Bidding Adieu to the No. 1 crown!!!!

This series has reminded me of those days of MBA, when in the Marketing Sessions, my lecturer gave a very nice example of a company called AVIS who were number two in the pecking order with a much lower market share and came up with a one liner brilliant ad campaign:

 “WE ARE NUMBER TWO BUT WE TRY HARDER!!”

Though it was just a beautiful punch line to boost the revenue of that particular company but there is no doubt that it also reflects the psychology of a number two. They tend to work harder to replace the No. 1 and one should not be wondering if England Team has done the same. Nasser Hussain made a very valid point during the commentary when India was about to lose the second game, “ when you are not number 1, you tend to improve by at least 10% series by series but the one who is there at the top may not improve by the same percentage as there is always a scope of complacency”. If you compare the performance of the players of both Indians and Poms, his point looks even more valid and the difference in preparation is very much visible and the same has been reflected in the results as well.

There is no denying the fact that there were a number of factors which were beyond anyone’s control. You can’t even imagine playing with just three bowlers against a very well prepared and arguably the best test side currently and if the one who is missing is Zaheer Khan, then the loss is undoubtedly massive. The unfortunate injury of Gautam Gambhir and the poor health of Sachin also caused further problems. But any expectations of hiding the basic errors and mistake made by BCCI, team management and the captain behind the above mentioned factors would be as stupid as a thief trying to hide the stolen elephant behind himself.

We have already seen a heavy dose of criticism for the individuals like MSD, Harbhajan Singh, Raina and Yuvraj Singh for not performing to the expectations and I think there is nothing much left to talk about them in fact I think all that criticism is actually useless and a little unfair to these players at this point of time. I may be sounding stupid when I say that these players should not be blamed but I have the reasons to say that. When the team was selected for the highly rated tour of England, there were a lot of people who had a doubt about the abilities of the players like Yuvraj and Raina to perform at Test level considering the conditions and superiority of the English attacks and at the end of the first two matches it’s very clear that it was a complete selection failure of the selectors. People like Yuvraj and Raina were not selected by themselves and I am sure no Raina after being selected in the test squad will say that I am not good enough to play test cricket in the English conditions. This is the job of the selectors to select the right players for the right format of the game.

Few of us have blamed the IPL also for leading to the cannibalisation of Test cricket and again I feel that’s of no use and again a little unfair to the players. IPL is an innovation which is a huge success because the fans loved it. The main motive behind any sport or a particular format of that sport is to have the fan following and to entertain them and there is no doubt that IPL has been able to do that, then why should one held it responsible for the failures of the other format of the game. The same IPL was praised for the entertainment it provides, the opportunity it gives to the youngsters not just in terms of better earning but also in terms of the experience they gain by playing with the seniors across the globe. IPL, ODIs or any format for that matter is good for its own reasons and they have their own fan following and there is nothing wrong if these formats are carried on for their fans, but the problem arises when the performance in IPL or ODIs becomes the most important criteria of selection in the Tests. When Yuvraj got selected many of us including me thought that he has been very rightly awarded for his performance in the World Cup but we got proven wrong big time. When I go back to Sri Lanka series where Raina got a chance to debut in Tests, his selection looks even more dramatic because his performance has been above average only in IPL. There is no doubt that he has been a good domestic player for Uttar Pradesh and was a decent performer in the ODIs also but was never impressive enough to be selected for the tests especially ahead of some other very talented and technically sound players who have done wonders in the First Class cricket.

The root cause of India being on the verge of losing the #1 crown is the insane expectations of the selectors to see the players like Yuvraj and Raina as the replacements of Dravid and Laxman in the coming future. The real disappointment comes when we go deep into it and try to find out, where does this expectation emerge from? Are they the best performer of the First Class Cricket to buy their place in Tests? If the answer is 'YES' then their are few players who have all the rights to challenge that answer. Ganguly and Harsha Bhogle mentioned the names of Wasim Jaffer and Ajinkya Rahane during the commentary. The two very talented Mumbai batsmen who started their career as openers and now batting at number 3 and 4. Wasim Jaffer could have been a very handy selection considering his abilities to open the innings and also could have been a better number 6 for India. One may question his average of 34 in 32 Tests but I think he lost his place not because he was bad but because the others grabbed it strongly. There is no doubt that his class and domestic records are far better than the likes of Yuvi and Raina to buy a place in the Tests again. There are a lot of players in the history who didn’t start the career in an impressive way but proved to be greats later on. VVS is a very nice example of that. Jafer had a bad start to the career but then looked good for 2 years and then had a horrible series against Australia and lost his plays and got black listed by the selectors. Ajinkya Rahane’s domestic record is a new benchmark, Pujara has been an outstanding player at domestic level and looked decent whatever little of him we saw at Test level but still Yuvi and Raina catch the eyes of the selectors because they have done well in IPL and ODIs.

As a fan I feel disappointed when I don’t see the best 16 being sent to the all important tour of England and players like Yuvi, Bhajji, Raina and even a Dhoni don’t deserve to be there. MSD has become a habitual bad workman who quarrels with his tools and the first blame of MSD goes to “HECTIC SCHEDULE”. I don’t think there is anything wrong done by BCCI to schedule the tours and series of different formats and even an IPL. People love cricket and as I mentioned earlier every format has got a cluster of people who love that. It’s up to the players to skip a series if they want to, I don’t think that they are forced to play and by the way they are not doing any charity, they are getting a heavy remuneration for their participation in the matches. They are getting yearly contracts and it’s a profession for them and still they have all the rights to skip the tours if they want to. Why can’t MSD skip an IPL?  Why can’t he skip the ad shootings? I don’t think that BCCI is forcing anyone to play but still BCCI should take these blames seriously and should be thinking of resting the players like MSD, Yuvi, Raina etc and nothing can be better than restricting them to an ODI and 20-20 player and resting them from Tests forever. Anyways there are much more deserving players to take their place in the Test squad. Three of them have already been mentioned.

We can’t say that the result would have been surely different in the first two tests against England If we had the players like Jafer, Rahane and Pujara in the team rather than having a Raina and Yuvraj but one thing is for sure, If we are expecting someone to be a Dravid or a VVS of Indian cricket 10 years down the line then Rahane and Pujara are far more likely to fulfil those expectations and it’s not just about the expectations, it’s about the fair justice which BCCI and selectors should do with the players like Rahane and Pujara.

To conclude, I think this series will be an eye opener for BCCI and their selectors to again relook at the basics of every format, especially of Tests and surely the selection will take place on the basis of the skill set required for that particular format instead of considering the performance in the other formats. I am a huge fan of the sayings of Navojot Singh Siddhu and here is a very funny Siddhuism which looks very valid in the current situation, “ Chuho ki khal se nagade nahi banaye jate….( Drumheads can’t be made of a Rat’s skin) “. One may argue that how dare I call the likes of Yuvraj and Raina “RATS”, (they are the famous tigers of INDIA, 6 sixes in one over, player of the tournament in WC-11, Raina is the most consistent player in IPL), Yes! they were the tigers for sure but when they were playing against the bouncers of English fast bowlers, India lost two more tigers (already very few left) and it’s just the poor selection which has made them look like rats. I hope BCCI and selectors will learn from their mistakes and they will have the best 16 selected to play a particular format in future.

Which era of Cricket is tougher? Is the comparison possible?

As expected, the ICC’s poll of the All Time Greatest XI has led to the debatable comparison between the modern day greats and the greats of the past. As several people have pointed out, all the players are the ones who have featured after 70’s and people have seen them playing, except Sir Bradman that too because if he were missing from the list then probably the poll would have been scrapped. Otherwise it’s very clear that people believed what they saw. The consequences are not a surprise either and as expected it has led to a debate once again, a debate which is never ending since there is no proper basis of comparison.

One of my respected friends Tim Holt has drawn a conclusion that Hammond is better than Sachin because he had played in tougher conditions. This is one of the very common criteria to compare the cricketers of two generations. Now I have few questions to ask from the seniors. What do we mean by the tougher conditions? Does it always depend on the physical and tangible conditions like uncovered pitches and less guards on the body? Can we ignore the mental pressure which is there and that increases as the game evolves?

I would like to quote an example. Ten years back in India when I thought of graduating from a Premier Business School, the percentile cut-off for Common Admission Test (CAT- The most difficult and prestigious examination for MBA in India, conducted by Indian Institute of Management) was close to 95, and now that has gone up to 99 in 10 years, apart from that the number of applicants have increased by 100% and the difficulty level of the exam has gone up by at least 200 percent. There was a time when 75% in 12th grade was enough to get admission in the top universities for graduation and today best colleges of Delhi University are asking for 97%. Can we say that the competition in cricket is constant? Surely not, then can we simply ignore the competition that has increased? If you had to be one among the thousands to become a national cricketer in those days then today you have to be one among the millions to be the same. Can we ignore that?

I can notice a huge change from the time I started watching cricket. The catch of VIV taken by Kapil Dev in the finals was considered a great one in those days and today that’s just a regulation catch and a heinous crime if dropped. The improved fielding, the technology to help the players prepare better before the series, do they not increase the toughness of cricket? Why do we not consider the professionalism that has come in? Why do we always forget that everything tends to evolve and cricket is not an exception? But we always take this game differently and think that it has become easier. Why do we not consider the biggest factor and that is the ability to switch from tests to ODIs and vice versa and then perform equally well in both the formats? Does it not increase the toughness? Now the next question would be, Why to feature in these meaningless ODIs? Pardon me, but the need is there because the game is evolving. People like to see  ODIs and 20-20 because that is the need of the hour. Change is the only way to survive. I am not a particular a fan of Test, ODIs or 20-20. I am fan of cricket and love watching every format of it. Nobody in today’s era would like to watch only Tests. I accept that the introduction of ODIs and 20-20 has gradually started a form of cannibalisation by eating up the Tests but that does not mean the ODIs are meaningless. We fans want the players to play everything. So the bottom line is that ODIs cannot be ignored because the fans like it and hence the performance in ODIs can’t be ignored and which means a successful switchover between 177 Tests and 440+ ODIs can never be ignored. Does that not increase the toughness of cricket in modern era?

I don’t seek answers for the questions I have put forth because I want to say that the Sachin and other modern players are great. I always believe that an All Time XI can never be formed and forming them leads to an unnecessary comparison. Anyone who has not just survived but has also ruled the game, the fans, the stats and last but surely not the least, ‘CRICKET’ of his era is a great for me. When people like Sir Don, Hammond, Hobbs used to play, cricket was only about tests and without any doubt they ruled the cricket of their times and pleased the people who loved Tests.  But today cricket consists of Tests and ODIs both and the players have to satisfy the fans of different clusters.  . So whenever we are discussing the performance of  modern players in Tests, we have to consider the influence of the other formats also, it’s never easy to switch over which means every era of cricket throws its challenges and not just challenges, you will find the relaxations also in every era. Despite being the uncovered pitches you will find enough number of drawn matches in the past that too when each match used to last for 6-7 days (rest day included).  In a few cases you will find more than 110 overs bowled in one day. The LBW rules were a little relaxed and the batsmen used to be given out only if the ball was pitching in line and hitting whether he is offering a shot or not. A very interesting state, in Hammond’s career 45% of the matches (38 out of 85) were draws and Sachin has played only 39.5 % (70 out of 177) draws. These kinds of stats create a doubt in my mind as to whether it was suffocatingly tough to survive on those pitches.

Yet I believe the comparison between two eras by any means will be unfair. I don’t think that there could be an all time 11 because that 11 will always be imaginary and debatable. I have already given my definition of the greats or shall I say all time greats and that is

“SOMEONE WHO HAS RULED THE CRICKET OF HIS ERA”