Indian team for Oz series

Less than a fortnight away from the Test series against Australia, my confident prediction is – we’re screwed. Much was made of the famed failure of the Fab Four in Sri Lanka, and how this heralded the beginning of the end for them, if not the end itself. And yet, with a new selection committee tasked with picking the team for the next series, the question that presents itself is one that should have occurred to all the pundits two months ago viz. who will replace them?

The clarity on that answer is comparable to the clarity in the US Congress on how to resolve the latest financial crisis. Frankly, I don’t think anyone has a clue. It is all very well to high-mindedly talk about phasing out seniors and succession plans and so on. But in order to have a succession plan in place, you have to have successors. It is not entirely clear who the next generation of Indian middle-order batsmen will be.

On the face of it, the answer seems obvious – replace Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly with, eventually, Badrinath, Rohit Sharma, Kaif / Yuvraj and Raina. But there are questions about Yuvraj’s Test ability, and at the moment his form is so poor that even his one-day spot cannot be taken for granted. Kaif has been treated badly in the past, but his ability against the short ball, not to mention Raina’s, is every bit as questionable as Ganguly’s (except that Ganguly isn’t afraid to counterattack even when he’s technically out of his depth). Rohit looks like he could be a Test batsman yet, but at this point it’s all appearance. Even in one-dayers, he makes pretty 40s and 50s before throwing it away, and on the little evidence we have from his one full season for Mumbai, he just hasn’t developed the temperament to play long innings in the longer form of the game. This really leaves Badri as the only person from the next generation who is, in my mind, ready for an India Test cap right away.

I have two problems with the way this transition has been conceptualized so far. The first is when it has been done. The second is how it has been done.

First, when. Sure, we failed in Sri Lanka. But this “long-term” ideal of building for the future – what exactly are we building for? The biggest Test match event in world cricket for us is a series against Australia. For such a series, shouldn’t we be playing our best team, instead of looking to the long haul? In many ways, a Test series against the Aussies is an even bigger deal than the World Cup. After all, in the last three editions of the latter, the gulf between the Aussies and the no. 2 team has been huge. So even if there is a case for phasing out the seniors, it should have started after the Australia series, against England.

Second, how. I have read things about how the dropping of Ganguly is a courageous move, the sort of thing the Aussies would have done, etc. Really? A courageous move would have been to drop the weakest link of the Fab Four, not to drop the person who is the easiest to make a scapegoat of. Over the past two years, Ganguly has made more runs than any of the other three. His average during this time has been comparable to that of Sachin and Laxman, and a good 12 runs per innings higher than Dravid’s. It has also been 4 runs an innings higher than his career average (unlike Sachin’s, which is nearly 8 runs below his career average), suggesting that Ganguly has been playing some of his best cricket in recent times. And the innings that he has played have come at crucial times, such as his match-winning knock in Kanpur that allowed us to level the South Africa series. His gentle medium pacers have been crucial, especially in Indian conditions, given that we tend to go in with just 4 bowlers and are often tempted to play two spinners amongst them. If anyone had to go, then Ganguly should have been the last person to be axed.

If what we were talking about is fairness and courage, then by rights, Dravid’s and Sachin’s positions ought to be far more vulnerable than Ganguly’s. Dravid’s average of 33 over the past two years is paltry for a no. 3, and he has often gotten bogged down and surrendered the initiative to the opposition.

Sachin’s case is trickier. On the one hand, he was awesome in Australia, and a career average of nearly 70 against the Aussies is not something to scoff at. On the other hand, his innings have remained ones that have not been match-defining, the way Laxman’s and Ganguly’s (and in the more distant past, Dravid’s) have been. Whether we need to save a game or win it, Sachin has been missing in action more often than not. A career second innings average that hovers near the 20 mark is a disgrace. It doesn’t just put him a notch below the greats – it puts him along with the mediocre. And of course, he was as big a failure in Sri Lanka as Ganguly was, so if immediate form is the consideration, there is absolutely no justification for keeping Sachin in and Ganguly out.

My biggest concern with Sachin however is not statistics, but the fact that he is returning from injury. In principle, I would be absolutely happy to have him in the 11 to play the Aussies if I knew he was match-fit. But the best players in the world have to prove themselves in domestic cricket if they are returning from injury. Sachin’s body has clearly slowed, and two years ago it was clear that his returns from injury have become slow, painful and protracted affairs. To just throw him into the playing 11 straight away because he has been declared fit, without even an Irani game to back him up, is going to be utter disaster. The last time this happened, in 2006, Sachin was like a zombie, and it took months of competitive cricket for him to run back into form. If we wanted to really talk courage, really act like Aussies, then we would have the courage to bench Sachin until he had proved his fitness.

This is why the dropping of Ganguly is so inexplicable. Alright, if you think his days are numbered in Tests, then tell him so, make it clear, don’t select him for the Tests. But what earthly justification was there for dropping him from the Irani Trophy? Shouldn’t everyone be given a fair chance to fail? Especially someone who has performed years of yeoman service like Ganguly, and who at the end of the day has probably contributed more to this Indian team becoming world-beaters than Sachin has? This act was particularly egregious given that it was the Vengsarkar committee’s last act. Effectively, they have made it virtually impossible for the new committee to pick Ganguly for the entire series. The Ranji Trophy doesn’t start till November 10, and Bengal this year plays in the Plate League; so even if Ganguly makes runs there, it will be against third-rate opposition, and too late for the Aussies. What was the committee so afraid of? That Ganguly would succeed? Wouldn’t Ganguly’s success have been a good thing? It should have been so simple – if Ganguly had failed in the Irani, the new selection committee could have decided, in all fairness, what do to with him. If he had succeeded, then one of our best and most competitive batsmen would have been in the frame to meet the Aussies. As it happens, Vengsarkar’s final act as selector has turned out to one of unspeakable hubris, which completely fails to serve the interests of Indian cricket.

So now, look at the situation we are faced with. A Test on October 9 in Bangalore, which is notoriously one of the worst grounds for Indian fortunes anywhere in the world. Badri is the one newcomer good enough to be drafted in. That means Dravid must play regardless of form, on a ground where his own performance has been terrible. (His Test average in Bangalore is 20.54, against a career average of nearly 54). If Sachin plays as well, then that means we will have a debutant, an out-of-form number 3 on his worst ground, and an out-of-form number 4 coming back from injury with absolutely no match practice up against the Aussies. Given that Dhoni is yet to translate his one-day batting abilities to Tests, this effectively leaves our openers and Laxman shouldering the batting. And a four-man bowling attack tasked with getting 20 wickets.

Did I say we’re screwed?

The team that follows, then, is the team that I think should be selected against the Aussies. It is not the team that will be selected. I don’t think any selection committee has the courage to drop Sachin, and I think this selection committee, because of what it has been bequeathed, will struggle to pick Ganguly. But the latter does remain a possibility. After all, one of the new selectors, Yashpal Sharma, was one of Sourav’s staunchest supporters in the Greg Chappell debacle. Perhaps Raja Venkat will stick to zonal considerations and push him as the East Zone selector. And perhaps one of the other three will recognize that nothing they have seen in the Irani Trophy suggests that any of Sourav’s replacements will handle the Aussies any better; that making 40 or 50 in one-day games is not qualification enough to throw Raina or Rohit into the Test cauldron either; and that therefore, for this series at least, there is no alternative but to go back to Sourav.

So, here goes:

There is little doubt that Sehwag and Gambhir open. And for me, there is little doubt that Laxman and Ganguly have to be in the middle order, at 4 and 5. I think Badri has done enough to earn a call-up, so I will have him make his debut at 6. Dhoni keeps wickets at 7. Zaheer and Ishant lead the attack, while Kumble and Bhajji provide the spin bowling options.

All that leaves is the number 3 spot. And looking beyond Dravid, as I have suggested earlier, none of the younger aspirants really captures my imagination. However, I think there is one other contender. And that is Akash Chopra.

Think about it. Chopra is technically the soundest batsman in India after Dravid. He is still only 31 – considered “old” in India, but really the sort of age at which most batsmen are at their peak. He has experience playing Australia. He is in stellar form – top scorer in first class cricket last year with three double hundreds; and fresh from making 180-odd against a pretty useful Pakistani attack in the game against SNGP XI last week. He looked like one of the most comfortable batsmen in the Irani game, and has added a range of shots to what used to be a one-dimensional defensive game. He is also the best close-in fielder in Indian cricket, and that is an area of some concern. So Chopra is capable of picking up catches that could turn matches. And he is brilliant between the wickets, having a terrific understanding with his two Delhi mates who will be at the top of the order.

Whether Dravid plays at 3 or Chopra would be a close call. Given Dravid’s history at Bangalore, there could be a strong case for giving Chopra a go. On the other hand, Dravid did make 60 in his last Test innings, and 60 in the Irani Trophy, so he is showing some semblance of form. My own sentimental admiration for Dravid would probably push me to give him a chance first; though Chopra at 3 would be the more courageous decision. Either way, Chopra needs to be back in the picture for this series.

And Sachin? Why not have him on the substitutes’ bench? There is no other cricket being played anyway. If the likes of Anil Kumble and Ganguly could sit on the bench in years gone by, why can’t Sachin now? Let him travel with the team, and provide sage advice. Let him get fit in the nets, and come onto the field as substitute to get some match time. And if Dravid or Ganguly or Badri are found wanting, then let him be in the picture for the latter half of the series if he’s shaping up well in the nets. But for him to say on September 21 that he is not fit enough to play Irani, and on September 28 that he is fit enough to play Australia a week later, is like John McCain saying on September 15 that the US economy is strong, and then say on September 24 that it is in such crisis that he has to suspend his presidential campaign. If India really is to match Australia, then Sachin has to be treated like a normal human being.

That only leaves a couple of other reserve spots. R.P. Singh is an obvious choice as back-up third seamer. And Munaf Patel, who has done well of late, might be the other back-up. Personally, though, I still have my doubts about Munaf as a Test bowler. As he showed in the Irani, he can be brilliant in one innings and utterly ordinary the next. And his bad behavior towards the likes of Sehwag and Chopra shows him in poor light. I would frankly stick my neck out and pull Praveen Kumar into Test consideration instead. There is a belief that PK is too slow to be a Test bowler, but that is one of those pre-conceived notions that sticks and has no basis in fact. (Sort of like people still saying Dravid is not a one-day batsman, even though he has been one of the most successful one-day batsmen in the world this decade). I watch the speed-gun when PK bowls in one-dayers, and he consistently bowls 132-135 kph – which, by the way, is exactly the speed at which Munaf or Zaheer Khan bowl most of the time. What I like about PK is his commitment, his consistency, and his fitness – he has after all taken 90+ wickets in the last two seasons of first class cricket, so has actually proven himself in the four-day format in a way that someone like Rohit Sharma never has.

My 16th spot would go to a reserve spinner, and I think that has to be Piyush Chawla. It is time to seriously start grooming Kumble’s successor, and while still a little raw, I think PC is the man. He is certainly a far superior bowler to Pragyan Ojha. Hopefully now that Venkatapathy Raju is no longer selector, that particular nepotistic selection will be reversed.

Hence, my team for the Aussie series:

Virendra Sehwag
Gautam Gambhir
Rahul Dravid (or Akash Chopra)
V.V.S. Laxman
Sourav Ganguly
Subramaniam Badrinath
Mahendra Dhoni (V) (W)
Anil Kumble ©
Harbhajan Singh
Zaheer Khan
Ishant Sharma

Reserves:

Akash Chopra (or Rahul Dravid)
Sachin Tendulkar
R.P. Singh
Praveen Kumar
Piyush Chawla

May never happen in a month of Sundays, but here’s to hoping. And then perhaps we won’t quite be screwed.

(A p.s. – I have to grudgingly eat my many words from previous months about Harbhajan Singh. I still have doubts about his temperament and his ability to win matches abroad. But he has come back strongly after the Sreesanth Slap, and bowled well in Sri Lanka, so kudos to him. Hopefully, regardless of how well he bowls, he will add value to the side in this series by getting under Ponting’s skin. That alone would be worth the price of admission).