Squad Selection

So revenge was dished out in the best manner possible. England have been hammered. I'm not sure though whether this series has taught us anything that we did not already know. I certainly expected England to be better, much better. But maybe I should have looked at history. England remain a side that struggles against half-decent spin bowling. India have showed us once again that when it comes to performing in Indian conditions, India have a battalion of cricketers waiting to take the opportunity. India's challenge will be to replicate success achieved at home, away. England will know that nobody will take their claims of being the best side in the world seriously unless they are able to perform well in all conditions.

India's immediate task will be to beat the West Indies at home. India's fantastic home record coupled with West Indian incompetence over the last couple of years means that India start the series as overwhelming favorites. After the hammering India received in England, the squad selection for this series was going to be tricky. I believed that India's team selection would give us an idea of the direction Indian cricket will be taking in the near future. That changes were needed was obvious. The question was always going to be whether this selection committee, a committee that has come under criticism from all quarters for a series of baffling selection gaffes, would be able to take bold decisions. Surprisingly, they have.

Looking at the Indian squad, the top 5 pick themselves. Rahane has displayed a decent technique and his selection ahead of the Tamil Nadu duo of Vijay & Mukund does not come as a surprise. Vijay  has had a number of chances and has been unable to perform consistently enough. Mukund's problems against the bouncing / moving ball were exposed in England. He has to go back to the drawing board and work on this aspect of his game.

Kohli & Yuvraj will be fighting for the no 6 position. I've not been a great fan of Yuvraj the test cricketer. IMHO he has had enough chances and has consistently struggled in testing conditions. Few cricketers have had the number of chances that Yuvraj has had and this must be his last. Kohli is a player who has become an integral part of the ODI side. However, he struggled on his only test tour to date in the West Indies and will be wanting to make the most of this opportunity. Like most of the younger Indian batsman, irrespective of what happens here, he can and should only be judged based on performances away from the subcontinent. Nevertheless, this will be a chance for him to stake his claim.

The biggest surprise has been the bowling personnel selected for the first test. By opting for young blood, the selectors have hopefully made a firm decision to look at the future. Umesh Yadav & Varun Aaron impressed in the ODI's that they played. With Ishant Sharma joining them, unexpectedly there are 3 Indian bowlers with the ability to bowl in the mid 140's in the squad. Pace alone is not going to ensure success, but having it is surely a massive advantage. Ideally all 3 of them should be preserved for the longer format. Whilst it is difficult to not get excited about their pace, neither of them have displayed the greatest control so far. This suggests that they may still not be 100 % ready to play at the highest level but given the paucity of resources in India as far as fast bowling is concerned, there weren't too many other options available. Hopefully the administrators will realize the value of having two quick bowlers in the team and will ensure that the bowlers get all the support they need.

Praveen Kumar's axing comes as a bit of a surprise. The selectors have claimed that he has been 'rested'. Rested as we know can mean just about anything in Indian cricket. I'm quite sure that Praveen, who is still very inexperienced at the test level, is unlikely to have wanted to sit out. I feel for him but at the same time believe that the right decision was made. The red ball does not swing as much as the white ball and conditions in India generally does not favor Praveen's style of bowling. He must not be disheartened though. His performance is England will surely keep him in the midst of things.

Ashwin's selection ahead of Harbhajan has also been a welcome decision. Enough has been said about Singh's problems on the field and it is important to give somebody else a go. Until now Ashwin has been a limited overs specialist. Will he be able to succeed at the highest level is the big question. One thing is for sure. Ashwin has earned his chance. As has Pragyan Ojha. Ojha has been a victim of the selector' musical chairs approach when it has come to picking bowlers. Ojha has consistently done well every-time he's been given an opportunity but for some inexplicable reason he fell down in the pecking order. This is his chance to seal his place. 

The one thing that the selector' have got wrong though is the selection of Rahul Sharma. Sharma has a very ordinary first class record and is not assured of a permanent place even in his Ranji trophy side, Punjab. How he has been able to get into the test side remains a mystery. For the moment we should be thankful that for a change the selectors got most things right. Given their track record, this is an achievement in itself !

MSD and the Art of ODI Batting

Michael Bevan was one of the finest ODI players I have ever seen. What made Bevan special was the manner in which he played under pressure. Batting at 5 or 6 is arguably the toughest job to do as a batsman in ODI cricket. If your team's doing well, your expected to step up the momentum almost immediately. If your team's struggling, you need to play the role of the savior. It's a role that few people enjoy and even fewer excel at. Bevan was probably the best of the lot, until MSD came along.

As a hardcore test cricket fan, I've always had my reservations about MSD. These reservations have stemmed out of the age old belief that a wicket-keeper should first and foremost be a good keeper. Whilst it is undeniable that modern day cricket requires wicket keepers to bat and bat well, it should not be at the cost of their primary role. In ODI cricket, however, it is the exact opposite. One of India's best runs in ODI cricket came when a certain Rahul Dravid donned the keeping gloves. It worked well for India because it allowed them the luxury of having an extra batsman in the side. 

What sets MSD apart from the others is his ability to read the game and play according to the situation. When MSD broke into the side initially, he was renowned for his hitting ability, but little else. Whilst he has not lost that hitting ability, his game today is more about picking the right time to explode. Yesterday's innings was a case in point. Until India took the batting powerplay in the 35th over, it looked as if India would end up with a slightly under par total. Dhoni had other ideas. He had started his innings in trademark fashion, nudging and nurdling the ball for 1's and 2's. Come the batting powerplay, he went berserk. His clean striking was a sight to behold and England had nowhere to hide. 

I was also quite impressed with young Umesh Yadav. I certainly hope is that he does not go the way numerous other Indian bowlers have gone. He has pace and whilst he seems a little wayward, the raw material is certainly there. One can only hope that the BCCI do their best to nurture him. It's questionable whether playing him on flat surfaces in ODI cricket is the right way forward.

It is also important that the bigger picture is not forgotten. Even if India win this series convincingly, it is absolutely imperative that the weaknesses exposed in England are addressed. 

Conflict of Interest

Anil Kumble was one of my favorite cricketers. In fact, it is hard to think of an Indian cricket fan that disliked Kumble. Despite being India's greatest match winner, he never had the crazy fan following of a Sachin Tendulkar nor did he polarize opinions the way Sourav Ganguly did. Kumble, very much like his state-mate Rahul Dravid, was never in the lime-light. He preferred it that way. He allowed his cricket to do the talking.

This is precisely why Kumble's reaction to questions regarding his multiple roles within Karnataka cricket has been surprising. Kumble in addition to being the head of the KSCA also owns an agency that represents cricketers, including two Karnataka players who have recently been selected to play for India. His role as the head of KSCA makes him responsible for the appointment of selectors in charge of selecting players for the Karnataka Ranji trophy side. Whilst I certainly do not believe that Kumble has vested interests nor do I believe that Kumble will do anything that will hamper the progress of Indian cricket, the fact of the matter is that Kumble is in a position where he can influence the selection process and unfortunately when 'his' players are selected, tongues will wag.

Ravi Shastri & Sunny Gavaskar have recently come under tremendous criticism, justifiably in my opinion, for having multiple responsibilities, each one conflicting with the other. N. Srinivasan, the President of the BCCI has had a case filed against him because in addition to being the President of the BCCI, Srinivasan's company, India cements, also owns the Chennai Super Kings franchise in the IPL. How is Kumble's case any different?

If anything, Kumble's case is the most serious of the lot. Even if Shastri and Gavaskar are paid cronies of the board, it does not directly affect cricket in the country. N. Srinivasan's role may have a bearing on the IPL, but not at the national level. Kumble, however, holds a post that has a direct influence on the cricketing system in India. There are already murmurs about the selection of S. Aravind & Vinay Kumar. Yes, in all probability Kumble had nothing to do with their selections. But it is the perception that counts.

Kumble's reputation cannot be allowed to cloud people's judgement in this case. Allowing Kumble to carry on with these dual roles, will set a very bad precedent. Tomorrow, you could have an administrator without Kumble's integrity. What happens then?

Sambit Bal here has summed up the recent happenings very nicely. Like Sambit says, even now it's not too late for Kumble to get his house in order. If he gives up his role as an agent, there will be no questions asked. But for him to continue as the head of the KSCA, that is a must. The board must ensure that. If he feels that his current job as the head of the KSCA is preventing him from earning a living, then the honorable way out is to give it up. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

England in India

Sanjay Manjeraker here is one of the lone sane voices in the controversy surrounding Harbhajan Singh's axing from the Indian side for the first 2 ODI's against England. For just how much longer is Indian cricket going to base their selection policy on reputations? Harbhajan's record over the last few years has been distinctly average and it's about time somebody else was given a fair crack. Going back to domestic cricket could also be a blessing in disguise for Harbhajan, for if he is good enough, then he will earn his way back into the side through the weight of performances. 

The other cricketer in the news for being dropped is Ashish Nehra. His outburst at being ignored was uncalled for. It's another decision that made sense to me as Nehra's lack of fitness coupled with his inability to field or bat has for long made him a risky proposition. Indian cricket can only move forward if it accepts the fact that change can no longer be avoided. 

Vinay Kumar, however, is not the answer. The Karnataka medium pacer may have a decent first-class record, but has struggled at the international level. He is another example of the 'typical' Indian seamer - bowls in the mid 120's and tries to maintain a decent line and length. Unfortunately, he neither has the pace nor the accuracy required to trouble quality batsman. 

Despite playing at home, IMHO, India will not start as favorites. India remain a side ravaged by injuries and they are up against a decent English side who will sense that this may be their best opportunity to get one over India at home. England will come hard at India and it remains to be seen whether the youngsters in the Indian side can handle the heat. 

Shoaib Akhtar's Book

Shoaib Akhtar has as usual been in the news for all the wrong reasons. His recently launched autobiography has attracted the ire of the BCCI as it contains some criticism directed against Sachin Tendulkar. If publicity was the objective, Shoaib has ensured that he got it in adequate measure.  The BCCI's reaction though has as usual been extremely over the top. Shoaib just like everybody else is entitled to his opinion and it is ridiculous to ask him to apologize for expressing his views. 

Indian Fielding is a Joke

India's attitude towards fielding was best reflected by Dhoni's post-match comments in the aftermath of the fourth ODI. Dhoni said and I quote "Quite a few players would be fit by then (the WI tour to India). We then may not have a very good fielding side. But then grounds in India are small and there is not much opportunity for batters to take singles or twos".

Just because Indian grounds are small, should poor fielding be excused? Fielding has been an Achilles heel for Team India for years on end and yet nothing has changed. The fourth ODI was a classic case in point. India were perhaps a trifle unlucky that the match was not completed. Had the full quota of overs been bowled, India may have been able to snatch victory given that England were 8 down. However, India got what they deserved as there is no way England should have been allowed to get to the situation they ended up in. There's no hiding place in modern day cricket and the biggest difference on the day between the two sides was the fielding.

When VVS was dropped from the ODI side, his lack of ability in the field was given as one of the main reason for his axing. I fully agreed with the decision as India needed to inculcate a culture of fitness within the team even it meant dropping a player with tremendous ability. But if that was the rule then don't the likes of R.P. Singh & Munaf Patel come under the same rule? The irony here is that whilst VVS is a truly class player, you can hardly say the same about the duo mentioned above.

What India desperately need after this tour is an honest evaluation of what went wrong. Unless they discover an attack that is capable of bowling teams out, it is unlikely that they are going to be a top team for the foreseeable future. The aim now should be to work towards building an attack for the future even if it means losing a few matches in the present. What is clear is that the current attack is taking us nowhere. With that being the case, I cannot for the life of me understand the continued reluctance to play young Varun Aaron. Can he really be any worse that our current attack?

Drop the slow movers and ensure that players are not picked unless they are reasonable fielders. Is it that difficult?

'Dustbowls'

Back in the nineties, matches involving India were very predictable. If the contest was taking place in India, more often than not the match would be played on surfaces known as 'dustbowls'. Indian batsman, used to playing on such wickets, would pile on the runs. When the opposition batted, it would normally be a completely different story. The ball would turn spitefully, the bounce would be extremely unpredictable and India generally used to emerge victorious.

When India played away from the comforts of home, the situation was the exact opposite. Wickets would normally have a fair covering of grass and even half decent fast bowlers would fancy their chances against batsman who looked all at sea against the moving / bouncing ball. 

What used to amaze me even back then though was that there was one rule for wickets in the subcontinent and one rule for wickets away. If visiting sides got out for a low score in India, it was due to the 'dustbowls' and it would be conveniently forgotten that India made runs on the same wicket. But when India lost badly away from home, it was always because the Indian batsman lacked the technique to perform well in seaming conditions.

A lot has changed since then but the unfair criticism 'dustbowls' get remains the same. India run world cricket today. The pros and cons of this can be debated but facts are facts. No decision can be approved without India's say-so and this is precisely why I think India need to back Sri Lanka and ensure that the ICC do not penalize the Lankans for the wicket prepared at Galle. 

Wicket conditions are very different today then what they were a decade or so ago. It's not only wickets in the subcontinent that have changed, but even surfaces in Australia & the West Indies seem to have become a touch different. Even in this T-20 age, test cricket's biggest problem is not cricket's brash new format but test cricket itself. Test cricket is at its best when it is played between evenly matched sides on a surface that encourages an even contest. Unfortunately, too many matches are today played on dead surfaces with almost no chance of a result. This problem is especially true of the subcontinent where dead tracks have become the norm rather than the exception. This is why the track at Galle was great to see.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a minute suggesting that the only way forward is to prepare minefields. Certainly not. However, unless a pitch is so poor that it endangers the safety of the cricketers, I don't see why there should be a problem. According to the ICC, a pitch that is dead from ball one and remains exactly the same 5 days later is deemed a 'good wicket'. But a pitch that tests the batsman from ball one and more often than not results on riveting test cricket is condemned. Cricket's administrators need to understand that cricket is not just about 500 + scores and big hundreds. After all this is supposedly a game between bat and ball, not bat and bat. Any wicket that gives the bowlers plenty to work with needs to be encouraged. Very often these dust bowls separate the men from the boys. 

Test cricket's most endearing feature is it's diversity. You expect the ball to zip around in England, you expect it to bounce in Australia and similarly you should expect it to spin in the subcontinent. I can't see what the fuss is about.

Donkey-Gate & the DRS

"India have a handful of good fielders, but some of them field like donkeys" Nasser Hussain.

Now then, what's wrong with that? The way the Indian media and the BCCI are reacting, it would seem as if Hussain has accused India of some heinous crime. Had the BCCI reacted with the same level of passion after a disastrous performance, it would have at least sent out the message that the BCCI have taken note of the poor performance by team India and are serious about taking steps to improve. Instead they have decided to vent their frustration on comments that if anything were 100 % true. The fact is that India's fielding right through this series has been a joke and it's about time somebody does something about it.

The other major talking point has been GG's naming in the KKR squad for the champion's league. One would think that a player who has been ruled out of the current ODI series and has been advised rest for a minimum of 10 days, would decide to skip the champion's league and ensure that he is fit for the upcoming India matches. India have a busy schedule ahead and it is hardly unreasonable to expect their top players to put India before any club matches, however attractive the remuneration may be. Priorities have changed!

In the middle of all this discouraging news, the second ODI between India & England was washed out. India will consider themselves unlucky as for the first time on this tour, they looked on top. Parthiv had set India up and cameos from the impressive Rahane, Dhoni, Kohli & Raina had given India a competitive score. Praveen Kumar had then taken out two England wickets to leave the home team in a difficult situation. However, rain had the final say and no further play was possible.

Rahul Dravid continued to make the headlines although this time around it was not for his imperious batting. For those of you who missed it, Dravid fished at a moving delivery outside the off stump. Despite a vociferous appeal by the English, the onfield umpire ruled in the batsman's favor. England reviewed and to the astonishment of everybody watching, Erasmus, the third umpire, overturned the decision despite have absolutely no grounds to do so. Hotspot showed nothing and it later emerged that Erasmus based his decision on a sound that he claimed to have heard when the ball passed the bat. 

I have been a vocal critic of the BCCI's anti-DRS stand. It is only recently that a compromise was reached with the BCCI agreeing to implement the DRS provided ball tracking technology is not used. Decisions like this is likely to give the BCCI more fuel to consign the DRS to the bin. To be fair, can you really blame the BCCI if such decisions are made?

One thing that such decisions have shown is that despite the availability of the best technology, unless there is consistency it is not going to work. By giving Dravid out, umpire Erasmus effectively overruled hotspot. What purpose does hotspot then serve? If a consensus cannot be reached, I believe it would make far more sense to revert to the system that existed before the introduction of all this new technology. Let the onfield umpires be the masters and as long as we accept that there will be the odd bad decision, it should still be fairly smooth sailing. After all cricket has survived for all these years without technology. I have no doubt that it will continue to survive with or without it.