India battle with rotation issues

[Gambit]

Phasing Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid out What to do with the Big Three? Sambit Bal October 11, 2007 Australia are so damn good that they can make cricket boring. It took a below-par performance from them in Chandigarh - 16 wides were bad enough but that they cost 15 further runs would point to a wretched day for Adam Gilchrist behind the wicket - to bring the series, which was fast becoming a contest only in terms of bad behaviour, alive. Till then, the Indian supporters, who had only a week to savour the Twenty20 glory, were growing increasingly restless. With each defeat, the cry got more shrill: how long can India carry the Big Three? Carry? How short the public memory is. In the last one-day series India played, Sachin Tendulkar was their best batsman, playing strokes that seemed to belong to his glorious past; he had two 100-plus partnerships with Sourav Ganguly, who has batted as well in the last few months as he has ever done in his career; and Rahul Dravid shook off his indifferent Test form to play a couple of sublime innings down the order. Yes, Tendulkar has looked shaky against Brett Lee, Ganguly ponderous, and Dravid is yet to hit his straps. And it's also true that one-day cricket requires energy, sharp reflexes, lightness of feet, and strong throwing arms. Yet the manner in which Australia resumed normal service in the 50-over game should have been evidence enough that this form requires different skills than Twenty20. In comparison to the shortest form, one-day cricket allows bowlers proper spells and captains to keep men in catching positions. In conditions that are kind to bowlers, it calls for batsmen to buckle down and survive a few overs. In more simplistic terms, there is a greater premium on wickets early on: it's far easier to recover from 30 for 4 in the 20-over game than in the 50-over one. It wasn't pretty watching Tendulkar struggle against Lee in Chandigarh, but without his battling innings India were unlikely to have got to 291. In fact, there was a chance they would have been bowled out for under 200, and Mahendra Singh Dhoni, who is yet lose his innocence and candour at press conferences, admitted as much. It was easier for a fellow cricketer to see the value in an innings like that. Yet, India need to start building for the future. There are no two ways about it. They were fortunate in the last decade to be blessed with abundance. Tendulkar is a batsman of a lifetime and Dravid isn't far behind. And that they had VVS Laxman and Ganguly to back those two up was a rare stroke of luck. It has been a worry for the last couple of years that their departure will leave Indian cricket hollow. Losing them together would be a blow too severe to bear and logic dictates that their departures are phased out. One-day cricket would be the natural place to start. Laxman and Anil Kumble, another giant who belongs to the same era, are already out of the ODI equation. It can be argued that India can afford to blood younger players in a form that puts less of a premium on traditional cricket skills than Test cricket. Also, one-day cricket provides a natural evolutionary cycle in the form of the World Cup. Countries can plan building their teams around the game's premier tournament. India need to ask themselves how many of their senior players will be around for the next edition in 2011, and whether the team will not be better served by starting to groom players who will be. But, as always, the real issues are in danger of being overlooked by a nation heady with the unexpected success in the World Twenty20, one that has begun to chant the anthem of youth with an impatience that has a near-vulgar edge to it. This clamour for youth is based not entirely on cold logic and cricket sense but rather on sentiment. Building for the future should not necessarily mean disregarding the present, and nor should age be the overriding factor in the selection of the team. If Tendulkar must be replaced, he must be replaced by a man worthy of his shoes - he remains a considerable batsman even in his obvious decline. Nor is it any use picking a team that is unable to compete in the most challenging of arenas. It is true India must be willing to absorb some pain for long-term gain, but just as winning is a habit, so is defeat. The challenge for the Indian selectors is to balance the need for building for the future with the immediate imperative of winning. Building for the future should not necessarily mean disregarding the present, and nor should age be the overriding factor in the selection of the team. If Tendulkar must be replaced, he must be replaced by a man worthy of his shoes - he remains a considerable batsman even in his obvious decline Ultimately a cricket team is about the right mix. The ideal blend is a combination of energy and spirit of youth and pedigree, experience and knowledge. India can't win in one-day cricket consistently without being sharp in the field and between the wickets, but neither can they win if they fail to ride out tough conditions and to bat out 50 overs. One-day cricket is not merely about hustling, it also allows for consolidation and construction, and every now and then it requires rescue missions - particularly outside the subcontinent, where pitches offer more movement and bounce. It is true that India can't afford too many plodders who need to be hidden in the field. It's nothing to do with age. Not all of India's young players are natural athletes; some are, in fact, decidedly clumsy. But that said, having Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Zaheer Khan in the playing XI is to perhaps concede far too many easy runs in the field. Indian selectors have to weigh that, and the runs they lose out on by their lack of spring between the wickets, with the value they offer in terms of pure skills. In the wake of a comment from Dilip Vengsarkar, the chief national selector, that seemed to put his senior colleagues on notice, Dhoni has described them as "indispensable". Apart from what they add on the field, he has spoken about the learnings they can offer the young players by just being around in the dressing room. Dhoni's defence was perhaps partly motivated by the need to keeping the dressing room healthy, but there was also ring of truth to it. But Indian cricket will need to take decisions, and that process must not be clouded by what they do or don't achieve in the series against Australia and the one against Pakistan. Those decisions must be based on sound principles, an eye on the future, and the balance in team composition. Whether this is to be achieved through a policy of rotation or by a gradual phasing-out is a decision the selectors must ponder. And all of this must be accomplished without intrigue, without bowing to popular sentiments, and with transparency and a clear vision. Players, particularly those who have served Indian cricket with distinction, must be taken into confidence and told where they stand. It's not a lot to ask for. But the way Indian cricket runs, it will be stretching optimism to expect it. Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo and Cricinfo Magazine http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/columns/content/current/story/314908.html

[fineleg]

What to do with the Big Three? ...

[Holysmoke]

I think we need a separate section for discussions on the big 3.

[yoda]

I think we need a separate section for discussions on the big 3.

:D

[Guest HariSampath]

I think we need a separate section for discussions on the big 3.

Well we may need 3 separate sections for discussions on the big 3 , one each.:tounge_smile:

[Guest HariSampath]

What to do with the Big Three? ...

Just drop them. ( that was a three word conclusion without 3 separate sections) :D

[Holysmoke]

Just drop them. ( that was a three word conclusion without 3 separate sections) :D

and without sense.

[Guest HariSampath]

Big Three Joke : How did Saurav know that he had been dropped ? When Sachin told him " Rahul and myself have been called to the big 2 meeting by the BCCI):D

[Guest HariSampath]

and without sense.

Thats how we need to deal with nonsense:D

[Cricketics]

Big Three Joke : How did Saurav know that he had been dropped ? When Sachin told him " Rahul and myself have been called to the big 2 meeting by the BCCI):D

what a jokeless Pj..

[Ram]

Big Three Joke : How did Saurav know that he had been dropped ? When Sachin told him " Rahul and myself have been called to the big 2 meeting by the BCCI):D

what a jokeless Pj..

Dont know which to laugh for.. the joke or the reaction... jokeless pj ! :hysterical:

[Guest HariSampath]

what a jokeless Pj..

Biggest joke about the Big Three That they are still called the Big Three

[Rahul Khan]

I think we need a separate section for discussions on the big 3.

well said and suggested...

Just drop them. ( that was a three word conclusion without 3 separate sections) :D

well replied and solved... My opinion is somewhat typical, we need to hire Rudy( West Indian Psycho-man ) who discussed with Viru...let this man speak to Big3 in presence of Vengsarkar and I would have told captain's name too ( but it won't be gud to include him as he is junior to them ) and have a close-room discussion( without interference of any other person or media ). I bet the things will be sorted out...in the best positive manner!

[sachin_fan]

well said and suggested... well replied and solved... My opinion is somewhat typical, we need to hire Rudy( West Indian Psycho-man ) who discussed with Viru...let this man speak to Big3 in presence of Vengsarkar and I would have told captain's name too ( but it won't be gud to include him as he is junior to them ) and have a close-room discussion( without interference of any other person or media ). I bet the things will be sorted out...in the best positive manner!

It wont make a difference....we are a mediocre team and lived on the big 3's talent all of last decade... India's biggest ODI achivements WC 96 SF and WC 03 Finals.....had one man's name all over it Any big series victory in tests, be it pakistan, england or australia, the big 3 were responsible.... No amount of psychologists are gonna help us

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Gaurav]

I would change it to - The kachua (tortoise) , the imploder and the destroyer :hysterical:

[Chandan]

Read here, a terrific article from Harsha Bhogle. It is a must read: Seniors are the blue chip stocks, sure to deliver Harsha Bhogle Sachin Tendulkar is right, four hundred is just a number. It is also a monument, not yet a memorial! It is a monument to longevity as much as it is to excellence, passion and fitness. It is not just an acknowledgement of the fact that you are good enough to be picked four hundred times but of the fact that you don’t mind young men running in trying to knock your head off, stump you short, sneak another run from you in the deep and snarl at you the way you wouldn’t allow your son to! It is also an aspirational number for an older man who has befriended youth and managed to get so far. When you look at players good enough to play three or four hundred games you don’t analyse them every match, or every four matches. These are blue chip stocks that might see dips but which inevitably deliver over a wider horizon. You sell them for meteoric stocks at your peril. So is it time for these blue chips to be phased out? If India’s success at Twenty20 is the argument, it is a flawed one because a quick 25 doesn’t quite have the same ring to it over 50 overs. And yet, fearless youth needs to be given an opportunity. The idea of rotating the seniors seems sound when spoken but tends to weaken before the primary objective of putting the best possible side on the park everytime. Is Rohit Sharma a better player than Rahul Dravid on current form? Is Robin Uthappa a stronger alternative to Sourav Ganguly? Sometimes, faced as we are by dizzying changes, we tend to believe that is the solution. It is merely an alternative path and one that we must assess with care. The end of this series against Australia might be a good time to pause and reflect on the path that the selectors need to choose. The last two games will be very interesting. But it isn’t only the seniors there is a buzz about. This series has been played with extraordinary rancour and some strangely holier-than-thou statements have surfaced. The best sound in this game is still that of one object on another; willow upon leather; bat upon stump or pad, ball hitting palm. The moment the lip starts dominating, the game loses something and there is no doubt this series has been the poorer for the dialogues, largely inane, on the field and in print. You can see why India came out firing and into Aussie domain. It is not always that those that give can take in equal measure, and by turning the heat on Australia India wanted to see if the pressure got to the visitors. It did, but sadly India’s verbal aggression wasn’t mirrored on the field and maybe India need to do it differently, be a little more selective, a little shrewder. And there is no greater aggression that an outswinger beautifully bowled, or a pull shot jauntily played or a catch easily taken or the stumps scattered from an acute angle. The high ground in a high stakes game belongs to he who is calm in the mind. It doesn’t always matter what gestures the body makes or what sounds escape the lips as long as the mind is calm, ready and poised. And that is something that Sreesanth must learn. He can either resemble a clown, which he does sometimes, or he can seek to play the monk which will be disastrous. He needs to find the middle ground, some place to channel his inherent aggression. He cannot lose it but his aggression cannot lead him astray. A few evenings with Anil Kumble, the most aggressive Indian bowler I have seen, will not be wasted. Sadly it isn’t only the field on which there is far too much being said. The coach, currently a temporary resident, isn’t happy with his former teammate, the chairman of selectors, who has a slightly longer tenancy. But it suddenly seems unfashionable to express a point of view in private. The camera and the microphone are far more alluring. Look how they have cast a permanent wicked spell on the secretary who has an insatiable need to be heard. It is not his strength. Hopefully the focus will be more on cricket in the last two games. And with it the awareness that there is still a big difference between the two shorter forms of the game.

[Rahul Khan]

India battle with rotation issues When the Indian team for the first three ODIs of this seven-match series was named, the one big name missing was Virender Sehwag. With Harbhajan Singh and Irfan Pathan returning to the team on the basis of performances in the ICC World Twenty20, it was widely assumed - and the selectors speaking privately did nothing to dispel the notion - that there was no reason for Sehwag to worry and that in the course of the one-day season he'd get a look in. As of now, though, there's still no place for him. "This is the best batting line-up we've got. Sachin, Sourav, followed by Rahul, then Yuvi, myself and Robin," said Mahendra Singh Dhoni, the Indian captain, at the end of the fifth match, when asked about why the line-up was changed around. "It just didn't work today. We didn't get the partnerships we wanted early on." Obviously he was referring to the line-up he had on his hands, and not whether Sehwag figured in the plans, but it's interesting that the talk over Sehwag has died down almost completely as the series has progressed.

What's more, with India still in with a chance of levelling the series 3-3, although that's unlikely given just how hard the Australians have played each of these games, it makes it extremely difficult for the team to think about resting one of its senior batsmen. The results, however, do not change the fact that India have a large volume of cricket - both ODI and Test - in the coming year. In fact this was the rationale behind the selectors and the team management contemplating a rotation policy in the first place. In the 12 ODIs India would play against Australia and Pakistan, it was believed that each of Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly would sit out at least one match. With Dravid struggling for runs, and he's hardly been at the crease enough to judge what kind of form he is in, the selectors have a tough decision on their hands. In different circumstances, with the series decided one way or the other by the time game six came around, Dravid would have been rested. But now, with only 44 runs from five matches, there's hardly a case to rest him, and dropping him in the first series after he stepped down as captain would be cruel to someone who has served the team's cause exceedingly well in both forms of the game for several years now. If India win the next game then the temptation to rest someone will recede further as the seventh match will provide an opportunity to level a series that once looked gone for all money. If India lose, then again it will be hard to consider someone like S Badrinath in place of one of the senior batsmen, for a solitary win from seven games would hardly be acceptable returns for Dhoni in his first series as captain. However, the temptation to play Badrinath will be strong, for Dhoni will remember how Rohit Sharma could barely get a knock in England, and delivered so brilliantly when drafted in the ICC World Twenty20. Robin Uthappa's case was no different, with him sitting out the best part of the one-day series in England, only to turn matchwinner at the first opportunity he was afforded. In short, it's a tricky conundrum, and one that Dhoni will have to deal with delicately and sensibly. Australia, for their part, have their own selection dilemmas, but typically have their own way of dealing with these things. Brad Haddin might have scored 156 from his two innings, scoring half-centuries in each, but when the time for Ricky Ponting's return from injury came along, he was left out, with Brad Hodge, the more senior batsman, retaining his place in the team despite a string of poor scores. Few teams other than Australia would have chosen this path, and on top of this they've even sent Adam Voges, who was in the squad as cover for Ponting, back home. Already, he's in action, playing domestic cricket for the Western Warriors.

© Cricinfo

[yoda]

1. we need to pick a fixed 15 for a series instead of doing it 3 times in a series. 2. should be willing to sit anyone who isn't in form midway through the series I would play Rohit or Badri in place of RD rest of the series.

[Rahul Khan]

Okay, recently BCCI has renewed contract with 33 players under categories A, B, C, D. While playing a home series, it can pick the best 15 players as you said^instead of making some changes for eye wash. These 15 players must be educated and applied in the best possible manner, here you have said 'who isn't in form...' at this point the rotation policy fails. Rotation must be done in a systematic way giving proper chance to each individual ( if a player is out of form, then why do you pick them in 15, let that player play some domestic/county cricket and come back in form, we have 33 players in the list). Again this is to mention that Australians did drop Waugh who scored well in a match...for the following match in the times of Alan Border under rotation policy...once the policy is decided its for everyone in the team. @topic: Come on friends, give your options and opinions about rotation policy and help Indian team management...