It should have been Chopra

It is hard to write about cricket in the wake of yesterday’s historic US election. Even the final Test of an India-Australia series seems trivial in comparison. But one’s job must be done, so here goes.

The big news going into Nagpur of course is the banning of Gautam Gambhir. I have no problems with the decision. One can complain about bias in terms of how the Aussies get away with their sledging, but that is a different issue as to whether Gambhir should be punished. Albie Sachs’ ruling against the appeal is fair.

But this is a huge blow to us, because Gambhir has been colossal. He has developed into our most dependable batsman in all forms of the game. He has ensured strong starts, which has helped most of all in blunting Brett Lee’s threat. And his ability to tailor the pace of the scoring to the situation has been very helpful. When Sehwag gets going, Gambhir reins himself in; but if Viru gets out early, then Gambhir ensures that the tempo of run scoring is maintained. Even without playing the last Test, he is the leading candidate for man of the series.

This is why I am upset that his replacement has been Murali Vijay rather than Akash Chopra. I have nothing against Vijay. He has been a consistent performer in the domestic circuit, and is in a rich vein of form at the moment. He also is reputed to have a very solid technique, so is certainly one for the long haul. And I am all for people being selected on the basis of domestic performances, rather than rushing in with the latest under-19 sensation, which is what previous selection committees have tended to do. Vijay, in spite of scoring heavily, went largely unnoticed under the Vengsarkar committee, who didn’t even deign to have him in the A team for much of the time. So I certainly wish him well. Other selections this committee has made, especially that of Amit Mishra, have proved inspired, so perhaps Vijay will surprise us all. All selection committees need to operate on some level of gut feeling, so this could yet turn out to be a selection worth applauding.

Still, it should have been Akash Chopra. It is true that Chopra cannot change gears in the effortless manner of Gambhir, though he has become a more free-flowing batsman over the past three years. But then, there is no guarantee that Vijay can either. But everything that holds true for Vijay holds true for Chopra. Chopra too has been in a rich vein of form (top-scoring in domestic cricket last year, so purely on the weight of runs ahead of Vijay), and that form has run into the early part of this year as well (consider his big 100 for Delhi against Pakistan’s SNGP XI). What Chopra brings for sure, and Vijay doesn’t, is experience in Test cricket, including against Australia. In the pressure cauldron of a final Test match, that will count for a lot. The Aussies won’t just go at Vijay with the ball and in the field, but also verbally – and that is a lot for a youngster to deal with, when two days ago he would have been planning his second innings against Maharashtra.

Chopra provides additional qualities as well. He has a close friendship and intuitive understanding with Viru, whereas Vijay is just meeting him for the first time. One of the things that makes the Sehwag - Gambhir partnership so effective is that understanding, which translates, amongst other things, into terrific running between wickets. Chopra too is excellent between wickets, and that really helps put pressure on an opposition first up. Then there is Chopra’s outstanding close fielding – in a deciding Test, one could well have imagined Chopra taking the catch that gave us the series.

One might argue that Vijay is more of a long-term prospect. But that ought to be irrelevant in a series decider against the best team in the world, with a new captain, one retiring stalwart and another recently retired one. At this point more than any other, Chopra’s experience, calm head and temperament would have counted for a lot. And in any case, I think that 31 is not too old – Chopra has at least 4 or 5 years of cricket ahead of him, and needs to be in the mix.

Again, Vijay might come good and prove me wrong, and I would welcome that. In some ways, not having too much time to think about his debut may help him. But at such a crucial juncture, I have to say that I am unimpressed by this selection, which seems based, at best, on intuition rather than logic. At worst, it seems based on nepotism. I know that Tamilnadu players have had a raw deal in the past, and being from Chennai I am not immune to hand-wringing about this. But is it really a coincidence that the minute a Tamilnadu player becomes chief selector, the first really surprising selection is that of a TN cricketer?

Vijay himself is in an unenviable position. In addition to the pressure of the occasion, he knows that if he does well, he will lose his spot to Gambhir anyway. And if he fails, then the consensus will be that it was a purely nepotistic selection. Since a Vijay failure could well cost us the Border-Gavaskar trophy, there is every chance that he will be discarded into the wilderness at that point. So basically, he is in the sort of no-win position that Chris Rogers found himself in for the Perth Test.

I am also, frankly, shocked that Vijay has pushed Badrinath out of the one-day team. Technically, Vijay is more of an accumulator than a one-day player. Also, we hardly need more openers in the one-day side – Viru, Gambhir and Kohli can all do the job, as can Sachin when he plays. And I agree that Badri has not taken the few chances he has got so far.

But really, the selectors need to take a proper decision on how they are going to handle Badri. Keeping him in the wings, and then on tenterhooks, and then dropping him without a fair chance, is extremely unfair on him. A few failures shouldn’t be held against him. Let us remember that both Ken Rutherford and Marvan Attapattu, to name but two, had miserable starts to their Test careers before going on to eventually becoming captains of their national sides. Neither of them will be remembered as a great batsman, but they were both very good ones, and certainly each of them had phases in their careers when they were amongst the most consistent and respected batsmen in world cricket. Even someone like Gautam Gambhir, now such a fixture, said that the change of fortune only happened once he felt that he had solid backing from Dhoni in the T20 and one-day side, and therefore felt like he didn’t have to constantly look over his shoulder to see is his place in the 11 was secure or not. Badri may not be an automatic selection in the one day 11 – fair enough. But he surely should be an unquestioned part of the 15. We now have a host of ODI batsmen that we have brought into the picture – including, in addition to Badri, people like Raina, Rohit, Virat Kohli, Yusuf Pathan, and those like Uthappa and Karthik who have been recently dropped but who have the talent to play for India. We should give these people time to blossom, and more importantly, time to fail, instead of constantly bringing in more and more people to play musical chairs with.

Vijay’s selection for this Test is something that I can hope will turn out to be a stroke of intuitive genius, even though I am apprehensive about it. But Vijay’s selection for the ODI team is just plain wrong. The selectors have made their first major blunder. I for one will, as I said, be happy to be proved wrong. But I will be even happier if Chopra and Badrinath are made central components in this selection committee’s planning, and if they are given the security to play freely and prove their worth.