Chappell Quits…. the "revolution" has begun…

Greg Chappell declared his intention to not seek a new contract as the coach of the Indian Cricket team. This might immediately be read as a direct result of Tendulkar’s exasperating statement yesterday pleading that his attitude not be questioned after 17 long years of toil for India. However, this statement may just have been the last straw in a sorry 3 weeks, which began on the 17th of March with India’s defeat to Bangladesh. The tragic circumstances of Woolmer’s passing, as well as the idiotic reaction in India may have contributed as well. Cricinfo has been quick to profile possible successors almost as though they expected Chappell to quit and had these profiles prepared just in case. Sambit Bal has written about a revolution being necessary in Indian Cricket. Without intending to be flippant about it, this is the common refrain. After every defeat of any consequence, it is possible to predict a pattern of events – first anger, then abuse, then feeble commentary about “stray reactions” which may have gotten out of hand, plenty of abusive press, fractures within the team coming to the fore, heads rolling – until things come a full circle when India take the field in their next game.

At the core of India’s trouble is the inability and refusal to accept that Cricket is indeed a Sport. It is not an exact science, it is not completely predictable and it is not an instrument of national pride or escapist fantasy (i don’t know what can be scarier than the fact that Cricket is the platform where these two ideas can be used interchangeably in India today). Chappell talking about process is one thing – him being second guessed every step of the way betrays a complete disregard for the notion of the process.

The process is one which promises a diligent work ethic and the single minded pursuit of certain stated goals – in this case – Player development and establishment of the next generation India team. Indias cricket did not buy into Chappell’s process and indeed it is possible to speculate that he was unable to persuade India to buy into it. But was it his job to persuade the broader public to buy into the process? What does Dilip Vengsarkar’s fear of public backlash in playing a young team in the 2007 World Cup say about the obstacles that were apparent to the execution of the process? That this World Cup squad was the best available squad for India on paper is unquestionable – that it represented player development being put on the back burner is equally true.

Where do we stand now? What lessons do we learn here? Is the accepted wisdom going to be that Chappell paid the price for his failure to get results in the World Cup? If this is so, then it would be extremely unfair to Chappell, because the results he achieved on the whole were superior to those achieved by Wright. The gains of the 2003 World Cup were squandered by John Wright and Sourav Ganguly in the two years after the World Cup from 2003-2005, mainly in the 2004-05 season. It took Chappell to turn that around and instigate the removal of Ganguly. What followed was India’s most successful ODI season ever (i cannot help but harp on this because today it is a glimpse of what India have squandered by giving in at the first setback to the youth policy). The team of the future will not be built around Tendulkar and Ganguly and Kumble. The team of the future cannot ignore them either.

The pressure, especially when it comes to events like the World Cup, is so much, that the selectors by their own admission found themselves factoring in possible “backlash” (Chappell’s SMS to Rajan Bala…… more on that in a moment). I don’t blame the BCCI for their short term decision. I do however hope that they will learn their lessons and ensure better communication, less off the cuff communication and put their foot down. The BCCI President should be shouting from the rooftops complaining that HIS players families have to live under armed guard while the players go to the World Cup. He should be complaining to any one who will listen that TV Channels have tended to misrepresent stories and manufacture them where they don’t exist. The BCCI has been weak in its endeavor to be nice to everybody. Rajan Bala should be on the BCCI reporters blacklist for having the cheek and lowliness (i can’t think of another word here) to stand in front of TV cameras and read out an SMS sent to him by Chappell, a month after it was sent. The TV Reporters did not have the presence of mind, or probably did not care enough to ask what the context of that SMS was – whether it was for an on the record report, or an off the record communication from the coach to a senior columnist in good faith.

If you think this is out of line and that this in unrealistic, read this comment by Jacques Kallis – “I’ve never minded criticism but I think there’s a line you don’t cross and certain people crossed that line. That’s fine, I’ll remember who those guys are in future.” I have never come across any Indian player, except possibly Dravid making a firm decisive statement like that about any one in the press – and they have faced more idiotic nonsense than Kallis does. They are instead reduced to wondering whether they will face physical threats upon returning home to India.

So it has come to pass – Chappell has quit, the press has had a field week, the BCCI has been busy keeping everyone happy, the players have been shattered – all because India lost 2 Cricket matches. Is it Cricket which needs a “revolution” – or is it fans and the press who need one? The first draft of Cricket history in India is being written with an eye on the ratings – that is a disservice to both country and cricket.

Hopefully Chappell will be less trustful of Indian reporters. That is more likely than Indias reporters developing an interest in Cricket. And i make no apology for making a generalized reference to “reporters” or the “press” because the press itself is unwilling to criticize its own. Until that happens – until newspapers actively call the TV Channels bluff – there is no other way to refer to them. Just as the team is taken apart – players pitted against players, players pitted against management, so that they can be individually exposed, so it needs to happens with the Cricket press.

I realize the value of the press’s unwritten pact that it will never criticize its own, and in matters political this is valuable because it makes the press powerful and largely independent. In the context of Cricket, this is of no importance. Cricket does not need a powerful press – Cricket needs a press interested in Cricket – on the field. I don’t care what Cricketers do off the field. It is Cricket i follow, and Cricketers do not interest me beyond their cricket. I must claim here that this how it must be. I do not see how it can be otherwise. The whole industry is based on the Cricket that the cricketers play. This may seem obvious to the reader, but it is seemingly forgotten in the hurly-burly of the 24×7 news cycle, which tends to become an end in itself.

Until this view gains prominence, there will continue to be victims – like Greg Chappell. The other perpetual victims are cricket fans – like you and me. I can not make a more telling inference than to say that Cricket seems incidental for various reasons to everybody except the 15 players who make up the India squad and many many others who play first class cricket. Vengsarkar worried about backlash, Chappell’s decisions in the end came to be defined by his desire to explain things to the press, the BCCI president has to keep everyone happy, the press needs to look after ratings, Rajan Bala wants his 2 minutes of fame and will stoop to any level to do so… where is Cricket in all this?

Why are we not talking about the emerging evidence that the Sri Lankans are on a red hot streak and possess a bowling attack that is special in its ability to control an ODI game….. India, West Indies, South Africa and now England have felt the Sri Lankan sting. Yet, losing to Sri Lanka was purely a function of India playing poorly, and had little to do with Sri Lanka.

People will look back at this 50 years from now, and hopefully find it absurd.

Chappell, Tendulkar and the Press – which of these is the "Mafia"?

Sachin Tendulkar has commented on reports that Greg Chappell was unhappy with the attitude of the senior players. It is possible to count on the fingers of one hand – with fingers to spare, the number of times that Tendulkar has made a public comment about the Indian Cricket Team.

The whole situation is bizarre – The press reports that Chappell said what he said, then reports that Tendulkar is upset about what Chappell said. Cricinfo’s headline in the matter is disappointing. While this may once again amount to hair-splitting, it is in these details that quality and standards are revealed.

All the quotes attributed to Tendulkar reveal his frustration. The Chappell comment is actually a quote from a source close to Chappell, not a comment from Chappell himself. Tendulkar’s only reference to Chappell had a huge “if” in it. Textbook spin all in all.

The Press Mafia driven by the desperate need to feed the 24×7 news cycle feels free to quote anonymous sources in Cricket or in Bollywood, or in some similarly inconsequential walk of Indian life. I have never heard them quote a source close to any top politician or bureaucrat revealing anything damaging to either. Im sure politicians and their aides are as loquacious as Chappell and his aides. The press will never turn on its own – unwritten Mafia like quality. If Aaj Tak runs a full day of ridiculous headlines comprising of outright lies and near lies, embellished with the choicest speculation, that for some reason is never a “news story” – even though it probably affects the millions of people who watch Aaj Tak adversely feeding them untruths.

It is exasperating to see this – the sheer cheek of pitting Tendulkar v Chappell just to prove their thesis that the senior players were pitted against Chappell. How can reporters, whos duty it is to report events, get swept away by events as they have in the aftermath of India’s World Cup exit?

Amidst all this, Anand Vasu describe what seems to be a clash of cultures between the Coach and the Players. The World Cup Exit seems to have destroyed the Indian Cricket Team. It seems increasingly, that either Chappell or Dravid will quit their jobs. Even if Chappell is retained, i do not see Tendulkar accepting Captaincy with Chappell at the helm. Chappell by all accounts is a brilliant batting coach – something even Ganguly has acknowledged. What the defeat at the World Cup and subsequent abuse seems to have done is to wash away the glue that holds a group of high achievers together – self-esteem. Clearly, an level of disappointment unprecedented for any player in this squad has been exacerbated by the abusive, contemptuous atmosphere in India. Cricket’s house of cards has come tumbling down in India.

Cricketing View

Dravid and Chappell answer questions………

Note: Originally, this post contained just Rahul Dravid’s Q&A from Cricinfo. But after reading the Chappell Interview, im compelled to edit this and say the following:

The first of many such both will have to face….

Cricinfo – Rahul Dravid
Cricinfo – Greg Chappell

Really, there was only one thing the press were interested in – and it wasn’t finding out about todays game, or even about why India came up short. The question was simple :

“Who’s to blame?”

Once that was established, the press pack, like Hyenas, would get their prey lying on the ground before them. Let me stick my neck out and make a guess here – the answer to who’s to blame wouldn’t be accepted – it would merely be used for the following line – “Chappell blames _____________ “, and initiate a vicious cycle of blame (which is a reporters dream).

Chappell has done very well (albeit in a direct undiplomatic way) by not letting on. The press however, has wasted a really good opportunity to actually find out what happened. The clearest example of the fact that the press wasn’t interested in finding out anything from Chappell was the declaration in one of the questions that “Vision 2007 had failed”. Now, that is probably an accurate statement, but how stupid is it put say that affirmatively as part of a question! If only they had asked “Would you consider Vision 2007 a failure?” – it might have created an opening for conversation.

Instead all that we saw was a rancorous tu tu mai mai in which both sides refused to communicate anything. The press got their quotes, Chappell held his own, and you and me – who are really interested in hearing the coach’s opinion about things, are left high and dry.

One particular question from the press was particularly hilarious… “You said you are answerable to the BCCI. But aren’t you also answerable to one billion fans in India? Shouldn’t you say something to them?” – the silent unsaid line after that question was “they will read what you say through my publication….. so please….. i beg you on bended knee…. please give me something that isn’t routine.”

The press conference was cruel – the cricket press at its glorious worst.

Really…. it seemed like its the press which had lost and that Chappell was trying to tell them to keep it together and not start a blame game.. Wasn’t it our Cricket team that lost to Sri Lanka today?

Cricketing View

A tale of two coaches…….

Cricket Coaches, especially the ones who coach international cricket teams have become targets for accountability hawks (accountability is usually defined for these purposes as – “if the team doesn’t win, then the coach is held accountable, all team management decisions become coach’s decisions, all problems result from problems between the coach, the captain, the “senior players” and the selectors, with the coach being the villain of the piece). The role of international cricket team coach has been questioned by several commentators, most notably by Ian Chappell, who thinks a coach’s involvement should be minimal. Today we have a situation, where two of the most difficult coaching jobs in the cricket world have just become even more unsavoury, because the teams in question have been losing.

Greg Chappell has presided over what must now be seen as more than just a troubling slump in form – 18-6 over his first 25 games as ODI team coach (with Rahul Dravid at the help), and 3-12 in his last 16! Duncan Fletcher goes into the biggest series in recent English history, with all of England anticipating Ashes success, and finds his side down 2-0, with a very real possibility that England will go into the marquee Test matches (Melbourne and Sydney), with the Ashes already lost, and with the more familiar goal of not falling to an Ashes whitewash). Both Chappell and Fletcher have faced criticism thanks to their alleged biases against certain players. Chappell is seen in parts of India as having been vindictive against Sourav Ganguly (never mind that Ganguly’s record in the last 4 years of his career was very poor), while Fletcher is seen to prefer the diligent prose of Giles over the classical poetry of Panesar. “Experimentation and flexible batting line ups, all overdone” in the case of Chappell, translates to “questionable selection and poor preparation” in the case of Fletcher.

A calmer, purely cricket based investigation (minus subtexts driven by and riddled with common press frailties), reveals simpler a simpler explanation – class. Eleven players make up a cricket team, and there is general agreement about the distinct skills and gifts that these 11 players must offer, to make up a good team. It follows then, that the quality of each player, is what defines the quality of the team. In sport, there is another characteristic – form. The form of each player, reveals how much above or below par the team performs. Bench strength or depth, further explains how much longevity there will be to the success. These three factors – class, form and bench strength, in that order, are far more central to the results achieved by a cricket team, than the singular influence of a cricket coach. What a coach and a captain can do at best, is to ensure that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

The simple truth of the matter is, that in Indias case, success in 2005-06 was down to the performance of 3 players – Irfan Pathan, Mahendra Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh, who offered something over and above what was generally contributed by players in their positions to the national side. Add to this a well above par effort with the bat from Rahul Dravid, and you have the makings of an 18-6 record. During the 3-12 phase, Irfan, Dhoni and Rahul Dravid went off the boil, while Yuvraj Singh got injured. The rest of the side, continued their par effort – Tendulkar made his sporadic appearances, and played well on occasion, Sehwag continued his usual hit or miss performances, Kaif was steady, the bowling actually did better than it usually does, Harbhajan remained world class, and the fielding in general was pretty good. The fringe places – in the case of the current India side 1 batsman and 1 bowler, performed as well as fringe places can be expected to. The winning edge was lost, because the match-winners went off the boil. This is where class comes in. World class match winners do not stay off the boil for too long, and the availability of relentless class at each position, ensures that when some match winners do occasionally go off the boil, others come along and take their place. The same argument extends to bench strength – which in Indias case is light to begin with.

In Englands case, more than anything they have done, it has been down to what they have been faced with – relentless, unyielding class, playing in home conditions with something to prove. Steve Harmison’s form and Panesar’s absence has not helped, but i doubt whether it would have made a telling difference. It is interesting to compare this series with the 2005 series. Australia lost the second test in 2005 by about 2 runs (it may have been 3), after a tremendous fight back. They won the second test in 2006-07, after a tremendous fight back. You can argue endlessly about how Vaughan’s tactical understanding was superior to Flintoff’s and how the English bowling and fielding in 2005 was superior to that in 2006-07, but the fact of the matter is very simple, and Duncan Fletcher knows it – England have to be at their absolute best, and have to have everything go right for them in order to beat Australia by a whisker (2005 Ashes in England, won 2-1, the victories coming by 2 runs and 3 wickets, the defeat by 7 wickets), while Australia at their very best, with everything going their way, are good enough to hammer anybody, let along England, 5-0.

There is no substitute of quality – a coach can not manufacture it, and therefore a coach can not be realistically assigned all the blame. Both Chappell and Fletcher have taken selection decisions (assuming that they had a hand in team selection decisions), which are well supported by statistics and performances of the players available to them. And this is the key – they can only choose from the players that are available to them. Formers cricketers must necessarily be opinionated, cricket journalists must look for stories, and cricket fans must demand victory at all costs. In the end however, reality wins out. Completely brand new realities are created only rarely, and even these are often traceable, if you look carefully enough.

In most cases, the winners play well enough to win. They don’t however always end up being enduringly successful cricket teams. Just to put Chappell’s efforts in perspective, the Ganguly-Wright era, which we look back at today with so much nostalgia, saw India achieve a 45-60 record against non-minnow ODI opposition. The Chappell-Dravid era, still has India with a 50% record against non-minnow opposition. Fletcher’s England side is still the most successful English test team since the second world war. Chappell and Fletcher remain easy targets, and indeed, it is their job to be targets. That is part of the responsibility of the exalted Gandalfian role of “coach”. They can not however manufacture cricket teams.

CricketingView

Fire Greg Chappell!! – The view from GangulyLand……..

I came across this hilarious website – has to be a first in the history of cricket. A Website dedicated to one solitary cause – Fire Greg Chappell as Indian Coach…

Im all for fans to have opinions, but this website, low on fact, high on rhetoric, goes well beyond the realm of the cricket fan, into the realm of cricket activism. The “facts” mentioned on the website are selective offerings, which ignore important realities of Indias cricket in the past 6 years.

Here are some facts:

Since the Chappell-Dravid team took over (from the Sri Lanka series in 2005), India have the following ODIrecord:

Sri Lanka in India 2005-06 – Won 5-1
South Africa in India 2005-06 – Drawn 2-2
India in Pakistan 2005-06 – Won 4-1
England in India 2005-06 -Won 5-1
DLF Cup Abu Dhabi – 1-1
India in West Indies 2006 – Lost 1-4
DLF Cup Malaysia – 1-2
ICC Champions Trophy – 1-2

Thats an overall ODI record of 19-14 in 36 games. None of the results have come against minnow teams (Minnow teams are all teams other than India, Australia, England, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Pakistan, New Zealand and West Indies)

If you look at the record of Wright-Ganguly, in their best months (NatWest 2002 – Pakistan 2004), they have a 33-21 record in 58 games. Now, if you exclude the minnow games, then this record becomes:

Played 48, Won 23, Lost 21.

This was the Ganguly-Wright managements best record if you take the best period of their reign, after granting them a build up period of 2 years and a subsequent disastrous period of 1 year. If you look at Ganguly’s overall record as Captain, then not counting minnow opposition, his ODI record is 45-60, that is a 42% record!

If you consider Ganguly-Wrights Away record in this golden period, it is 12-14.

Now, the measure of development is that the present has to be better than the past. Contrary to current public opinion (which seems to be a anti-Chappell wave, in reaction to the Champions Trophy defeat), Chappell-Dravid have done significantly better than Ganguly-Wright did. And they have done so with a young team team – the youngest in World Cricket today.

Coming to Test Cricket, it has been an average first year for Chappell-Dravid. But i won’t even go there, since the view from GangulyLand claims that the “World Cup will be played abroad” in their Test Match “facts”.

Further, this website offers no opportunity for contacting its author. It does however provide the opportunity for “donations”.

All in all, i think its some sleazy “Cricket” fan trying to make a quick buck off Greg Chappell’s back.

CricketingView