Skip to main content

The trouble with India

So far this India-England series or 'the battle for #1' as most people (myself included) had billed it hasn't quite been the Hitchcockian thriller that it was expected to be. And though a lot has been said and written about it, the primary reason in my opinion is that England have been fitter, hungrier and more disciplined (with both bat and ball). Form is something that most sportspersons cannot really control but fitness and strength is something they can and as Sanjay Manjrekar points out in this incisive article, hiding behind injuries is not something a team aspiring to be the world's best should do. Given his fitness record and athleticism levels, this piece from Ganguly is a bit rich, but the point he makes is nevertheless a pertinent one. In my opinion, fitness (or the lack of it) is a broader cultural phenomenon and until there is a distinct change there, its hard to see how any Indian team could consistently be the best in the world.

Of more immediate concern I think is that even in terms of basic cricketing talent there don't seem to be enough players who have shown the ability to fill in the slots that will (soon) be vacated by Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Zaheer, and Harbhajan. Leaving aside Sehwag and Gambhir (who will hopefully be around at least for the next 4-5 years), none of the batsmen who have played since 2006 have been able to cement a position in the first XI. Kaif and Jaffer were dropped for reasons unknown and are now on the wrong side of 30, Yuvraj continues to blow his chances and the younger lot (Vijay, Pujara, Badrinath, Raina, Mukund, Karthik, Kohli) have struggled so far. The stats on the bowling front are not much rosier and you would have to say that purely in bowling terms, India would rate well below both England and South Africa, particularly the former. Ishant and Sreesanth can still be world beaters but they are young and need support. To me, the most worrying aspect of the bowling stocks is that no challenger for Harbhajan has emerged and for a country that used to open the bowling with spinners at times, we struggle to find one or two Test class bowlers. Given this, Ian Chappell is spot on in his assessment that its actually huge credit to Dhoni's management of resources that India held on to the #1 ranking for so long and the fact that they are on the verge of losing it should not really be a surprise. This series has given the team a glimpse into the future and hopefully (if Test cricket remains a priority once the #1 ranking goes), there will be some lessons learnt. The next 18 months will be fascinating viewing for how the team handles the transition.

In the meantime, Salil Tripathi has written the most sensible article I have read in a while on the series and the average Indian cricket fan's perspective (or the lack of it :-)) To paraphrase Docomo's annoying tagline (mouthed even more annoyingly by Ranbir Kapoor), "its just a game, silly".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Et tu?

As a single sport website, I think Cricinfo has brought about a revolution and the fact that they were bought by ESPN is testament to how highly valued they've become. Their editing and approach to articles/opinion has been refreshing to say the least and even though they seem to have had a lot of editorial staff movement they've usually maintained very high standards. Off late though, both in their headline styles as well as in actual content, there seems to be an occasional slippage of standards and an inching towards the modern media sensationalism which is a bit of a pity. This piece  by Siddharth Monga is a classic example. Granted that the last two press conferences by Dhoni and Sehwag  indicated clearly that the captain and his deputy did not agree on this aspect of selection but "discord", "dissent", "public sniping" feels rather presumptuous and heavy handed. Yes, it is a team sport but there is no reason why everyone on the team needs ...

First thoughts on the Ashes

The only minor surprise for me in the 2013 Australian Ashes squad announced last week was the selection of James Faulkner ahead of Moises Henriques as the second all-rounder. Minor because given  the Shane Watson shenanigans of recent times, I would have thought that Inverarity and co would have opted for a second batting all-rounder (which is what Henriques clearly is). Instead they've gone with a bowling all-rounder in Faulkner and it'll be interesting to see what happens if Watson's batting woes in Test match cricket continue in the first two Tests. As for the rest of the squad, given the way the inexperienced batting performed in India, Rogers and Haddin were always going to make it in to the team and the choice of Khawaja over Smith appears sound too given that the latter's strength is in playing spin bowling. The batting still looks as unsettled and shaky as the Indian fast bowling line-up and its here that the series will be won or lost for the Aussies. The retu...

Quick singles: Why the double standards?

I'm no fan of David Warner's but for once, I'm firmly and squarely on his side . Sportspersons are probably treated the most unfairly by public opinion (and often the media) whenever they are involved in pay disputes. "Oh, look these millionaires are complaining about not getting paid enough" seems to be the gist of the general reactions. I find this attitude inexplicable at best and grossly hypocritical if I'm feeling less charitable. Like the rest of us, all athletes have the right to fight for what they think they should be paid. That is the fundamental part. In addition (and unlike many of the rest of us), most sportspersons operate in the knowledge that they only have a short period available as a performer, and therefore only a short period to maximise earnings. Most people that I know would behave exactly the same as Warner and his colleagues are doing. So why all the hue and cry?