Chappell wanted youth….. hang him!!!! – Hes covering his tracks now…..

This is interesting news. It will generate the usual comments about “rift”. Should Chappell have revealed this to Rajan Bala? Its the sort of information journalists invariably recieve, in good faith. Happenings in selection committee meetings are confidential – but are not secret – in so far as the fact that the revelation of these deliberations do not constitute a security threat or even a cricketing threat.

People are likely to go to town about this “shocking” evidence of “disharmony” in the ranks. Without ever having gone into any selection committee meeting, i can tell you from my experience of meetings that there has never been a meeting (except possibly in Saddam Hussein’s Revolutionary Command Council), were the participants have agreed about everything – that is the precise reason why meetings happens – to get people with different ideas together.

And if Dilip Vengsarkar was upset about the backlash, after seeing the nonsense on TV in the last week, can you blame him? Just underlines the point that i made in my comment in the discussion on this earlier post. The article was meant as a discussion about trends in ODI cricket, but turned into one about the World Cup result for India – “the problem with ODI cricket, especially in India is that it is impossible to rebuild a team because the public does not tolerate reverses.”

Chappell’s had emails he sent to the BCCI chief leaked to the press. He can be excused this small indiscretion – especially because it brings home to roost the fact that the national cricket establishment feels threatened by its own supporters.

Meanwhile – that shining example of a rehabilitated late bloomer – Matthew Hayden has just made 158 with 3 overs to play against the West Indies. Australia look like crossing 300 for the 7th consecutive game in ODI cricket.

Cricketing View

The Chappell-Ganguly story revisited….. the source of all Chappellskepticism

The Chappell Ganguly story has been well chronicled by Cricinfo. I thought it would be informative to revisit actual events instead of indulging in vague judgements like “Chappell looked like he was playing politics”. Heres what i think are the most telling facts of the case:

1. Chappell had a discussion with Ganguly in the tour match at Mutare in Zimbabwe about his position in the side, his work as captain and as his batting form. Chappell suggested that Ganguly step down and let Yuvraj, Kaif, Laxman and Dravid form the middle order for the next test match.

2. This was an internal team discussion which was leaked to the press – to the Anand Bazaar Patrika, possibly by Ganguly according to this Cricinfo article

3. The BCCI told the player to shut up about the issue and called up the review committee, which told Chappell and Ganguly to basically not air their dirty laundry in public. The selection committee subsequently sacked Ganguly as captain and dropped him from the team.

This is the leaked email

Sachin Tendulkar typically put some perspective to the issue, saying that it was an internal team matter and should never have been leaked. BCCI has not bothered to reveal where the leak was, and press has not asked them to do so. The press can’t ask them to do so, simply because they are as “unprofessional” (to use a must abused word) as the BCCI, and aren’t willing to risk not having a subject to report about by blowing their sources.

The whole thing has been a sorry affair – and nothing apart from newspaper sales went up as a result of it.

A World Cup victory may bring Chappell much needed respite, but those initial impressions will linger – only to surface at the slightest hint of rough weather. Even the World Cup win may be a poisoned chalice – the nay sayers will point to the “heroic comeback” and consider it final and absolute proof that Chappell embodies pure evil. In cricketing terms much of the so-called heroism – a word which is now synonymous with scoring runs – occured after the comeback. Ganguly did nothing particularly noteworthy with the bat the whole year. His selection was largely down to the fact that none of the youngsters made the middle order slot their own – and Yuvraj was injured.

Mohammad Kaif may feel aggrieved, but then, hes no Sourav Ganguly.

CricketingView

Chappellskeptics – why they are wrong…..

Last appended on 2/26/07

Greg Chappell’s tenure as coach of the national side was cursed the day he made a seemingly straightforward case for the dropping of Sourav Ganguly from the Test team in Zimbabwe. Ganguly (the Dada in more ways than one) took it badly and to borrow an phrase from down under, flung the toys out of the pram. The press, brought up as it has been on intrigue, distrust, smelt a story too good to pass up and soon it was the firang Coach out to prove who was the boss. Ganguly couldn’t believe he was being told he was no longer good enough (the numbers support Chappell’s view) and took it badly. His reaction is understandable, but the immaturity and hyena like attitude of the press in the issue is not.

Soon it was time for effigies, protests and discussions in parliament at Rs 100,000 /minute, and Chappell’s tenure was doomed for ever. My friend Homer posted this post by G Rajaraman the sports journalist who writes for Outlook magazine, the Times of India and also on Cricinfo blogs has tried to present what Chappell and Dravid have tried to achieve in conjunction with the selectors. This article on Cricinfo gives an account of what actually happened in Zimbabwe in 2005.

What the selectors and Chappell-Dravid have exposed in the past 18 months, is the unless we have a side like Australia, where the batsmen average 40 with the bat and the bowlers average 25 with the ball (the bench mark for being top quality), we can’t live with a settled line up, because India won’t win with personnel who average in the mid 20’s with the bat for a long period of time, and with bowlers who average in the mid 30’s (which is what we have had – look at the records of Ganguly, Kaif, Zaheer Khan, Suresh Raina, Ashish Nehra and every other player who has been axed at some time or the other in the last 12-18 months). On the flip side is the fact that world class players are rare, and may not always be available. Therefore, the results on the ground for the Chappell-Dravid method were not always going to be as clean and crystal clear as they seemed in theory. The seemingly inexplicable (inexplicable only until one takes the trouble to ascertain real facts such as form and fitness of the player concerned) selection policy not only worked (India has won more than it has lost since Dravid was appointed captain – something that was not achieved in the Ganguly era if you don’t consider minnow matches), but has also moulded the side in Dravid’s image, which was important.

Heres why the skeptics are wrong – In the just concluded Deodhar Match, all eyes were on Irfan Pathan, but, with 3 selectors watching, Ramesh Powar produced a brilliant spell of 4/25, coming in after the Central Zone openers had raced to 0/80 by the 14th over. The press did not say a word about it – which says very little about the press’s interest in the cricket match. A good reporter would have asked Dilip Vengsarkar about Ramesh Powar’s performance, but most were interested in the non-story about Irfan Pathan. Cricinfo did provide a fine headline. It shows how difficult the job of the selectors is. And why a sincere decision can sometimes look like it is especially tough. It doesn’t however mean that the selectors were wrong. Similarly, the fact that something Chappell does not working, doesn’t mean he’s dishonest, and that his explanations are disingenuous.

My point is not to nitpick and keep going after people whos reactions i am unable to gauge in terms of the rationale for those positions (which never seem to be forthcoming). I do think that there is a case to be made for decency and grace and far more informative reporting.

Cricket is yet to become a sport in India. It is up to reporters and others who communicate events to communicate them well. The goal must be to shift the centre of gravity of cricket support in India away from Mandira Bedi at least in the general direction of a G Rajaraman or Ayaz Memon or Harsha Bhogle.

More domestic cricket will help in achieve this, because it will demystify cricket – it will put a whole lot of cricket out there which is not multi million dollar gladiatorial drama.

Cricket needs to be reclaimed from the Chappellskeptics towards the Cricketophiles, not because they are likely to side with Chappell in the life altering saga of Chappell v Ganguly, but because they are willing instinctively to give it a dispassionate, calm, rigorous hearing before offering their opinions (where passion for cricket will hopefully be apparent – armed with the facts and nurtured with concern for the sport)

CricketingView

Guru Greg’s Grand Designs……

If the media is to be believed, Greg Chappell has been milking India’s recent success (3-1 v WI followed by 2-1 v SL) to score much needed brownie points about his performance and about strategies followed by the team management and selection committee. Recent comments about Sourav Ganguly’s return and now this effort about Sehwag, all serve to embellish the Guru Greg image. The Sehwag story is a bit iffy though, because Chappell’s quote to me sounded more like thinly veiled exasperation at Virendra Sehwag’s stubborn resistance to common sense, compounded no doubt by the embattled batsman’s mind numbingly ridiculous dismissal at Vizag. Chappell said “something seems to have worked” and also said that “Sehwag was used in the middle order as cover for Yuvraj Singh”, and Rediff some how turned this into a “motivational ploy”!! Sometimes i wonder what the questions are like in these press conference – i mean, did they actually ask him “Why did Sehwag score runs?”!

Chappell’s detailed explanation about his methods is being interpreted by the press according to the press’s image of Chappell, and Chappell’s legacy will be defined by one thing and one thing only – Chappell v Ganguly. This sadly one eyed view shows absolute contempt for the position and role of the coach in life of a cricket team. If we can not grant people in positions of responsibility the basic courtesy of not questioning their motives every step of the way, then we dare not expect anything other than mediocrity. In this case, we find a very good cricket team and yet, i cannot help feel that we in India can learn so much more from cricket and Indian Cricket than we are today.

For Chappell, the only way he can “retrieve” the damage caused by the Ganguly issue (and this has nothing to do with Ganguly, but has everything to do with the fact that the purveyors of public opinion still continue to fuels old fires simply because it sounds smart to pummel someone with contempt. Ganguly himself has come to terms with the fact that the decision to sack him was the right one. Without this realization he would never had regained the clarity of thought which has been apparent in his recent cricket), is by winning the World Cup.

The sad thing is that should India win, the adulation, well meant as it will be, will still be rooted in hollow ignorance, and when the next coach comes along and the next selection committee comes along and deals with the next Ganguly, we will have a rerun of 2005. The cricket press has no responsibility and is answerable to no one and that is how it should be. It does have a responsibility to desist from caricaturizing every subject. Cricket is trivial in the larger scheme of things. Why then can’t we be decent where nothing is at stake?

Only then will we be spared binary positions “Oh X is out to get Y” and “Oh X is justifying things with 20-20 hindsight, who does he think he’s fooling” – neither position has anything to do with actual events and actual opinions expressed by any of the protagonists.

CricketingView

India at World Cup Eve….

Greg Chappell was appointed coach of the Indian side in May 2005. It was an orderly transfer of responsibility from the Wright to Chappell. The transition from Ganguly to Rahul Dravid was anything but. As 2006 approached, it was apparent to an increasing number of people, that Ganguly was in decline as captain, batsman and cricketer. Injury caused Ganguly to miss Chappell’s first series in charge – the triseries in SL. He returned for the Zimbabwe Triseries at the end of which, was dropped from the ODI side. The former captain took it badly and the nation shared his dismay. Chappell got an early taste of what it was going to be like being the Gandalf of India – minus the magical powers. What happened next is debatable (mainly due to the existence of two distinct world views – God Ganguly and Human Ganguly – or conversely Human Chappell or Evil Chappell). Dravid-Chappell delivered for India their most successful ODI season ever – with a new team and new achievers. Munaf Patel, Suresh Raina, Sreesanth, Irfan Pathan, Robin Utthappa, Ramesh Powar, RP Singh, – all turned in match winning efforts. Yuvraj Singh staked realistic claim to the top table of the world’s ODI batsmen. Captaincy made Rahul Dravid a better ODI player. Tendulkar made sporadic appearances. Sehwag, Kaif and Zaheer took a back seat. A world record for most consecutive run chases was achieved. The end of that run of successful chases marked the beginning of a slump, as India lost by 1 run chasing 197 against the West Indies at Trinidad. Dwayne Bravo foxed Yuvraj Singh with his slower ball for a brilliant 97. Since then, its been downhill for India, Dravid and Chappell.

The Vengsarkar selection committee replaced Kiran More after the recent elections and India embarked on the home stretch of their World Cup preperations. It was time to focus on the final task of assembling a squad a 15 players by February 14th. This included the return of Zaheer Khan (who put in the hard yards and came back a better bowler) and Sourav Ganguly (who seems to have thought long and hard, and cleansed himself of the captaincy and all associated grime), much to the glee of the Chappell bashing janata. Chappell himself has given a freewheeling (to use a peculiar phrase used very often in interview introductions) interview on World Cup eve where it is apparent that he has learnt much about India in general and Cricket in India in particular. His claim about being a well wisher of the former captain is received with skepticism and he seems to be resigned to the fact that this may never really change.

Sehwag, Ganguly, Yuvraj, Tendulkar, Dravid, Dhoni, Pathan, Agarkar, Munaf, Zaheer, Harbhajan looks world beating on paper. It is a better side than the 2003 World Cup side – Dravid is a better player today, as is Yuvraj Singh, while Zaheer is a better bowler today than he was in 2003. Agarkar will always be Agarkar, while Munaf is possibly the best Indian fast bowler since Kapil Dev. Harbhajan is an experienced ODI spinner now.

The Munaf v Sreesanth debate seems to have been framed along the same lines as the Dravid v Ganguly debate. There is little doubt that Dravid is the better batsman amongst the two, and there is little doubt in my mind that Munaf has superior control when compared with Sreesanth. However, Ganguly and Sreesanth will always win the popularity stakes because they wear their heart on their sleeve and leave little to the imagination as far as their opinion about things are concerned. Dravid and Munaf are far more classical, more correct and seem intent on doing things correctly. They are not givens to fits of unseemly behaviour, neither are they given to theatrical outbursts. Ganguly has mellowed with age but his fans seem ageless. Who wants to win more? On this question, the fans are nearly unanimous (i realize this is a dangerously sweeping claim, but i have no reason to believe otherwise) – Ganguly and Sreesanth want it more than Dravid and Munaf (each group being representative of their respective ilks).

This misguided subtext seems to dominate the concerns of India’s fans. Do the players really want it badly enough? Does Dravid wan’t to win as badly as Ganguly did? What is Chappell’s agenda? Was Ganguly sidelined in the manner that he was to pave the way for 8-10 months of pure Chappell-Dravidization? These questions and these world views will never go away. What a World Cup victory will do at best is to sweep these questions under the carpet. Appreciation of Cricket in India is much like the appreciation of Indian-Chinese – which is probably the most misconcieved, misunderstood and yet seemingly inevitably popular cuisine in todays India. It is probably the closest one can come to a pan-Indian restaurant cuisine. So it is with Cricket.

As Chappell has learnt, this is a reality which is best left at arms length. The team as with the selection committee and the cricket community must become a cocoon in which Cricket can be developed. That is what has been attempted, and achieved in the last 6 or 7 years. This World Cup is the acid test of this development.

Best Wishes to India…

CricketingView

A Defeat with many fathers……

It is a measure of a Cricket team mired in mediocrity, that should take a contest against the very best to lift their game. Improvement hinges on survival, not on standards set for oneself. For India, this has been the case and it is basically down to the fact that they are not as good as Australia. Playing Australia results in two things:

1. Defeat.
2. An improvement in the defeated teams game.

For India, who are experiencing a version of second season blues, this defeat must surely have many fathers. They did not win and Mohali, and in terms of this individual match, it was down to the fact that nobody produced anything exceptional with either bat or ball. The core ingredients of a good performance were very much there – at least with the bat. The approach was measured, embodied by Sachin Tendulkar, who seemed to have batted with the sole intention of seeing off the new ball. He is no longer as good as he once was, and on this wicket, with an India in form, or with the Tendulkar of yore, we might have seen him going after Glenn McGrath and Brett Lee from the word go….. disturbing their length just by his intent as he did so famously in Nairobi in 2000.

The bowling, by all accounts was terrible. I was afraid that the Indians would try to test the middle of the pitch. Ian Chappell wrote about the use of the short ball in this tournament and warned that India trying this tactic against Australia’s batsmen may not be the same as Australia trying it against India’s. And so it proved. All the hard earned chips from the batting were squandered in 15 mad overs at the start of the Australian innings. From then on, it was a matter of pulling things back, just like it was against the West Indies.

They say that Victory has many fathers, but Defeat is an Orphan. This has been a defeat with many plusses, and for India to wage a realistic World Cup campaign early next year, this defeat must have many fathers. Chappell must zero in on his World Cup squad – i suspect that hes still looking for 1 batsman (to replace the disappointing Suresh Raina, Hemang Badani must be wondering what he might have achieved had he played as many games as Raina has).

India clearly has an inexperienced team right now. Indeed, the average age of the Indian squad for the Champions Trophy is 25). But experience comes from results like these, because they tell you more about a teams strengths and weaknesses than victories. India batted well yesterday. With Tendulkar failing and Yuvraj unavailable, and error of sending Raina ahead of Irfan, 250 was about as many as they would have got against this line up on any day. The bowling had a bad day.

Quality is a function of the number of bad days that a unit has. Australia are the team they are because they rarely have bad days – batting or bowling. That is what India have to aspire to. It is the sort of quality which it is possible for a team to build within them. Brilliant strokeplay and natural talent is something that is probably God’s gift, but the number of bad days are in one’s hand. This is never revealed more acutely than when a must win, sudden death game has been lost.

India’s subsequent success will depend on how many people apart from the Captain take ownership of this defeat. India are not the best gifted team in the world right now. But to change the question from “How good are we really?“, as is being asked now, to “How can we be the best?”, as was being asked last season, when success and India seemed to be firm friends, it will take responsibility – from Chappell and Vengsarkar. This can begin by making the following assertions:

1. Tendulkar is not as good as he once was. Therefore he is no longer the undisputed best batsman in the side. The logic of the best batsman getting the most overs does not therefore hold. India need to take a stand on this, to let it lie is a strategy fraught with danger. A third opening option – Gautam Gambhir would be a good selection.

2. 4 or 5 bowlers is a stand India need to take. If 5 bowlers play, then Powar and Harbhajan have to play, simply because they offer a range of options to the captain. While Irfan the batsman has been used a great deal, Dhoni the batsman has not yet been tapped. If 4 bowlers play, then India need to be sure that Tendulkar will bowl. While Sehwag, Yuvraj and Mongia are excellent part time bowlers, Tendulkar has wicket taking ability.

3. They need a settled batting order. Flexibility worked fine, when the players in the batting order were all new and had not yet settled in as a batting unit.

I would go ahead and present a batting lineup and a squad for the world cup. In batting order it would be

Gautam Gambhir, Virendra Sehwag, Sachin Tendulkar, Yuvraj Singh, Rahul Dravid, Mahendra Dhoni, Irfan Pathan, Ramesh Powar, Ajit Agarkar, Harbhajan Singh, Munaf Patel

The reserve players would be Kaif, Sreesanth, Mongia, VRV Singh

This is the best Indian squad right now. Part of the problem with flexibility is that after a while it descends into randomness. This is not good for allocation of responsibilities. Tasks get allocated, but not responsibilities.

Food (well… atleast Pav Bhaji, if not Poli Bhaji) for Vengsarkar and co…..!

CricketingView