What explains India's recent debacles in cri-cket? Has the team become jelly-bellied or long in the tooth? Is it because of the deleterious effect of T20 on technique or the IPL's easy money on commitment? Have the players been flogged into fatigue by a profit-hungry BCCI or is it that the Australians were just too good?
In the TRP-crazed world of television, several villains have been found and instant punishment pronounced. Hysteria, however, is useless in such matters. All the factors mentioned above may have truth value in varying degrees but may all add up to further confusion.
Cricket currently seems in a state of churn. Newer influences like T20 have impacted technique and mindsets, old influences like 'home advantage' are being more aggressively exploited as rewards have increased manifold. This has led to more Test matches producing results, several of them astonishingly one-sided.
For instance, England who won the number one Test ranking from India last summer, having beaten Australia a few months earlier, have just been roundly thrashed by Pakistan in Dubai. Australia, who whipped India 4-0, were beaten by New Zealand at home a few weeks after being bundled out for 47 in an innings by South Africa. And so on.
This has not necessarily been bad for the game and India has played no small part in this change - and not just because of the BCCI's clout or the IPL's riches. It must be acknowledged that in the last 4-5 years, India were T20 champions, the num-ber one Test team and World Cup champions.
Yet, if the aim is to be the best in the world - as it should be - being only conditionally good is not enough. Last year's World Cup victory was expected to trigger off new zest and ambition. But, for some reason, Indian cricket seems to have lost its mojo since and losing eight matches on the trot overseas should be a matter of deep concern.
There has been an outcry over Rahul Dravid, V V S Laxman and even Sachin Tendulkar, a great deal of it cynical and perhaps incorrectly assessed for, barring the odd success, the failure has been collective. And yet, the failure of India's great batting trio has affected the team adversely and questions must be asked as to why their form has declined so steeply so rapidly.
Is it just a lean trot that can happen to the best, or the killing burden of expectations that is the lot of superstars, or just advancing age that is the dread of all cricketers? The last mentioned has attracted the most attention obviously. Ironically, when Ricky Ponting's fortunes were down he says he got inspiration from the run-getting longe-vity of Tendulkar and Dravid!
There is clearly no fixed age which determines when a player is 'finished'. But considering that all three are on the wrong side of 30, there was always the danger that all of them could lose form or quit almost simultaneously.
This is where the BCCI and the selectors appear to have let matters slip out of their control. An exit plan - which hurts neither team nor them - should have been ready much in advance to ensure a smoother makeover. That's what Australia have settled for with Ponting and Mike Hussey, for instance.
Chief selector John Invera-rity now says that he wants Ponting and Hussey for the 2013 Ashes, but they are on a short lease as their selection is subject to form and more particularly fitness. Is there a lesson there on how great players can be managed without showing them either disgrace or undue favour?
Skill, form and fitness are the key determinants to sporting achievement, but Indian cricket has often preferred to look the other way where the third attribute is concerned. While their skill is hardly in doubt, serious questions can be raised about the athleticism of our players who believe themselves exempt from excelling in fielding, catching or running between wickets.
The modern game punishes such laxity heavily. In the recent series, there were umpteen occasions when Australian batsmen ran four runs off a stroke, but hardly any by India. Australia's energy on the field was also in stark contrast to slowcoachIndian fielders and sloppy catchers. It is imperative that fitness and fielding are seen as non-negotiable.
Nor is there a real need for a 'white paper' to understand that more attention needs to be paid to domestic cricket. The national team can only be as good as the talent it gets. Pitches here need to be made more 'sporting' to ensure that we don't have 'monster' performers with bat or ball who are shown up as midgets when they go overseas.
There are matters about coaching programmes, selection at all levels and not the least an itinerary that is not so burdensome as to drive players into the ground which also need to be addressed. Above all, however, is the need for a mindset shift: of the administration from being primarily profit-seeking to excellence-driven; of players (fans too!) from being records-stricken to results-stricken.
Explanations like "we can beat everybody at home'' are a cop-out. Being the richest cricket playing country does not necessarily mean being the best. This delusion has been thoroughly exposed.
The writer is a sports columnist and commentator.
Source http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment