Desperate times call for desperate measures. In the absence of
acceptable contingency measures, the BCCI risked getting caught with its
hand in the cookie jar without looking like it was serious about
preserving the last vestige of the sport – Test cricket. Unwilling to
take a swipe at the skipper midway through the difficult overseas tour
of England, the BCCI did the next best thing it could do under the
circumstances – virtually fire the foreign support staff barring the
head coach. With mission scapegoat on their mind, the changes coming
from BCCI’s quarters did not themselves cause surprise as much as to
what they implied. The reality, however, is that more changes should be
in the offing if the score line is intended to improve somewhere down
the line on future overseas tours.
In a sport where the captain has more bearing than the coach and by
that extension, the support staff, the BCCI made the backroom payroll
pay for the on field disappointments of team India, although it was not
entirely unwarranted. The BCCI stopped short of putting their foot down
and in doing so, left the door open for more criticism. Stopping short
of firing the current Indian coach, Duncan Fletcher, the BCCI sent his
support staff consisting of fielding coach, Trevor Penny, and bowling
coach, Joe Dawes, on a brief hiatus while bringing in a slew of stop gap
measures for the remainder of India’s tour of England. If this was
BCCI’s way of wanting to oust the coach without getting its own hands
dirty, it was certainly pointing the way.
Although some would say that this was a classic case of locking the
door after the horse has bolted, the BCCI appointed former Indian
cricket and commentator, Ravi Shastri, as India’s director of cricket
for the forthcoming one day international series against England. With
the BCCI spelling out clearly that Shastri would be overseeing the
interests of Indian cricket, it is not hard to surmise who the boss is
in this picture. While Fletcher would remain coach, Shastri, a well
known BCCI loyalist, has been entrusted with the task of not only
infusing fresh energy into the weary squad but also, reporting back to
the BCCI on the merits of keeping Fletcher on as coach for the remainder
of the latter’s contract which runs up to the ICC Cricket World Cup in
2015.
Additionally the BCCI brought in an entirely Indian support staff to
replace the duo with former Indian cricketer, Sanjay Bangar, and Bharat
Arun as assistant coaches while employing R. Sridhar, associated with
the National Cricket Academy, as the fielding coach. Bangar was the
Kings XI Punjab coach in the IPL of 2014 after retiring from first class
cricket in 2013 and had impressed both, the Indian and foreign
cricketers, in the team with his level of involvement, commitment and
clearly spelled out ambitions for the team. Arun has been involved with
the coaching of India’s under-19 teams and the appointments are being
seen as a way to reconnect with the young Indian squad and get a better
understanding and perspective on the situation.
While the move to inject Indian support cast to bolster the team may
have been seen as expeditious in an attempt to bridge the communication
breakdown suspected to have taken place between the foreign coach and
the Indian players in the course of the Test series, it would seem
rather outrageous that on the face of it, the BCCI officials would go as
far as to say that both, Joe Dawes and Trevor Penny, were free to
either go back home or go on a holiday at a time when it would have
seemed more prudent for them to hang around to exchange notes and
assess the team and the players vis-à-vis their Indian counterparts. If
that is not a clear signal that the BCCI is no longer interested in
their services, one would not know what is.
While these are certainly interesting moves from the BCCI at a time
when it is colluding with other powerful boards to enhance its
commercial interests, tinkering with the support staff alone would not
get the team over the line on the next overseas tour in a format that
has become something of an endangered species. While the BCCI is
believed to be reticent about rocking the boat by firing both, the coach
and captain, in making these changes, it is not unlike pulling the rug
from under the feet of the coach who brought in the support staff in the
first place. The changes would suggest that pressure is directly on
Duncan Fletcher, who as India’s foreign coach, has struggled to change
perception in the public eye that he is little more but an aging figure
in the Indian dressing room and whose experience and knowledge as a
master tactician has not, by a process of osmosis, converted into
results since taking over from Gary Kirsten midway through 2011.
Although Fletcher came highly rated by his predecessor, Kirsten, who
enjoyed a great run with the Indian team culminating in the ICC Cricket
World Cup in 2011, and has been the strength behind the likes of Jacques
Kallis and Nasser Hussain and even helping out Rahul Dravid who rates
him rather high, Fletcher’s help behind the scenes has been largely
invisible and with India’s track record abroad not looking like changing
anytime soon, Fletcher would be counting down his days to the next
edition of the World Cup, if he manages to survive the duration of his
extended contract which seems highly unlikely at this point.
As things stand, this may be an unceremonious booting of a foreign
coach who never quite understood the ethos of the Indian cricket culture
and furthermore, would find, in hindsight, his inability to connect
with the passionate Indian masses may have led them to not being able to
weigh and asses his value in the dressing room and fully appreciate his
appointment. Against a dominant board and a powerful captain backed up
by influence in the board, Fletcher’s uphill battle began almost
immediately after an inconsequential tour of Zimbabwe straight into the
now infamous tour of England in 2011. It would then seem to come full
circle for the former England coach with an unrepentant India facing the
consequences for lessons unlearnt, sitting on their laurels after the
second Test and underestimating their opponents with Fletcher once more
facing the brunt of the brickbats for being the silent, ghost-like
shadow in the Indian dressing room.
The sixty-five year old Zimbabwean may feel even more handicapped in
the absence of his own staff. However, there were growing concerns in
several regards. For one, bowler management seemed a serious issue.
Bhuvneshwar Kumar looked ragged as the series drew to a close while
Pankaj Singh remained underutilized. Dhoni had little faith in Stuart
Binny who was anyway a shocking selection to begin with. Ravindra Jadeja
was preferred over India’s lead spinner, Ravichandran Ashwin, and it is
a choice selection that needs to be worked out between the selection
panel, the captain and the bowling coach who may have had input which
may or may not have been passed on or even appreciated, which would be a
cause for concern in any case.
India’s slippery fingers in the slips was a persistently agonizing
issue and one could attribute the turning point of the series to the
dropped chances that allowed the England captain, Alastair Cook, to
crawl back into contention and retain his captaincy on the morning of
the first day of the third Test in Southampton. While Fletcher was seen
taking on players for fielding practice individually, concerns remained
whether the players were being subjected to mock drills to enhance their
perception about slip fielding which includes understanding the degree
of proximity to their fellow slip fielders in a crucial scenario such as
a Test match where taking twenty wickets is as imperative on the
bowlers as it is on the quality of slip fielding. One could only wonder
if some of the football drills could not have been substituted for the
players honing their skills harder and longer in the practice sessions.
Fletcher himself has been instrumental in the shaping and reviving of
many an international batsman’s career. While some of the players have
spoken about Fletcher being able to help them on an individual basis,
that the results have not percolated onto the field can only point to
either of the scenarios where the batsmen have failed to imbibe the
lessons quickly enough, or whether the players were even seeking the
advice of the coach, and whether there was a communication gap between
the coach and the team between taking a hiding on the field and
extracting the lessons from it. It is hard to assess the reactions and
the contributions of a coach who is deliberately reticent with the
media, his deadpan countenance giving nothing away either to his
contentment with the team or displeasure at indiscipline.
While Fletcher’s past credentials are not in question, ultimately
when a team is not able to utilize the services of a great tactician
either due to their own stubbornness or of the coach’s inability to
translate that information in a different cultural environment that
represents the Indian dressing room, it would be a waste of both, time
and resources, when perhaps India, given the number of young incumbents
in the team, would be better served to have one of their own icons
taking control of matters in the dressing room.
For the present generation of Indian cricketers that has grown up
watching India’s iconic players and former captains such as Sourav
Ganguly and Rahul Dravid, having them in the dressing room in the role
of a coach, mentor or consultant could prove to be just the shot in the
arm that the team needs to propel itself from converting potential and
passion into commendable results. Not only would these players command
attention and respect and be a source of inspiration but also, because
they have been at the helm of affairs for the better part of a decade
and a half at the least, that would make them ideally connected to the
demands of the modern game and therefore, better able to understand,
empathize and help resolve issues that come with the trade. Although
Dravid did serve as a batting consultant for the initial part of the
tour, one can only imagine how dramatically different the results could
have been if the experiment had been persisted with.
But the coaching job is not the only one on shaky ground. Mahendra
Singh Dhoni’s tactical acumen seem to fail him when it comes to the
longest version of the sport. The tour is not the first instance and
depending how long he lasts in the role as India’s Test captain, it will
not be the last time that Dhoni’s captaincy will be scrutinized with
the same ruler. If leeway was accorded to Dhoni on India’s previous tour
of England as India went down 4-0, Indian cricket fans, heavily
invested emotionally in the sport, would be far less forgiving over two
abysmal tours to England, this tour particularly so after India seemed
to have their grip after the win at Lord’s and Alastair Cook seemed all
but certain to lose his as England’s skipper. Even for the most ardent
of Dhoni fans, it has been apparent for some time now that Dhoni does
not seem to have quite the same fluency of thought when it comes to Test
cricket. When faced with a brick wall, Dhoni’s defensive tactics only
expose that further.
At times one got the impression that the length of Dhoni’s wisdom
laced sound bytes at the post match presentation lasted longer than
India’s batting at the crease. But the pertinent question was whether
Dhoni was managing to convey the same message effectively in the
dressing room. Dhoni showed great enterprise in curbing his natural
instincts, batting with refrain and scoring knocks that saved India
further ignominy. But at times, his comments following the match gave
baffling insight about the skipper’s own mindset. Dhoni’s “Don’t be
jealous of the IPL” sounded like someone with the air of entitlement
while the skipper’s bizarre take at the post match presentation that the
team looked forward to two additional days of rest after India
surrendered tamely to England inside three days in the fourth Test at
Old Trafford did not sound like a team looking for redemption,
suggesting either that the skipper was not entirely serious about the
format or of the gravity of the situation as he would have liked us to
believe.
Dhoni, as a batsman, may have survived the litmus test for the moment
but his wicket keeping was competing with his captaincy, with the
latter dominating the headlines as the series progressed for all the
wrong reasons. As India’s game unraveled, so did some of Dhoni’s on
field decisions, hitting a sore point or two. And yet his stubbornness
to stick to plans that lost significance a long time ago smacked of a
skipper in denial or of someone who had run out of ideas. This is not
the first time that Dhoni’s captaincy in the Test format has come under
the scanner. And yet some would suggest Dhoni’s continuing to hold onto a
post that could have been taken away from him after the 2011’s 8-0
drubbing came down to his favourable standing in the corridors of the
BCCI. And the story may yet continue in the same vein.
Succession planning for the Test skipper’s role may have gone awry in
light of the batsmen’s poor performances. Undoubtedly before the start
of the tour of England, Virat Kohli was considered the frontrunner for
the job of India’s Test captain. Kohli’s pathetic batting record in
England exposed the vulnerability that even the young dynamic batsman
has had to come face to face with. It may have emboldened Dhoni while
flummoxing those with selection powers over the merits and repercussions
of replacing Dhoni. However, given Dhoni’s record of thirteen Test
losses and only one win in seventeen Tests, a younger captain’s mistakes
could not be worse and even forgiven in light of them being attributed
to a learning curve.
If South Africa could bring in Graeme Smith into the captaincy role
after only eight Tests, Kohli or even Cheteshwar Pujara, as someone
perhaps in the mould of Hashim Amla (although it is too early for
comparisons) as a silent, strong entity, could be inducted into the role
if only as a temporary trial run before the selectors are more
confident in their choice. Ganguly himself was not popular choice, was
never really considered captaincy material and yet brought about a new
era of mental robustness into a young Indian team and chased away his
detractors with some degree of success.
It may be harsh to blame a captain when the team’s misgivings ranging
from abysmal fielding, poor batting application to a lack of
consistency of line and length in bowling. However, when a captain has
shown inadequacies in critical areas – be it making the final playing
eleven selection, optimal use of players be it in field placement or
rolling in imperative bowling changes when the opposition is ripe for
the taking, one would think that the degree of discrepancy would suggest
a fresh, tactical mind was almost as imperative as a rap on the
knuckles for the players to pull up their socks.
A couple of player selections have been baffling to say the
least. In that context, it becomes equally relevant that the Indian
selection panel and the BCCI identify the stock of players ideally
suited to the longest format of the game. Stop gap measures rarely do
the job as India have found out on this tour. The need to identify and
develop players for key roles becomes particularly imperative given that
between the tours of 2011 and 2014, India have been flanked by the same
problems ranging from finding openers who can drop anchor and lay the
foundation to finding the right fifth bowling option to ensure a
watertight bowling attack. It must concern a team when a talent like
Rohit Sharma is unable to convert that potential and cement his place in
the team because he has shown captaincy skills as well if only briefly.
If there is an issue of commitment to the Test format as has been
implied by former Indian captain and commentator, Sunil Gavaskar, then
there is a need for the BCCI to have a sit down with these players, make
clear their intentions and then work accordingly towards restructuring
the crux of the team. Competency and talent alone do not ensure success.
Given that the BCCI is solely responsible for putting the Indian
Premier League (IPL) on a pedestal, the onus would fall on them then to
get the heart of the matter, weed out of the issues in the minds of the
players and get the five day game back on track. Whether this would mean
identifying players for the longer format, building up a healthy bench
strength, compensating them for their specialist job, sending them on
special A tours, exposing them to domestic cricket abroad and conducting
master class that they could benefit from would go a long way towards
reviving India’s Test cricket ambitions.
As things stand presently, India are in danger of being dubbed
bullies only in the boardroom – the lambs abroad tag has been bandied
around in good measure. Whether India could have benefitted from an
Argus report like Australia did even back in 2011 is a matter of
speculation. One of the reasons Australia bounced back quickly was
because they were smarting from the defeats, a feeling that does not
seem to emanate in quite the same measure from either the Indian team or
management even on the last tour debacles which is a serious cause for
worry. What is apparent, however, is that lessons unlearnt from that
tour have come back to haunt India, perhaps more glaringly than at any
other time in Dhoni’s career as India’s Test captain and the BCCI is
still not willing to walk the extra mile. If India walk away from this
England tour, hoping a home series against the rather obliging West
Indies or worse still, the one day series against England, will
obliterate their blundering ways in the Test series, they would do so at
their own peril of greater humiliation, which one thought could not
have gotten any worse than what India had to face on their last tour of
England.
Source-
http://www.crictoday.com
