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
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
posted by dhaval brahmbhatt at 4/07/2007 05:29:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home