Cricket Order After CWC 2007 - Part 2, West Indies

I write this on a day when England were thoroughly thrashed by South Africa in a virtual Quarter Final, and were hence knocked out of the tournament. Of course they are still to play one insignificant game, but that is not the point. SA, like the other three semi-finalists have played exceptional cricket to reach the semi-final. With England being knocked out, there will be cries for the removal of Vaughan and Duncan Fletcher, and as I had noted in my previous post, they are quite legitimate calls.

In this post, we shall focus on West Indies and what needs to be done to reinstate their old glory. Of course, I have never been close to West Indian cricket, so this post is more an outside view looking into the problems facing West Indian cricket.

The thing that worried me the most about WI cricket up until last year was that after Brian Lara's debut, they never had anyone with huge batting talent, and after Walsh retired, they never really had anyone with huge bowling talent. However, those worries seemed to ease last year, when India toured WI in 2006. A few players stood out - Dwayne Bravo, Dwayne Smith, Jerome Taylor, Marlon Samuels.

The WI won the ODI series 4-1 and the young brigade had come to the party big time. Seeing the current talent, one cannot fault WI for lack of talent, which is why their performance at the current WC was a total flop show. As much as I analyze their performance, the only two possible explanations that I can come up with are - one - they are not disciplined enough, which could stem from a lot of things: cultural, not being committed enough to the cause (in this case winning the WC), not playing as a team - there could be a plethora of reasons, it's just that I am not too close to the team to understand them completely. (By the way, a lot of WI sports writers do write about the above reasons, so I am guessing that there must be some truth in them). The second reason could be that they are inexperienced, which they are. I believe this is a young team, and playing in front of home crowds, they could not live up to the expectations of the WI crowds. Happens to the best of teams at the best of time - in fact no team has been able to win a WC on home soil (we will discount Sri Lanka, they did not win the 1996 WC final in Colombo).

So which one of the above is the real reason for their failure? Or is it something completely different? I am guessing, it is an amalgamation of all of the above and a few others too. WI are definitely in-disciplined, are not committed, aloof to the cause and the team as well. Apart from the above, the other thing that we keep hearing about is how the WICB interacts with the players: payments are always an issues as are the central contracts. Such an environment is not condusive for success.

I believe the following should happen for the WI to become a very good team. Just like England, they have a core set of players - Sarwan, Gayle, D. Smith, D. Bravo, Marlon Samuels, Jerome Taylor, Fidel Edwards around whom they can build for the future. I believe talent has not been the problem, but the fact that they are aloof and indifferent has been. As much as the great players of the past keep harping that playing for the WI should be motivation enough, I believe that it is an issue. Not everyone seems to be worried about the fact that WI is an identity - and not very different from their own country. I believe, to get over that, what the WI need to do is, get a good manager in place and undertake some bonding sessions (just like the Australians did by going to the bush). The other thing that needs to happen is, and this happens with a few players who are extremely talented and everything comes easy to them, they don't seem to work hard on their gifts. I think WICB has to come down heavily upon players if they don't follow a set regime and display bad work ethics. The WI players need to be taught how to be professionals, I think they are not good professionals. Maybe one way to do that would be to give them bonuses based on performance. The other thing that I strongly believe in is that there needs to be a strong board, a competitive board, a transparent board for cricket to flourish in the region. Just like in India, where the BCCI can do away with politicians, so could the WICB. Again, please note that politicians don't necessarily mean officers of the government or members of parliament, but people who worry too much about posts and the money associated with that post. I think, when people who have nothing but the best for WI cricket at heart are put in the right positions, then such people will make the best possible decisions for the players and the game in general. They will also make sure that the sport doesn't die a premature death in the region, but the flames of passion are fanned through out. The last thing that we talked about was inexperience, and the only way you can do away with inexperience is by playing more. The good thing about WI, unlike other minnows (I am not sure if we call them minnows anymore after the showing of Ireland and Bangladesh in the current WC) is that they have more quality players than Ireland and/or Bangladesh and should be able to win more matches than either of those two and return to winning ways a more easily.

Again, let's not forget a strong WI is very important for the good of cricket. Next week, we will focus on Pakistan. Once again, it will be an outsider's view looking inside on the side on how to help Pakistan be strong again.

Till then, leave your comments.

Dhaval Brahmbhatt

Cricket Order After CWC 2007 - Part 1, England

As the World Cup 2007 approaches the business end, a lot of the teams will have already started examining their current state and started looking to the future and what needs to be done to improve their chances at future World Cups - or put it more bluntly, how will they compete with teams like Australia and Sri Lanka. Just like India in 2003, Sri Lanka find themselves as the second best team (and probably even better than Australia if the conditions favor them) in the current world cup, it is now upto Sri Lanka to prove that they are better than Australia when it matters the most.

Coming back to the future for most of the teams, India has already laid down a plan on what needs to be done in order for them to move up the pecking order. In my previous posts I have written extensively about what needs to be done and some of the decisions that the BCCI has taken, so in this post, I will concentrate on other teams that have been plagued with a host of problems and what they need to do in order to improve their games to be more competetive in world cricket. Cricket, unlike soccer, can ill afford to have weak teams in its set up. Soccer has plenty of teams to choose from, so even if a few of the traditionally stronger teams rebuild for a period of time, there are other teams that can fill in. Cricket simply cannot afford that luxury. Traditionally there have only been eight or nine teams that could be considered strong in terms of interest, talent and money available to further the sport in their respective countries. Such teams, that were traditionally strong, but are now weak, will continue to undermine the popularity of the sport even in the nations in which they are played, and will ultimately harm the growth of the sport in general.

In this post, we will examine the issues that are plauging the English team and what they can do to become more competetive in One Day Internationals.

England, inspite of having some of the best facilities available to them (both in terms of infrastructure and resources), have the worst possible ODI team in all of world cricket, and the bigger problem is that, they have been bad in ODI for a long time now. They are even worse than India and Pakistan at the current WC. India and Pakistan were both eliminated from the group stages not because they were bad teams, but more because they came undone against quality opponents on a day when both teams were off color. England on the other hand, have tried to loose all their games, and successfully managed to do so against Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka. In their wins so far, they have been very unconvincing and were mighty close to losing against Bangladesh and Ireland.

England, to my mind, has the nucleus for what can become a very good ODI team, and as such don't need to make a whole lot of changes to either their team composition or the processes that they currently follow. By winning the CB trophy down under, they proved that they have the players who can form a very stable and a solid ODI team.

As with any team that is plagued with problems, the first thing to examine within a team is its composition, the captain and the coach as well as the administrative staff of ECB. Fortunately with England, the only things that have to be tweaked to make them a better team are the team composition and a change to their coaching staff. As far the team composition is concerned, England don't have the right people in the top three and that has been reflected in all their performances so far. By selecting Joyce and Vaughan in the top three, they have selected two men who have no clue what to do in ODIs in that position. Joyce, to my mind is not exactly an opening batsman and he cannot tear into the opposing opening bowlers. Vaughan is an opening batsman, however, he is an opening batsman in the classical mould, and while such batsmen may have a place in some other ODI teams, this England side does not need a player like Vaughan. To my mind, he is not even selected for the right reasons. A player should play in the team not because he is a good captain, but because he is a better player. Vaughan is not a good ODI player, period. When he opens the batting, he cannot hit unorthodox shots and cannot even rotate the strike by picking up the singles. Opposing captains can choose to set pretty orthodox fields and hope to get him out playing orthodox cricketing shots. If he does not get out, then they at least know that he won't score quickly. Either way, he becomes a liability for the team and this is proven by his current average in ODIs which has hovered around the 26-27 run mark for a long time. The top three (if they select Joyce, Bell and Vaughan) have just one century amongst themseleves. That is ridiculous for an international team. At a time when most teams are looking to press the advantage in the Powerplays by scoring quickly and scoring big, England don't have the players to capitalize during the Powerplays. They don't even have the right people at the right positions. For example, Kevin Pieterson, has to bat higher up the order and face as many overs as he possibly can. Based on the above analyses, England should be making the following changes to their batting order and their team composition.

Vaughan should be dropped from the ODI team. Instead of Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick should be played in the team. Trescothick still has a lot of cricket in him and I think he will easily be part of CWC 2011. With regards to who should be made the next captain, there are only two candidates: Ian Bell and Andrew Flintoff. After the adventures of Andrew Flintoff during the current WC, it will be very difficult for the ECB to make him the next captain, that implies that Ian Bell should be made the next captain of the team.The following should be the batting order as well as the team composition for England: Marcus Trescothick, Ian Bell, Kevin Pieterson, Andrew Flintoff, Paul Colingwood (those two are interchangeable depending on the English position in the respective match), Paul Nixon (maybe after the WC, they will have to re-think Paul Nixon's position, simply because they will have to look to the future and Nixon is not getting younger by the day, even though he is a very good wicketkeeper batsman), Ravi Bopara, Saj Mahmood, James Anderson, Monty Panesar, Simon Jones (if he ever becomes fully fit). To my mind, there will be no position for either Ed Joyce, Andrew Strauss or Michael Vaughan in their future ODI teams.

The other change that England have to make is in their coaching department. I think Duncan Fletcher's shelf life is over and he should be replaced with someone who is more aggressive in his approach to playing the game. Fletcher has achived a whole lot during his England tenure, but now is the time for him to seek greener pastures elsewhere. England definitely need a different thinker and a different approach to playing ODI cricket. To that effect, there will be plenty of coaches to choose from after the current WC. Greg Chappell has resigned. John Bucanan has already indicated that he will relinquish his position as the Australian coach, although it is very difficult to envision him being the English coach. Dave Whatmore and Tom Moody are also coming to the end of their contracts with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka respectively. Either of them can be a worthwhile replacement for the English team. I am sure though that the ECB must have short listed a bunch of candidates from the county league and/or from the National cricket academy. Unlike India and Pakistan, they have a good process that they can tap into to find a suitable replacement for Duncan Fletcher.

As I mentioned before, it is very important that traditional powerhouses of the game regain some of their original strength, it is imperative for cricket's survival through the next few decades, or at least until the time when associates become real powerhouses in the sport.

In the next post I will examine the perils of West Indian cricket - a view from the outsides so to speak and see what changes, either forced or elective that should be made for them to regain some of their old glory.

Dhaval Brahmbhatt

A knee jerk reaction

So after all the hue and cry about India's exit from the World Cup, the BCCI has proposed a few changes to the way Indian cricket is run by the BCCI. Let's examine the announcements that were made today at the end of the 2 day meeting in Mumbai.

The first thing to come out was that India will appoint Ravi Shastri as the interim coach and manager of the Indian team's tour to Bangladesh. Next Rahul Dravid will continue to be the captain of the Indian cricket team. On top of that, the coaching staff will constitute of a bowling coach (Venketesh Prasad) and a fielding coach (Robin Singh).

Let's first talk about Ravi Shastri as the interim coach of Indian cricket. The first thing that you should realize when you appoint an interim coach is the fact that there is no long term approach/vision associated with the person who is appointed on an interim basis. The only thing that can be expected is that the incoming person is able to douse the fire resulting from the chaos in which Indian cricket is engulfed currently. Ravi Shastri, to my mind is the best person for that job. I am also happy that he has been made the manager for that tour. I think the BCCI is trying out whether it can create a system where instead of having a strong coach, there is a strong manager. I think the theory has some merit in the sense that Indian cricket has always had cricketers with very heavy egos and to control such people, you do need a strong manager as against a strong coach. Most cricketers at this stage of their playing career don't need a coach, except when want some technicalities sorted out. However, most teams do need a good strategist. I think the Indian team has plenty of people (Rahul Dravid, Sachin Tendulkar, Virendra Sehwag and computer analyst Ramki) who can act as strategists. Even Ravi Shastri is a good strategist. So all in all, we need a strong manager and I think the BCCI has played that card rather well.

In selecting a bowling coach and a fielding coach, I think the BCCI has finally realized that you need specialists to iron out technicalities in either fielding, batting and bowling. My only concern is around the credentials of Prasad as a bowling coach, personally, I would have preferred TA Sekar as the bowling coach of the Indian team - he has plenty of experience at MRF Pace Academy, knows most of the Indian bowlers (either those playing in the team and those on the fringe as well) and lastly knows most of the subcontinental bowlers (Vaas was under his tutelage at some point) have passed under his watchful eyes at some point. The last point is especially beneficial when batsmen have to make specific plans for particular bowlers. I do realize that Prasad has coached the Indian U19 teams and so from an overall coaching perspective, he might have it in him to coach the Indian bowlers. All in all though, I think it is very good to have a bowling and a fielding coach.

The only other position that was not filled was that of a trainer. I think along with the fielding coach, we do need a physical trainer, someone who understands bio-mechanics. I believe in today's day and age, when cricket is almost a 365 day affair, you need someone who understands our bodies and how the effect of constant cricket on our bodies. The sooner the BCCI fills up that post, the better it will be for the Indian players.

The selectors have made it clear that they are retaining Rahul Dravid as the captain of the Indian cricket team for the next 3 tours. I think that is a mistake - Rahul to my mind is not a "leader" and should not be made a captain. He is a workhorse, and workhorses are never good leaders. Other than that, my belief is that, if a coach is appointed for the team, then the coach and the captain will form a team, and they should complement each other. In this case, I am not sure if Rahul Dravid can complement Ravi Shastri and vice versa. Also, with the mess that's going around (supposed divisions within the team because of various decisions (or in-decisions) taken by Rahul Dravid in tandem with Greg Chappell) doesn't bode too well with retaining Rahul Dravid as the captain of the side. Consider this, if Sachin now wants to bat at the top of the order and Rahul Dravid does not want him to (at least that was his preference going into the World Cup), but Ravi Shastri wants him to (because he may believe that if it was not broken in the first place, then there is no reason to fix it) - just imagine the kind of complexities that are going arise as a result. What a mess we are getting into by retaining Rahul Dravid as the captain. I think this was the right time for a change in guard and I think the selectors have missed a trick here.

Appointing Rahul Dravid as the captain is going to throw up a lot of issues for the selectors as well in terms of team selection, and on top of that the BCCI wants to select a young team to the tour of Bangladesh (however, they have not indicated that they want a similar team for the upcoming tour to England). I frankly don't understand what the BCCI had in mind (apart from propagating Greg Chappell's youngster theory) when they gave such a directive to the selectors - did they not see the average age of the Indian team that was selected for the World Cup? If I remember right, it was around 28 or 29 - not old by any standards (in fact the oldest team, from the test playing nations is Australia), and this included Kumble (36), Saurav (35), Rahul (33), Sachin (33), and again if I am right, these were the only players in their 30s. The other thing that the selectors have to realize is, a team of youngsters is not the be all end all solution. Did the Australian team remove everyone from their team when the lost the Ashes in 2005? The answer is, NO, they stuck with 80% of the team that had lost the Ashes and made only a few changes, where they felt they needed to and told the seniors to make sure that they were motivated enough to win back the Ashes. I believe most from the current Indian team should have the right levels of motivation to go to Bangladesh and perform well. We should not forget that people like Sachin, Kumble, Saurav (Saurav to a lesser degree) and Laxman still have a couple more years (at the very least) to offer to the Indian cricket. I am not saying that youngsters should not be part of the upcoming tour, they should be, however, it should be a phased approach. All successful teams should have the right balance of youth and experience, and that is the only way forward. I sincerely hope that the selectors show some maturity while selecting the team for the Bangladesh tour - it is a great opportunity for the seniors in the team to get a lot of things right, and at the same time, start inducting some new faces into the team. I will at some point post the team that I think should go to Bangladesh - but that is for future posts.

The BCCI also announced it was scraping the central contracts. That is utter nonsense - the guys playing for the country are supposed to be professionals and not contractors of the BCCI who are paid by the tournament (in short paid "by the job or "by the hour"). More than anything, they have to be paid "for the job", and their job is to play for India. If the BCCI wanted, they could have made cuts on the bonuses that the players earn (make the bonuses more performance and result oriented). There will be people in the BCCI who will tell us that central contracts puts a sense of security into the players mind and they form a comfort zone around themseleves, which ultimately affects their performance. I believe it may be true to a certain degree, but at the end of the day, most players realize that the contracts are binding only for a certain period of time and most of them are judged not by the fact that they were contracted by the BCCI for X number of months but rather by their own performances in the games in which they played. On the one hand the BCCI has removed central contracts and on the other, they are restricting players into signing endorsements. A player constantly lives in the fear of being dropped, so then, do you blame a player if he plays for his spot on the team (try understanding it from the following example: the team requires a player to score at a faster scoring rate. However, he does not care about the team because he is afraid that in trying to score at a faster rate, he might get out early and as a result he might be removed from the team thereby stopping his line of income. With that fear in mind, he scores at a slower scoring rate, taking fewer chances, but scoring a half century or a century in the process). Now the question is, do you remove him from the team, because if you looked at the score book, then he has the runs and hence is in form, however, he has not performed how the team wanted him to be?

I believe that (removing the central contracts) is the single biggest mistake coming out of these two days of meetings, and a knee jerk reaction to say the least.

Dhaval Brahmbhatt

Was Greg Chappell a good coach for Indian cricket?

After reading Sanjay Manjrekar's comments about Greg Chappell and his resignation from the Indian cricket scene (http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/288811.html?view=transcript), one would feel that India has lost a very very good coach that would have guided India to some sort of glory in world cricket. However much I respect Sanjay Manjrekar as a good observer on cricketing issues in general, I respectfully disagree with his views that India missed out on a good coach. Sanjay points out that Greg Chappell did what John Wright could never do during his tenure as a coach - he showed us the black and white of Indian cricket. Excuse me, but that is never the job of a coach - that is more the job of selectors, of the administrative officers of BCCI. A coach's job is to get the best output from the team that is "given to him" and provide an environment where they will give their best. I don't care how he manages to do that, but as long as he can get the best out of his wards and helps them win games, he would have done a good job. Greg Chappell was not able to do either of those two. Instead, he wanted to hijack the team and make them perform to his whims and fancies. John Wright achieved both - during his tenure, we started winning abroad, people like Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ganguly, etc. were all at the peak of their powers (I do agree, that age has caught up with Ganguly and Tendulkar, however, that does not mean that they cannot perform) in short, giving them the kind of environment in which they were able to succeed. To top it - he did not have a say in the selection process, nor did he want to do that. He was quite content with the team that was given to him.

As far as Greg Chappell is concerned, I believe too much experimentation proved detrimental to a lot of people - Kaif, Pathan come to mind instantly. Sehwag could never feel comfortable in the setup and he was made to look like a deer caught in head lights every time he went out to bat. Same with Ganguly, when he was selected to make a comeback - all he wanted to do was score runs - regardless of the scoring rate at which he was scoring them - giving the feeling that he was intimidated by either the coach and/or the captain. In this case, we all know who he was intimidated by. As soon as people are afraid of their coach and/or captain, they cannot perform to their optimum. I think that is where Greg Chappell failed, he failed to make the team members realize what was good for the team and how they could collectively win and/or loose. He instilled fear in them. He was not a good people manager. Anyone can help the team practice taking slip catches; out field catches; help with their batting and bowling in general, it is the other peripheral things that make the most difference when you play for the country. Mental state, feeling of being one in a team are as important ingredients to winning matches as are cricketing skills. Greg Chappell failed the Indian team in that respect. He could not bring the peripheral things to the table. He may have had a great vision, but I believe that is where BCCI should have said, we like your vision, but we'll leave it at that - we don't think that is what a coach should be doing. He should be doing what John Wright did - nothing more nothing less. Everything else is for the selectors and the BCCI to do. Selectors should have a say in what sort of players to pick - what should be their physical fitness levels, their mental maturity levels, who should be playing where - of course that does not mean that the captain and coach cannot be flexible in terms of who plays at what position - but more or less, the job requirement should be fixed. Mind you, I am not even saying that we need a certain player for a particular position - if during a game, a certain situation demands a certain type of player, then such a player should be selected in the team, period.

As Manjrekar says, Greg Chappell leaving will not be a loss to Indian cricket - because at the end of the day, it is not the coach who goes and performs on the field. However, a coach does provide an environment for the players to perform at their best - that is where Greg Chappell failed. I am glad he's decided to leave Indian cricket - it is the best decision he's taken as the Indian cricket coach.

Dhaval Brahmbhatt

India's Path to Redemption in Cricket

India's exit from the current edition of world cup has certainly not come as a surprise to me. However heartbreaking it was, it was still expected. One of the comments (or predictions) that I had made (of course no one other than a few friends cared to listen) was that India would be a force in the tournament, IF, we overcame Bangladesh. There were a couple of reasons why I had said so - the first one was, based on the format of the current tournament and the fact that India were in the so called “Group of Death” with two test playing nations. No team could allow a slip up. Both India and Pakistan found that out at their own expense. England came mighty close as well - a slip up against Kenya would have left them out - it was just that Kenya lacked the experience and skill of Bangladesh and the intensity of Ireland. Coming back to India's exit - the second reason was, India has traditionally been a slow starter in all major tournaments. My perception is that, they are afraid of loosing, especially early in the tournament. My gut feel is that against Bangladesh, they were far too afraid of loosing - Dravid had mentioned that the game was a banana-skin and it just illustrated the fact that he was worried about loosing the game. In today's sport, mental attitude is a huge factor - teams have employed specialists to assist them in hardening their mental attitude. India themselves did that in South Africa 4 years ago in 2003.

All being said - the question now should be, how do we move forward? What possibly can be done to get a team that has the potential of winning in all sorts of situations - a team that is very comparable to the current Australian team in terms of quality, skills, mental attitude, physical fitness and all other ingredients that make a successful cricket team?

The answer lies in not having a knee-jerk reaction to our exit from the current world cup. There is no doubt in my mind that hard decisions have to be made, however, there is also the need to ask the question – at what cost? What happens if we decide to remove Dravid as the captain and Chappell as the coach? What happens if we remove the core of the team? Will those be enough to create a successful team? Along with the above questions, another question that should be asked is – what is the time frame within which we should expect to see the results of whatever changes we put in effect now? Is 2011 the only timeline that we have - or do we look beyond that?

There are plenty of questions – as there should be. It is just that we have to have short term goals and a long term vision. If only we are able to provide a plan and execute the plan properly, will we be able to provide the nucleus for a successful cricket team. Let us look at some of the things that I am suggesting should be done in order for India to be a real power in cricket – along with the timeline in which to expect results.

I will first tackle the question of timeline – I believe it is very important to have realistic goals within realistic timeframes. It helps – as we would say in our consulting jargon – to tell a story, and a successful one at that.


To set our timelines, it is important that we rely on the ICC calendar. However, the ICC calendar is not the only thing that we need to cling on to. The reason is – the ICC calendar consists of a bunch of ODI tournaments interspersed with Test matches against various international teams. Hence, by just looking at the ICC tournaments, there may be the danger of looking just at the ODI tournaments and aligning our goals to just the ODI tournaments. That, in my mind, is a huge mistake and fundamentally short sighted. There is the danger that we will miss the original point - that of making India a great cricketing team – not just a great ODI team. It should be clearly understood that when we judge our teams at a particular milestone, we not only take the ODI tournaments into account, but also the test matches/series that we have played up to that time. Part of the problem with Greg Chappell’s thinking was that he gave us “Vision 2007” – and hoped that India would become the world champions. I am not sure if India, even if we had won the World Cup, would have been considered world champions. World champions are supposed to be champions, irrespective of the form of cricket they play.

Having said that, these ODI tournaments provide us with a point in time where we can sit down and gauge how the team has progressed over a period of time since changes were implemented, what has been achieved and what needs to be done in order to achieve the end state – which definitely should not be 2011 World Cup at this point. 2011 may be our short term goal – but our long term vision should extend to the 2015 World Cup. Thus, our short term goals should fit the 2011 World Cup time frame and our long term vision should extend to the 2015 World Cup.

After having settled on the time frame – the next step is to make sure that we have the right people to implement the plans that we have in order to make India world champions. The first and foremost thing that we need to realize is that, it is the players who will ultimately win games for us. Not the coach, not the administrators and definitely not the cricket loving public. For that, the players have to fit a certain profile - physically, mentally and talent wise. Just as you would not pick a player with lesser talent, you should not pick a player if he lacks the right mental attitude and the right amount of physical strength. If that means that we have to drop the core of the cricket team, and start building a new, then so be it. We want a team of winners, in all situations - be it 35 degrees Centigrade or be it when we are chasing 350 to win in the last innings. To achieve these, I have no doubt that we may have to outsource some of the training and hire the right people. We may have to send our players overseas (England, Australia, South Africa and even Sri Lanka) to help them get accustomed to the wickets, interact with their state/county players and thus learn the nuances of playing the game. If that is not possible, then we have to at least make sure that the international players play domestic cricket on a regular basis.

We need a strong captain - someone who can lead from the front. Leading from the front has different connotations for a lot of different people. Really, we need someone like Saourav Ganguly as our captain. Someone who is willing to stand up to the opposition, someone who can take the fight to the opposing team, someone who can throw a few taunts around, someone who is a brat. Indians in general tend to take things lying down - it is the way we grow up - respecting everyone, especially our elders, our teachers, someone who holds a higher office, etc. It should be taught to us that we are at par with everyone else in this world. I guess, it is a very cultural thing, but it has to change. The other thing with a captain is that we cannot let the fact that the captain has loads of talent, impose his talent on to the team. More often than not, the most talented individual team is not the best captain. Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar are prime examples of this theory. Both seem to impose their talent on the team - they expect everyone to perform to the same talent level as theirs. It is impossible for everyone to perform at the same talent level as they both possess. There is no harm in asking people to give their 100 percent, but asking someone to be a Rahul Dravid or a Sachin Tendulkar, puts enormous pressure on the individual. What we really need is someone with great man management skills.

A question that is doing the rounds right now is - should we continue with a foreign coach or should we go back to an Indian coach? The answer really is quite logical - we need a "good" coach, irrespective of his nationality, period. A coach should be given all facilities that will help him do his job properly. Therefore, if the coach needs person X to be his assistant then he should be provided with his requested assistant. However, that does not mean that the coach should be given a free hand at running the show, there should be a process in place that will allow for the coach and his employers (in this case BCCI) to communicate on a one on one level. If the BCCI feels that the coach is not doing his job properly, then he has to be told so at that point in time and similarly, if the coach feels that he is not getting the kind of feedback, either from the board or from the players, then he should escalate his concerns to the BCCI and the selectors and let them take appropriate actions.

Another thing that we need to worry about, are the channels of communication between the seniors and juniors and even with the team management, administrators and players. More often than not this is a leadership issue and should be solved if we have the right leader in place. Other than that, we need a strong manager in the team – someone who can be the siphon between BCCI and the players and the training staff.

Our developmental program needs to be revisited. We don't want players who score thousands of runs in domestic cricket and then are all at sea when facing international opposition. If that requires a change in our pitches, a change in our domestic competition, so be it. If it means that international calendar has to be revisited (and hence impacting our finances), then it has to be done - this will allow domestic players to play against international players - that can only be beneficial to the domestic players. One of the things that needs to be done is to trim down on the number of teams in Ranji Trophy. Currently, there are far too many teams - and hence not a lot of competition. There is a need to consolidate teams - it will also help a little bit with the finances.

It is high time we revisited our domestic structure from the point of view of incentives to players who might never get a chance to represent India in any internationals. Why would a player want to play the game if he knows that after playing for about 10 years, he may not be selected to the international team? Is he going to make enough money, while playing domestic cricket, to be able to sustain himself once he quits domestic cricket? If that is not the case, then my suggestion is to change the structure to mirror the club system in England. With corporate organizations coming in (either through sponsorship or through ownerships), there will be more money in the domestic game. This in turn will make sure that the production line (of players) does not stop (at least not for the lack of money and incentives) - and we continue to have players for a long time to come, otherwise, in a few years time, we might not even have 11 players to represent India at any tournaments.

Another area of improvement is our selection process. Although I am not very close to the entire selection process, I would assume that people at the grass roots level mostly depend on scorebooks to separate the best from the rest. That (looking at the score book) is only part of the equation. I am not sure if there is a system of scouts in the country, who will scavenge at all cricket games at all levels and then report their findings either to the respective selection committee (either national or state).

And lastly, there is a need for the BCCI to be revamped. There cannot be politicians running the show. When I say politicians, I don't mean members of parliament, but more than that. Jagmohan Dalmiya is a politician to my mind. People, who have nothing but the very best for Indian cricket at their hearts, should be allowed to run the BCCI. This is asking for a bit too much I think with the kind of money involved, however, something that should be looked into pretty closely. All BCCI members need to be responsible and answerable to the millions of fans who invest their time, hope and passion for the sport. If that means to change the very structure and constitution of the BCCI, then it has to be done.

India is a vast nation, with a lot of passionate people who love the game of cricket and I am quite confident that if we have the passion for the sport, then we can produce world beaters/champions. It is only a matter of putting a plan together, sticking to it and executing it.

Dhaval Brahmbhatt

Parallel Cricket League in India

I have always wondered why the corporations were not interested in setting up a cricket league, based on the football (soccer), baseball, American football, etc. leagues that exist in America, UK, Germany, etc. Even the Indian Hockey League (IHL) works as a template that could have been followed by the corporations (or even a handful of entrepreneurs) – after all, cricket is a big money making business in India. A sport, in today’s world, is a money making business, and based on the sound principles of economics too. As long as there is demand, supply will always be at a premium.

Mr. Chandra has mentioned that he wants to create a league to remove some of the problems that face Indian cricket today – especially in the wake of the pre-mature CWC 2007 exit. How true is that? I think he may be right, partially. Giving Mr. Chandra the benefit of the doubt, one has to say that the thought is noble indeed. However, the bigger question is – does India need a parallel league?

Strategic Timing
Zee TV’s decision to set up the cricket league comes at a very peculiar time in Indian cricket – public outcry against the team being thrown out of the CWC 2007 is huge, and more than anyone, the fare paying public is demanding changes. Considering that Zee TV did make the formal announcement about the cricket at this hour (according to reports and Mr. Chandra’s quote, they were not supposed to make this announcement public until a couple months later), gives the feeling that it is a very business savvy announcement. What are the odds that the BCCI would have agreed to setting up the league, had the announcement been made after a better showing by the Indian team at the CWC? By timing it the way Zee TV has, they are trying to arm-twist BCCI to agree to the whole creation of the league. Considering that there is so much money to be made by the creation of a cricket league in India, there is no doubt that the BCCI will want a stake in the eventual profits. However, Zee TV will want to consider the cricket league their own baby and try and mint as much money out of it as they can, without too much involvement from BCCI (and thereby paying only a fraction of the profits to the BCCI, if anything at all). I believe sharing of profits (and also the fact that BCCI did not give the TV rights to Zee TV) is the prime factor in the timing of the announcement. Mr. Chandra wants to kill two birds with the same shot – set up the league and make sure that BCCI does not get a substantial cut in the profits.

Coming back to the original question of – does India need a parallel league – I think the answer is: yes it does, but not right now. There are a couple of reasons why I say this. We do need corporate sponsorship – however, coming in the form that it is coming – a parallel cricket league – is not the right way of doing it.

My primary concern is if there is no constitution to bind the parallel league, it will turn into a haven for match fixing. No one will be answerable to anyone in an open league system. Even the worst sporting leagues around the world have some sort of constitution, a rule book if you will, to fall back on. No where has Mr. Chandra suggested that he will put a proper structure and required processes in place to make sure that the bad elements of cricket don’t infiltrate into the parallel league. Running a parallel league is vastly different from conducting a night cricket tournament, played by “gully” cricketers across the nation every summer months.

My other reason is around the fact that another league will eat away into the already existing domestic structure in existence today. I fully subscribe to the view that the current structure needs to undergo drastic changes (we need to trim down the number of teams, players, etc. from the current structure – thereby making it more competitive) – however, my point is that we need to make changes to the existing structure, and not necessarily create a parallel cricket league. Division of resources is never a good idea – and should not be allowed in this case. Players, even if the BCCI agrees to the new league, will have to divide their time and effort into two leagues, facilities (grounds, gyms, etc.) will be divided, the general paying public will be divided on where to spend their hard earned money (where does the middle class family get the money to pay both Geo Sports channel as well as Zee TV cricket channel?).

BCCI cannot make, should not make any hasty decisions on the creation of the parallel league. Of course, Mr. Chandra will still go ahead and implement his plans, but they will come a cropper. Maybe, Zee TV will force a few of the players into not signing player agreements with the BCCI, however, any person with aspirations to play for the nation should stay out of this unless the BCCI blesses this format. In due course however, BCCI should bless this concept – maybe not in the current form, but maybe by trying to force the corporations into spending their money on the domestic structure (albeit with modifications).

If Mr. Chandra indeed wishes the best for Indian cricket, then he should be working in close tandem with the BCCI – who in turn should make sure that the league is run in a fair manner, adhering to all laws and processes and providing a solid constitution – which might be slightly different from the way it manages cricket in India currently.

Dhaval Brahmbhatt