Essentially, the conundrum in Indian ODI cricket is valuation of experience and youthful energy. This is not a problem of economics but a puzzle of perspective. The term 'experience' is often used to mask the lack of athleticism among senior players in the Indian cricket team. Of course, Sachin Tendulkar, as of today remains an exception. He has still got the zip in spite of 18 years of international cricket but for all practical purposes, let us exclude him in our analysis; after all, the entire cricketing intelligentia considers him a legend of the game, so for our analysis, he is a pleasant exception.
Of course, Sachin's case might be put in perspective if you look at international standards of player performance. Ponting, Hayden et al are in the same age bracket (albeit with lesser years at the international level) and they set the benchmark when it comes to aging gracefully as an international cricketer. Nevertheless, the experienced bunch in Indian cricket - Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble et al - live by the standards of an older era: the bygone era of Indian cricket when "senior" players were mollycodddled for having that rare gift - experience. This bygone era includes Azhar and Kapil Dev to name a few. If truth be told, both these greats (match fixing or not!!) were given huge career extensions without due regard to their performance on the field. Again, the selectors were ready to stick with the 'old bunch' in search of that abstract gift: experience.
It is but obvious that we need to ask ourselves, "what exactly does experience bring to the table?" The answer is verbose so bear with me! A cricketer, while playing the game in the heat out in the middle at any level, 'experiences' different situations. It doesn't matter if he is playing test cricket at the county, grade, Ranji or international level. He still learns from his role in the middle. He grows as a cricketer and the sum total of these 'cricketing episodes' are somehow hard-coded in him. He is supposed to find himself in similar situations and react in a more informed manner given that he has already been through more of the same. Therefore, if he has been in a huge fourth innings run chase at the Ranji level, he is supposed to be more anticipating when confronted with a similar situation in a Ranji final. He is supposed to know exactly, how to pace his innings; when to press the initiative, when to block, when to play for time and so on.
In the limited overs contest, the player learns precisely the same issues via experience. He learns how to assess pitches, how to visualise a target, how to pace his innings etc. Watching the game between India and Australia on Sunday, I daresay, the Indian youth were trenched in their belief that anything short of 300 is useless while playing against Australia. Some might say, they still have the hangover of the T20 world cup experience. Then again, that should be classified as a lack of 'experience' and count against 'youth' in this contest with 'experience'!
Then again, in this circular argument the question always remains, "If one cannot go with experience indefinitely, then how to ensure that the youth builds experience?" The answer is simple: Make sure the experiences built at the domestic level are meaningful enough at the international level. For this to happen, domestic cricket must meet the standards of international cricket. This is precisely the reason why Australia do not have the problem of bleeding new charges straight out of domestic cricket. The difference in quality between domestic cricket down under and international cricket is not insurmountable. This is not the case with any other cricket playing nation. India have the best chance to ensure that domestic cricket takes a quantum jump in quality and they are taking minute steps over the last few years. In general bowling standards have improved but batting standards haven't. This would be puzzling but the root cause is the pitches. Even today, India does not have enough sporting pitches to even out the contest between bat and ball and at the same time, India has too many domestic teams!
A multitude of domestic teams means a lot of weak opposition for quality players. Therefore, the performance statistics do not reflect the true merit of the player - bowler or batsman. The 'experience' gained at the domestic level needs to be put in perspective taking into account the lack of quality opposition. It would be fruitful for India to cut down the elite domestic competitions to 6 teams only and continue building infrastructure at a level below that. More focus should be on the zonal teams than the state teams. The zonal teams must play more cricket against each other so that quality reveals itself. When someone from the zonal team makes it to the international circuit, he will not feel a quantum leap in quality.
I am also critical of giving preference to players in touring A and B teams. Just because they have international experience playing against other A and B teams does not mean they have adjusted to international cricketing prerequisites. This is also detrimental to the quality of domestic cricket. If you take out the creme de la creme for international duty, the cream below the cream for A and B team duties, then the domestic leagues are going to languish far, far behind.
Australia's dominance in world cricket must teach every other cricket playing nation at least one sure truth - There is no short cut to international success. There is no bypass to international cricket. There is no possibility of building a consistently successful national team if a country does not have a high performing domestic cricket setup.
Of course, Sachin's case might be put in perspective if you look at international standards of player performance. Ponting, Hayden et al are in the same age bracket (albeit with lesser years at the international level) and they set the benchmark when it comes to aging gracefully as an international cricketer. Nevertheless, the experienced bunch in Indian cricket - Ganguly, Dravid, Laxman, Kumble et al - live by the standards of an older era: the bygone era of Indian cricket when "senior" players were mollycodddled for having that rare gift - experience. This bygone era includes Azhar and Kapil Dev to name a few. If truth be told, both these greats (match fixing or not!!) were given huge career extensions without due regard to their performance on the field. Again, the selectors were ready to stick with the 'old bunch' in search of that abstract gift: experience.
It is but obvious that we need to ask ourselves, "what exactly does experience bring to the table?" The answer is verbose so bear with me! A cricketer, while playing the game in the heat out in the middle at any level, 'experiences' different situations. It doesn't matter if he is playing test cricket at the county, grade, Ranji or international level. He still learns from his role in the middle. He grows as a cricketer and the sum total of these 'cricketing episodes' are somehow hard-coded in him. He is supposed to find himself in similar situations and react in a more informed manner given that he has already been through more of the same. Therefore, if he has been in a huge fourth innings run chase at the Ranji level, he is supposed to be more anticipating when confronted with a similar situation in a Ranji final. He is supposed to know exactly, how to pace his innings; when to press the initiative, when to block, when to play for time and so on.
In the limited overs contest, the player learns precisely the same issues via experience. He learns how to assess pitches, how to visualise a target, how to pace his innings etc. Watching the game between India and Australia on Sunday, I daresay, the Indian youth were trenched in their belief that anything short of 300 is useless while playing against Australia. Some might say, they still have the hangover of the T20 world cup experience. Then again, that should be classified as a lack of 'experience' and count against 'youth' in this contest with 'experience'!
Then again, in this circular argument the question always remains, "If one cannot go with experience indefinitely, then how to ensure that the youth builds experience?" The answer is simple: Make sure the experiences built at the domestic level are meaningful enough at the international level. For this to happen, domestic cricket must meet the standards of international cricket. This is precisely the reason why Australia do not have the problem of bleeding new charges straight out of domestic cricket. The difference in quality between domestic cricket down under and international cricket is not insurmountable. This is not the case with any other cricket playing nation. India have the best chance to ensure that domestic cricket takes a quantum jump in quality and they are taking minute steps over the last few years. In general bowling standards have improved but batting standards haven't. This would be puzzling but the root cause is the pitches. Even today, India does not have enough sporting pitches to even out the contest between bat and ball and at the same time, India has too many domestic teams!
A multitude of domestic teams means a lot of weak opposition for quality players. Therefore, the performance statistics do not reflect the true merit of the player - bowler or batsman. The 'experience' gained at the domestic level needs to be put in perspective taking into account the lack of quality opposition. It would be fruitful for India to cut down the elite domestic competitions to 6 teams only and continue building infrastructure at a level below that. More focus should be on the zonal teams than the state teams. The zonal teams must play more cricket against each other so that quality reveals itself. When someone from the zonal team makes it to the international circuit, he will not feel a quantum leap in quality.
I am also critical of giving preference to players in touring A and B teams. Just because they have international experience playing against other A and B teams does not mean they have adjusted to international cricketing prerequisites. This is also detrimental to the quality of domestic cricket. If you take out the creme de la creme for international duty, the cream below the cream for A and B team duties, then the domestic leagues are going to languish far, far behind.
Australia's dominance in world cricket must teach every other cricket playing nation at least one sure truth - There is no short cut to international success. There is no bypass to international cricket. There is no possibility of building a consistently successful national team if a country does not have a high performing domestic cricket setup.
No comments:
Post a Comment