory in the Mumbai ODI. The last time he had bowled India to victory was also in Mumbai, also against Australia, but in a Test, in 2004, also in a series that had otherwise been dominated by Australia. That last time, Kartik was rewarded with the axe, so the selectors, desiring consistency, axed him again. Clearly doing well against Australia, if you are Murali Kartik, is the surest ticket to being dropped. So now Kartik is again plying his trade in county cricket, where he is one of the most successful bowlers. He is without a doubt the best left-arm spinner in the country, and in my mind has the ability of a Panesar or a Vettori, though he never got the run to prove it. One could argue that he was unlucky to be bowling along with Kumble and Bhajji; but now with Kumble out of one-day cricket, shouldn’t the years of investment, of keeping him in the wings, now finally be realized by at least giving him a one-day spot?

One could argue that Powar has lost form; one could argue that Kartik has contended of late with his share of injuries (though at the moment he is fit). But neither argument can be made of Chawla, who was recalled at Kartik’s expense for the CB Series in Australia, and bowled beautifully there, in the lion’s den. He followed that up with a stellar performance in the IPL, proving to be Yuvraj Singh’s go-to man whenever a wicket was needed and invariably delivering. What was noticeable about Chawla now was his willingness to toss the ball in the air and buy his wickets, rather than simply contain, which tends to be Bhajji’s preferred option. His gutsy lower order batting and enthusiastic fielding also marked Chawla as someone to look out for as Kumble’s likely successor in Tests.

In addition to these three has been the quietly brilliant Amit Mishra. He was considered a Test prospect five years ago. He didn’t quite make the cut then, but has since then been one of the best performers on the domestic scene. Unlike Chawla, he is a big spinner of the ball, more in the Shane Warne mold than the Anil Kumble mold – so that one could even imagine a situation where Kumble and Mishra bowl in tandem and yet provide something different from each other. He was the most successful spinner in domestic cricket last year; had the touring South Africa A side in all sorts of knots; and was every bit as impressive as Chawla in the IPL, again as a wicket-taking bowler who wasn’t afraid to toss the ball up and spin it big. He drew accolades not just from his captain Sehwag, but also from the likes of Warne and McGrath, and certainly would be a worthy competitor to Chawla as Kumble’s successor.

All of these bowlers have achieved more and promise more than Ojha does. None of them, though, plays for the same state as selector Venkatapathy Raju did, and that’s the only reason I can imagine for Ojha leapfrogging over all the others. One can understand the selectors taking a judgment call between two untried spinners and picking Ojha over Mishra; one can’t understand how spinners who succeed are constantly dropped; how Bhajji is persisted with regardless of performance; and how Ojha suddenly comes into the fray to replace Chawla, who has absolutely no failures to justify his axing. Therefore, the selection of Ojha does not just speak to one individual decision, but speaks to a continuing pattern of arbitrariness when it has come to dealing with Indian spinners. This pattern has not just played out over the past year, but the past decade – Sunil Joshi and Sarandeep Singh are just two examples of quality spinners who were picked and discarded at will, two promising careers nipped in the bud without providing all they had to offer. Given the paucity of spin bowling talent in the country, such games are fraught with long-term danger.

Kohli v Badri

I have said enough in favor of Subramaniam Badrinath on this blog, so there is no point reiterating at great length the virtues of his technique, temperament, consistency, adaptability and brilliant fielding, or to remind readers of his stellar performances against South Africa A and recently in Australia. What I want to argue is that the selection of Virat Kohli suggests a deeper malaise. And that is that blazing under-19 performances are valued far more than substantial performances year after year on the domestic circuit, even though it has been proven time and again that people coming straight through the under-19 ranks quite often take a long time to adjust to the rigors of international cricket, if they do at all.

Other than Tendulkar, most promotions from under-19 to the big league have been moderate successes at best. The most successful other example really is Yuvraj Singh. But it took him years to achieve a consistency commensurate with his talent. He blazed onto the scene then dithered for a couple of years; had a good World Cup in 2003, then spent a couple more years struggling to get his one day average to 30. It was really only in 2005-06, a good six years after his debut, that he really found his feet as one of the most dangerous shorter-over players in world cricket, though since then there have been troughs again. And in all these years, it is not clear that he will ever be a good Test batsman. That is not because he doesn’t have the ability – but since being pitch-forked into the national side straight from under-19, he has hardly had the opportunity to play any 4- or 5-day cricket. He has constantly been the passenger on Indian Test tours, gets into the side by virtue of injury or because of one-day form, plays the occasional blazing innings, and sooner or later is found wanting.

And this is the success story. Of the two under-19s who entered the national scene with him, Mohammad Kaif has petered out after years of being persisted with; he may yet make a comeback, but now has any number of young guns to compete with. And Reetinder Singh Sodhi has disappeared without a trace into the recesses of the ICL after years of increasing mediocrity. Since then, Ajay Ratra was pulled out of under-19 and went nowhere. Parthiv Patel and Dinesh Karthik came out of under-19, but failed the first time around, and needed four and two years respectively of domestic cricket before they came back looking better players. Likewise Suresh Raina, who with all the talent in the world really has looked a complete batsman only after a couple of good years doing the hard yards for UP. Robin Uthappa has done little of note except for a couple of innings here and there; and Manoj Tiwary, another post-under-19 pick, looked completely at sea against Brett Lee in Australia and again in the IPL. Bowlers have done a little better transitioning straight from the under-19 ranks, with the likes of Ishant Sharma and Piyush Chawla promising much; and Rohit Sharma could be the exception to the long list of batting disappointments above (though he too struggled in the four-day game for Mumbai last season, which makes me think that if he actually did play a Test match for India now without some more domestic cricket behind him he will be found wanting). But a decade or more of experience has shown that batsmen coming straight into international cricket from the under-19 ranks are either found wanting or fail to fulfill their potential, and only manage to do so after a couple of years playing four-day cricket. Yet here is another under-19 lad being brought straight into the team, while the best 4-day cricketer in the country, Badri, continues to languish. Australia invariably selects batsmen who have matured in domestic cricket, so that when they get into the national side they already have the mental make-up to play Test cricket. In India, in spite of a relatively robust domestic structure, we consistently fail to learn this lesson.

Look even at the current Test line-up. If we consider our top 7 batsmen (with Dhoni as the wicket-keeper), then we find that, bar Tendulkar, all of them have come through the domestic ranks rather than the under-19 ranks. Sehwag was making runs for Delhi for two or three seasons before he played for India; Gambhir was like Badri, piling on the runs year after year, scoring for A teams all over the world, before he got a look in; Dravid, like Viru, got into the side on the backs of strong Ranji performances; Laxman was a titan on the domestic scene before he got a chance to play consistently for India. Only Ganguly was first selected in the one-day team when he was 18, and he was a complete flop. He then went back to domestic cricket for four years, and it was only then that he blazed onto the Test scene with that century on debut. Dhoni too was not part of the under-19 bandwagon, but was rather making runs for Jharkhand, and then made an impression on an A tour to Kenya and Zimbabwe in 2004.

So – we have seen over and over and over again that not only do players from the under-19 ranks fail to make it big in Tests without domestic experience, but that those with domestic experience and success are often well equipped to succeed at the highest level. And yet, Kohli ahead of Badri? After Uthappa ahead of Badri? Then Raina ahead of Badri? Then Tiwary ahead of Badri? What does Badri have to do to get into the team, stand on his head while batting? Bat with one arm tied behind his back? Bat without pads?

The bigger problem though is that selectors seem to think of Tendulkar as the model when they select a new batsman. The fact is, Tendulkar is inimitable. And this speaks not just to a problem with this selection committee, but with the Indian cricketing mindset, which values the possibility of superstardom over the proven fact of tried and true ability. Sure, Badri is no Tendulkar. But Michael Hussey is no Don Bradman, which hasn’t stopped him from being a Bradmanesque contributor to the Aussie line-up on finally getting his chance. And of course, the likes of Uthappa, Tiwary and Kohli are not even Badri.

One reason given for Kohli’s selection is that he was the second-highest scorer for India in the Emerging Players tournament in Australia. Setting aside the fact that much of that was on the basis of one innings of 120, this begs the question – why not then select the highest scorer for India in the Emerging Players tournament? That man happened to be Shikhar Dhawan, another remarkably organized prospect. He was a huge success in the same under-19 World Cup where Uthappa made his mark (if I recall correctly, Dhawan was the highest run-getter in that tournament). Since then, he has been a prolific scorer for Delhi. He is technically far more correct than either Uthappa or Kohli, and indeed looks like someone who has the technique to be a Test opener for India, not just a one-day player. But he showed his immense ability in the shorter version of the game as well in the IPL, where his intelligence in anchoring the Delhi batting was a crucial component of his team’s success. He is only 22, so even by the standards of Indian selectors, still a youngster. If he had been selected ahead of Badri, I would have had no qualms – I think he is someone who deserves to be in the selectors’ scheme of things. But Kohli?

These selections don’t get much press because these aren’t big names. The press invariably goes along with it, then does a token interview and profile of the newly selected player. But as John Wright pointed out, it’s these last selections around the edges that really make the difference between a team that always plays to potential and one that falls short. The importance of these selections is heightened by the fact that the big 4 and Kumble are all likely to exit the international scene fairly soon and fairly close to each other; the signs that their powers might be on the wane are already possibly being seen in Sri Lanka. At that point, the void will be huge, and a succession plan needs to be in place. It’s not clear that those who have been groomed for all these years, Yuvraj and Kaif, are good enough to fill those boots. And it is absolutely not clear that those who have been looked at over the past year – Rohit, Raina, Tiwary and now Kohli – have what it takes to succeed in Test cricket. (Indeed, of the four, only Rohit seems undoubtedly to have the technique for Tests, but hasn’t yet shown the temperament or patience to build long innings). Given this, the importance of nurturing the likes of Badri and Dhawan (the latter capable of batting at 3, even if Gambhir and Sehwag retain the openers’ slots) cannot be overstated. Similarly, the importance of consistently grooming a successor or two to Kumble cannot be overstated.

On both counts, the selectors’ recent decisions are misguided – and the consequences of their failures now could come to haunt us in a huge way in two years’ time. Come back and read this blog post then, and I will say I told you so.