Skip to main content

The forgotten five

There's been much (and deserved) kudos for MS Dhoni and his band of (mostly young and merry) men in the wake of India's recent run of good results starting with the Test series against Australia at home. Forgotten amidst the hoopla though has been the instrumental role that Sandeep Patil, Vikram Rathour, Roger Binny, Saba Karim, and Rajinder Hans have played in enabling this. Much like the best wicketkeepers, selectors usually get noticed only when teams do badly and they are usually deemed a bunch of idiots for selecting players who are either out of form or not good enough. Rarely does the pendulum swing enough the other way when the same teams perform above expectations and win accolades.

Sample the many key decisions that Patil and Co. have made since coming together at a time when India were at a real low following the much talked about 0-8 and an early exit from the World T20 soon after the new selection committee came on board. First, the dropping of Zaheer, Harbhajan, and Yuvraj for the last Test against England in 2012 showing that they were not afraid to be unpopular. No immediate success came forth as India still lost to Cook's men but the gumption that the selectors had shown was reaffirmed by the decisions to leave out first Gambhir and then Sehwag from the team against Australia, the latter despite the fact that the team was up 2-0. They then stuck to their guns for the Champions Trophy squad (which I wrote about here) with great results. And the latest addition to their portfolio of good moves is the selection of the squads for the ODI series in Zimbabwe and the 'A' team to tour South Africa.

The former which leaves the team shorn of its skipper (and best batsman) as well as the first choice bowling attack is a big risk, especially given what happened the last time India travelled to Zimbabwe with a similar squad of understudies. But given the questions that might be answered (or at least begin to be answered), it feels totally worth it. Is Kohli captaincy material? Will Dhawan and Rohit Sharma continue their development as an opening pair? Will Pujara cut it in ODIs? Can Amit Mishra recapture his early promise? Are Mohit Sharma and Pervez Rasool capable of playing international cricket? If even one or two of these are partially answered, Indian cricket will have benefited immensely in the long run.

The 'A' team visit to South Africa is potentially even more critical in a year in which the biggest test (no pun intended) comes at the fag end of the calendar year when Dhoni and gang take on the world no.1 side in their backyard. Cynics will say that the only reason India will avoid another 0-4 result is because there are only three Test matches to play. For the more positive fans and most of the team (and if Tendulkar doesn't make it then all the team) though it will be a great opportunity to show that the promise from the 4-0 defeat of Australia was not just driven by the benefit of home conditions against sub-standard opposition. And that's what makes the 'A' tour so critically important given that it will be the only chance for the likes of Dhawan, Vijay, and Rohit Sharma to get experience of the conditions in South Africa (apart from any tour games before the Tests). A minor quibble is the fact that none of Bhuvneshwar, Ishant, or Umesh Yadav are in the squad but given that the bowling has historically not been India's problem in South Africa, testing the seam bowling bench strength may not be a bad idea.

Just the fact that we are talking of bench strength and thoughts around building it, is a great turnaround for a team that was in the doldrums even 8 months ago. Given the flak he took during the low period, Dhoni deserves all the credit he is getting now but he for one will have sent his thank you note to Patil and Co. Its about time the fans and the media did too.

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 ...

The Ashes part deux: series preview

While I admire the honest, outspoken style that Ian Chappell has in his commentary and writing I don't find myself agreeing with his views very often. This latest piece on ESPNcricinfo is an exception though. In what is a faintly ridiculous set of back to back Ashes series (to accommodate an ODI World Cup of all things), the build-up to the second round has been laughable almost. Anyone who hasn't followed the game for a few years might be forgiven if they thought that the Australian domination from the 1990s and early 2000s has continued and that they will win in a canter again. For a team that's lost seven of their last nine matches (and it should have been eight really), that's quite a good turnaround on paper (and digitally). The reality though is that unless they show a drastic improvement (especially in terms of scoring runs) and England have a bit of a shocker, its going to be well nigh impossible for Australia to win back the urn. Despite putting Buffoon Bo...

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?