Defeat is an orphan indeed

Disclaimer: I'm an unabashed fan of Mahendra Singh Dhoni as a player and captain (see here, here and here) and believe he's still the best choice as leader for the Indian team everywhere.

New Zealand's astonishing turnaround in the Wellington Test match has (not unsurprisingly) led to a renewed call from Sidharth Monga on ESPNcricinfo for a change in the leadership of the Indian team, ie Dhoni's removal as Test skipper. While I have to admit that Monga has been consistent in his views on this for sometime now and the fact that Dhoni's defensive attitude is what costs India opportunities, it would be better if he strove a little harder to present facts fully and not selectively. I don't usually see the point in picking apart opinion pieces but given his latest tirade had so many factual holes and selective interpretations, I feel compelled to do so.

• "India will have gone 14 Tests and three years without an overseas Test win. Only Zimbabwe have a poorer record over the same period." First off, its not three years, given the team's last overseas win came in June 2011 but that's a minor/pedantic point. More importantly, 12 of India's 14 away games since then, ie 12 of these 14 Tests have been in England, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. When Monga makes the point about only Zimbabwe's record being poorer, he conveniently forgets to mention that the only teams that have won away games in the four countries above (since July 2011) are: South Africa (who've won everywhere), Australia, and Sri Lanka (who've won in South Africa). That's it. England, Pakistan, New Zealand, and the West Indies have not won any away games in these countries since mid-2011. Of course, if India were to win against Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe or Bangladesh away or against Pakistan in the UAE, that would be put down to the pitches there and not Dhoni and his team's performance. Different strokes for different folks?
• "At Lord's, England went into lunch on day four at 72 for 5, effectively 260 for 5. Ishant Sharma had just bowled a spell of 5-3-4-3, which included two great deliveries to get Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell out. The ball was only 31 overs old. Forty minutes later, MS Dhoni began the middle session with Suresh Raina and Harbhajan Singh. Yes, India had lost Zaheer Khan, but what was the harm in going down slinging if you were going down anyway?" I was at the ground for this match and while it was really strange to see Raina start the bowling after lunch that day, if the gamble had paid off and he'd claimed Morgan or Prior in an over or two, Dhoni would have been labelled a genius. Also, India ended up scoring 261 in their final innings, so if I had to apply Monga-esque logic to this (ie in hindsight), they would have basically had to take the remaining five English wickets for zero to win the match.
• "At Trent Bridge, India had England down at 124 for 8, but fearing an apocalyptical counterattack from Stuart Broad and Tim Bresnan, India went on the defensive again, losing all the momentum. In the second innings they refused to take a bona fide run-out, a last moment of inspiration that could have galvanised them." Again, no attempt to even establish the facts right, it was Broad and Swann (not Bresnan) who were batting at 124 for 8, but lets be charitable and set that aside as a typographical error. Broad has counter-attacked quite brilliantly in just the previous game so maybe Dhoni's worries were not as misplaced? Moreover, where India really lost momentum was with the bat when they went from 267-4 to 288 all out in less than six overs for a lead of just 67 instead of around 150. From there it was a matter of time. As for the run out, it was not a refusal but a reversal. Sambit Bal had lauded Dhoni then for showing grace so it seems a bit churlish for the same publication to use that as evidence for poor captaincy.
• "At MCG, you have Australia down at 214 for 6 on day one, a real opportunity in front of you, and Brad Haddin has just arrived, but you bowl to him with a long-on, a deep midwicket and a deep fine leg." This one's more a matter of opinion, but Haddin's game is based on counter-attacking (as a better bowling side in England discovered recently in the Ashes), and as such he scored only 27 (off 70 balls) so Dhoni actually succeeded partially. Where India lost momentum and a real opportunity again (like at Trent Bridge), was with the bat. When none of Tendulkar, Dravid, or Sehwag manage to convert 65+ scores into hundreds, and you go from 214 for 2 to 282 all out, its hardly the skipper's fault.
• "In Johannesburg, Dhoni had a set of three fast bowlers who maintained the intensity, and he broke away from type, but something about the closeness of the match told you this was the last time in a long time that he would be risking it all." What about two games later when facing a deficit of 300+, he attacked relentlessly when he saw his fast bowlers replicating that intensity in Auckland? Or was that not a risk because India were so far behind?
• "Sure enough, in the second Test he refused to take the new ball until he was forced to do so after 146 overs, preferring to sit and wait than to take wickets to slow runs down, a tactic that drew criticism from Rahul Dravid, a man who rarely criticises." Totally random remark about Dravid. Yes, he doesn't lace his remarks with sarcasm the way a Gavaskar or a Ganguly do but he never hesitates to call a spade a spade. Also (you sense a theme here), the reason India lost is not that they didn't take the new ball when it was due but that they couldn't bat more than 50 overs on the final day with eight wickets in hand. When your strong suit fails this often, why blame defensive bowling?
• "This is not to take away from McCullum's effort, but Dhoni underestimated him, in that he tried to block his release shots, expecting a poor shot around the corner." But that is exactly what you are doing here Mr. Monga. McCullum was dropped early (again not Dhoni's fault), and then played the innings of his life. Give some credit where it is due. McCullum has improved hugely as a Test match batsman in the last two years averaging almost 6 runs more per innings than before (and over 76 in NZ) and he's played extraordinarily well on a flat pitch. And yes, he's no Laxman but neither do India have a McGrath or Warne in their attack.
• "When Rohit Sharma bowled, he had a slip stationed where you would for fast bowlers. Sunil Gavaskar was so baffled he said, "This one takes the cake. No, this one takes the whole bakery." Selective hearing again. Gavaskar was not complaining about the fact that Dhoni had a slip for Rohit Sharma but that the position was a strange one, almost like a fly slip. But in this case Dhoni was trying something different. You cannot accuse a man of being inflexible and damn him for trying something different at the same time.

I don't deny the fact that there's a lot of things Dhoni could have done better (and could be doing better even now). His steadfast refusal to play five bowlers overseas, picking Jadeja and Ashwin over Amit Mishra, and his reluctance to demand more from his batsmen openly are a few. For a team that prides itself on its batting strength and was possessed of four of its best batsmen ever in a large chunk of these games to average just 25.6 is pretty ordinary. There is already signs that is changing with the youthful batting line-up averaging 30.5 so far in their 7 innings. Ultimately though, any Test captain is only as good as his bowlers and here India are at the very bottom, both in terms of bowling average and strike rate since July 2011 (for all games between the top 8 teams). With a performance like that, its a minor miracle that they've managed to halt the losing streak and draw in Johannesburg and with any luck (and some solid batting) will hopefully draw in Wellington as well. While that's certainly not satisfactory, Dhoni at least deserves the chance to turnaround his record in England and Australia later this year. If he doesn't manage to, the man himself will leave without any calls for his head.