It increasingly looks like the BCCI have found an answer to the question mark which was hanging over the Indian cricket team ever since Greg Chappell decided to stop being coach of the team. Looks like, it would be Gary Kirsten, who has really tormented the Indian bowlers in the late 90s especially in the ODIs. Let's keep our fingers crossed until the official announcement is made and also hope that this coach doesn't turn Ford.
A little less than two years after he was named India's coach, replacing John Wright, Greg Chappell chose to not seek a renewal of his contract, ending speculation if the BCCI would sack him. In a sense, he has gone out on his own terms, rather than the BCCI confirming that they wouldn't renew his contract. Was it a case of his way or no way?
The next question is about who the BCCI will choose as the new coach. When the same question came up in 2005, I wrote about my preferred choice
I firmly think that the experience he has of coaching sub-continental sides would be his best trump card. I know that coaching Sri Lanka from being the no-hopers of world cricket to the World Cup in 1996 is totally different from handling India's players, who have certainly achieved a few things. It would also be very different from coaching today's no-hopers, Bangladesh (joint holders along with Zimbabwe).
Dav Whatmore has hinted that he'd be keen to pursue an opportunity if the job did have a vacancy. It is pathetic that Indian cricket keeps having this cycle every couple of years. Why should a coach/captain be appointed keeping a specific tournament in mind? If India, under Chappell/Dravid failed to get to the second round of the World Cup, does this mean they are a pathetic side? What will the tenure of the next coach be? Till the 2011 World Cup? Till the 2008 Champions Trophy? Till the 2010 Champions Trophy?
So, Chappell hasn't done anything spectacular, purely in terms of the ICC ratings. Is that sufficient reason to doubt his ability? I can't think of any side other than Australia which has consistently remained in the top rung of the ICC ratings over the last two years. England were ~ #2 in tests for a while, but sunk to new depths during the Ashes and a few times before. It is only in the last year that South Africa have done well as a one-day side. West Indies, barring winning against India and reaching the ICC Champions Trophy final, have been as inconsistent as they've been for a decade. New Zealand, as usual, have been there or thereabouts, having an odd great series here and there. Sri Lanka have recovered marvellously from a walloping in India in 2005.
I'm not even for a moment suggesting that I'm happy that India is #3 in tests and #6 in ODIs or that it has been inconsistent or that it didn't get to the Super Eight stage or that it seems to have regressed in recent times. What this shows is that most teams, other than those named Australia, go through ups and downs. This happens when the team management doesn't plan well, and when players don't bat/bowl/field well or execute the plans well. If there was a sense of collective responsibility, which is what you'd assume given that everyone in the BCCI and the Indian touring party seemed to target the World Cup semi-final at the least, everyone ought to quit. Why Chappell alone?
There's enough innuendo and enough leaked SMS messages/reports floating around about Chappell being disgusted with the attitude of 'senior players', the 'senior players' being disgusted with Chappell's attitude, etc. Add to it the enormously transparent BCCI whose officials, including former ones, go on record about what they feel about the coach, captain etc.
Although my belief is that Chappell and Dravid should stay, I fully expect the BCCI to not renew Chappell's contract. I hope Dravid accepts to continue on as captain because I believe he still has it in him to turn Indian cricket around, as well as because the alternatives (Tendulkar, Ganguly, Yuvraj or Sehwag) are unacceptable as far as I am concerned.
After India lost to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, my feeling was that there was a golden opportunity to clean up the mess that is Indian cricket. I use Indian cricket in a fairly generic sense. I include domestic cricket, youth cricket, etc. Basically start afresh, similar to how Australia did after losing the Ashes in the mid-80s. Take a guess about who one of Australia's national selectors was. He and his team picked guys like Steve Waugh, David Boon, Craig McDermott etc. despite some fairly average Sheffield Shield records because they felt that these players had the mental strength to cope with international cricket far better than others with superior domestic records.
But it is easy for Australia's selectors to identify mentally tough players. It's nearly infinitely tougher for India's selectors to do so - 27 first-class teams (Gujarat & Maharashtra have 3 teams in the Ranji Trophy), around half-a-dozen zonal teams, more than half-a-dozen competitions between these teams, etc.
I've read several arguments about why it wouldn't be possible to restructure the domestic system, how a 'foreign' coach can't understand Indian cricket (can someone define it please?), how an Indian coach is as good as a 'foreign' coach, why questioning the performance of some of Indian cricket's holy cows is tantamount to questioning their parentage, etc. My fear is that the administrators will also buy these arguments. I fear that the administrators, and everyone else who has a part in decision making, will miss the wood for the trees.
I was impressed on reading Greg Chappell's recent interview to Cricinfo and I can only hope that all his talk become a reality sooner than later. But, he also has to understand/agree that he might have done some mistakes in going through the development work as anyone would. He cannot blindly defend all that he has done over the last 15-20 months.
If you look at Suresh's record, now and compare it with Sachin Tendulkar's record at the same stage of his one-day international career, you'll find it's exactly the same.
I definitely wished he was right, as any Indian fan would, as I want Raina for the future. Till date, Raina has played 36 ODIs/28 innings and aggregates 612 runs at an average of 26.60 with 3 fifties and a highest score of 81*. Similar numbers for the Tendulkar were hugely different - 36 ODIs/34 innings and 1075 runs at an average of 35.83 with 10 fifties and a top score of 81. The similarity ends at 81. I went in further - after 28 innings - Tendulkar had 821 runs at 32.84 and 7 fifties with a highest of just 77.
Anyway, Raina's numbers don't match with the maestro's. Raina can still turn out to be a very good batsmen for the future. But, no one is entitled to mislead the public by giving false info to make him the next Tendulkar.
Links within entries open in a new window. Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original
content providers may have archived/removed the contents. Some of the sites linked may require registration/subscription.
All opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. The authors' respective employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions
expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. We do not intend to infringe on any copyright. Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to our readers.