The decision by the selectors to choose a team for the triangular series in Australia without Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman is a brilliant one. The timing is absolutely perfect for ushering in the next generation of cricketers who would, hopefully, take India to the biggest prize in limited-overs cricket in three years’ time.
Predictably, the decision has been met with furore in the streets of Kolkata with local administrators and former players vehemently criticizing the decision alike. Such reaction is understandable to an extent. India is starved of sporting heroes and the emotional Bengalis even more so with only one cricketer having been able to break the shackles of regionalism and politics in Indian sport to achieve international accolade in the last 40 years. However, if we were to analyze this decision with cold-hearted logic we would probably discover that it serves Indian cricket’s interest the best.
If a team is to make the finals of the World Cup it needs a core group of players who have been playing together and performing successfully as a unit for a number of years. This has been proven in almost all the previous editions of the tournament and in particular from 1996 onwards. That Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Laxman cannot form that core for India in 2011 is accepted by even their most die-hard fans. The question then is, when do we blood the cricketers and start building the core?
Come 2011, one essential characteristic of that core group of players is that, they should be capable of beating Australia on a regular basis. To win the world cup, Australia must be beaten and this is one characteristic which the previous core lacked even at the peak of their powers in 2003-04.
The best way to find out who has it in him to stand up against the Aussies is to let the youngsters loose at the opposition’s den. It will test their mettle and sieve out the good from the ordinary. India will play Australia only once in ODIs before 2011 after this series and we should make the most of this opportunity.
Critics might point out that short-term results would suffer and the team would most likely lose badly. Well, India hasn’t exactly set fire down under even with the stalwarts at their prime. In 1992 and 2004, India won 1 out of 6 games against Australia. In 2000, India lost all 4 games against Australia, 3 out of 4 against Pakistan and failed to qualify for the finals. However, amid all that gloom, Sourav Ganguly’s maginificent 141 against Pakistan established him as India’s best one-day batsman and was rewarded with the captaincy a few months later. Yuvraj Singh’s 139 against Australia in 2004 confirmed his exceptional talent and promise. Those are the kind of rewards India must look to reap out of this tour.
It is difficult not to feel for Ganguly who has only recently staged one of the most stirring comebacks in cricket history. However, while he’s batting as well as he’s ever done in Tests, the same cannot be said of his ODI form. It is unlikely that he’ll ever recapture the tremendous form of the early 2000s which made him India’s, and possibly the world’s, best one-day batsman. In the absence of that brilliance, his frailties in fielding and running between the wickets become even more glaring. Maybe this would turn out to be a blessing in disguise for him and by focusing solely on Tests he would some truly fantastic team and personal landmarks (8000 Test runs, 20 centuries, No.1 Test team amongst others)
Finally, Tendulkar’s inclusion seems to contradict everything that has been argued so far. However, Tendulkar’s has turned a new leaf with his batting in one-dayers in the last year, much like Ganguly’s batting in Tests. He is also a good runner between the wickets and has a strong arm. At 34, he stands an outside chance of making it to the next world cup and is worth persisting with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Very nicely written. I agree totally with the fact that Bengal is starving for sporting heroes and that Ganguly's inclusion or exclusion matter so much to the Bengalees. But I wish they had also payed some attention to other upcoming cricketers, and had been as vocal for their causes too.
Hmm...agreed...India does need a talented young cricket side to make it big in the World Cup..or in any upcoming series for that matter...and this is perhaps the ideal time to start working on creating that star team that can bring back some glory to our country. The point about the need to form a team that can beat Australia is very strong indeed!
But inspite of the fact that Bengalees are perhaps a bit too emotional and take immediate offense to any decision made against Ganguly, it can't be denied that selection decisions have not been very fair always...they have often been prejudiced and unexplainable. So even if this partiular elimination seems to be a right one, many people who are actually not putting in so much of an effort in analyzing the cause for it, might view this as a continuation of the unfair selection decisions meted out on the players, especially Ganguly on and off! So, although I do not support the ongoing agitation in Kolkata, I feel that the sudden whims displayed by the selection committee every now and then, is in a way responsible for this!
I cannot fully agree with this. The word that we miss out is 'balance'. It is true that those 4 will not be part of 2011. Yet, by excluding them at this juncture we would be missing out on maybe one year of their service which undoubtedly would have resulted in some good victories for India. This is 2008, they could have played one more.
And if you look at 2003 WC, Sourav-Wright had persisted with 14 players over a 1.5 year period which India did not in 2007. So, 2 years is more than sufficient to form the core.
The decision is good but the timing hopelessly wrong.
@payoshni : Indeed, what is most disappointing is that no one in Bengal uttered a word of protest against the non-selection of a promising young cricketer called Manoj Tiwary who , by virtue of his performances, deserved a chance ahead of past failures.
@spiderman: Sourav-Wright had identified the core by mid-2001 and hence 1.5 yrs was good enough . Now, we are close to identifying the bowlers but other than Dhoni and Yuvraj I'm not sure whether we have any of the batsmen earmarked. Hence, the need for experimentation at a relatively early stage.
Anindo:
Agreed.But if the thrust were to be really on building a team for the future then Manoj Tiwary surely deserved a place.
According to me, the core would be Yuvi, Gambhir, Sehwag, Robin, Raina, Tiwary, Sharma - out of this, six would make it. If there is no other who does well in domestic cricket - which seems unlikely since that guy would have to prove himself in at least 2 consecutive Ranji seasons which would be around 2009 end.
Post a Comment