The Great Indian Team Performance Curve: A Thesis

I read a friend’s Facebook status post, wondering about the changes we are witnessing  in the Indian team’s performance. To be precise, his questions were “how so much” and “how so quickly”.

A while ago, I had read an extremely well-conceived article by Cricinfo’s Siddharth Monga on the contribution of the “system” to India’s Champion’s Trophy win last night. Here it is.

Armed with the thoughts that came while reading Monga’s thoughtful piece, I set about trying to construct a quickfire “thesis” to explain the path charted by the Indian cricket team

Part A: how so much?

Ans: The direction that a cricket team – correction, an Indian cricket team goes can be largely explained by measuring the following areas:

(A)   the leadup to selecting the final 15 who set off for the tour – including resourcefulness, non-compromise and vision,

(B)   Captain’s performance as a player

(C)   The captain-coach duo and their (interpersonal) vibes within the team including handling of individual players as well as coaching staff,

(D)   Form of individual stars in the team, if any; and

(E)    Expectations set by the leadership team from the players, series by series (completely on-field stuff, nothing interpersonal here). This includes flexible thinking.

[A, B & D are extremely version specific; hence same set of people can produce different performance curves in different versions of cricket]

• Ganguly's team, in rebuilding phase of 2000-2003, thrived partly on A & B,  a lot on C & D and little less on E (except uncompromising integrity).

• During the latter parts of Ganguly era (late 2004-2005) the team form dipped due to partial dips in B, C & D.

• In Dravid’s (2005-mid 2007) era the emphasis on A & E became supreme; B was very good too, for most parts. However all of that was completely undone by the then coach Chappell's effect in undermining C - so much so that the huge minus in B led to underperformance in D as well.

• MSD's 1^st era (2007--2010), on the other hand, revived team form almost entirely based on C, D & E. In Tests, B almost did not come into picture, such was the overwhelming effect of D [Big four + Viru + Zaheer]!! A got toned down to moderate – which is fine if D is good.

• Dhoni’s 2^nd era (early 2011 to end 2012) saw a virtual disappearance of D, while B did not come up to compensate. This made BIG difference, even as A & E remained very similar and C dipped only marginally compared to Dhoni’s 1^st era. [Not by coincidence, Era-2 was the first days for captain with new coach]

• Dhoni’s 3^rd era is just starting. D is not likely to reach the stratospheric heights of his 1^st era anytime soon (certainly not in Tests). I agree majorly to this article. By accident or by design, Team India's A has shot up in past 3 months, even compensating for seniors' exodus contributing to instability in D (it is also looking up, thanks to performing youngsters).  In fact, A has fared so well that D (at least in Champion’s Trophy) was a factor of A!!   Decisive A has also led to decisiveness in E. Factor C, while still very good, is now so very different from Era 1. These days we see an animated Dhoni who actually tells youngsters what to do…and I believe he is now in sync with India's "new" coach Duncan Fletcher.

Part B: how so quickly?

A & E are the only components that are largely controlled by intent rather than chance. While teams thrive or perish on ‘culture changes’ in either direction it is foregone that culture changes take a lot of time.

A & E can be implemented in a very short time-frame. It is only the start, though. Any major changes in A & E, implemented too quickly, might create a shock-wave in ‘good’ (read ‘comfortable’) times, leading to adverse impact on results. However in THIS case, major changes in A & E were done when the team performance was close to its nadir (i.e. around when Dhoni’s 2^nd era was closing out). Things that would seem to be “upsetting” otherwise...those were perhaps now seen as a “Ray of Hope”.

Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING can happen when people chuck out the resistance and look forward to a change.

That ends my thesis, responding to Shrikant Subramanian’s Facebook question. [wiping brow]

Exciting? Indeed. I was just as excited while force-fitting the pieces of the puzzle. Thanks to you for appreciating. And at this humbling moment of success I would like to thank my…zz-zz-zz-zz

Crappy?? Yippie kay yay…..all theses necessarily are.

Greg Chappell, the cricket visionary: caring(!!) views on Indian cricket

I was going through some of Greg Chappell's articles in The Hindu. They make for intriguing reading, quite far removed from "the guy that rubs everyone up the wrong way", an image that Indian cricket fans make of him due to his negatively eventful 1½ tenure as coach of Indian cricket team (end 2005 to Mar 2007). In fact, on the contrary these articles are a testimony of why then-captain Ganguly thought of him as a personification of astuteness in 2004-05, and strongly recommended Greg to BCCI as next Indian coach.

The articles were especially delightful to read in this tough period for Indian cricket. These are times when fans are not sure if anybody really cares for Indian cricket. If we can detach the much-hated name while going through the content of these articles, these are valuable views and analyses coming from someone with no ulterior motives and wanting to share his knowledge for the betterment of cricket in India.

Sample this one: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/greg-chappel/karthik-thrown-a-deserved-lifeline-sreesanth-could-do-with-one/article4702845.ece?ref=sliderNews

Even more than his fine take on Karthik in that piece, the discussion on Sreesanth's cricketing talent was my takeaway - perhaps because Greg kept the section to just that: discussing Sreesanth's cricketing talent (even after the IPL spot-fixing fiasco). However he has also touched upon the latest controversy. Like a wise statesman, he has clearly  hinted at the fact that accepting Sreesanth as an eccentric talent and handling him accordingly JUST might have avoided him from turning into a wasted cricketer with unfulfilled potential. I liked the tone of that comment. 

There is a hint of sadness as he witnesses the fall of Sreesanth, a player that Greg still believes to be a major talent. He suggests that there was scope of improvement in the way Sreesanth was handled, but he makes his point without looking to transfer the blame of the errant cricketer's own indiscretions towards BCCI's incompetence at talent management.

Greg himself was hardly better at managing talent....while he was excellent at spotting talent, he failed abysmally in turning it into finished product. I reckon he still cares for these young guys he backed, if not for Indian cricket. Perhaps he realises today that HE could have done things differently as well.

[BTW, this is not the first time that BCCI's talent management woes are costing Indian cricket of its talents. If they had been even half decent at it, then Yuvraj Singh should have been India's next cricketer to retire with 50+ Test average, and Zaheer would have been our spearhead much before 2007..not to be.] 

And this marvellous piece on what EXACTLY is needed to be done for improving a batsman's concentration: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/greg-chappel/curing-crickets-attention-deficit-disorder/article4769944.ece

What I found during this phase, was that I tired very quickly and actually began to make mistakes after a relatively short period of time. If I did succeed using this method, I was usually so tired that I couldn’t relax easily afterwards and I was generally ‘flat’ for a few days.

On reflection, it dawned on me that this method was bound to fail and I had to find an alternative method. The alternative I chose was to train myself to concentrate for one ball at a time.

Concentration is the ability to focus on what is important at that moment.
From that point, my practice sessions became a contest with myself to see how well I could manage the conflicting messages in my head. Training was no longer an exercise in polishing my technique, but a mental exercise in engaging with the bowler at the appropriate time.

What I learnt to do was to switch-on to the bowler once he reached his bowling mark. The fiercest concentration was saved for the time that the bowler reached his delivery stride until that particular play was finished.

In between balls, I had a quick look into the crowd to give my mind a break before returning my attention to the field of play. I re-engaged with the bowler again once he got back to his mark.

The look into the crowd was an important part of my concentration routine. If I was playing at home, I would pick out someone whom I knew to look for. I astounded my family and friends when, at the end of the day, I could tell them what time they had arrived at the ground, who they had spoken to and what time they had a drink or something to eat.

Once I perfected this routine, I was never fatigued during play nor was I exhausted at the end of a long innings. Effectively, I had only concentrated at full intensity for a matter of minutes, even if I batted all day.

This is a pearl of wisdom coming from one of the finest batsmen ever. I wish to take printouts of this article and share with cricket crazy kids in our backyard. It is a must read for anyone who wants to become a better batsman at longer versions of the game (i.e. longer than 20 overs).

Last but not the least, Chappell’s article celebrating Sachin on his 40^th birthday: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/greg-chappel/sachin-still-pushing-the-boundaries/article4648090.ece?ref=sliderNews

What did surprise me was the meticulous attention that he gave to his bats.

I had seen others who were quite protective and caring of their bat, but I had never seen anyone who showered their bat with such loving attention. He constantly altered the batting grip and spent hours with a scalpel scraping and cleaning the blade so that it was pleasing to his eye.

As he explained it, he did not want anything out of place when he looked down at his bat when standing at the crease. I can’t say that I ever noticed my bat to that degree. It was an implement that I used, and as I often had to get used to another one, I did not want to be too attached to my current bat in case we were separated, for any reason.

Sachin built a symbiotic relationship with each bat that he used. Batting, I began to realise, was why Sachin lived and he was taking every part of it very seriously indeed.

A special and sensitive insight from a great batsman admiring another within the sacred confines of the Test match dressing room. Another section of that article discusses about the changes Sachin made in his batting stance and preparatory movement over his career.

I am looking forward to his Hindu articles hereafter, expecting those to be the best insights into Indian cricket that I am going to get on print or web in coming months.

Update: Here's another offering from Greg - discussing the reasons for India's cricketing upswing (barring those two 2011 away series) coinciding with Australia's downswing: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/greg-chappel/things-to-be-learnt-from-the-indian-model/article4902529.ece

IPL-6: Moment of the tournament

THE MOMENT of IPL-6 just came up in today's Eliminator between Rajasthan Royals and Sunrisers Hyderabad in the Delhi play-offs.
38 yr old "foreign" Brad Hodge finds a little time to use between deliveries of this knock-out match, and walks up to a forever-amused-looking "local" wonderkid (Samson) - less than half Hodge's age - to teach the latter a chapter from the book of stealing singles. 
"Don't hit it boy, work it and get that crucial extra run." The old man gestures, but only after having demonstrated it. 

Priceless. 

Almost justifies the existence of IPL...such moments.

The Yuvraj problem, and the terrible Neo-specialists

Bloody Amol Muzumder is now a specialist commentator on Neo, and all they can offer for Yuvi's failure is criticising his technique (without specifying WHAT part) and showing repeated replays of Yuvi taking eyes off the ball and getting hit...and then hinting that it might be due to Yuvi's lack of willingness to guts it out. If he hadn't gutsed it out, Sachin would have retired without World cup.


Yuvraj Singh has all the attacking shots against all types of bowling. Sadly, you need ALL the shots in Tests including defensive ones..even Viru needs them in Tests even if ever so fleetingly.
I believe all the support staff, coach and senior players have failed to drill this into Yuvraj in 11 yrs and thus let India lose its most talented young player to lack of evolution. Which is why I am seriously worried about succession after Big Five.


Before you give them top class support, the young cricketers need to be trained to use & imbibe that support. Those 5 came with that mindset..but who's teaching those whose minds are not as focussed?

Class and variety still breeds in only one format of cricket

Have a look at this link



Do you know what is Murali's jersey number this IPL? I did not notice until tonight that it is derived from his achievements in another format, a format seen to be the only one where bowlers' need to take wickets is FAR more important than just containment. Check pic 9/10 of this link. [I say 'seen to be' b'coz it is only a perception. Taking wickets is the most important job of bowler in all forms - the importance reduces but still it remains #1 priority].


Also check pic 8/10 of that link for Manoj Tiwary's cover drive pic. Whenever that guyholds the bat he looks as good as this snap to me. Pity that he lost his international opportunities to misfortune. People like Tiwary and Rayudu (I was struck by a top-notch, classy cover drive hit by the latter today - keep catching these glimpses as someone or the other watches IPL at home) abound in domestic cricket today and that is where Indian cricket (at least batting) looks healthy. These players have developed their pedigreed batting by growing up playing ANOTHER format, and IPL is ONLY reaping the benefits.






Sangakkara peppered the mid wicket boundary the other day...and before you shut your eyes to conjure up slog sweeps or across the line hits, let me mention that ALL his shots were vertical bat drives. Yes, they really were even if you keep staring at me disbelievingly for the next fortnight..


Even now class is bred in only one variety of the game. First class cricket. It may well change after some years of T20; maybe slogs to mid wicket will be the ONLY 'classy shots'!! I have no problems with those shots; as a fan of my favourite cricket team such shots can very well win us the match. It is the 'ONLY' that bites me as a fan of cricket (as against fan of a team).


I remain one of the biggest fans of Jayasuriya, the first mega product of One-day cricket. But what will you choose if you have the choice between (i) having THE ODD Jayasuriya / Dhoni (alternative batsmanship styles based on modern formats) and (ii) having ALL batsmen modelled on ONLY Jayasuriya (or Dhoni)? Or WORSE still, all of them modelled ONLY on some 3rd generation guy who becomes the first mega product of T20 (hits across the line to mid-wicket ONLY, for instance)?

Again it is the 'ONLY' that I am questioning.

[developed from a note on my Facebook page]

What on earth is happening with Irfan Pathan

A relieved Irfan Pathan turned up for a post-match interview after Delhi Daredevils' close win over Pune Warriors in IPLT20. They say Irfan lost confidence in his bowling. But whenever Irfan speaks, I see a confident & communicative young man ready with intelligent & frank responses without having to be prodded. Today I saw that sparkling side of Irfan once again. I even see shades of the current Indian skipper when Irfan is in this mood. Try as I did, I could not match the bubbly guy I saw today with people's general perception of him (and with his own lack of performances in domestic cricket).



If Irfan Pathan shows decent returns in domestic cricket, then with his kind of ability I cannot believe he can EVER be a lesser preference to selectors than Ravindra Jadeja, Piyush Chawla and some of the others tried out these days. His middle overs bowling was key to Dhoni's T20 WC final win in 2007. Currently in ODI's the Indian team needs a medium-quick bowling all rounder MORE than spin-bowling ones. Yet here we see Irfan, showing much fluency with the bat at number 3 and speaking brightly in T20 interviews while betraying NO SIGNS of returning to India colours. It would be interesting to see his response had the interviewer thrown that question.


Has Irfan Pathan lost interest in international cricket? Is he happy as he is today? Is he no more keen to come back to Team India? I won't dwell again on the twisted incentives that IPL paychecks present for top T20 players. I have blogged generally on it earlier. He may even be going through genuine form issues. However, I find 'years of bowling form lapse' quite phoney for someone who, 5 years back, only had to turn up at the bowling crease for the ball to start swinging.

The other intriguing aspect about his current IPL stint: inspite of his moderate showing in previous IPL's he fetched a staggering price as an all-rounder, a price that is normally reserved for'guaranteed performers', or in other words the top players in the world who excel in other formats too. There must be something in him that the IPL franchisees are seeing and investing on, but the selectors & Irfan himself seem to be unaware of it!


Strange, the way some truly promising careers shape up in this game...especially now that IPL adds a twist that was not seen till 4 years back.


PS: I have seen and read about the 'Chappell effect' on Irfan's career. I am sure some of you would want to go back there. However I have my reservations in even starting to discuss the argument that a major talent continues to get defocussed 4 years after Chappell has left.

[developed from the note posted on my Facebook profile;
cross posted with minor edits on cricketcountry.com ]

Is Ishant's 'nishant' round the corner?

I was passing via drawing-n-dining room** when I glanced at the TV screen. An IPL match was on, as you would expect this time of the year barring Richter 9. At that point of time they were showing a replay of Deccan Chargers' Ishant Sharma dismissing RCB's Dilshan caught behind with a good quick ball.At that point of time they were showing a replay of Deccan Chargers' Ishant Sharma dismissing RCB's Dilshan caught behind with a good quick ball.


I came back in few minutes and sat down to watch Ishant bowl the 6th over of RCB innings. He was fast and accurate..and he was hurrying a batsman I have not seen get hurried in quite sometime, the splendid AB de Villiers.


Ishant clocked 149kph & 150kph in 2 deliveries. Gony's decently-fast-medium deliveries were clocking 133 odd in overs on either side of Ishant's over. The speed guns did not look to be malfunctioning, certainly not by much.


Instantly I remembered the lankier Ishant, all of 19 years, bowling at 140+ for 12 overs to Ponting at Perth in Jan'08 to prise him out and decide the Test. Then I also remembered the underperforming Ishant that struggled to clock mid-130's or get any accuracy / movement since 2007-08 Australia tour (more specifically, since Ishant started his 1st IPL season in Apr'08 - I won't name the team to avoid controversy;-).


Is the tide turning and the speed returning for Ishant Sharma? I loved rediscovering that Ishant can still produce that pace-bounce-length combo that worked for him in his 1st 4-5 months irrespective of pitch & weather. Setting aside his recent performances, Ishant is our main hope to carry the future Test pace attack. He is the only one since Javagal Srinath who can be a genuine quickie in his best days which, I am sure, are yet to come.


I hope he took the World Cup exclusion as badly and as personally as those speed guns showed today.


**take the hint, mate - I was NOT in front of TV..if IPL was to be 'corruption', I would be 'Anna bhau' remember?



Earlier posts on Ishant Sharma & his bowling: here and here


Update: It appears Ishant continued producing high bowling speeds in the 8th over (his 4th). Here is an excerpt from cricinfo commentary:

7.3


Sharma to Kohli, 1 run, bouncer, hit in the air and falls safe in the mid-wicket region. Ashutosh comments on the speed Sharma is bowling, "Has any one bothered to notice the speed at which Ishant Sharma is bowling, his fastest is at 152.2Kmph and he's averaging at almost 150kmph."

Getting the drive right in eight & nine year olds

Following on my previous posts (this and this) urging all of us to be more open and allow day-night first class cricket to happen:

I just came across a brilliant post from Michael Jeh on cricinfo's Different Strokes (reminds me of some delicious old days). That post was most impressive, not the least due to the fact that I have been spending some time of late with the kids playing cricket in my apartment complex and I have seen some of the things he mentioned in that blog happen right in front of my eyes.

Quoting a part of that blogpost that was most relevant:

Junior cricket, at my son's club anyway, is predominantly played in the V between midwicket and fine-leg. dominated by strong boys who can play the 'hoik' to every ball. Most bowlers at this age can barely get the ball to the other end without a few wides each over. A far cry indeed from the Azar Maidan in Mumbai where I recently watched a group of very young lads with impeccable batting techniques facing a bowler who bowled doosras on request! These Indian kids were probably not deemed "elite" and will probably never grace our tv screens but their rudimentary skills suggested that something (or somebody) has got to these youngsters at an early age and set them up with a framework that they can extend as their bodies grow stronger. Cameron Tradell was one of the few coaches who was able to get the message across to my son (and friend) that playing straight was a long-term goal that would outlast the temporary glory of scoring cheap runs exclusively through square leg. Try telling a seven year old that technique is more important than runs - this was the first time playing straight made sense because of the use of a unique bat that rewarded the boys for hitting the ball with a full face. It absolutely pinged off the sweet spot when they hit straight down the ground and all of a sudden, the hoik was yesterday's shot!

Ponting himself was a junior prodigy, brought up on a classical technique and clearly coached by someone who knew how to coach a kid properly. We are reminded today that soon he will no longer stride out to bat for Australia at number three, arguably our greatest ever in that crucial position. I don't think we'll ever see the likes of Ponting again in this country unless our junior cricket system can encourage kids who can bat for long periods and play straight. Not unless we can find ways to encourage coaches who can see the big picture and can find ways to communicate those simple techniques to young minds who cannot easily understand why a single to mid-on is less preferable to a boundary through square leg. That's the difference I see at the grassroots level between the Asian countries and Australia at a very young age.

I let Michael know that he need not judge 'Asian countries' by his good experience of enriched youth cricket at Azad Maidan, amongst the cricket-elitest places in cricket-elite Mumbai. That would be as accurate an assessment as estimating rhinoceros count in the world by taking rhinos per square mile in Kaziranga and multiplying that by surface area of the earth. That 2nd para in the above quote from Michael's blogpost could well be about any of Tendulkar / Dravid / Laxman / Gavaskar / Viswanath instead of Ponting, and the country India instead of Australia.



Check my comments below that blogpost (comments dated 4th April), sharing my thoughts on the subject and recent experiences of being a 'very senior' player amongst 8-9 year olds. If you enjoyed Michael's post, chances are you may like my comments too.

'Change Managers' & 'Continuous improvement agents' Dhoni & Kirsten

Mahendra Singh Dhoni was part of the previous Indian world cup (2007) team that was eliminated early. He, in fact, was integrally involved in the failure, when he failed to support the then skipper Dravid in the still-in-balance elimination match with Sri Lanka. He played the ugliest first-ball shot of his career to Murali first up and departed almost looking happy to go.

Then came the elevation. Dhoni became the T20 & ODI skipper in 2007. The T20 WC win gave him some power with the authorities as well. And he set about arranging his pieces for the change he saw as compulsory.

Irrespective of what people think of him, everything he has done since was done with the good intent of increasing India's chances of success. Some of them were drastic yet right decisions. Dravid & Ganguly's one day omissions were such. These are two players he respected for their ability and Test performances, but also rightly judged the unsuitability of these two to modern limited overs cricket. Some in recent times have been controversial. The selections (or non-selections) of Pragyan Ojha and Ashwin in various series / tournaments are amongst those.

While each decision can be discussed and criticised, it surprises me that so often the INTENT of MSD's decisions gets questioned. And especially as it involves a man who is the first one to admit his positives and his mistakes including his own non-performance after every match in front of all the world (try that just ONCE, to understand what it takes to do it) and tries to build further on it. All of it an extension of the mission of continuously improving the team he is entrusted with.

For the Indian ODI side, we have seen the COMPLETION of transition from dependence on the 10 year+ greats in the match yesterday. Make no mistake. What the cricket world saw yesterday was awe-inspiring.They saw a bold, formidable team which has delivered when it mattered. What's awe-inspiring? That the win came through guys that will return at the next world cup at their peak powers (or still close to it). This team has its problems, but it is aware of those and is perhaps smart enough to assess them well and chart a near perfect 'horses for courses' solution for the chinks. Much of it MUST BE thanks to their skipper and coach...combined with some support from the selection panel who at times have trusted these two guys even when they were unconvinced themselves.

Gary is now leaving for home. Do you think this is going to be Dhoni's BIGGEST contribution to Indian cricket? Much less. He has a far tougher transition in hand in next 2 years - doing to the Test team what he did to the limited overs side. That side is far more dependent on 10+ experience players. Alarmingly it still remains so even after retirement o 2 greats like Anil Kumble and Sourav Ganguly. And the reason behind it is why that makes it more important - young talents are not adept at the longer version as the older generation and this gap is increasing ALARMINGLY. Dhoni's ability to keep the Test team at the top and hence creating a 'suction' for Test cricket amongst youngsters picking up a bat or ball is critical to the health of Indian cricket (and hence cricket in general) in next 2 decades.

Imran Khan made a great comment after yesterday's victory when Rajdeep Sardesai asked him if Imran was expecting India to win the World Cup. Imran said words to this effect:

"India have been doing well in all forms of cricket in the lead up to world cup. And this is what was Pakistan team was also doing in 1992. This is always the case.'

Imran was not far off the mark. India 1983 were the SOLE instance of a 'not-doing-too-well-for-previous-years' team winning the world cup and sending shock waves. All the others were always major contenders. Success in all forms of cricket is thus intertwined.

If India's Test side tails off, it can still enjoy ODI / T20 sucees for a couple of years. At most. But such anomaly will indicate inability of Indian first class cricket to produce Test quality players...and soon enough the cracks will show up in ALL forms. See Australia between 2007 & 2011? If the Aussie case looks like a moderate decline, we need to remember that such decline in quality is happening INSPITE of an Aussie cricket system in place to prevent it. We do not really have a strong system as yet - we depend heavily on the individual leaders for identifyig talents that come up, how these talents are nurtured and focussed to perform well as well as work for team's cause. This has a big bearing on the team performance, hence its ability to create a following and generate for talent.

That is why people like Ganguly & Dhoni are important to create this 'suction' at top by generating success. That is why the ONLY person I have seen close to God in cricket is Imran Khan of Pakistan, where even the gradually-shaping-up cricket system we have is non-exitent.

From that ugly dismissal in 2007, to the gutsy and brilliant innings culminating in an unforgettable winning sixer in 2011 - the circle probably turned the proverbial FULL circle for Mahendra Singh Dhoni when India chased a once-in-4-years Cup final with 2 of their 3 "10+ years big batting guns" gone within 1st 12% of the chase.

The ODI transition is complete for now, even though Sachin chooses to plays on for a couple of years.

Waiting for the next great transition show for Indian cricket - the Test team. And this time Mahendra Singh Dhoni will need to bridge a bigger gap, with no Gary Kirsten as his accomplice. This where the new coach is going to be critical in carrying on the legacy of Kirtsen-Dhoni combo, albeit with tweaks to suit the style of the new guy. And this is where all of us - cricket followers & media alike - are also going to be critical. How? Simply by appreciating that the Test transition is going to be tougher, with the self-styled-self-techniqued-self-taught-but-team-oriented Amazer from Ranchi himself getting on in years.

The legacy of Dhoni-Kirsten will matter. Just as it always did ever since a rotten, shame-ridden legacy was chucked away 11 years ago and a new legacy gradually emerged under Sourav Ganguly and John Wright. A legacy that has since underwent upheavals, modifications, even personal clashes and downward spirals but nevertheless always strove to achieve improvement [Some things do not really change, perhaps..]

-----------
[Edited from a note in my Facebook page]

Follow whom?

Rahul Dravid’s decision not to enforce a follow-on allowed England to escape with a draw in the last Test. But it is amazing, the Indian media’s obsessive desire to keep cricket in the centre of a controversy with the current Indian skipper preferably at the wrong end of it. The debate on Rahul Dravid’s non-enforcement of follow-on in the Oval test refuses to die down. It was a national shame, it seems, that the think tank led by the captain inflicted upon a proud cricketing nation.

Excuse me? Are we talking about the same nation that sent that team management on a three month long far-n-away tour without a coach and carrying a grandfatherly manager? The same team that is forced to make a gutsy wicketkeeper play as a Test opener and is lucky to see the gamble come off? The team in which the captain, upon arriving at venues, learns that his duties include assigning room allotments to players with little or no help from people generously sent on a benefit tour of England in the guise of official post holders? The team that has never put forward either a bowling quartet that surprises none when it takes 20 wickets or a set of Test fieldsmen that routinely complete fielding innings without allowing a few important batsmen of the opposition to bat twice?
We can go on, really. Is that the same country where the cricket Board considers its job as done merely by issuing ban threats to an alarming multitude of first class players joining a rebel league and thinks nothing of starting a dialogue to get to the root? Are these players not playing for a board that goes on to call a meeting amidst this Indian Cricket League controversy - only to complete the far more critically relevant job of trying to identify a future replacement for the present Board President a good part of a year ahead of his expiry date?

To call a spade a spade, Rahul Dravid was afraid of even chasing 150 odd in the final innings of the Oval Test. He was not taking a risk – the great Indian last-Test-last-innings ‘chokes’ efficiently led by the man himself in numerous recent home and away series (v-Pak-05, v-Eng-06, v-SA-07) played on his conservative mind. He was being defensive. Rightly so. An amateur, playing against a professional, plays with a clear mind and takes a few risks when he has nothing to lose; however when some of those come off and our amateur friend secures a position of ascendancy he is happy to just ensure that there is no reversal ‘coz the ascendancy is win enough for an amateur playing a professional.

Rahul wasn’t defensive in Trentbridge (2nd Test) at the toss. He had precisely 2½ in-form bowlers in his team (one Zaheer, 0.75 Kumble, 0.75 RP and a wandering spirit by the name of Sreesanth) to take 20 opposition wickets, none a run-through’er and the 1st innings of the 2nd Test was likely to decide it all. Fresh from the ‘glory’ of saving the Lords’ Test Rahul the India-A captain (A for amateur) saw nothing to lose there and backed his two-and-half to try and give their best. Rahul hit a jackpot when they went further and bowled out opposition for less than two hundred. Further, the makeshift opening pair, not expected to last this summer, virtually wiped off the deficit without getting separated. At this point the captain woke up from his daydream and, sensing ascendancy, decided to close out the opponents by not taking any more risks.

We are yet to grasp the extent of Indian fortune there with English batsmen generously helping the Indian bowlers remove them before the latter could get tired and look around for the non-existent backup. Dravid the captain could do with some praise coz’ he decided to field first without still being fully confident of ineptness of the English tail (Prior had a near match winning partnership with KP in the opening test)

Coming back to the follow on, if I had arranged rooms and pairings for players (like Dravid had) and found myself in a scarcely believable position in the series on the fourth morning of the Oval Test, I would gladly opt for any option of closing out any remaining risk of not winning the series even in exchange of my own chance to extend the lead. Throughout the series the Indian seam bowlers punched way above their height inspite of shoddy fielding support to their efforts (the latter led by Rahul himself). Rahul the skipper did not want this miraculously succeeding setup to be tested by the English professionals once too many.

In other words. Rahul played the 14th and 15th days of the series as if he was captaining an amateur cricket team on the verge of giant killing history. And I see no misinterpretation by Rahul there, for all the messages that the Board administrators directly or unwittingly sent to its players in recent times through its handing of the game and its burning issues scream and say ‘we are amateurs’.

In all the gung ho about Rahul’s timid decision making we recall having seen that decision by India on Australia at Sydney 2004. I supported it then, and I support it now. Yes, if this ‘timid’ ploy were to be adopted with the opposition 1-0 up I would have questioned it. That is the time for amateurs to take risks, isn’t it? And I would definitely have questioned it if this team with a lead were a profesional setup.

Interestingly in both the Oval and Sydney matches we might have won notwithstanding the defensive ploy but for fielding lapses. It’s been three and a half years and we still offer crucial let-offs just as merrily. Just as well; learning for mistakes is for professionals, not for teams picked by selectors doing their services on honorary basis.

Now can we stand up and appreciate the Indian players at all levels for what they achieve inspite of these hitches?

PS: I was a bit too harsh there – actually they were semi professionals playing under amateur administration. How else do you explain Rahul Dravid offloading important duties to other senior players and coming out triumphant? For the first time I wish guys like Sachin, Anil and Sourav retire immediately and kick out some of the BCCI ****ers functioning irrespective of place value much like those asterisks. I seriously back our players to do a better and more honest job of ruling Indian cricket any day.

Cricket coaching: being judged on uncontrollables

Bob Woolmer succumbed to a heart attack following Pakistan's shock defeat to Ireland that led to the former team's World Cup exit. I have diligently avoided commenting on performances of coaches because their job, as I see it, is almost unseen to a common cricket viewer like me. But at these times you try to imagine yourself as a cricket coach of an international side. The question that comes first to your mind is: How stressful is it for cricket coaches to be constantly judged on parameters many of which are beyond his control??

As a coach in any team sport perhaps you come with a vision of making a positive impact on the performances of a set of individuals aiming to function as a team. You decide that you will shut yourself from external praise / criticism / opinions and do your job as planned but find it hard to do so with communication hitting the roof these days. You see players in your team and find a similarity between them and yourself.

You notice a difference though. The players are judged on individual performances but the captain and you are judged on team performances. That automatically signifies that the players are almost entirely dependent on their own performances on the field for their rating points but the skipper and you have no individual scores except team wins. The skipper has an individual role to play when the team gets into the ground but not you. You have an individual role unseen to all but the players and administrators.

Now we come to perceptions of the role of a coach. Many ex-players believe coaches have a peripheral role to play and the skipper is responsible for team performance. However there are occasions when a coach gains the stature of a supercoach. This effect is augmented in countries where people are emotional and perenially in search of shining heroes and shady villains.

This blow-up takes a bigger shape if cricket is one of the few fields where your folk see themselves as world beaters. Things get further exhilarating for you if the media and people don't see their captain as too clever irrespective of the reality. It has a positive effect on your share of plaudits. Some of the phenomena you get credited with when the team succeeds are:
(i) the team performance takes an upswing soon after you join the side,
(ii) the team shows inprovements in fields earlier thought to be its weakness,
(iii) the skipper suddenly takes a few smart on-field decisions in the following year, decisions that are thought to be beyond him.

Slowly but surely you are accorded the status of a sorcerer, someone with a knack of working wonders with people and turning also-rans into champions.

The flip side comes when the team falters. Now you get to learn of the essential problem with not having an individual role to be assessed on. You may still be thinking that you are doing your job well but the team is struggling because most players are. You are prepared to take some of the blame for that but not all. If you are a born leader you will take it anyway without a word of protest, but it seldom goes down well in the digestive system.

It is quite like a skipper scoring a century chasing 240 in a losing cause. Skippy gets blasted for his handling of bowlers in the opening overs but gets praised for the fighting innings later on. In your case you got only praises when the team did well. You may think you did certain things improperly at the time but it did not matter; people were searching for their shining heroes and you were one of them. Now that the tide has turned you can resign yourself to morph into the shady villain that pubic are looking for. They are unaware that you may be still scoring centuries with your unappreciated work.

Only tough people can continue performing in such situations for years. If you are Bob Woolmer you are a tough cookie. You avoided quitting your roller-coaster job of coaching Pakistan for greener pastures. Difficult as it is to coach a subcontinent team, it certainly took even more out of you to switch to this extreme mode if you are coming from lands where your role in the team performance is understood better by the game's followers and, maybe, the players and administrators as well. You prepared yourself for a lot to happen, or at least we can say that you backed yourself to take most things that could happen....

if you are Bob Woolmer you will be long remembered for your role in revolutionising your (i.e. coach's) role in the international game. These tributes state as much.

[Cross posted on desicritics]