It seems that Rahul Dravid's retirement caused the espncricinfo website to crash. Although the website denied this causality, it does bear testimony to the adoration that Rahul Dravid enjoys in the cricketing fraternity that most people still believe his retirement and the website crash were linked!
This incident highlights two very important facets of Rahul Dravid's cricket. First and foremost, he was a truly international cricketer loved by fans the world over. Accolades and testimonials flowing from international cricketers further reinforce the stature of the man in international cricket. Secondly, and more critically, Rahul Dravid is the connoisseur's hero. He is undoubtedly a purist in cricketing terms - of course this didn't affect his performance in the IPL at all - but in years to come, Rahul Dravid will inevitably be placed amongst the great test cricketers so much so, that his Limited over International heroics will be completely forgotten.
The other curious feature in the tributes flowing for Rahul Dravid is that none of them actually extol his cricket in numerical terms. Come on, five figure runs in both forms of the game and no one seems to be talking about it. If this had been any other imminent retiree (such as Kallis, Ponting or even Sangakarra in a few years time), the first wave of odes would refer to their cricketing achievements, their awards, centuries and averages - but not Dravid.
The reason for not extolling Dravid's cricketing achievements is quite simple - no, it is not because they are eclipsed by his teammate Sachin but because it is not his amazing numbers that make him a cricketing great. It is the manner in which he went about scripting his runs and career that set him apart.
The most important contribution of Dravid and his Indian contemporaries - read fab five - is the legacy they leave in the Indian dressing room. It should be noted that the fab five were the first generation that enjoyed the monetary surplus of Indian cricket. They were the first cricketing millionaires and probably billionaires. Hence the task of demonstrating the manner of enjoying the enormous success and lifestyle that cricket provided fell on the fab five and what a job they have done!
They have shown that wealth and fame can indeed be tamed and enjoyed than knock you off your perch. Most of the accolades for Rahul Dravid have a similar theme - they describe the perpetual dignity and stature of the man, his equanimity and utter dedication to the sport. The very fact that the golden generation of Indian cricketers have lived a scandal-free celebrity life for nearly two decades stands testament to their stature.
It is only because of the fab five that Indian cricket was able to bounce back from the match-fixing quagmire at the dawn of the new millennium. Indian cricket and cricket lovers are deeply indebted to this great group of men for this very simple reason - for keeping cricket alive. Match fixing is rearing its ugly head once again. Rumors are rife and investigations will begin soon. In this uncertain climate, it would be prudent to extol players like Rahul Dravid, not for their cricket but for being impeccable cricketers.
The true value of a player like Rahul Dravid can only be gauged by the dressing room. Unfortunately, a cricket fan or follower or even their closest family members can never truly understand the value of such legends to the game. Their lasting contribution in to the culture in the dressing room. Only the current and coming generations can reflect the culture that these legends leave behind.
The current and incumbent generation of Indian cricketers have a sacrosanct responsibility to live up to the heady ethical standards set by the golden generation. Being a cricket lover, I know that I will, in the near future have to write a testimonial for my favorite cricketer SRT and even VVS Laxman but on each occasion, my tune would be similar - Cherish the manner in which this golden generation has lived and played the game and conclude with a fervent hope that the coming generations will endeavor to meet the lofty standards set by stalwarts like Rahul.
Showing posts with label Dravid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dravid. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Monday, February 4, 2008
Experience vs Youth in cricket
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.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Dada & Dravid: Que Sera Sera
Let's all be honest, no serious cricket follower would expect Laxman to fit in the ODI format. Therefore, I would like to look at the decision by the Indian cricket selectors to drop Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid for the Commonwealth Bank series down under.
Consider Dravid: he was in the squad for a few matches in the Ind-Pak ODI series, yet he wasn't selected for a few games. Its obvious that he is no longer an automatic selection in the playing ODI Indian eleven. Therefore his axing should not come as a total surprise. A senior pro should not be in the national squad if he is not an automatic selection especially when he is a specialist (batsman or bowler). Dravid was a 2 dimensional cricketer in ODI's a few years ago. He was in top form and very handy with the gloves. Now, he is not able to sustain the intensity that his contemporaries like Ponting are quite comfortable with. This is a hard fact that every Dravid fan must accept. He was never an explosive ODI batsman but he did make up by building from slow starts. Now he has lost his zip on the field. He is still an automatic choice in the test team especially with his slip fielding. My guess is that he will be able to play at test intensity levels for 3 more years. Lets see how it goes.
Sourav Ganguly would have been a trickier decision for the selectors and by trickier, I do not mean 'for cricketing reasons alone'. He has always had passionate support from Bengal and whenever he is not selected, the river of passion overflows to inundate inappropriate areas! Personally, I had predicted that he would fail at Perth. Well, he did. Yet, I must admit, he is in good (not great) batting form therefore an automatic choice in the test team as a specialist.
In ODI's however, he is a liability on the field. Now, his die-hard fans would jump up and say that athleticism in fielding and especially Ganguly's lack of it are often over-exaggerated. This is absolute rubbish. Let me elaborate: an un-athletic presence on the field not only results in shoddy, unproductive dives but they bring down the entire team's intensity on the field. You get the typical cross-eyed glares from your team-mates and you end up putting extra pressure on yourself to perform in your area of expertise which is Ganguly's case is his batting. This is where we come to the crux of the matter. In Australia, Ganguly's part-time out swingers are not going to be of any use. Therefore, he has one and only one department to prove his worth: his batting. Given that he holds on to the opening spot for dear life, he is under extreme pressure to get the team off to a good start every time he steps out into the centre. Again, his poor athleticism means he never is a candidate for quick singles (Even Monty Panesar ran him out, remember!!). If you notice his recent dip in form in ODIs you will notice a pattern: He could never get off strike quickly enough and was always looking for the boundary. His partner Sachin on the other hand is still fit enough and athletic enough to play in ODI mode. Ganguly not only puts pressure on himself to score but affects his partner too. If Sachin gets out or is not playing, the standby opener Gautam Gambhir or the younger Robin Uthappa coming one-drop is either shut out from the strike or entrusted with the complete responsibility of blazing away.
Inevitably, Sachin's dismissal or unavailability has meant a poor batting display. Without Ganguly, the younger brigade along with Sehwag, Yuvraj and the rest will not be under so much pressure to keep finding the boundary. This is the nature of the new Indian team. We now have fitter and younger players who do look for singles to rotate strike in addition to being good boundary hitters. Simply put, the younger brigade has set a higher fitness and athletic standard and only those senior pros able to match up to it or at least not be over exposed by it can find a place in the playing eleven. Sachin passes these basic standards and in addition, is in good batting form.
Look, for players like SG, RD, VVS and SRT, form is something temporary. Batting form is so fuzzy a concept that if other things are going well, their batting will take care of itself; they are simply awesome batsmen, all of them. Therefore, it is the selectors' and captain's job to make sure they fit the bill in all other accessory requirements. If not, they must not be included as excess baggage within the squad. That will only create more problems in the dressing room. Right now, Sachin alone passes these addition requirements of ODI fitness and ODI athleticism therefore, he is rightfully still in the ODI squad and will be in the ODI playing eleven.
I do not think Sachin will last long in ODIs. His body simply does not allow him to play the long innings. That is one reason he gets out in the 90s so often nowadays or he usually gets cramps around the 90s. I do not think he will allow himself to be dropped by the selectors; I desperately hope he will retire from ODIs of his own accord within this year or the next.
If the younger brigade along with Sachin, Sehwag and the rest do well in Australia, all else will be forgotten. The selectors will be hailed as people building for the future; if India do not manage to make it to the finals, the knives will be sharpened again. All in all, I would like to see this move by the selectors to drop VVS, SG and RD as a positive, brave and hopeful move. In fact, I am so surprised the selectors were brave enough to drop SG that I am sure, they will recall him into the squad in a few days saying it was a communication error!!
Consider Dravid: he was in the squad for a few matches in the Ind-Pak ODI series, yet he wasn't selected for a few games. Its obvious that he is no longer an automatic selection in the playing ODI Indian eleven. Therefore his axing should not come as a total surprise. A senior pro should not be in the national squad if he is not an automatic selection especially when he is a specialist (batsman or bowler). Dravid was a 2 dimensional cricketer in ODI's a few years ago. He was in top form and very handy with the gloves. Now, he is not able to sustain the intensity that his contemporaries like Ponting are quite comfortable with. This is a hard fact that every Dravid fan must accept. He was never an explosive ODI batsman but he did make up by building from slow starts. Now he has lost his zip on the field. He is still an automatic choice in the test team especially with his slip fielding. My guess is that he will be able to play at test intensity levels for 3 more years. Lets see how it goes.
Sourav Ganguly would have been a trickier decision for the selectors and by trickier, I do not mean 'for cricketing reasons alone'. He has always had passionate support from Bengal and whenever he is not selected, the river of passion overflows to inundate inappropriate areas! Personally, I had predicted that he would fail at Perth. Well, he did. Yet, I must admit, he is in good (not great) batting form therefore an automatic choice in the test team as a specialist.
In ODI's however, he is a liability on the field. Now, his die-hard fans would jump up and say that athleticism in fielding and especially Ganguly's lack of it are often over-exaggerated. This is absolute rubbish. Let me elaborate: an un-athletic presence on the field not only results in shoddy, unproductive dives but they bring down the entire team's intensity on the field. You get the typical cross-eyed glares from your team-mates and you end up putting extra pressure on yourself to perform in your area of expertise which is Ganguly's case is his batting. This is where we come to the crux of the matter. In Australia, Ganguly's part-time out swingers are not going to be of any use. Therefore, he has one and only one department to prove his worth: his batting. Given that he holds on to the opening spot for dear life, he is under extreme pressure to get the team off to a good start every time he steps out into the centre. Again, his poor athleticism means he never is a candidate for quick singles (Even Monty Panesar ran him out, remember!!). If you notice his recent dip in form in ODIs you will notice a pattern: He could never get off strike quickly enough and was always looking for the boundary. His partner Sachin on the other hand is still fit enough and athletic enough to play in ODI mode. Ganguly not only puts pressure on himself to score but affects his partner too. If Sachin gets out or is not playing, the standby opener Gautam Gambhir or the younger Robin Uthappa coming one-drop is either shut out from the strike or entrusted with the complete responsibility of blazing away.
Inevitably, Sachin's dismissal or unavailability has meant a poor batting display. Without Ganguly, the younger brigade along with Sehwag, Yuvraj and the rest will not be under so much pressure to keep finding the boundary. This is the nature of the new Indian team. We now have fitter and younger players who do look for singles to rotate strike in addition to being good boundary hitters. Simply put, the younger brigade has set a higher fitness and athletic standard and only those senior pros able to match up to it or at least not be over exposed by it can find a place in the playing eleven. Sachin passes these basic standards and in addition, is in good batting form.
Look, for players like SG, RD, VVS and SRT, form is something temporary. Batting form is so fuzzy a concept that if other things are going well, their batting will take care of itself; they are simply awesome batsmen, all of them. Therefore, it is the selectors' and captain's job to make sure they fit the bill in all other accessory requirements. If not, they must not be included as excess baggage within the squad. That will only create more problems in the dressing room. Right now, Sachin alone passes these addition requirements of ODI fitness and ODI athleticism therefore, he is rightfully still in the ODI squad and will be in the ODI playing eleven.
I do not think Sachin will last long in ODIs. His body simply does not allow him to play the long innings. That is one reason he gets out in the 90s so often nowadays or he usually gets cramps around the 90s. I do not think he will allow himself to be dropped by the selectors; I desperately hope he will retire from ODIs of his own accord within this year or the next.
If the younger brigade along with Sachin, Sehwag and the rest do well in Australia, all else will be forgotten. The selectors will be hailed as people building for the future; if India do not manage to make it to the finals, the knives will be sharpened again. All in all, I would like to see this move by the selectors to drop VVS, SG and RD as a positive, brave and hopeful move. In fact, I am so surprised the selectors were brave enough to drop SG that I am sure, they will recall him into the squad in a few days saying it was a communication error!!
However, I will be extremely unhappy if SG or VVS or RD complains of not being treated with respect in relation to this axing. I desperately hope the selectors or the administration had the courtesy to internally explain their decision to these senior pros. Knowing the BCCI, I know this is wishful thinking. I feel we have too many bloated egos within the BCCI that makes it impossible for senior players to leave the game ceremoniously. If the BCCI is trying to make sure Indian cricket catches up with Australian cricket, they must first ensure their own handling of the players matches up to the standards of the ACB.
Again, I know this is wishful thinking. The BCCI has too many non-cricketers to make sure they are never part of an outfit that has cricket's best interests at heart. Usually the BCCI has its annual turnover closest to its heart and a lot of skeletons locked up in undisclosed closets!!
Again, I know this is wishful thinking. The BCCI has too many non-cricketers to make sure they are never part of an outfit that has cricket's best interests at heart. Usually the BCCI has its annual turnover closest to its heart and a lot of skeletons locked up in undisclosed closets!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)