Of Dust, Ganguly and the Ranji Trophy

This is my first blog in quite a while – I am spending valuable time with family in India and I must admit that cricket is not necessarily the first thing on my mind at the moment.

Having said that, cricket is never particularly far from my mind either and I am voraciously lapping up cricket news in every Indian newspaper and magazine that I can lay my hands on. There is no doubt that the Internet offers a world of riches in providing electronic content but there is something about good old-fashioned print that seems to still attract old-timers like me. This may seem difficult for some to understand but those who have not been born in or into the Internet era but have inherited it rather late in their lives will understand where I am coming from.

So what cricket have I been following and what are my cricketing thoughts at the moment ?

I arrived in Bangalore on the morning of the start of the Mumbai Test. That day was almost entirely washed out but I was fortunate to be able to breathe in (on TV) all of two days of Test cricket. And, if I may say so, two very remarkable days of cricket. Sure, the wicket was controversial but it was fun for me since I was able to watch the match on TV, follow the commentary on this site and chat on this site with others. It was great fun – and I must say I was pretty impressed by the speed and , very importantly, accuracy of the commentary out here.

The wicket became a “dustbowl” – the Aussies bit the dust – and understandably a lot of dust was raised in the press, both in Australia and in India. Many illustrious personalities, including current and ex-cricketers have commented on the pitch – so I will not dwell too much on this. All I will say is that, not since the dream Warne delivery to Gatting many summers ago, have I seen a ball turn this prodigiously. The very first delivery that Nathan Hauritz bowled had me going “wow !”. And, with due respect to him, Hauritz is no Warne.

While on this, an interesting comment in the editorial of a leading Indian newspaper (yes, this subject made it to the editorial – so serious is cricket in India) was that, even if the ball turned square and made batting very difficult, that in itself does not mean it is not a pitch suited for cricket. After all, the Perth pitch is tailor-made for fast bowlers and for chin music and nobody seems to complain about that. So why complain about a pitch tailor-made for spinners ?

I thought this was an interesting take – everybody is entitled to his own opinion of course.

Anyway, the dust has now settled on this series and I must congratulate Australia for a well-deserved series win. Many Indians will claim a moral 2-2 result for the series since they feel robbed of victory at Chennai but I am sure they will all agree that Australia was by far the superior side in this series. One can virtually count the sessions that India actually dominated. It was virtually Australia all the way. So let us give credit where it is due.
Both the Indians and the Australians have moved on now and are looking forward to their next challenges.

India will be playing a one-dayer against Pakistan in the coming week and will then host South Africa for a two-Test series.

Fresh from its ‘final frontier’ conquest, Australia will be hosting New Zealand in what should be an interesting series. I cannot help feeling that Australia are overwhelming favourites but New Zealand have proven me wrong on many occasions and they always seem to raise their standards against Australia, so I would not be too hasty in predicting an Aussie walkover


What else ?

Plenty else. One of the best things about following cricket in India as compared to following cricket from outside India is that you tend to feel the heat and dust (this is the nth time I am using this word, pardon me) of local events much more strongly. I am obviously referring to the current first-class (as in class of cricket and not necessarily first-class, per se, you get my drift) cricket happening in the country. The Ranji Trophy games are in full swing and I am enjoying every minor detail of these games.

But before I get into the Ranji Trophy, something else that I have to talk about. One of Indian cricket’s favourite topics : Saurav Ganguly.

You may hate him, you may love him but it seems you just cannot ignore him. Neither can the Indian press. Throughout the Mumbai Test (in other words, three days) and every day thereafter, there has been major coverage in the Indian press about Ganguly. There was this article that he was supposed to be in Kolkata for hip injury treatment while the Indian team was battling it out in Mumbai. But, apparently, instead of undergoing the treatment, he flew back from Kolkata to Mumbai – not to support the Indian side – but for some ad shoots or social event associated with some of his sponsors.

Then there was this headline item which went something like “Another surprise ! Saurav in Bengal side” with a big headline in red saying “Dithering Saurav runs out team-mate” or something to that effect.

It was a reference to Ganguly suddenly announcing himself at the last moment “available” to play for Bengal in its Ranji Trophy home game against Karnataka. Nikhil Haldipur, the Bengal opener, was rested and Deep Dasgupta made to open so as to make a place for Ganguly in the side.

Ganguly did not have a particularly great innings – he was shaky throughout – and in typical fashion, was indecisive about a run, thus causing a run-out.

Manna from the skies for Ganguly bashers (and their tribe seems to be increasing by the day). The article referred to above did not hesitate to point out that Ganguly’s sudden “availability” for Bengal was starkly reminiscent of his sudden “non-availability” for the Nagpur Test against the Aussies. Shrouded in secrecy and controversy – a delight for the media.

As if this attention for Ganguly was not enough, another thing appeared in the press which I found very odd. Apparently, the Bengal coach, Karsan Ghavri seems hell bent on making a point that Ganguly is now fit – without his having gone through a rigorous fitness test yet. Apparently Ghavri even made the statement that “Ganguly seemed to be hitting the ball well in practice and does not need to do a fitness test” but “if he does do one, he will definitely be fit”. Sorry, maybe I am thick but am I missing something here ?

A player calls off “unfit’ hours before a Test, misses that game and the one thereafter, and then suddenly decides to play in another match – and is admitted into that game as if everything is hunky-dory with his condition ? He does not have to go through a rigorous fitness test to prove he is match-fit ?

I am not a physio but I cannot help feeling that in India fitness is also something that is used or abused to suit individual interests. In my humble opinion, every player has to prove himself to be match-fit – otherwise he has no business playing. It does not matter which match it is, it does not matter which player it is. The same rule applies for a Sachin Tendulkar or a Saurav Ganguly or a John Doe, the same rule applies for a Test match or a Ranji Match. If you have missed a match because you were ruled “unfit”, you have to prove yourself to be fit before you can be considered for the next game.

No wonder the Indians had so many “injury” cases in the recent series against Australia. Compare that with the fitness levels of McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz – all much older than the Indian fast bowlers and all of whom came through the series without any injury whatsoever. Says a lot about the attention the Aussie physio pays to fitness levels and tests.

So much for Ganguly. To be fair to him, much of this is not his fault – it is the media that seems to follow him everywhere and his consistently poor performance seems to be the perfect ground for the media to have a go at him. The best thing he can do is to put up a match-winning performance against Pakistan or against South Africa – hopefully that will shut up some of his detractors. The media worships heroes and Ganguly needs to return to heroic ways.

Now, onto the Ranji Trophy itself.

The games are still in progress and I am following the details closely, speculating not just on the games themselves but on some of the players.

There is Gautam Gambhir who had his baptism by fire in the Mumbai Test but who seems to have shrugged that off with a big hundred in the Ranji game. I wonder whether he will go on to deliver at the Test level or whether he will turn into an Ashok Mankad or a Parthasarathy Sharma - prolific at first-class level but flattering to deceive at the highest level of the game).

Then there is Y Venugopal Rao. We heard a lot about him in the last season and he continues to show excellent form with another fine century in the Ranji game for Andhra. And he even picked up some crucial wickets (I did not even know that he bowls).
Sure, his being a middle-order batsman makes it a bit tough for him to get into the Indian Test side but if the Indian middle order continues to be shaky and he continues to bat like this, who knows ?

As if to remind the Indian selectors of his existence, Wasim Jaffer has got another big hundred in the Mumbai game. I have heard that he is a Vengsarkar favourite and I suspect his Test career may not be entirely over – especially if he continues like this and the Indian opener slot is as shaky as it is at this moment.

But the Ranji match that has got most attention in the local press is the Bengal – Karnataka game. Understandably, since I am in Bangalore.

Bengal began very well, Karnataka fought back but then Bengal wrested the initiative back with some excellent bowling. In the second innings however the ball began doing things and that old Karnataka faithful, Sunil Joshi, once again bowled immaculately to get a five-for. At the moment of writing, the game is interestingly poised and could go either way.

I know many will not agree with me but I think Joshi deserved a few more chances for India - especially in one-dayers. He has always been a decent spinner of the ball and can whack it a good distance – he has even batted at No. 4 for Karnataka. He is not a Bangalore lad but from a remote Karnataka district – that perhaps makes his credentials a little less attractive than, for example, Rohan Gavaskar. Of course, Joshi’s time has come and gone (and with Murali Karthik around, his time has almost certainly gone) but I cannot help just feeling Joshi was a little wronged.

This Bengal-Karnataka game has also got me a bit nostalgic, taking me back to the Ranji games of the seventies and eighties. When Vishwanath, Brijesh Patel, Kirmani, Chandra, Prasanna, Sudhakar Rao and Binny played for Karnataka while Bengal had its own heroes in Ambar Roy, Gopal Bose, Palash Nandy, Sambaran Banerjee, Subrato Guha, Dilip Doshi and Barun Burman. Mumbai then had players of the calibre of Ramnath Parkar, Sunil Gavaskar, Dilip Vengsarkar, Ashok Mankad, Padmakar Shivalkar and the lesser-known opening bowler Ismail while Delhi had an all-star cast of the Amarnath brothers, Kirti Azad, Madan Lal, Bishen Bedi, Rakesh Shukla, Surinder Khanna and many others. The Ranji Trophy (as also the Duleep and Deodhar Trophies) used to be fiercely contested then – I am not sure the same fire burns in the bellies of today’s Ranji cricketers.

All in all, it has been an enjoyable week in Bangalore – and I am looking forward , like most Indians and Pakistani cricket lovers all over the world, to the November 13 one-dayer between these two cricket-crazy countries.

Before I forget, it is festival time in India and Pakistan – I would like to wish all my friends here a very Happy Diwali and Id Mubarak.

Indian take-away from Bangalore

Ok, we have been beaten in the first game.

We can scream from the rooftops about the umpiring - and that may or may not have made a difference - but let's put all that behind us and look ahead.

Will the team management now go for surgery or will they tinker with the team ?

My gut feel tells me there will be changes but nothing particularly dramatic. The bench itself does not exactly scream to be selected – it is comprised of either experienced but out-of-form players or a bunch of youngsters, knocking on the door, but unlikely to get the nod in this all-important series, at least not at this stage.

Or would the selectors remember that 1969-70 home series against Australia when in a similar situation, one-down from a defeat in Bombay, India gambled on a 20-year old promising young man from then-Mysore to play in the second Test at Kanpur. He got a duck in his first Test innings – and then, under tremendous pressure in the second knock, where another failure could have meant India losing this one too, played one of the finest innings by a debutant for India getting 137 glorious runs. For the next 13 years, he did not do too badly either – saving India from many a difficult situation, enthralling everybody (including yours truly) with his classy batting. That youngster was the one and only Gundappa Vishwanath of course.

But I am dreaming now – back to reality.

It does not look too rosy at the moment but it is not too bleak either. True, the entire team needs to raise its spirits and its performance, but there is definitely reason to hope for a turnaround. Today's fightback was symbolic if not decisive and a perfect tonic for the entire team. It shows that there are indeed chinks in the Aussie bowling - something that should be quite heartening for the Indians.

So what does India take away from this game ? Putting every player under the microscope, this is what I come up with. I share my opinion about the player in a few cases but my main objective is to see whether the player will make the cut for Chennai.

1) Chopra ? Well, the opener issue is still simmering. It would be harsh on Chopra if he were dropped, seeing as he received a doubtful (I will not say wrong !) decision in both innings. But that's how the dice rolls and, with change very much the (cric)buzzword at this moment, he may well find himself out in the cold. For whatever it is worth, if it does happen, we can console him by saying "you can never put a good man down". He may well bounce back - but he does need to work on increasing his scoring repertoire.
OUT

2) Sehwag ? Yes, question marks still. Not on his place in the side, methinks, but on his form. Again a harsh decision in the second innings did not allow him to display his skills and he was out to a very good catch in the first innings. But whatever it is, we are still waiting for that big innings from him. It appears to me that it is just round the corner (I have in fact tipped him to get two hundreds in this series) - but that corner seems to be elusive. For the sake of India - which desperately now needs Sehwag to click - let us hope he finds that corner in Chennai and turns it.
IN

3) Laxman ? Not for nothing has he earned MFP (no, not Most Favoured Partner but Most Feared Player) status from the Aussies. His record against them is simply awesome. In this game too, he showed signs of his class but got done in by very good Warne deliveries in both innings. So round one goes to Warney. Unless these dismissals get to Laxman's psyche and he loses the mental battle with Warne, I think India need not worry about his form.
IN


4) Which brings me to Dravid. His first innings duck was exactly what I feared - he failed in both innings of the India Seniors v India A prep game, prompting me to call this his out-of-form season. But Dravid would not be the world's best batsman if he did not have character - and he showed plenty of it, second time round. Ok, he got just 60 - but in the context of the match situation and most importantly his own confidence, it could have been a hundred. He played some glorious strokes, especially against Warne, and hopefully he has won round one of the Warne v Dravid battle. India need not worry about his form too.
IN

5) Next man in (and critics will often say, out) Ganguly. He is captain and does have captaincy qualities. But India has never had the luxury of carrying a player - and has probably never needed all eleven to perform like it does now. So let us look purely at his batting and whether there is any cause for worry here.

Yes, a little perhaps. Against a lesser team, a 40 or a 50 may be par (after all if you do this all your career you end up with an average between 40 and 50 - which is a decent average).

But, in India's current situation, especially with Tendulkar not around, Ganguly needs to raise the bar for himself. He needs to lead by personal example - and get a hundred. That will raise the spirits of his team no end - and will do much more than any other gesture or talk from him. Unless you are a Mike Brearley, you cannot get away with just “captaincy” on your resume.

I remember in 1980, Aussie skipper Greg Chappell, was under tremendous pressure on a tour in Pakistan. A Pakistan tour is never easy, his team was one-down after the first Test having been rolled over by Pakistani spin, he had himself not done much till then, and was being hounded by reporters. I still remember his classic line to a reporter “My bat will do my talking for me".

And he went out there and got a double hundred (235 to be precise). OK, it was not the greatest of Tests but, very importantly, his performance raised the sagging morale of his side.

We all know that Ganguly is a great admirer of Greg Chappell. So, come on Ganguly, if GSC can get a double, SCG can get at least a hundred, right ?
IN.

6) After Ganguly it gets a bit fuzzy. There is Yuvraj at the moment – just about hanging in there. He is one of the candidates to be axed – with Kaif as the experienced player waiting to step in. This is anybody’s guess – Yuvraj will not really be called upon to bowl in Tests, so this is purely a judgement on batting. It is too close to call – but knowing that Yuvraj is one of the golden boys of Indian cricket at the moment, I think he will be persisted with and Kaif will have to sit this one out too.

But if I were Yuvraj, I would not sit too comfortably at the moment. His place in the team is courtesy Sachin Tendulkar. And like John Buchanan correctly pointed out, Ponting’s replacement Katich has delivered far more than Tendulkar’s replacement Yuvraj. So Yuvi, it is high time we saw a big innings from you.
IN (if Chopra is out, Yuvi may open and Kaif may come fill this spot).


7) Onto Parthiv Patel. Most people on cricbuzz know my opinion of him. I think he may be cute and young and a gutsy batsman and all that – but his primary job in the team is to keep – and, at best, he has done only an average job of this. I strongly believe the keeper’s job is one of the most important in the side. If one batsman fails, another can cover for him. If a bowler fails, another can cover for him. But if a keeper fails, you are stuck. A keeper gets more dismissal chances than any other player in the side and a grabbed half-chance or a dropped chance can make all the difference. I have nothing against Patel – I genuinely hope he realizes the responsibility of his keeping role in the team. If he raises his keeping and effects some incredible catches or stumpings, I will be thrilled – and glad to be silenced.

Luckily for him, I am not an Indian selector – so I think he will comfortably continue into the next Test. His batting at Bangalore was impressive – and this will be enough for the Indian selectors.

For the record, I am expecting him to drop a few more big ones in Chennai – and expecting him to continue to play because he is “oh so cute” and “so young, and still he bats so well”. For India's sake, I hope he proves me wrong !
IN.

8) Irfan Pathan. With every match my admiration for him only increases. People were initially comparing him with Akram, now they are comparing him with Kapil. I do not want to compare him with anybody. (People compared SS Das’s technique with Sunil Gavaskar and we all know where that went).

At Bangalore, Pathan produced his usual good bowling but really excelled with the bat. We knew he could bat – he had shown glimpses earlier – but this time he played like a true all-rounder, playing each ball on its merits, defending the good one but not afraid to smack anything loose. If he does not go the injury route (like so many other Indian players) and is not over-bowled, I think India finally have a top-quality bowler allrounder.

His place in the side is assured – no need to even discuss this.
IN.

9) Anil Kumble. One of my blow-hot, blow-cold favourites. He frustrates me like hell sometimes but I cannot help admiring the way he keeps coming back. He may get hit by Gilchrist and Clarke for a few sixes but you know he is always just that ball away from a breakthrough. So, despite some people grumbling about his effectiveness, I usually stand behind him – and would do so for the rest of this series.

I think, so will the selectors – he should be a certainty, not just for Chennai, but for the rest of the series. On Indian wickets, you write off Anil Kumble only at your own peril and I do not think an already battered India will take a risk on this.
IN.

10) Harbhajan Singh. Any doubts anybody may have had have been summarily dismissed (like eleven Aussie batsmen) at Bangalore. He seems to be back to his 2001 wicket-taking ways – and that should make some Aussie players squirm a bit.

His bowling is of course the main reason he is in the side, but his batting, by no means copybook (puritans will be turning in their graves !), can also be quite entertaining. In his own way he manages to get quick runs – you never know when this quality comes in useful in a Test. But, for me, his main contribution has to be with his bowling and I would gladly trade in his batting for a few wickets from him.

Definitely a certainty for the rest of the series.
IN.


11) Zaheer Khan ? I think he will be lucky if he still finds himself running in to bowl in Chennai. If he does, it will be more a reflection of India’s bench strength (or rather perception of bench strength) than his own merit. He did not bowl terribly badly at Bangalore – but against opposition like this, you need eleven top performers if you have to win – and Zaheer hardly looked like the part in Bangalore.

I feel sorry for him – he has been injury-prone and , if I were a selector, I would give him another chance. But maybe that is because I have absolutely no faith in Nehra and Salvi. Agarkar may be just about the only guy I would consider to replace Zaheer but he is about as reliable as a Shoiab Akhtar or Brett Lee opening spell.

OUT (The Indian team management loves to experiment with its opening pair and I think Zaheer will be dropped).


So I come up with just 2 changes in the team : Chopra and Zaheer out, Kaif and Nehra in. Of these Chopra may still just retain his place - if the selectors continue with this "stable opening partnership" fear.

Mind you, this is not my personal preference – this is how I think the Indian selectors may play it. Let us see.

When everybody is a loser

India is on the brink of defeat. Barring a miracle or rain, the Aussies should sweep aside any Indian resistance tomorrow and go one-up in the series.

I have been witness to many Indian defeats in the past. Normally I would rationalize this one also along typical grounds – the Aussies outplayed India and so are deserving winners.

But why do I find it so difficult to do it this time ? Why is this defeat going to be so hard to take ? Why am I so upset with this game ?

The reason is simple. In my humble opinion, this game was never allowed to develop into quite the game it could and should have been.

The Indian team may be way out of form and struggling with injuries but it is still the only team that, in Tests, tends to take on the Aussies head-on. India may struggle against other teams but when it comes to Australia it somehow manages to raise its level. For that reason alone, the India-Australia series has something special about it. For months the series has been discussed in various forums, with heavy speculation on all fronts – about the results (will Australia finally conquer this "final frontier" ? ), player reputations (will Warne, at least this time, prove his many Indian detractors wrong ?), . The last series saw an Australia without McGrath and Warne – this time, although Ponting is missing at the start of the series, Australia is at virtually full-strength.

So much is expected from this series and the curtain-raiser at Bangalore would have been the perfect start for answering many of these questions.

The game itself has seen many good performances. In spite of huge concerns before the game, the pitch has played reasonably steady. Batsmen have managed to get runs if they have applied themselves and there has been quite a bit for the bowlers too.

But then why do I have this sick feeling in my stomach ? Simply because, somewhere in the back of my mind, I feel we did not see a pure game of cricket – a contest between bat and ball. We have been made to witness an adulterated version – where the contest was between bat, ball and luck. Sure, luck is an integral part of the game but not the luck that is at the discretion of the two men out there in the middle. They have no business dispensing luck, it is their duty to manage the proceedings and to announce the occurrence of an event, not create it. The event is that somebody gets out, the umpire is just suppose to announce it with his sign-language. He is most definitely not supposed to create the event !

This is not the first time that the quality of umpiring has been a heated subject of discussion in a game. With improved technology available today, umpiring decisions are subject to scrutiny like never before. Umpires are therefore under a lot of pressure and, being human, do err. (I do not for one moment subscribe to an increasingly vociferous viewpoint that certain umpires are biased towards certain players and teams. Maybe it is the idealist in me or something else but I feel that umpires are indeed neutral – it is just that the decisions they need to take sometimes demand extraordinary human abilities. Was it a bat-pad or only pad, was that just movement of the ball or was there a nick, would that ball have gone on to hit the stumps or just missed it ? To do this for 90 overs in a day – yes, you could easily get the odd one wrong).

Having said that and fully understanding the complexity of the task, I am afraid I cannot find myself justifying their errors – for one main reason. We have an alternative. Technology. It is available in many areas now and can be used to help the umpire take the right decision. There is nothing to be defensive about. Nobody is threatening the umpiring profession. And yet the game has been slow in adopting technology. Why ? I really don't know. After all, all we want is better decisions – and who would argue with that ? And yes, if you feel machine should not take over man, by all means let the man have the final say.

If the umpire is having a tough time and gives a wrong decision, spare a thought for the batsman who is the victim of the decision. Think of the bowler who has worked hard and finds he has to start all over again because of the wrong decision. Think of the impact on the game in question. Think on the impact on the game of cricket.

Today things have gone too far for me. No excuse like "it evens out at the end of the day" will help. I don't care whether the decisions were totally against India or totally against Australia or evened out.

I would much rather see India being thrashed by Australia for a poor performance. At least then I know they were totally outplayed – and deserved to be thrashed.

Now, I will have this lingering "what-if" feeling – about Sehwag (second innings), Chopra (both innings), Langer (first innings), Pathan (first innings), Patel (second innings). Maybe even if the decisions had been different, the result of the game may have been the same. But for me it is not the same. There are question marks – and that bothers me.

Australia would not have liked to win this way. McGrath, Clarke (what a debut !), Katich have all done excellently in this game. As has Harbhajan. Each of these needs to be remembered whenever this game is talked about. But no, all of this will be brushed aside. This game is now in danger of being remembered for one thing and one thing alone – the appalling quality of umpiring, the number of dubious decisions and the sheer bad taste this has left in the mouths of millions.

We still have three Tests to go. If we do not want this series to be referred to as the "umpiring" series (in the same vein as the infamous "bodyline" series which side-tracked a lot of genuine performances in that series) , we need to ensure no repeat of this , for the rest of the series. Umpiring cannot be allowed to take the series hostage. If it is too early to talk about making dramatic changes in the process, fine – then get the best umpires in the business - RIGHT NOW. Otherwise, the chance for one of the most exciting spectacles in Test cricket will be lost. On the contrary, it will only leave bad memories of the series.

My being Indian exposes me to remarks like "He cannot take defeat and is indulging in India's favourite pastime – finding fault with the umpires". Frankly, I couldn't care less ! I know how much respect I have for umpires - I have always stood by them. I don't have to prove this to anybody.

I have seen many defeats over 30 years – this could well have been just another one. But it is not – today has gone too far - and that is the only reason for this blog.

India is not the only loser today. Cricket is the bigger loser. And that is why I am sick in the stomach !

Australia - everybody's punching bag ?

I have just checked the thesaurus definition of vitriol. It goes “anger, wrath, fury, rage, temper, ire, spleen…:

Add a new one : Aussie-hate.

What I noticed today, here on this, our very own site, during the England – Australia game was nothing short of vitriolic. Calling it banter would mean stretching the meaning of that word to limits challenging elasticity. No, it was vitriol – nothing else.

It saddens me. Although Indian, I am an avid Aussie fan and I make no bones about it. I have been a huge fan since the Thommo-Lillee Ashes series of 1974-75. I was backing Australia today and their loss, unexpected for many but not for me, does sadden me. A little like India’s loss to Pakistan a couple of days ago.

But this sadness is different. It does not stem from a loss of my favoured team in a cricket game. I may be cricket-crazy but even I am not so blinded as not to realize that it is, after all, only a game. And in a game, on a given day, there are winners and losers. Just as there are supporters of winners and supporters of losers.

So why was there so much Aussie-hate to be seen today ? I can only speculate.

For one, Australia has been so far ahead of the rest of the pack, especially in one-dayers, that the price they have paid for their success seems to be goodwill amongst non-Australians. Many non-Aussies quite candidly admit that all they want is for Australia to lose – otherwise it is “so boring”.

According to me, the second reason for Aussie-hate, is that they are seen as arrogant. Players like Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Matthew Hayden, even Ricky Ponting are regular targets for this.

Sure, they make statements sometimes that may give this impression. But so did Viv Richards, Ian Botham, Tony Greig and even Imran Khan. Why single out the Aussies ?

Another reason is that they are seen as master sledgers. Glenn McGrath, in particular, has earned a huge reputation for this. This may be true – and I am not supporting sledging one bit – but, just hypothetically, if the Aussies stop sledging completely, would there be no sledging at all in the game ? Sledging happens even in matches not involving Australia – and has been around for years. Read some cricket history of pre-war county matches – you will realize what I am talking about. It is nothing but psychological warfare – players need to learn how to cope with it. Mind you, I am not supporting the practice of sledging – I just don’t see why Australia is singled out for this.

I have been trying to think of other reasons. A couple come to mind. A few Aussie players have been accused of being racist. There have been a couple of incidents involving Sri Lanka. Again, without downplaying this despicable behaviour, assuming it is true, it does not mean the entire team is racist. Let us not generalize.

Another reason I can think of – and again it seems to be Sri Lanka that is most the aggrieved party – is the Muralitharan saga. It was an Australian umpire who, years ago, called Murali first for chucking. Cricketing relations between Sri Lanka and Australia, never particularly great, hit a new low when Murali’s doosra began to be scrutinized for its legality. On being asked his opinion of it, the Australian PM, without diplomatically shouldering arms to this loaded question, had no hesitation expressing his disapproval of Murali’s action – something that a delighted media lapped up and played to its full potential. Give them an inch…

Add to this the fact that Murali and Shane Warne were in a neck-to-neck race for the honour of becoming the world’s highest wicket-taker in Tests and the story of an Aussie conspiracy against Murali gained serious credibility in non-Aussie circles. To broaden the rift, the media and some fairly eminent cricketers went on to make it a conspiracy against the subcontinent – something easily saleable to a sub-continent which loves drama.

And I have not even mentioned the Poms and the Kiwis yet. Their rivalry with the Aussies is too well-known to merit repetition here. Suffice it to say that they will gladly twist a knife in an Aussie defeat, whoever be the winners. They have been bitten too often to miss the once-in-a-blue-moon opportunity when it presents itself.

That leaves the Saffies and the Windies (not counting Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and other minnows).

The Saffies, hemispherical cousins of the Aussies have always considered themselves worthy challengers to the Aussies in every sport, be it rugby or cricket. When they consistently find themselves that bit short, can they be blamed for reveling in Aussie misery ?

Historically the Windies and the Aussies have enjoyed a healthy cricketing rivalry on the field. This is best evidenced by the Frank Worrell Trophy, set up after that amazing 1960-61 series between the two teams. However, the last couple of decades have seen some very unsavoury incidents – who can forget the Kim Hughes incident of 1983-84 and more recently the McGrath-Sarwan incident ? So even here the Aussies have been losing friends.

Add all this up and what do you have ?

An Australia, winning all the time and giving supporters of losing teams nothing to cheer about, perceived as arrogant and ill-behaved both on and off the field, with perceived racist undertones and constantly involved in some controversial incident or the other.

So what should Ponting and co. do ? Lose a few games - to win some goodwill ? Most certainly not ! I would say “Come on Punter, keep going – and continue to grind everybody to the dust !”. If they want to rise from the ashes, they will rise by themselves – you don’t have to feel guilty for winning”.

Should Australia work on its PR ? Maybe a little. It would not do any harm. Should the PM keep his mouth shut about controversial cricketing matters ? Perhaps.

But let us see the other Australia for a change.

A team that has set new standards of performance and professionalism on the field.

A team that for almost 130 years of Test cricket, has provided us with some of the most memorable moments in the game. And some of the greatest players, if not the greatest.

A team, whose captain till recently, Steve Waugh, was actively involved in supporting a children’s home in Kolkata (India) and continues to do his bit, even after retirement from top-level cricket.

Sure, they play a tough game. And yes, they hate to lose. So what's wrong with that ?

So I would say , to all those aspiring and pretentious cricketing nations, if you cannot match Australia look at yourself first instead of venting your vitriol at the Aussies. Beat them on the field and then talk.

Today England has done just that. They raised their game to a new level altogether and beat the Aussies fair and square. Even the “arrogant” Ponting admitted that he had been outplayed.

That’s the way to do it – on the field. Not in a cricket chat, showering vitriol not just on the Aussie team but also on its supporters. It says more about the frustration of non-Aussie supporters than about Australia itself.

Not that the Aussie supporters mind it – they are a cheerful lot and know that nobody kicks a dead dog.

And now here's another take.

Think of a cricket world without Australia. Without Shane Warne’s magic.

I, for one, don’t want to.

India and the GFG Index

After being at an all-time high in end-April earlier this year, the United Nations GFG (Global Feel-Good) Index has been lying low for the last two months. There was an occasional spurt on 27th July and one on 5th Sept but these have been aberrations in an otherwise consistently depressed index.

On being interviewed on the subject, the U.N spokesperson attributed this to the extremely low sense of well being currently being experienced in one of the largest and most significant populations that impact the index. India, comprising almost a sixth of the world population, and with its increased developing-country based weightage to boot, has been largely responsible for the southward trend in this index. The spokesperson however emphasized that he expected this to be a transitory state of affairs and expressed confidence that the index would bounce back soon.

All right – before somebody considers me uni-dimensional or, even worse, hastens to sue me on behalf of the United Nations, let me quickly come clean. This is obviously just a cock-and-bull story. There is no such thing as a Global Feel-Good Index (at least not one that I am aware of - although considering the various economic indices that are developed everyday, some of rather dubious origin, I would not be entirely surprised if one such index has found its way sneakily onto the statistician’s computing chart).

And, I must say, for those who consider India’s “feel-good” factor to be far more multi-dimensional than just based on its performances in the game of cricket, I must agree with them. There is much more to the country and its people than just the game of cricket. The feel-good factor is affected by, inter alia, things like the monsoon rains, price of fuel (or should this be fuelling prices), industrial production, political and communal stability, the box-office results of the latest Bollywood starrer, Olympic results and so on. But, without sounding too shallow, I think I can reasonably safely add that the performance of India in the game of cricket has a massive impact on a large section of the population and can make a rather telling impact (whether positive or negative) on the general feel-good factor in the country. It was not entirely without design that the former government in power arranged an Indian cricket tour of Pakistan just days before the national general elections.

The last two months have not been good for Indian cricket. After heady days in Australia and Pakistan only a few months ago, the Indian team has rather inexplicably slumped to defeat in tournaments in Sri Lanka, the Netherlands and England. Indian supporters, always a demanding crowd and even more so after the dream performance in Pakistan, suddenly find themselves hard done by and cannot quite fathom the sudden change in fortunes. Their reaction vacillates between extremes – from the extremely disillusioned and vocally angry supporter who, without the slightest hesitation, swears action on players, to the increasingly rare, die-hard supporter who still stands firmly behind his team and believes the current string of defeats to be only a passing phase in the path of more glory to come.

There is not much moderation to be found – in an atmosphere charged with emotion, moderation is the casualty.

As a long-time follower of the game, and one who has seen several such ups and downs in Indian cricket, I am making this attempt to step back from the heat of the moment and rationally assess the state of Indian cricket today. I do not expect many to agree with me but then nothing is more welcome than a healthy debate on a subject so close to the hearts of so many.

In my opinion, the current poor showing of the Indian cricket team is a culmination of several factors. Some real, some suggestive but, all in all, an extremely potent mix which could derail the best of teams.

Let us look at these in isolation.

The R-word and fitness in general
After the Indian team’s spectacular performance in Pakistan, the players enjoyed a break of almost four months from the game. Well-deserved you may say – and you would be right. With one small caveat – this is a bunch of professionals; so one would expect that even if not called to do duty for the country, they would, in their own ways, keep themselves in fit condition to do so. After all, in today’s high-performance world, there is no room for lethargy.

From the first match this season that the Indians played in Sri Lanka, it became clear that they were not in match-fit condition. While shortcomings in physical fitness have become so routine that they are almost (in my opinion entirely unjustifiably) expected, the fluency in all departments of the game seemed to have been left behind with last season’s amazing run. The poor showing in Sri Lanka, one amazing victory notwithstanding, was attributed to “rustiness”.

The Sachin factor
Whether one likes to admit it or not, the very presence of Sachin Tendulkar in the Indian team has a reassuring feel about it. He may be out of form and for many he may be nowhere near the force he was a few years ago, but his sheer impact on the Indian team and, very importantly, the opposition is something very difficult to describe.

Well, after an average showing with the bat in Sri Lanka (but surprisingly doing wonders with the ball), Sachin Tendulkar suddenly sprang the worst imaginable news on his team and the Indian cricket following public. On the eve of India’s first game in the Netherlands against Pakistan, Tendulkar pulled out, citing a “tennis elbow”. The absolutely stunned public had barely recovered from this news (which was followed by a thumping defeat for India) when worse was to follow. It became clear that this was not a one-off match that Tendulkar would be missing. He missed not only the game against Australia but also all three NatWest Trophy games against England in England. What probably will hurt many Indians most is Tendulkar’s non-availability for the ICC Champions Trophy, considered by many to be “the one that really matters”.

Many Indian supporters, already disillusioned by repeated poor performances by the Indian team, have already written off India’s chances in this tournament without Tendulkar as the driving force.

Form or, rather, the lack of it
As a consolation to a top player’s poor performance, one often hears the statement “form is temporary, class is permanent”. Just tell that to the player himself. It is not particularly comforting for a player to find that, all of a sudden, the fluency and form that he had by now almost taken for granted have suddenly forsaken him like bad companions of a man fallen on ill-times.

When that happens to a number of players en masse, it is frightening – rather like an epidemic. Suddenly top players like Rahul Dravid, Virender Sehwag and VVS Laxman are struggling to get bat to ball without ending up popping it to the nearest fielder as if for catching practice.

Never great at the best of times, the Indian bowling too has been similarly afflicted by the lack of form – the only difference probably being that not much was expected from it anyway, so the letdown has been less dramatic.

While the above reasons are all public and undeniable, there are some typically insidious and not entirely substantiated comments too making the rounds.

That the Indian players have suddenly lost the need to fight for their financial security, now that a new contracts system is in place to provide this to some extent to the players.

That some of the newly wed players (most notably Virendra Sehwag) have other priorities now while earlier their primary motivation in life was cricket.

That Rahul Dravid, till now the darling of Indian cricket who could do no wrong as batsman-keeper for India in one-dayers, is over-burdened by this dual responsibility and is therefore not able to handle it any more.

That some of the players have no business being selected for India in the first place, either because they have long passed their sell-by date (as in the case of Anil Kumble) or because they are being accommodated purely by virtue of being captain (Saurav Ganguly) or because of some nepotism (Rohan Gavaskar).

The cry to give a whole host of players waiting in the wings a chance to show off their plumes gets louder and louder with every poor showing by the Indian team.

This is not something I am unused to. The 1978 disastrous tour of Pakistan by India saw the end of the illustrious careers of captain Bishen Bedi and Erapalli Prasanna. Even Bhagwat Chandrasekhar lasted just a handful of Tests thereafter.

In my opinion, the Indian public needs to show a little more understanding. Form is indeed temporary. In a long career, it is not uncommon for almost every player, whatever be his quality, to go through a lean patch. Denis Compton, one of the best batsmen ever produced by England, also had one of the most shocking form losses ever when he mustered just 53 runs in 7 innings in the 1950-51 Ashes series Down Under

Rahul Dravid will do well not to let this sudden desertion of form get to him. He is a top-quality batsman, one of the very best in world cricket at the moment, and it is only a matter of time before he begins to time the ball sweetly again. You cannot keep a good man down for too long. Virendra Sehwag may have a slightly different and possibly more arduous climb back to form – but he is also too natural a player to be kept quiet for too long. All it takes for him to regain his confidence is one typically perky innings.

The public would also do well to refresh their memory with regard to Anil Kumble, Saurav Ganguly and Rohan Gavaskar. The first two have had long and successful careers and, despite a recent wretched run of form, continue to evoke respect in opposition camps. Rohan Gavaskar, a late starter in terms of international opportunities, did come good in the few chances that came his way in Australia. In my opinion, any claims that he owes his place in the side to his famous surname, do great injustice to him.

Having said that, let us also recognize the high degree of competitiveness in cricket today. There are several talented players waiting in the wings. This can only be good for India as it means the reserve bench will exert pressure on the players out there in the middle.

I would also like to make one observation. This is especially for those diehard Indian supporters amongst us who think that India has some of the best players in the world and by dint of this – and the fact that they put up an excellent show in Australia and Pakistan – can rightfully claim to be second-best in the world.

Let me tell them - you are only as good as your results. And, however much Mr. Ganguly and the Indian press may like to underplay the Asia Cup and the Videocon Cup as being “warm-up” games for the main event, the fact remains that India was thrashed fair and square in these events. As the adage goes, nothing succeeds like success. By the same token, nothing fails like failure. If Australia win, it is partly because they win. Every win makes them more unused to failure. Going to England, Mr. Ganguly and co. would have done well to have a few successes under their belt, warm-up or no warm-up. A defeat plays games with the mind and much of what happens out there on the field is a mind-game.

And this is precisely why I find the “rustiness” excuse so lame and unacceptable in a professional outfit. A professional team prepares itself for every game with one overriding objective – to win. It is an insult to the tournament organizers, the spectators and the millions of supporters worldwide to approach a game with a condition (mental or physical) suggesting anything less than a hundred per cent.

Saurav Ganguly insists that, despite the indifferent results, it is not for want of trying. The whole team, he insists, is working very hard – it is just that some players are not clicking at the moment and India is not able to deliver.

If we accept this statement at face value, perhaps we need to accept another harsh reality. That other teams are better prepared than India. After all, it is not all about talent and quality. Ask any person who has been in a competitive situation (be it an examination or a sporting event) and he will tell you that it is not how good you are that matters but how much better than the competition you are that counts. Perhaps other teams, especially Australia, England, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, have just oiled their machinery better than the hugely-talented but oh-so-erratic India. It takes a bit of humility to admit this (especially because chest-thumping is so much the norm nowadays) but I cannot help but feel humble at this moment – the Indian team has not given me cause to feel otherwise.

Coming to talent. I would like to make an assertion that talent is nothing if it does not translate to consistent results. I am rather tired of talented players (especially from the sub-continent which seems to produce them in vast numbers) who think that the odd, attractive innings showcasing their talent will wow their audiences and give them a place in posterity. To all these hugely-talented players my simple message is - you play for the team and it is your responsibility to be part of the engine that makes your team win. If you cannot do this or lose steam midway, you do not probably deserve to be part of this endeavour. The team is far bigger than the individual.

At the risk of becoming persona non grata for most Indians, I want to make a suggestion that many Indians will find very unpalatable. According to me, the current loss of form may be only temporary and is not half as worrying as possibly a more dire thought – that India is just not as good as everybody makes it out to be. Yes, it sounds ridiculous, especially when we are talking about one of the finalists in the World Cup of just a little over seventeen months ago. But I am afraid my yardstick for measuring success is consistency – and not the odd sporadic win, be it against even Australia. And India, even its most diehard supporter will admit, is notoriously inconsistent.

If India has to return to winning ways, it has to first be humble enough to take a leaf from other teams, especially the tremendously consistent Australia. It is all very well to call yourself a world-beater (it is good for your ego) but you have to deliver on this, this time, next time, every time. Until you do that, you are no better than any of those other teams out there.

And, loyal as your country folks are, until you do that, odd fluctuations notwithstanding, the GFG index will continue to hover in the long-term at a level no higher than its current level – whether the U.N likes it or not!

Sunil Gavaskar - India's cricketing Olympian

So I return to my PC, typing furiously.

The Italian contingent has just gone by - amidst huge cheers - but I'm not really interested.

I feel cheated - after almost an hour of waiting, THIS is what I get ?

"Anju Bobby George" the BBC commentator labours to pronounce - as if it does not sit easy on his tongue. I wonder why. To me, it is as British-sounding as any other British name. In an obvious attempt at humour, he adds "If you've heard that name before, tell me !" He then goes on in a tone that I consider suspiciously patronising "Well, she did come third in the World Championships last year so I suppose you've got to say she's got a chance". That was it - India gone, next country please.

I did not count - but it was probably 5 seconds.

What am I talking about? The opening ceremony of the Athens Olympics, of course. Where every country has its turn walking down the track, waving to the crowd. Like possibly millions of Indians worldwide, I have been waiting impatiently for the Indian flag but Athens has already started its Olympics with its own unique flavour - the roll of honour is, as is traditional, alphabetical - but this time it is according to the Greek alphabet. I try to think frantically beyond "alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon..." and, after some straining, give up. On a Friday evening, after a tough week, the Greek alphabet is not exactly a challenge my already considerably battered brain cells are looking forward to. I rationalise - after all this is only the opening ceremony - India will have its moment of glory, it will not miss out.

And then what I have described above, happens.

Come on, Anju - for my sake - and for the sake of a billion others – DO SOMETHING!

You probably think I have lost it. What has all this got to do with Sunil Gavaskar?

Be patient - I'll come to that in a moment. Staying with Athens, if India got five seconds, compared to the massive cheering for Australia, it's not entirely unexpected. India might pick up the odd medal but it is hardly likely to set Athens ablaze. Ever since I can remember, India has more or less just made up the numbers at the Olympics. Every time I have hoped and cheered, every time I have been let down.

Over the last thirty years, I cannot remember many truly spectacular Indian sports personalities. People for whom one could, with some exaggeration (and borrowing from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar), quote "He doth bestride us like a colossus".

On the plus side, we can say the situation has definitely improved in recent years. Today Indian cricketers have thrust India in the limelight. Leander Paes and Bhupathi have done India proud in tennis. Gopichand has won an All-England title in badminton. And, of course, we have, possibly THE star attraction of most world chess tournaments, Vishwanathan Anand.

But this is all recent. Back in the seventies, there was a world snooker title for Michael Ferreira, there was an All-England title for Prakash Padukone and, of course, there was that unforgettable hockey World Cup of Kuala Lumpur in 1975. The country went crazy with Ajitpal Singh, Govinda, Aslam Sher Khan, Mohinder, Varinder, Surjit, Harcharan, Ashok Kumar, Michael Kindo and all the other heroes. Sportsweek magazine featured one player on its cover every week - this went on for several weeks (I suspect they sneaked in repeats - in a country starved of sporting success and at a time when hockey still had its pride of place in the national sports hierarchy, who cared?).

But, achievements in other sports notwithstanding, most of India was (as it still is) obsessed with cricket. And here, India had, like water, found its own level. The heady days of 1971 - with series wins in the West Indies and England, had given way to the harsher realities of 1974 (cynically known as "summer of 42". The more knowledgeable amongst you will understand this, the others must excuse me for not attempting to explain. Thirty years after the event, it still hurts).

And this is where Sunil Gavaskar comes in (not here exactly but I thought I better mention him, else you might lose your patience – like I did with the Athens roll of call).

For all the talk about India having the world's best spinners, the fact is that throughout the 70s and for a part of the 80s, India, in cricket, was considered one of the weakest teams in the world. (This was in the days before Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Only New Zealand was considered possibly weaker). Which is why, when India sprung the odd surprise - like successfully chasing the 400-plus to beat the West Indies at Port of Spain, it did not sit very well with the opposition. Clive Lloyd could take a 1-5 hammering from the Aussies in the mid-seventies but losing to India a few months later? - a big no-no.

Throughout the seventies, if one analyses India’s poor performances, on the face of it, it would appear that the batsmen and bowlers were probably equally to blame. Often the bowlers lacked the killer instinct to finish off the game. But, having lived through each game of that period, I can remember far more instances where batsmen just did not give the bowlers enough to bowl at. Or worse still, they couldn't even chase a very ordinary total, or survive just the last day of the Test. Navjot Singh Sidhu would've had a field day, commentating on Indian batting of that era – his "bicycles in the cycle shed" metaphor would've been aptly over-used.

And this is where Sunil Gavaskar comes in. No, this time he really does.

There were two batsmen of that era who stood out for India. Sunil Manohar Gavaskar (a.k.a Sunny) and Gundappa Ranganatha Vishwanath (a.k.a Vishy).
Both little masters. Sunny was 5'4", Vishy 5' 2" or so. In the mid-seventies they even got related when Vishy married Sunny’s sister.

One of the favourite pastimes of Indian cricket-lovers in those days was comparing Sunny and Vishy. They were different in style – Vishy’s strokes were often square of the wicket – on off- and onside. His favourite was the square cut, although he had an absolutely delectable flick shot (and a glance shot to match). The fielding captain, who'd have typically packed the field on the offside, would be left in despair.

Sunny, opening batsman that he was, had to play a much straighter bat – he'd often play in the arc of mid-off and mid-on. His favourite was the straight drive past the bowler – he played it with absolute authority.

I can go on and on about both these players but for the rest of this article, I'll talk only about Sunny. (He is the opener – it is his turn to bat. Vishy, at No. 4, will have to wait - although I can assure him that, in keeping with those times, it will be a short wait).

Much has been written about Sunny. By writers with far more credentials than me. They often tout his statistics to prove their point. Although these are very impressive, I will not dwell too much on this – those interested in knowing more about Sunny’s records can “google-search” them anywhere.

I will also not compare Sunny with any other players – not of his generation, not of any generation. It may make this article less interesting – but it would be unfair on him, and on the ones he is compared with. All I will say is that in 1976, Sportsweek came out with a cover story on the three best batsmen in the world – Gavaskar, Richards and Greg Chappell. Although it did make a case for each of these to be the best, I think it did not conclude on any one – a wise decision. Choosing any one of these would be grave injustice to the other two.

My narrative on Sunny is personal – it is my tribute to a man who made me in my younger days , and millions others, proud to be Indian. On the field, he was a proud Indian himself – he would never give up the struggle, however hopeless it looked. Even today, he is a proud Indian – some of his criticism of the current Indian side has not gone down very well with them (like his comment about them being “chokers” , but anybody who knows Sunny from his stubborn playing days would realize where he is coming from). He is a perfect ambassador for not just the game of cricket, but for sport in general.

For me, he has been in my life for as long as I can remember. In my childhood, he was every Indian cricket lover’s most treasured possession. We would be at school, trying to get score updates. Everytime we'd hear the score and learn that a wicket had fallen, we'd pray it wasn't Sunny. Most of the times, it wasn't. Much like Ken Barrington for England, Sunny wore India on his chest when he went out to bat. He was too respectful of the task he had and the responsibility he bore, to let India down.

Among the reasons I hold Sunny in very high esteem, is the fact that he achieved what he did, opening the batting for India. Everybody knows that an opener’s job is a very tough one – the wicket is usually green, you don't know how the ball will behave in the first over of the day, and it takes one ball to behave strangely to see you back in the pavilion. A middle-order batsman has the slight advantage of judging by the fate of those before him. Added to this is the responsibility an opener carries – he knows if he gets out, he immediately hands over psychological advantage to the bowling side. There is no bigger boost for a bowling side than to get an early breakthrough.

Now to something else – Sunny's critics.

Let’s face it – if you are famous, you tend to attract criticism. It is difficult for people to accept somebody wholeheartedly – it is almost against human nature. Like they say, “nobody kicks a dead dog”. But, when your playing days are over, often this criticism sticks even harder with your image. With the passage of time, with less and less of you to go by, there is a high chance that future generations see this image of you and all your exploits on the field – however laudable at that time – fade into the background.

I am not suggesting that Sunny’s performances are ever going to fade into the background. They are far too many to suffer this fate. But his records will be broken. As batting averages continue to swell like the Ganges in monsoon, his once stupendous average of 51 may well be overtaken by many.

Not that Sunny would care. He knows what he has achieved for India. He is not answerable to any of his critics. But there are many images of him that are constantly portrayed to today’s cricket loving public – and some of them are definitely not positive.

As somebody who has followed his entire career closely, let me give you my take on him.

First I need to clarify that I am not a blind worshipper of Sunny. For all my huge admiration for him, I think he may have had his failings. At the zenith of his power, he had tremendous influence in selection matters. Some decisions of that period did strongly suggest a not-entirely-kosher selection process (especially since some of the beneficiaries were from Sunny’s zonal team, West Zone). Having said that, many selection decisions of those days raised eyebrows - speculating about Sunny’s role in this would be akin to vindicating the selectors themselves – and that would be wrong. It was their call – and they need to be answerable for their decisions.

Now, onto some mud on Sunny’s face that needs clearing. There have been a few stories – from his playing days – that have gained momentum after his retirement. I will challenge each one of them.

First, that Sunny was a selfish player – playing only for records. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. First of all, to play for records, you have to be in the luxurious position of being able to do so. Let’s not forget that most of the times Sunny was fighting with his back to the wall – trying to save the game for India. On the odd occasion that India indeed had this luxury, Sunny still played for India’s interests. Those who claim he was selfish need only to look at Calcutta, 1978-79 against West Indies. Sunny was captain – he'd got a century in the first innings and , together with Dilip Vengsarkar was cruising along with a massive 344-run partnership in the second innings. He was batting on 182 – a few overs and he;d have got his double hundred – second century in the match. (He would have become the only player to have got a century and a double century in the same match on two occasions).

But since it was nearing the end of the fourth day, and he was pressing for a win, he chose to declare – and get a bowl at the Windies that evening. As things turned out, on a nail-biting fifth day, the Windies just about managed to save the game by the skin of their teeth, ending at 197/9. It was very disappointing for most Indians as they felt Sunny could as well have gone for his double hundred the previous evening. However, Sunny had absolutely no regrets about his decision – he said it was the right thing to do. It was just a pity India could not finish off the job. Selfish? I should think not!

Second, that Sunny was a very defensive captain – he never took risks. Come on – Sunny did not exactly have the Indian side that Ganguly has today. He opened the innings – when you see wickets falling like ninepins at the other end, you can be forgiven if your first instinct is to save the game. All his career, right down to his very last game, he was fighting to save India. Often he did not succeed – but never for want of trying. Sure, he may have taken a defensive position at times – but his teammates had not exactly vindicated his confidence in them, had they?

Third, that he was a slow batsman. Some even call him boring. They immediately cite his 36 not out as the example.

Sunny will be the first person to admit that the 36 not out innings was “horrible” in the context of limited-overs cricket. Perhaps in the context of any cricket. It was one of those innings which he himself jokes about nowadays – instead of avoiding the subject. At that time, much was made of it – as if India lost the match because of this innings. I myself listened to the commentary of that innings and, while his batting made no sense at all, in my opinion, India had long lost the game when England ran way with a huge 330-odd score, with Amiss hammering Ghavri all over the place. No excuse for that slow innings, but let's not make a big deal of it.

I'd say Sunny was a very responsible batsman, always aware of the expectations from him. He played one loose shot early in his career, hooking carelessly and getting out. For the rest of his career, he cut the hook out of his repertoire of strokes. And, for those who think he had a limited range of strokes, think again. He was technically brilliant, he had a wide variety of strokes, both on the offside and the legside. He chose to play in the arc between mid-off and mid-on most of the times, offering the full face of the bat. All the strokes he didn't play were those he chose not to, because of his sense of responsibility. And, he was definitely not a slow scorer. He wouldn't play rash strokes, but he'd punish any ball slightly loose – but you don’t get many loose balls, when the bowlers are on top. And why are they on top? Because they've taken a few wickets. In those days, run-rates were anyway much less than today and, if you exclude marauders like Richards, Greenidge and Lloyd, Gavaskar’s run rate wouldn't compare too unfavourably with many others of that time, considering his opening role and team position.

And lastly, one of the biggest criticisms about him. That much of his success came against weak bowling attacks. Much is made of the fact that against the relatively weak Windies attacks of 1971 and 1978-79, Sunny made hay while in 1982-83, facing Marshall, Holding and co, he was suddenly exposed to genuine high-quality fast bowling and his average was suddenly not-so-impressive. Similarly in the 1980-81 series against Lillee, Sunny had a poor showing while he bullied a B-grade Aussie team in 1977-78.

I really wish Sunny had played Marshall and Lillee much more in his career than he did. I feel he would have silenced many of his critics. I believe Marshall was the most dangerous bowler in the world in the 80s – to be facing him (with or without helmet) would be any batsman’s worst nightmare. Marshall, without the advantage of height that Garner had, still had the ability to get the ball to rise off the pitch and come straight at the batsman’s throat. Yes, by his own lofty standards Sunny did not have the most successful of series against Marshall in 1983. But in the early and mid-80s, Sunny’s form did dip a bit compared to his form in the 70s. This happens to any batsman. It had nothing to do with facing Marshall. That most top players chose to go to World Series Cricket in the late seventies for huge sums of money thus impoverishing Test cricket, is not Sunny’s fault. He chose not to go – he preferred to play Test cricket for India (note this aspect of his character too). The bottom line is, he played whichever bowlers were bowling to him at that time. If they were not the best of that country, he could not be blamed for it. And what people conveniently forget, is that Gavaskar did play Imran very well in what was Imran’s dream series in 1982-83 in Pakistan against India. Imran himself admitted as much.

So, I will not accept the line of reasoning that since Gavaskar did not play top-quality fast bowling all his career, he could not play top-quality fast bowling.

Now to something completely different. Throughout his career, Sunny played a number of memorable innings. He has often quoted his 57 at Manchester in 1971 as his favourite. A bit ironic considering he has 34 hundreds. It is very difficult for me to pick one of his innings – there are so many gems. But, purely for quality, magic, pitch condition, match situation and the drama of the dismissal, I would choose his very last innings – an absolutely magnificent 96 against Pakistan at Bangalore in 1986-87 – a match that India lost by 16 runs, and where Sunny was controversially given out. Apparently the next day the umpire admitted that his decision might not have been the right one. This, in an India-Pakistan game. Rubber-deciding game. Gavaskar on 96. Last Test innings. They don’t come much more dramatic than that.

If after this long blog, you are still skeptical about Sunny, fine. Don’t take my word for it. Here is what some illustrious players had to say about him. They cannot all be wrong.

Sir Don Bradman : “I would have been proud to have played cricket with him."

Viv Richards : “I personally would like to say that Sunny Gavaskar is the best. His record speaks for itself."

Ian Botham : “The Indian combines Boycott's steadiness and Greenidge's ability to keep the runs flowing."

Mike Proctor : "If I have to bet on someone making a hundred in a match, he is the one most likely to achieve it."

Imran Khan : "His perfect technique makes him the most difficult batsman alive to dismiss."

Sir Len Hutton : "If I were to recommend a schoolboy to copy a modern master, I would go for Gavaskar."

Sir Colin Cowdrey : “A pocket-sized battleship armed with an impenetrable defence and astonishing gunpowder. The bigger the battle, the better the performance."

Mohinder Amarnath : "You cannot compare Sunny with anyone. For him batting was everything. He didn't want to fail or throw away his wicket. He had perfect technique, perfect temperament”.

Andy Roberts : "He had scored tons of runs against all countries but not one against India,which has the weakest attack.It speaks volumes about his greatness."

If all these great players feel this way, who am I to argue?

So let’s end this criticism now and appreciate and respect what we have.


This article has suddenly lifted my spirits. Just discussing Sunny tends to do that to me.

I hope Anju is reading this article – or any of the Indian participating contingent currently in Athens.

It is a matter of pride to represent your country.

If you feel that way, you give your best.

Now if only Anju or any of the others can pull off something fantastic, wouldn’t it be great for Indian sport?

Sunny would wholeheartedly approve.

Cricket Memories : 1971 - India in the West Indies

One of the very first series that I have any memories of at all is, coincidentally, one of India’s most memorable series. It had to be – after all, it was India’s first overseas series win. I must admit rightaway I have very faint memories of this series. I was a little over seven at that time and, much as I would like to pretend that I remember a lot of that series, the truth is, I do not. My clearest memory of that series is in fact my eldest sister throwing down the newspaper – the Statesman (we were in Eastern India) - muttering something like “this Gavaskar is just too much”. Only later I realized that by “much” she meant “good” and this was more an expression of approval from her than tiredness (an emotion that I more readily associated with her in those days as she desperately tried – often quite unsuccessfully - to keep her younger brother under control). Knowing her interests better as the years went by, I realized that cricket did not rank among them and it must definitely have been an achievement of considerable magnitude by Mr. Gavaskar to have evoked any sort of reaction from her.

And some achievement it was. This series that I am talking about was not only memorable for India’s first overseas series win – it will be remembered as the series when a young Gavaskar, making his debut, rocked the world with a performance so solid that even my sister just had to notice. In just four Tests (he did not play the first), he scored 774 runs at an average of 154 – with four hundreds and two fifties. One of these hundreds was a double hundred (and, for good measure, this was in the second innings of a Test in which he had already got a hundred in the first outing). Gavaskar had announced himself boldly to the world – and for the next 17 years, the world would see the broadest of bats in defence and the firmest of straight drives in attack from a man no taller than 5 ft 4 inches but with the determination and concentration that would be the despair of many a fast bowler.

But I am getting ahead of myself. In this series of blogs, as I discuss India’s fortunes through the 70s and 80s, there will be many occasions to discuss Gavaskar – in fact there will hardly be a series where he did not have an impact. So let me take it one series at a time.

The Indian side that went to the West Indies on this 1970-71 tour can be forgiven if, before the tour, they had dared to dream of winning a game or so. True, the last Indian side to the West Indies – in 1962 – had been so comprehensively beaten, losing all five Tests, that it was clear that history was against the Indians. But, in all fairness to the West Indies, by 1970-71, they were a shadow of the side of the mid-60s. Not only had the three Ws long since left the scene, more worryingly for them, their fast bowling powerhouse – once so safe in the hands of Wes Hall and Griffith – was a shadow of its former self. Both these bowlers had left the scene and the West Indies were in a stage of rebuilding their fast bowling attack. Their batting was still fairly formidable - no batting with Sobers, Kanhai and Lloyd can be considered anything less – but Butcher had left the scene and this was definitely not a side that you would consider anywhere near the best of West Indian cricket. Having said that, you still have to go out there and win – and I will not take anything away from India’s achievement in this series by talking any less of the West Indies side of that era.

The rest of the description of this series will be largely based on what I have read in books and articles. This was a well-documented series in the 70s, as you can imagine, and I will borrow liberally from my memory of those readings. There may be the odd factual error – I hope the reader will bear with me. None of those sources is available with me now so I must depend largely on memory and on statistics of those matches from the Internet.

The Indian side that visited the West Indies then had a couple of surprises. For one, there was no Farokh Engineer. The first wicketkeeper was a P. Krishnamurthy from Hyderabad who had yet to play a Test for India when selected for the tour. The reserve wicketkeeper (who got many chances in the first-class games on the tour but never played a test) was R. Jeejeebhoy. Similar fate lay in store for one of the main fast bowlers, D. Govindraj, who did play rather creditably in the first-class games but never made it to the Test side. The Indian bowling was invariably opened by Syed Abid Ali and Eknath Solkar.

Another surprise was the absence of Chandrasekhar. This was not so much a surprise as a disappointment – Chandra had been out of action for more than three years after sustaining an injury in a scooter accident. Although it was hoped he would recover in time for this series, it was not to happen. He was not fit in time and had to sit this one out. Maybe he was saving his best for the series to follow (but that is another story).

The team had a mix of experience and youth. While on one hand, there was the youthful exuberance of Ashok Mankad, Eknath Solkar and Gundappa Vishwanath (who had just made their Test debuts about a year ago) and Gavaskar (still only a first-class player - first-class in every sense), there was the experience of a Dilip Sardesai, M.L. Jaisimha, Salim Durani, Erapalli Prasanna and Srinivas Venkataraghavan to balance this youth. And India had that eternal trier – Syed Abid Ali – I used to marvel at his tremendous energy and never-say-die attitude.

The team was being led for the first time by Ajit Wadekar – he had just been made India captain when Vijay Merchant, casting the deciding vote as chairman of selectors, voted in his favour. Wadekar thus took over the reins from Mansur Ali Khan Pataudi.

The rival captain was Gary Sobers, easily one of the all-time greats of the game. He was leading a side still in the process of finding itself after a series defeat in England and the loss of some key players like Basil Butcher and Wesley Hall.

Now, let us look at the series itself.

First Test, Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica
In keeping with India’s traditional performance in inaugural tests of series, India could have been excused a first Test disaster. The first day’s play was totally lost to rain but when the match resumed on the second day, the way India batted, one could have easily mistaken this to be a warm-up match. Had it not been for that veteran Dilip Sardesai and his fighting stand with Eknath Solkar, India would not have batted out that day. As it turned out, these two stayed put, taking India from 75./5 to 212/6 – Sardesai was eventually ninth out with the score on 382 (his own score being 212). India finished on 387.

When the West Indies batted, they were probably not expecting the type of collapse they had. Riding pretty at 201 for 4, they suddenly found the Indian spinners in a dream spell – and crashed to 217 all out. Suddenly India were very much on top. Since the first day had been washed out, a lead of l50 would have been enough for India to impose the follow-on – which it did. But any visions India had of victory (especially with West Indies on 32/2, following on) were quickly disposed of. They ran into their old tormentor, Rohan Kanhai , who with Lloyd and Sobers for company, played out the rest of the game and ensured India got no more than a draw from this one. Many were left to rue what might have happened if a day had not been lost but, after the first Test, it was clear that India had drawn first blood. Foreboding of things to come.

Second Test, Queen’s Park Oval, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad
For the second Test, India made two changes. Two of the four Hyderabadis in the side, the dour Jayantilal and the flamboyant Jaisimha were replaced by two young batsmen from Bombay, Ashok Mankad and Sunil Gavaskar. Gavaskar had just scored a century and a half-century in the tour game against Trinidad and had virtually forced himself into the side on the merit of this performance. These two batsmen were to open the innings, with Abid Ali batting lower down.

The crowd had not even settled down in their seats when Abid Ali, as if as a precursor of things to come, clean bowled Roy Fredericks with the first ball of the match. Thanks to a fighting, unbeaten 71 from local boy Charlie Davis, West Indies managed to reach a somewhat respectable but not entirely adequate 214. Throughout this series, Charlie Davis would prove to be a thorn for the Indians.

The Indian reply began solidly. Gavaskar , in his debut innings, was sedate while Mankad was the more aggressive partner. With Mankad’s 44, Gavaskar’s 65 and yet another excellent partnership from Sardesai-Solkar, India managed 352 – a lead of 138. Sardesai got his second successive century of the series, Solkar his second successive half –century. A remarkable achievement for West Indies in this innings was the nine-wicket haul of spinner Jack Noreiga. He claimed all the wickets except the first one to fall – that of Ashok Mankad.

The West Indies second innings began equally solidly. Kanhai got out with the score on 73 but by the end of the third day they had wiped out the deficit and had got themselves comfortably to 150 for 1.

Nobody could have been prepared for the drama on the morning of the fourth day. First Charlie Davis got himself injured and had to retire hurt. Then Roy Fredericks, never the best of runners, got into a mix-up with Clive Lloyd (himself run out in both innings of the first test) , and got himself run out for 80. West Indies had not added a run to their overnight score.

More drama was to follow. In fact, much more. Salim Durani, who had until then had a quiet match and series, came up with the ball of the series to clean bowl Sobers for a duck (152/3) and a short while later, got rid of Lloyd (169/4). When Venkat clean bowled Camacho at the same score 169/5), the injured Davis returned to the field to salvage the game. But Venkat would not be denied. Durani having opened up the innings, it was Venkat now who ripped through the batting, finishing with 5/95 as West Indies were dismissed for 295, Davis with a fighting unbeaten 74, watching on helplessly.

India now needed just 124 to win. Mankad and Gavaskar, with a handful of tests between them, went about their job very confidently and though Mankad fell before the end, triggering a mini-collapse, it was perhaps only fitting that Gavaskar was there at the end to see India to a memorable win – its first ever in the West Indies.

Third Test, Bourda, Georgetown, Guyana
West Indies, one-down, were keen to come back into the series. They replaced Camacho with Carew, Holder with Boyce and keeper Findlay with Desmond Lewis who had done very well in the tour game against the Indians.
India made one change – Gundappa Vishwanath finally got a chance to play while Prasanna missed this game.

Without any spectacular performance, the West Indies still managed a workmanlike 363, Lloyd getting run out yet again for a useful 60 while newcomer Desmond Lewis continued his good form, topscoring with an unbeaten 81.
In reply, India once again began solidly and eventually went on to 376, Gavaskar continuing his fine form – this time getting his first century in Tests. There would be 33 more to follow. Vishwanath managed a 50.
The West Indies second innings was equally solid – (that man) Davis and Sobers hitting unbeaten centuries as West Indies set India a target of 295 to get. This being unreasonable in the time available, India preferred to get some batting practice with both Mankad and Gavaskar helping themselves to half-centuries. Test drawn – India still one-up with two to go.

Fourth Test, Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados
India had just suffered their first defeat of the tour – to a strong Barbados side, containing players like Sobers, David Holford, Vanburn Holder and Keith Boyce. It was not good for their confidence, within hardly a day of this defeat, to be playing a hungry West Indian side, now very keen to get back on level terms. For this Test, the West Indians made many changes to their side, dropping Gibbs, Noreiga, Shillingford and Boyce. Instead they gave Test debuts to Trinidadian spinner Inshan Ali and, as this was Bridgetown, a raw fast bowler Uton Dowe. Besides, local fast bowlers, Vanburn Holder and John Shepherd got a chance to play in front of their home crowd. India made just one change – Jaisimha coming back in the side in place of Durani.

The West Indies batted like they meant business. Sobers blasted his way to an unbeaten 178, (that man) Davis, Kanhai and new man Lewis all chipped in and they had 501 on the board when Sobers declared. He must have thought it would be enough to force India to follow-on.

It very nearly was. The Indian top order crumbled. Mankad went for six. Unable to resist the temptation to hook, Gavaskar was caught by Holder off Dowe for just one. (In his memoirs, Gavaskar recalls this innings, saying he learnt his lesson from this one shot – he never again threw his wicket away trying to hook). Soon India was 70/6 and it was once again upto that pair – Sardesai and Solkar – to put on a marvelous rescue act – this time all of 186 runs – to see India out of the woods. They got their third century and half-century of the series respectively and , while in the analysis of this series, Gavaskar’s contribution will far outshine others, spare a thought for these two men who were as instrumental in securing India’s series win as probably Gavaskar. A fighting last wicket partnership of 61 between Sardesai and Bedi ensured that India avoided the follow-on and India finished on 347.

Having been forced to bat a second time, the West Indies must have looked for some quick runs but they had not reckoned with some fine bowling from, this time, Abid Ali who put the brakes on their ambitions and managed to restrict them to 180/6 declared. India were set a score of 335 in a little over a hundred overs.

At another ground, in another time and in another situation, India may well have attempted this target. But this was Bridgetown, Barbados - they were still not one-day cricket days – and India was not going to take any risks and let go its precious series lead. As it turned out, it lost Mankad cheaply and wickets continued to fall but Gavaskar had no intentions of repeating his first innings mistake. He would stay till the very end – and deny the West Indians, in the process getting another Test century. The lead was still intact – and there was just one more Test to go.


Fifth Test, Queen’s Park Oval, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad
The Indians went into this Test knowing they had only to save it to win the series. They were back at the very ground in Port-of-Spain where they had just a few weeks ago pulled off a remarkable victory. But if they thought this would work in their favour, they had not reckoned with the resolve of their rival captain, Gary Sobers. This match would be as hard-fought as the previous one with no quarters given or taken.

The West Indians had recalled Noreiga, dropping Inshan Ali who had had a largely uneventful game in Barbados. They had also brought in David Holford (famous cousin of Sobers and famous for their stand against England in 1966) in place of Roy Fredericks.
For India, Prasanna was back in the side for Ashok Mankad. Abid Alid would open with Gavaskar.

India batted first and lost Abid Ali early to Sobers. But Gavaskar was “in a zone” by this stage of the series. He, together with Sardesai (who at this late stage in his career suddenly seemed to have finally answered his many critics), shored the Indian innings and , thanks to a useful half-century from Venkataraghavan, India managed a score of 360.

In itself, not a bad score. But the way the West Indians went about their batting, it began looking very inadequate. First Lewis (for a wicketkeeper he was amazingly prolific) got 70-odd, then (that man) Charlie Davis decided to have one last go at the Indians with his first hundred of the series and captain Sobers hit what was becoming rather routine – another century. Maurice Foster was very unlucky to be bowled by Abid Ali for 99 (many West Indians in the stands are reported to have lost their bets on this one) and West Indies managed an imposing 526 – a lead of 166.

It was the afternoon on the fourth day now but when Abid Ali fell cheaply to Sobers yet again, India could not have been very comfortable. Having come so far and with just another day and a half to go, this would be a really cruel anti-climax, were India to give it all away now.

But that little master Gavaskar was going to have none of it. This time he even surpassed himself – playing serenely and taking on everything that Sobers, Dowe, Shepherd and Noreiga could throw at him. By the time he was out, with the Indian score on 377, his own share a magnificent 220, he had seen India to relative safety. India finally managed to get 427, thus setting West Indies a target of 262 to win.

Any ambitions the West Indians would have had of chasing this were quickly snuffed by Abid Ali, especially when he bowled Kanhai and Sobers off successive deliveries – the latter to an absolute snorter. A middle-order collapse from the West Indians ensured that in the end they were fighting for survival and had lost all appetite for the chase. Most importantly, India had managed to hang on to that precious lead and on the 19th of April, 1971 India completed its first ever overseas series win.

Ajit Wadekar and his men returned home, heroes. Deservedly so. It was a proud moment for Indian cricket. It had taken all of 39 years for this to happen.

I was just 7 or 8 years old then. Too young to really understand what was going on. In later years I would be much more part of the Gavaskar juggernaut. But maybe it was this series that not only started off Gavaskar on his route to fame but started me off too on my love for the game. I wonder !