India Need More than Stop Gap Measures
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.
|
|
